67717 coverEng 175 lpi 11/2/00 9:28 AM Page 1

Our mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health
Health Canada

The Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision Making was prepared by the
Corporate Consultation Secretariat, Health Policy and Communications Branch

Également disponible en français sous le titre

Santé Canada Politiques et boîte à outils concernant la participation du public à la prise de décisions

This publication may be provided in alternate formats upon request.

For further information or to obtain additional copies, please contact:

Corporate Consultation Secretariat

Health Canada
Brooke Claxton Building
Postal Locator 0912
Tunney's Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K9
1-613-957-2982

© Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000

Cat. H39-549/2000E
ISBN 0-662-29243-X
 1

Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Government and Health Canada Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

DEPARTMENTAL POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Benefits of Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Public Involvement Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Inform, Consult or Engage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Levels of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
What Is Citizen Engagement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

INFORMATION TOOLKIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Operating Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Planning Process Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Key Success Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Who Should Be Involved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Matching Action to Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

CASE STUDIES AND TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

LEVEL 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
■ Focus Groups on Strengthening Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
■ Advertising and Social Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
■ Call for Briefs/Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
■ Community Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
■ Fact Sheets/Backgrounder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
■ Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
■ 1 800 Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
■ Info Fair or Exhibit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page
LEVEL 1 (cont’d)
■ Information Kits (see also Info Fair, Mailouts, Fact Sheets) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
■ Mailouts (also see 1-800 Numbers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
■ Media Events (also see Information Kits, Press Releases, Fact Sheets) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
■ Open House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
■ Press Releases (also see Media Events, Fact Sheets) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
■ Site Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
■ References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

LEVEL 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
■ The Northern Secretariat Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Techniques
■ Bilateral Meetings with Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
■ Community or Public Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
■ Parliamentary Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
■ People’s Panel (UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
■ Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
■ Public Hearings and Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
■ Questionnaires (also see “Surveys”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
■ Royal Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
■ Surveys (also see “Questionnaires”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
■ Workbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
■ References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

LEVEL 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
■ Direct to Consumer Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Techniques
■ Advisory Committee, Board or Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
■ An Introduction: Computer-Assisted Participation I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
■ Computer-Assisted Participation II: Interactive World Wide Web/
Electronic Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
■ Computer-Assisted Participation III: Online Discussion Groups and List Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
■ Computer-Assisted Participation IV: Televoting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
■ Issue Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
■ Nominal Group Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page
LEVEL 3 (cont’d)
■ Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
■ References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

LEVEL 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
■ Joint Working Group on the Voluntary Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

Techniques
■ Charrette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
■ Constituent Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
■ Delphi Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
■ Retreats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
■ Round Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
■ References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

LEVEL 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
■ Joint Action Group on Environmental Clean-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124

Techniques:
■ Citizens’ Juries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
■ Citizens’ Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
■ Consensus Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
■ Deliberative Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
■ Search Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
■ Study Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
■ Study Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
■ Think Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
■ References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

CONSULTATIONS WITH HEALTH CANADA EMPLOYEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Occupational Health and Safety Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 5

Introduction
Foreword employees around public involvement, including citi-
zen engagement. It aims to build on the department’s
he need to ensure meaningful public involve-

T ment in policy development and service

delivery is recognized by Health Canada as
one of the key challenges of governance today and in
capacity to acquire and act upon good ideas, whatev-
er their origins, in the following ways:

■ enhance the department’s culture and capacity for

the years ahead. Canadians are better educated and public involvement in developing policy, delivering
informed than ever before and they expect to have programs and improving Canada’s health system
more say in public policy decision making. This is par- ■ provide a policy framework and practical guidance
ticularly so in relation to health. There is widespread for public involvement, which clarifies departmen-
public demand for greater public involvement and tal expectations and roles and cuts through the
access to information, and a sense that the resolution jargon around public involvement concepts
of most major national problems would be aided by ■ facilitate more strategic and coordinated public
engaging citizens. involvement activities with improved results for all
■ reflect the department’s commitment to improving
In response to changing public expectations, we need the way information is shared internally and exter-
to improve our ability to consult, engage, listen, per- nally so that our work environment is always
suade and reframe issues so that the results of our conducive to creativity, empowerment and contin-
work better meet citizens’ expectations and needs. uous learning.
This will require strengthened capacity to inform,
educate and involve the public and to get feedback on We pay tribute to Ian Potter and Don Ferguson, our
how we are doing. Clearly, citizen engagement as a Citizen Engagement Champions, for their leadership
public involvement technique goes beyond communi- and dedication in bringing this document to life. We
cation and consultation. It involves citizens, and not also thank the members of the Working Group and
just the public as represented by a multiplicity of Sub-Committees on Public Involvement led by the
stakeholders, associations, lobbyists and interest Corporate Consultation Secretariat under the guid-
groups, in policy formulation, priority setting and pro- ance of Carla Gilders and other key staff, many of
gram delivery. As Health Canada builds on the wealth whom are named in the document. We congratulate
of expertise in the department and adapts processes all of you for sharing your wealth of knowledge and
to better include citizens in decision making, we will experience that is reflected in this very useful
be working to meet the needs of Canadians and to resource.
realize a key priority of government. However, citizen
The Departmental Executive Committee has approved
engagement is not a panacea or even a science for
this document. We encourage you to use it and, with
that matter. As with all public involvement tech-
further experience, improve it for the benefit of the
niques, there is a need to have a clear purpose and
health of all Canadians.
objectives and understand when, where and how to
best use citizen engagement.

This document has been developed at Management

Council’s request to respond to the expectations of
Canadians and the related needs of Health Canada Deputy Minister Associate Deputy Minister

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 6

Acknowledgements
This document has resulted from the enthusiasm and Guidelines, Training, and Information Toolkit; the
knowledge of many individuals. Special thanks must Focus Group Organizers; the Management Council
go to all those who participated in the Inter-Branch Workshop Participants and the Inter-Branch
Sub-Committees on the Policy Framework and Committee on Public Involvement.

Citizen Engagement Champions

Ian Potter Assistant Deputy Minister - HPPB
Don Ferguson Regional Director General - Atlantic
Carla Gilders Director General - Communications and Consultation
PCB
Catherine Auger Joyce Dale Corita Harty Beatrice Mullington
Yves Auprix Robert Douglas Dawn Hachey Tracey Taweel
Billie-Jo Bodgen Franca Gatto Peter Hill
Jean-Louis Caya Chris Hanchuk Ben Mills
HPPB
Catherine Adam Tracey Donaldson David Hoe Penny Mosmann
Jim Ball Claire Draper Ali Jakubec Jane Oram
Ken Beaubien Larry Flynn Dominique Lemelin Daniel Riendeau
Tammy Bell Philip Forsyth MaryJane Lipkin Darcy Ross
Michel Boyer Heather Fraser Jim Mactier
Kin Choi Timna Gorber Kim McCarthy
HPB RDGOs
Mary Bush Patricia Burton - Central
Ria Demos Jasvinder Chana - Atlantic
Ross Duncan Line Guibert-Wolffe - West
Luc Fortin Kathy Kieley - Atlantic
Mary Hegan Christine Lovett - Central
Michelle Hiltz Linda Sachatsky - West
Marion Law Christiane Tanguay-Lacombe - Quebec
Dave Norris
MSB CSB
Florence Chumpuka Gilles Lemieux
Judith D. Ross Sylvie St-Onge
OHSA
Brad Kelso

CONSULTANTS
Barry Malmsten (Focus Group Facilitator) National Quality Institute
Mitchell Beer (Consultant on the Techniques) Infolink Consultants
Judy Kent (Consultant on the Techniques) Kent Consulting

* The names of branches and directorates reflect the Health Canada Structure prior to April 17, 2000.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 7

Purpose This document is not intended to be overly prescrip-

tive. Rather, it should be used in the spirit of
The purpose of the Health Canada Policy Toolkit for continuous learning. Public involvement strategies,
Public Involvement in Decision Making is to support including citizen engagement, are based on judge-
Health Canada’s mission to maintain and improve the ment, which may be improved with experience.
health of Canadians by providing direction for Health
Canada employees on public involvement. The docu- This document meets Management Council’s direction
ment affirms the department’s commitment to public to develop a framework and tools for public involve-
involvement. It provides principles, guidelines and ment. A Speaker’s Series on public involvement has
information for the effective involvement of citizens also been established in response to Management
in government decision making on health issues. Council’s direction. Management Council further
directed the development of a training program, vali-
This document builds on the department’s existing dation of the policy framework by external experts
culture and capacity for public involvement in deter- and the establishment of a virtual centre of expertise
mining health priorities, policies and programs. It is on public involvement. The Corporate Consultation
intended to help Health Canada respond to an Secretariat in the Health Policy and Communications
unprecedented call for public involvement relating to Branch is working on these priorities in collaboration
the department’s mandate by clarifying the types and with other branches and regions.
best uses of the array of public involvement tech-
niques available. The document outlines departmental
expectations, roles and responsibilities in fostering a
citizen-focussed culture for the federal government’s Context
role in health. There are many benefits to public Our working environment is changing. At present, four
involvement, including stronger policy, programs and overarching challenges have particular relevance to
health outcomes. Over time, it is hoped that Health Health Canada and its public involvement efforts:
Canada will be well known and highly regarded as a
■ globalization - the continued integration of the
leader for its citizen focus and track record for involv-
North American economy creates a state of inter-
ing Canadians, together with other levels of
national interdependency for institutions and
government and health professionals, in developing
accentuates the impact of competition abroad,
ways to maintain and improve their health and build
bringing new governance challenges and new
their confidence in the health system.
standards of excellence for national institutions.
The components of this document are: Controversy surrounding the World Trade
Organization meeting in 1999 highlights the
■ overview of the context, government and depart-
immediacy of globalization for health and the
mental commitments
importance of public involvement.
■ a vision statement and departmental policy frame-
■ the transition to a knowledge-based society - led
work highlighting key principles
by the information technology revolution, trans-
■ practical guidelines for planning, designing, imple-
forms the governance context through
menting and evaluating a range of public
interconnectedness and both facilitates and
involvement techniques
requires tighter links inside institutions, between
■ an information toolkit that describes an array of
them, and with citizens. The department’s invest-
public involvement techniques, provides relevant
ment in information, research and evidence-based
case studies and names resource persons for fur-
policy and communication efforts reflects this
ther information
transition.
■ a list of reference materials for further enquiry.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 8

■ a new social environment - characterized by a ■ Fifty-one percent of Canadians say the federal
decline in public trust and a questioning of institu- government does a poor job consulting Canadians
tional legitimacy, an aging and increasingly on health, 26 percent say the job is well done,
diversified and more demanding Canadian popula- 23 percent say neither.
tion, and an increasingly influential civil society ■ The need for enhanced citizen engagement is
that sets a new context for governance and perceived most keenly by those groups with
national institutions. The debate over medicare and traditionally greater feelings of exclusion. A recent
Canada’s Health Act is being played out in this new survey found that 91 percent of women, as
social environment. compared to 82 percent of men, felt a need for
■ a new fiscal environment - creates fiscal pres- increased citizen engagement – a feeling that was
sures that generate tension between the mandates echoed by 91 percent of those with a high school
of national institutions and the resources available, education, as compared to 81 percent among those
and heightens the need for governments and insti- with a university education.
tutions at all levels to manage risks and make
Renewed legitimacy and public confidence in govern-
clear, and often difficult, choices. Despite the 1999
ment will rest upon greater transparency and citizens’
and 2000 health budgets, health issues and prob-
involvement in decision making. Canadians need an
lems with the health system remain to be solved.
opportunity to express their views with respect to a
While there is still much to be done, governments broad range of issues surrounding this topic, including
have made progress in recent years in ensuring that when it would be appropriate to launch a citizen
Canadians have a voice in developing and reviewing engagement process, their expectations concerning
social policies and programs. In the health field, to the use of the results, how to reconcile the views of
name one of many examples, Canada’s National different groups of citizens, and the relationship and
Forum on Health has been effective in involving role of citizen engagement relative to other demo-
individual Canadians and key stakeholders. cratic or public involvement “tools” such as elections,
referenda, consultations, communications and so on.
Canadians, along with the citizens of other western
democracies, are increasingly concerned that their There is a communications gap that must be over-
democratic institutions are out of sync with their come if the public is to be more engaged. In some
values and interests. There is a growing gap between cases, the public is not well informed on the trade-
Canadians’ actual and desired level of influence in offs that are a key part of public decision making.
government decision making which is leading them to Ways to bridge this gap include community-based
demand a greater voice in public policy formulation. approaches and the use of information technology as
National institutions are under pressure to make a public forum. These provide opportunities to inform,
changes to their policy-making processes in order to consult and engage individuals on issues.
address this disconnect and build public confidence.
In some instances, the mind-set of leaders of institu-
Canadians want a new relationship with government at tions has been an impediment to acknowledging the
all levels. They want a direct, substantive and influential ability of the “average” citizen to contribute to shap-
role in shaping policies and decisions that affect them. ing policies on complex issues. Research indicates
They want to be heard, and they want a commitment that fewer decision makers than citizens believe that
that leaders will take their views into account when the public can offer useful advice. Half believe that
making decisions. This is underscored by the facts: the grassroots cannot present solutions to major
national problems (compared to 68 percent of citizens
■ Ninety-three percent of Canadians say the
who believe they can).
federal government should place higher priority on
engaging the public in health care.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 9

These are not insignificant obstacles. Canadian insti- sector, laying a new foundation for active partner-
tutions must work hard to recognize and overcome ship with voluntary organizations in the service of
them. Government decision makers – both elected Canadians.” This accord will establish principles to
officials and public servants – are expected more than guide the relationship between the voluntary sec-
ever to discharge, and be seen to discharge, their tor and the federal government. The Privy Council
responsibility to effectively engage citizens, to listen, Office is committed to coordinating this initiative
and to be accountable to citizens in explaining how with its current efforts to develop a Federal Policy
citizens’ views have been considered in the decision- Statement and Guidelines on Engaging Canadians.
making process. The input of citizens as individuals is ■ The Social Union Framework Agreement signed
increasingly being sought as governments recognize February 4, 1999 by the Prime Minister and Premiers
that the current decisions being made on major social (except Quebec) makes a commitment to “ensure
policy issues, particularly health care, are not purely effective mechanisms for Canadians to participate in
technical in nature, and therefore in the realm of developing social priorities and reviewing outcomes.”
experts. Current issues touch our values and could ■ The 1999 Federal Budget announcement of
benefit from citizens’ views and priorities. $12.9 billion in total investments ($11.5 billion
CHST and $1.4 billion federal) toward health care
highlights the importance of public involvement

Government and Health and federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal

collaboration as new initiatives are implemented.
Canada Commitments ■ F/P/T Health Ministers have jointly identified a
The need to provide opportunities for meaningful number of future strategic directions, including
public involvement and to engage citizens more “promoting the development and effective use of
effectively is recognized as one of the key challenges information, research technology, and planning and
of government. reporting systems.” Building on this and federal
commitments in the 1999 Budget, the issue of
The Government of Canada has made several impor- Health Information/Accountability has been
tant and inter-related commitments to provide better identified by F/P/T Health Ministers and Deputy
opportunities for Canadians to participate in public Ministers as a priority for collaborative work. Any
policy debate and service delivery. Several key com- recommendations for implementation of public
mitments, which provide direction for the department, involvement in this area will need to remain
are highlighted below: flexible to future decisions taken by F/P/T Ministers
and Deputies around public involvement.
■ On September 11, 2000, the Prime Minister
■ The Government of Canada has made a policy
announced $23.4 billion of new federal invest-
commitment to ensure that the concerns and
ments over five years to support agreements by
interests of the public are taken into account in
First Ministers on Health Renewal and Early
the formulation and implementation of govern-
Childhood Development.
ment policies and programs. The “Consultation”
■ Budget 2000’s $2.5 billion combined with
section of all Memorandums to Cabinet highlights
$11.5 billion investment brings the total Canada
how the public has been consulted and its views
Health and Social Transfer (CHST) to $15.5 billion
considered. Similar requirements are planned for
and when combined with tax points, to an all-time
the development of new legislation and regulation
high of close to $31 billion in 2000–2001.
policies.
■ The Speech from the Throne on October 12, 1999
■ To support these commitments, the Privy Council
highlighted the government’s commitment to
Office, in collaboration with all federal depart-
“enter into a national accord with the voluntary
ments and agencies, is currently developing a

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 10

Federal Policy Statement and Guidelines on ■ The decision to realign Health Canada to better
Engaging Canadians. This policy statement will serve Canadians and Health Canada’s Management
replace the existing federal consultation guidelines Council acknowledges the importance of building
(1992) and is scheduled to be completed during our outreach capacity and citizen engagement in
fiscal year 2000–2001. policy development and program delivery.
■ The Privy Council Office has initiated a pilot project Management Council emphasized that employees
to create a cross-government database on major must have a policy framework, the tools and the
public involvement activities in order to facilitate training to be able to identify which strategy is
coordination. Health Canada is one of 10 participat- best suited to their needs. A centre of expertise
ing departments in this initiative. The database will was recommended as a necessary departmental
support departmental needs relating to information resource to provide strategic planning and
sharing, coordination and effectiveness. capacity-building support in relation to public
■ The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, in part- involvement. The Corporate Consultation
nership with the Privy Council Office, Canada Secretariat in the Health Policy and
Information Office and Public Works and Communications Branch and the Office of
Government Services Canada, is leading a project Consumer and Public Involvement in the Health
to renew the Government Communications Policy Products and Food Branch are working together to
(1988). The goals include focussing the policy and meet these commitments.
its basic principles on the needs and expectations
of citizens. Work is scheduled for completion in
fiscal year 2000–2001.
■ Under the Official Languages Act, Section 41, Part
VII, the federal government is committed to ensur-
ing respect for English and French as the official
languages of Canada and to supporting the
development of the English and French linguistic
minority communities. Health Canada supports
these objectives by ensuring that both English and
French communities (including the official-
language minority communities) are given the
opportunity to play an active role in the policy
development process and that their concerns are
taken into account in that process.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 11

Departmental Policy
his section provides a vision, principles and
Benefits of Public
T expected benefits or outcomes that together
constitute Health Canada’s departmental poli-
cy for public involvement in support of the
Involvement
Health Canada expects to achieve a number of critical
department’s mission and mandate. and long-term benefits as a result of its investments
to enhance the involvement of Canadians in policy
and program development and delivery. Several key
Vision expected outcomes are identified below:

■ Improved health for Canadians, improved public

VISION STATEMENT policy and a sustainable public health system
Canadians are informed on health issues and within the terms of the Canada Health Act
engaged on key federal decisions that ■ Improved program results and strengthened
affect health. support for regulatory and policy decisions through
enhanced collaboration with stakeholders and
citizens
■ Strong public confidence in Health Canada – an
Principles ongoing relationship between the department,
■ Health Canada is committed to public involvement health professionals, other key stakeholders and
which is integral to decision making and providing the public that is based on trust, honesty, trans-
quality service. parency, openness, accessibility and factual
■ Health Canada’s public involvement activities information and accountability at all times,
improve knowledge and understanding of health including during controversies or crises
issues through dialogue. ■ A more informed and engaged public – a public
■ Health Canada is open to hearing the views of that understands and participates in the full range
Canadians and providing timely feedback on the of health issues, including the role and responsibil-
outcomes of dialogue. ities of Health Canada
■ Health Canada’s public involvement activities ■ Strengthened communities, including new leaders,
reflect the diversity of Canadians’ values and needs organizations, knowledge and public awareness
and are transparent, accessible and coordinated. relating to health
■ Health Canada provides guidance and ensures ■ A department that is citizen-focussed and respon-
access to learning opportunities in support of sive to changing needs – a department that is
employees’ responsibility and accountability for increasingly adept at using and coordinating the
planning, designing, implementing and evaluating full range of public involvement techniques,
public involvement initiatives. ranging from communication, to consultation, to
citizen engagement, to community-driven process-
es, for the benefit of the health of all Canadians

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 12

■ A department that listens to the public and has the employees, whether on the front lines in the
capacity to listen to an increasingly diverse range of regions or at headquarters, with the best possible
public needs, interests and concerns – a department tools, training and developmental opportunities to
that factors public input, including perspectives, support public involvement
knowledge and technical expertise that would not
Health Canada’s public involvement continuum is
otherwise have been available, into Health Canada’s
illustrated below. It represents the core concept of
policy development and program delivery
this document. Five levels of public involvement and
■ A department that continuously addresses issues
influence are identified on the continuum. The levels
and projects within a broad social and economic
are not “air-tight” compartments. Rather, the features
context and demonstrates improved decision mak-
of the levels are generally cumulative as the public
ing, risk management, impact and accountability
involvement deepens. The line between techniques is
as a result
sometimes arbitrarily drawn.
■ A department that continuously values and invests
in its employees – a department that provides

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 13

Inform, Consult or Engage? Levels of Involvement

This section provides guidance that is useful to Health Canada’s five levels of public involvement are
consider during the preparation phase of any public highlighted below, together with criteria for selecting
involvement initiative. each level. These criteria are intended to guide the
planning process by highlighting the main objectives
The delivery of health services is a complex, multi-
of the public involvement levels. Combinations or
jurisdictional responsibility. Success depends on
hybrids of techniques may be required depending on
collaboration and coordination among many partners
objectives, available resources and other factors.
and stakeholders, including federal, provincial and
territorial governments; First Nations and Inuit organ- Level 1 Inform/Educate when:
izations; the voluntary and community sector; health ■ Factual information is needed to describe a policy,
professionals; the private sector; and individual program or process
Canadians. Health Canada’s mission – to help the ■ A decision has already been made (no decision is
people of Canada maintain and improve their health – required)
goes to the core of the federal role in health and ■ The public needs to know the results of a process
highlights the collaborative nature of health service ■ There is no opportunity to influence the final
delivery in Canada. outcome
Before deciding to involve the public, one needs to ■ There is need for acceptance of a proposal or
ask fundamental questions: decision before a decision may be made
■ An emergency or crisis requires immediate action
■ Information is necessary to abate concerns or
■ What is the main purpose of the public prepare for involvement
involvement exercise? ■ The issue is relatively simple
■ Is it to inform/educate, gather informa-
tion/views, discuss through a two-way Level 2 Gather Information/Views when:
dialogue; fully engage on complex issues;
■ The purpose is primarily to listen and gather
or partner in the implementation of
solutions information
■ Policy decisions are still being shaped and
discretion is required
It may be appropriate to involve the public in: ■ There may not be a firm commitment to do
anything with the views collected (we advise
■ Matters of health, promotion, safety and
participants from the outset of this intention to
other areas
manage expectations)
■ Development and implementation of legislation
and regulations Level 3 Discuss or Involve when:
■ Development of policies, statutes and new ■ We need two-way information exchange
programs ■ Individuals and groups have an interest in the issue
■ Preparation of business plans and will likely be affected by the outcome
■ Issues with social, economic, cultural or ethical ■ There is an opportunity to influence the final
implications outcome
■ Sharing or disseminating information ■ We wish to encourage discussion among and with
■ Resolving questions that revolve around stakeholders
conflicting values. ■ Input may shape policy directions/program delivery

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 14

Level 4 Engage when: ■ Tailoring of approaches for involvement with goal

■ We need citizens to talk to each other regarding and phase of policy making
complex, value-laden issues ■ Level of influence and involvement participants
■ There is a capacity for citizens to shape policies expect to have
and decisions that affect them ■ Nature and complexity of issues
■ There is opportunity for shared agenda setting and ■ Participant profiles (e.g. mix of citizen vs. group
open time frames for deliberation on issues representatives)
■ Options generated together will be respected ■ Previous experience of organizers with various
techniques
Level 5 Partner when: ■ Level of concern and media attention around the
■ We want to empower citizens and groups to issues
manage the process ■ Timelines
■ Citizens and groups have accepted the challenge of ■ Financial costs
developing solutions themselves ■ Human Resources and expertise
■ We are ready to assume the role of enabler ■ Degree of federal/provincial/territorial
■ There is an agreement to implement solutions collaboration required
generated by citizens and groups ■ Level of support from stakeholders/partners
■ Level of political support in department or across
Canadians expect their governments to provide appro- government.
priate opportunities for their involvement. The key
word here is appropriate. Canadians do not expect What Is Citizen Engagement?
their governments to involve them extensively in This section provides an overview of what the depart-
every issue. That would paralyze policy making and ment means when it refers to citizen engagement.
quickly exhaust citizen participants. A rough guideline Citizen engagement is a process that:
on whether to involve citizens/groups at the higher
■ Involves citizens, not just the public as represented
level of the continuum is the extent to which the
by associations, health professionals, lobbyists and
issues at play involve potential conflicts in values or
interest groups, in policy formulation, priority
identity, difficult choices or trade-offs that would
setting and program delivery
entail a major impact on either citizens’ health or the
■ Is a key component of “governance,” namely the
health system. The greater the impact in these areas,
process and traditions that determine how a
the more likely the issue should be considered for
society steers itself and how citizens are accorded
citizen engagement.
a voice on issues of public concern, and how
A key component at levels four and five of the public decisions are made on these issues
involvement continuum is also the potential political ■ Builds on, complements and generally moves
implications of an engagement process. In order to beyond information distribution and consultation
ensure integration of results from an engagement practices. It does not replace “traditional” consul-
process into the policy making and program planning tation with stakeholder organizations, nor does it
of the department, it is important that political sup- replace citizens’ role in the broader democratic
port, as well as departmental, is strong and clear. process. Its purpose is to provide new opportunities
to bring interested parties together as civic-mind-
To summarize, the decision to inform, consult or
ed individuals concerned about health issues.
engage and the related selection of a public involve-
ment strategy is dependent on a number of complex, The process of engaging citizens may be differentiated
interrelated factors: from a more formal citizen engagement process.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 15

■ Process of engaging citizens – Individual Canadians ■ Involve non-traditional evaluation methods,

can become “engaged” in an issue in a number of including the following key components:
ways – as citizens, consumers, parents, community ■ the results are public

association members or experts. In this context, ■ citizens are involved in the evaluation process

citizen engagement may be as simple as taking ■ the focus is on outcomes (impact for clients and

part in a focus group, answering an opinion poll, citizens), not merely outputs (e.g. the number of
signing a petition or making a presentation to an units of service provided or number of clients
advisory panel or board of trustees. It also refers, served). Outcomes include many different types
in this context, to the daily contact that citizens of benefits or changes (e.g. changes in knowl-
have with the department across the country on edge, attitudes, values, skills, behaviour,
many aspects of health. conditions or status).
■ Formal citizen engagement process – Broader, more
Citizen engagement processes or techniques may be
formalized citizen “engagement” means becoming
distinguished from “traditional” public consultation
more actively involved in an issue over a longer
methods. “Traditional” public consultation is known
period of time, ideally through a substantive,
for the following:
deliberative dialogue that promotes mutual learn-
ing, shared decision making, and possibly ongoing ■ Tends to focus on groups of stakeholders
partnership or collaboration. ■ Seeks to test, validate or prioritize policy options
that have already been developed, at least in
Formal citizen engagement processes:
preliminary form
■ Occur throughout the policy development process ■ Tends to take place after the initial stages, and
■ Begin from the assumption that citizens add value sometimes after the middle stages, of the policy
and bring important new perspectives development process when certain parameters
■ Broaden the flow of communication among partic- have by then been set
ipants in the process, by creating opportunities for ■ Establishes clear parameters within which
citizens to talk to and learn from one another stakeholders’ views will be accepted
■ Are open-ended processes, in which the specific ■ May involve “relatively” tight deadlines.
outcomes are unknown at the outset
■ Allow for serious, substantive, deliberative, Citizen engagement techniques are located at the
in-depth consideration of values and principles, high end of the public involvement continuum. The
choices, trade-offs in search for common ground response to the Sydney Tar Ponds contaminants issue
■ Are supported by factual, balanced information in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia illustrates a community-
that is written in plain language and delivered in a based citizen engagement model at the partnership
transparent, meaningful and timely way end of the public involvement continuum. This
■ Are based on a mutual two-way learning between controversial health and environmental matter is
citizens and decision makers addressed through a community-driven process, in
■ Take time, are resource intensive and can often be which the government is invited to participate –
an ongoing process rather than a government-led process in which the
■ Can empower communities close to the location of community participates. This approach allows the
action or concern to define the resources they community to take on a major lead role in designing
need, establish their own timelines and terms of and implementing the process, and ultimately sharing
reference, and determine an appropriate role for responsibility for the success or failure of efforts to
governments on the basis of the expertise, input or address this problem.
buy-in required to support community goals

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 16

In summary, citizen engagement refers to the public’s

involvement in determining how a society steers
itself, makes decisions on major public policy issues
and delivers programs for the benefit of people.
Citizen engagement is closely linked to the concept of
social cohesion. Social cohesion refers to the building
of shared values, reducing disparities in wealth and
income, and enabling people to have a sense that
they are engaged in a common enterprise and face
shared challenges as members of a same community.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 17

Information Toolkit
Guidelines ■ Matching Action to Needs - A practical chart is
provided to identify options for techniques to meet
he following guidelines apply to all levels of

T the public involvement continuum. The guide-

lines bring some rigour to this field of activity
but are not intended to be definitive or overly pre-
■

■
your objectives.
Lessons learned - A synthesis of lessons learned
from experience is provided.
Terminology - Key terms are described.
scriptive. Employees may wish to improvise or tailor
their approaches in order to meet their needs. Operating Rules
This section provides operating rules as counsel to
The guidelines are intended to assist Health Canada
employees who may need to undertake public
employees to recommend, select and use the right
involvement activities.
public involvement techniques to match their objec-
tives. They are intended to support all Health Canada ■ Well-defined purpose and objectives - The “host”
employees with responsibilities relating to public and the participants must have a common under-
involvement, including decision makers, advisors, standing of why the initiative has been started and
practitioners and administrative support. They recog- what are the process, purpose, scope, objectives
nize that departmental employees frequently have and issue(s) to be addressed.
multiple responsibilities in this area. ■ Selection of Issues for Citizen Engagement -
Strategic discussions are required to determine
To benefit from the guidelines, Health Canada
which issues should be selected for citizen engage-
employees should consult them at the beginning and
ment. In general, important issues that are
regularly throughout the process for planning, design-
value-based and have significant implications for
ing, implementing and evaluating their public
both the health of Canadians and Canada’s health
involvement initiative. All of the guidelines below
system are candidates. The department has identi-
should be considered for a successful public involve-
fied the health protection area which entails
ment initiative. However, inherent intangible factors
difficult risk management issues as a priority area
prevent the development of a “simple formula” that
for citizen engagement. Other priority areas that
would always guarantee success.
have been or may be considered for citizen
The guidelines are divided into the following parts: engagement initiatives include home care,
medicare, pharmacare, children’s issues, HIV/AIDS,
■ Operating Rules - Operating rules are provided as the voluntary sector, population health and
counsel for staff who may need to undertake pub- Aboriginal health issues. The department and the
lic involvement initiatives. public both have a limited capacity to undertake
■ Planning Process Overview - A standard planning these resource-intensive initiatives.
process is described which includes key success ■ Integration of results in the development of
factors. policies and plans - The public involvement
■ Planning Checklist - A short form of the planning initiative must be, and must be seen to be, an inte-
process overview provides a practical checklist. gral part of the policy and planning process. The
■ Who Should be Involved? - Guidelines are provid- input must have a real impact. Citizen engagement
ed on how to decide who to include. means that public involvement occurs “early” in

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 18

the process to allow participants an opportunity to participants’ unexpected needs, such as additional
help define the scope of the issue and influence participants or meetings.
the design of options for its resolution. ■ Reasonable, realistic time frames for public
involvement - Public involvement is conducted
■ Clear context within which the decisions will be
within “reasonable” time frames, which strike a
made - Participants must be provided with a clear
balance between the need to get something
understanding of where their input is “situated”
accomplished expeditiously and the need for
relative to the policy development process and the
participants to be involved in a meaningful way.
public involvement continuum. Links to related
■ Appropriate resource commitments - Public
issues and other key initiatives should be
involvement must have the human and financial
highlighted. Participants must have a clear
resources that correspond to the nature and scope
understanding as to who will be making any
of the public involvement method selected.
final decision.
Participants who do not have the expertise or
■ Sharing of information and commitment to
resources required to participate may need to be
early dissemination of relevant materials - Public
provided with information and/or financial assis-
involvement requires a commitment on the part of
tance in order to facilitate their participation.
all parties to share relevant, timely and easily
■ Follow-through and reporting - When using
understood information.
techniques such as consultation and particularly
■ Outcomes are not predetermined - The purpose
citizen engagement, participants are entitled to
and role of public involvement in the formulation
know what use has been made of the views and
of policy and decisions should be defined and com-
information they provided. Participants must be
municated to all participants at the outset of the
made aware of how their ideas and involvement
process and be reaffirmed as required. In regards
have ultimately influenced government proposals
to citizen engagement, outcomes are not predeter-
or decisions.
mined and participants must understand that their
■ Commitment to continuous improvement - In
role is to help assess and resolve an issue.
order to enhance the department’s judgement and
■ Opportunity to participate - All parties who can
effectiveness in using public involvement and citi-
contribute to, or who are affected by, the outcome
zen engagement techniques, Health Canada will
of an issue should be given the opportunity to par-
develop measures and approaches at various levels
ticipate. Wherever possible, public involvement
to assess progress, communicate results, including
uses a variety of input mechanisms that provide
successes, and build on our collective experience.
participants with opportunities for meaningful and
constructive participation. Planning Process Overview
■ Accountability for the process - Public involve- Successful public involvement requires careful plan-
ment processes, by bringing together various ning, execution and evaluation. This section provides a
perspectives, should enrich government decision standard six-point planning process. Employees may
making. While the impetus to involve may come wish to adjust the planning process to meet their
from either inside or outside government, Health objectives. Being flexible with the planned process is
Canada is accountable for the process and final often essential to meeting key objectives.
decisions. The department, including its regions,
branches and directorates, will develop plans for The first chart summarizes the steps and key success
public involvement initiatives in collaboration with factors of the planning process in a checklist format.
each other to ensure that roles, responsibilities and The second chart provides a series of key success fac-
accountabilities are clear and coordinated. tors to consider for each step in the planning process.
Flexibility may be required to accommodate

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 19

Planning Checklist
1. PREPARATION
■ Purpose, mandate, outcomes
■ Health Canada objectives
■ Environment scan
■ Resources
■ Participants
■ Time frame

2. DESIGN
■ Right “mix” of mechanisms
■ Coordination
■ Risk assessment
■ Relevant information early

3. IMPLEMENTATION
■ Clarify policy process
■ Role of participants
■ Flexibility
■ Participants’ input
■ Timing

4. SYNTHESIS
■ Monitor results
■ Analyse inputs
■ Draft results

5. FEEDBACK & FOLLOW-UP

■ Maintain dialogue with participants
■ Inform participants of findings
■ Inform participants of next steps

6. EVALUATION
■ Evaluate and report
■ Learn from experience
■ Disseminate best practices, lessons
learned

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 20

Key Success Factors

STEP KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

1. PREPARATION ■ Ensure involvement has clarity of purpose, mandate, desired

outcomes.
■ Ensure involvement is accountable and linked to Health Canada
corporate and branch objectives.
■ Conduct environmental scan, including assessment of political
implications.
■ Provide resources commensurate with involvement,
effort and scope.
■ Identify participants in accordance with purpose and
desired outcomes.
■ Ensure time frame offers participants sufficient time to discuss,
share their views, learn from each other, and understand the
different positions.

2. DESIGN ■ Create “mix” of mechanisms. May need more than one mode of
participation to address issues, accommodate range of interests and
meet public needs and ability to participate (e.g. location, timing).
■ Consult the department’s Corporate Consultation Secretariat to
help coordinate involvement efforts with other parts of the
government/department and avoid overburdening participants.
■ Conduct a risk assessment of the potential costs (e.g. social, fiscal,
political, integrity of institutions) that are associated with
implementing the public involvement initiative.
■ Make relevant, easily understandable information available to
participants early through a variety of means.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 21

STEP KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

3. IMPLEMENTATION ■ Ensure participants understand the policy development

process.
■ Be clear on the role of participants.
■ Be clear on whether or how participants’ views will be considered
in the decision-making process.
■ Be flexible to accommodate participants’ reasonable new requests
relating to process design.
■ Allow for and allot time for participants to “vent.” This should be
expected and can be viewed as a natural, healthy part of the
process. Once completed, participants can move forward in their
thinking.
■ Timing is key – finding the elusive “just right” timing requires
orienting the process to peak opportunities in the political and
policy decision-making process.

4. SYNTHESIS ■ Monitor results and adjust accordingly.

■ Analyse input from participants.
■ Draft results

5. FEEDBACK & FOLLOW-UP ■ Maintain an ongoing dialogue with participants.

■ Inform participants of the findings and impacts on proposed policy,
legislation, regulation and program changes.
■ Provide participants with information on next steps.

6. EVALUATION ■ Evaluate and report on participants’ involvement.

■ Provide staff with training and development opportunities on
designing, planning and evaluating public involvement exercises.
■ Disseminate best practices, methods and tools across the
department in order to learn from our experience and enhance
the department’s capacity for judgement.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 22

Who Should Be Involved? ■ Should politicians be involved?

Traditionally, the department determined who partici- ■ Which segments of the public should be involved?
pated in a public involvement process. This approach ■ Individuals?

continues to be appropriate in a range of circum- ■ Consumers?

stances. Increasingly, however, the department will ■ Environmental, health, criminal justice or

need to use techniques that ensure greater represen- consumer organizations?

tativeness and inclusion of the public. This may ■ Specific demographic groups, such as youth or

involve employing the random selection of individuals older adults?

or groups (usually by an arms-length third party) to ■ Marginalized, hard-to-reach populations?

achieve a greater measure of representation of ■ Industry associations and individual industries?

Canadian society. When the process is community- ■ Scientific, professional, educational, voluntary

driven, representation is usually determined externally associations?

to government and sometimes in partnership with ■ Official-language minority communities?

government. The department continues to be ■ Aboriginal communities?

accountable for determining how inclusive or how ■ Local communities?

representative a particular public involvement

As part of the overall commitment in the Social Union
initiative will be. In the future, these departmental
Framework Agreement to working in partnership,
decisions will more frequently be made in collabora-
there are a number of provincial/territorial (P/T)
tion with other groups.
considerations that Health Canada should bear in
Health Canada’s stakeholders and various other mind when planning future public involvement
publics who want to interact with the department are activities, including:
increasingly demanding improved coordination of
■ whether the planned activity relates to federal
departmental public involvement activities in order to
policies/programs alone, or whether it relates also
maximize internal and external resources, and mini-
to P/T policies/programs, or is of interest to P/T
mize “consultation fatigue” felt by those being
governments
consulted. With numerous departments and all levels
■ whether it would make sense to advise P/T govern-
of government now assigning a priority to citizen
ments in advance of planned “public involvement”
engagement in their policy and program planning
activities, possibly with a view to exploring “part-
processes, coordination at all levels is increasingly
nering” opportunities with another government
important.
■ whether there are regional or P/T sensitivities to
Whether the department manages the process directly take into account in the design, timing and
or commissions a third party to do so, key questions implementation of the planned activity.
to ask to ensure appropriate representativeness and
At the preparations phase for either consultation or
coordination are:
engagement, it is important to identify the needs,
■ Who will be affected by the issue? issues and concerns of particular individuals or
■ Who may be potentially affected in the future? groups. Special care should be given to identifying
■ Who can contribute to a solution that will meet and meeting the needs of populations that may be
the needs of the widest range of stakeholders and difficult to reach (marginalized) but can be critical to
public audiences? informing both the process and outcome. This knowl-
■ Who will insist on being involved and cannot be edge forms a basis for determining who should be
left out? involved, communication processes and messages, and
■ Should other federal agencies or other jurisdictions which mechanisms are likely to facilitate the effective
be involved? participation of groups and individuals.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 23

It is important to think very specifically about the

different publics involved in an issue and how and
when to best involve them. This means focussing on
the nature of different audiences and what different
audiences can and want to contribute. Experience
shows that both sceptics and vested interests should
be included. It is prudent to:

■ Be mindful of the potentially disruptive role of

sceptics or cynics. Avoid giving vested interests
undue advantage.
■ Consider “community leaders” as representatives of
the public, provided there is a high degree of con-
fidence that they are actually representative of
their particular communities and are connecting
back to them, while playing their role in the public
involvement activity.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 24

HEALTH CANADA’S PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CONTINUUM

MATCHING ACTION TO NEEDS
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
High Inform/Educate Gather Discuss/ Engage Partner
Information Involve

Citizen Engagement:
• citizens’ juries √ √ √ √ √
• citizens’ panels √ √ √ √ √
• consensus conference √ √ √ √ √
• deliberative polling √ √ √ √ √
• search conference √ √ √ √ √
• study circles √ √ √ √ √
• study groups √ √ √ √ √
√ √ √ √ √
Level of Public Involvement and Influence in Decision-Making Activity

• sustainable community development

• think tanks √ √ √ √ √

• charrette √ √ √ √
• constituent assembly √ √ √ √
• delphi process √ √ √ √
• retreats √ √ √ √
• round tables √ √ √ √

Consultation:
• advisory committee, board/council √ √ √
• computer-assisted participation √ √ √
• interactive www/e-conferencing √ √ √
• online discussion groups/list servers √ √ √
• televoting √ √ √
• issue conferences √ √ √
• nominal group process √ √ √
• workshops √ √ √

• bilateral meetings with stakeholders √ √

• community or public meetings √ √
• parliamentary committees √ √
• people’s panel √ √
• polling √ √
• public hearings and seminars √ √
• questionnaires √ √
• royal commissions √ √
• surveys √ √
• workbooks √ √
• focus groups √ √

Communication:
• advertising √
• calls for briefs/requests for proposals √
• community mapping √
• fact sheets √
• info fairs/exhibits √
• information kits √
• mailouts √
• media events √
• 1-800 numbers √
• open house √
• press releases √
• site visits √

Low Level of Time and Resources High

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 25

Lessons Learned publics involved in an issue and how and when to

A few key lessons learned about public involvement best involve them.
are highlighted below. These lessons are closely linked ■ It is important to try to meet people in settings
to the principles outlined earlier in this document. that are familiar to them in order to make the
right connection that encourages engagement or
■ Citizen engagement requires a genuine commit-
involvement (e.g. community newspaper, communi-
ment by government to the process. This includes
ty-based approaches, Internet).
not making decisions until the conclusion of the
■ Avoid thinking of citizen engagement as “push-
process, and taking discussions with citizens into
button” democracy. Decision makers are not bound
thorough account.
to follow slavishly “the majority view,” but they
■ Good information and the capacity to use the
must be accountable for their decisions. It is a pit-
information is essential. Citizen participants must
fall to equate citizen engagement with an erosion
have the opportunity to learn – as well as vent –
of the latitude for political or administrative
during the process.
judgement. The purpose of citizen engagement is
■ The method of citizen engagement should be tai-
to contribute to better decision making by govern-
lored to the goal and the phase of policy making in
ment, not to reduce its capacity to govern.
question. Citizen participants need not be just
■ A citizen engagement approach is appropriate to
involved in “front-end” tasks of values clarification.
facilitate public involvement to address a range of
If they are given sufficient time, resources and
issues and situations including:
information to deliberate, citizens can work along-
■ a health issue that touches ethical, social or
side experts and make hard choices and assess
cultural norms, and may call for a choice
outcomes.
between fundamental values and principles
■ Provision of feedback, indicating how governments
■ a policy issue that calls for a combination of
use the information obtained from the process, is
public awareness, learning, a search for solutions,
also essential to the credibility of the process.
and emotional or moral acceptance of the
■ It is important to consider when the exercise is
eventual decision
best initiated and carried out by citizens through
■ underlying values and principles that must be
their own processes of engagement, which may
clarified before detailed proposals or risk
not include direct involvement of governments.
management options are brought forward
■ Citizen engagement processes at the provincial,
■ clearly defined set of options or proposals, to
regional and municipal level are a source of some
support the search for consensus or innovative
important innovation. Distinctive regional process-
solutions.
es which have created their own traditions and
expectations should be built upon and shared
across provinces and territories for continued use. Terminology
■ Public involvement processes should be sufficiently
Terms such as “consultation,” “involvement” and
flexible to evolve and be responsive to new issues,
“engagement” are often used interchangeably,
concerns or constituencies that arise during the
although they mean different things to different peo-
process. Think about strategy and learning. A
ple. The following definitions should help Health
learning perspective is crucial for a beneficial
Canada employees to cut through the jargon around
citizen engagement process. Education and
concepts relating to public involvement and develop a
adaptation should accompany the process for
common usage of language in this area.
both government officials and the public.
■ To determine who should be involved, it is impor-
tant to think very specifically about the different

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 26

Citizen - an individual Canadian who is neither a and/or include citizens in decision-making processes
delegate nor a representative of any government, relating to these issues.
organization, association or interest group.
Social cohesion - refers to the building of shared
Citizen engagement - the techniques that facilitate values, reducing disparities in wealth and income and
an informed dialogue among citizens and government enabling people to have a sense that they are
officials, elected and/or non-elected, and encourage engaged in a common enterprise and face shared
participants to share ideas or options and undertake challenges as members of the same community.
collaborative decision making, sometimes as partners.
Stakeholder - an individual, group or organization
Communications - the techniques that inform the having a “stake” in an issue and its outcome
public about policies, programs and services. (e.g. specific matters relating to health, environment,
consumers, volunteers, industry, science).
Consultations - the techniques involving a two-way
flow of information that offer options for considera- Sustainable community development - communities
tion and encourage feedback, such as additional ideas empower themselves to achieve a hopeful and common
or options from the public. vision of the future. Effectively responds to change
through community-based decision making, economic
Continuum of public involvement - the full range of
self-reliance and environmental sustainability.
public involvement in issues of public concern. This
document refers to five levels of public involvement
and pinpoints an array of public involvement tech-
niques along a continuum. Communications
techniques are at the “low end,” consultation is in the
“mid range” and citizen engagement is at the “high
end” of the public involvement continuum.

Governance - the set of processes and traditions that

determine how a society steers itself, how citizens are
accorded a voice on issues of public concern and how
decisions are made on these issues.

Involvement - the level of participation by the public,

or the extent to which the public is actively involved,
in understanding, assessing or resolving issues of
public concern.

Partner - an individual, group or organization who

participates in, or is responsible for, sharing responsi-
bility for the implementation of various aspects of
policy or program decisions.

Public - individuals, consumers, citizens, special

interest groups and/or stakeholders.

Public involvement techniques - a broad range of

strategies and methods used to inform citizens and/or
accord them a voice on issues of public concern

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 27

Case Studies and Techniques

he next section provides detailed case studies facilitate further enquiries and information

T from many different regions and branches of

Health Canada. It provides in-depth descrip-
tions of many public involvement techniques covering
exchanges, the toolkit provides departmental resource
persons who may be contacted to guide the selection
and application of public involvement techniques. The
all five levels of the department’s public involvement toolkit provides practical, “hands-on” information for
continuum. Health Canada employees, as well as a means to
develop relationships for ongoing collaboration.
In some cases, examples of techniques having been
Health Canada’s Corporate Consultation Secretariat
applied in the United States and Europe are cited
will collaborate with all branches and regions to keep
where sufficient Canadian examples could not be
the toolkit up to date.
found. The toolkit is a culmination of insights gained
from work experience across the department. To

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 29

Level 1

Level 1
When Do We Inform/Educate?
■ Factual information is needed to describe a policy, program or process
■ A decision has already been made
■ The public needs to know the results of a process
■ There is no opportunity to influence the final outcome
■ There is need for acceptance of a proposal or decision
■ An emergency or crisis requires immediate action
■ Information is necessary to abate concerns or prepare for involvement
■ The issue is relatively simple

This section includes:

Level 1 Case Study

■ Focus Groups on Strengthening Health Care

Level 1 Techniques
■ Advertising and Social Marketing
■ Call for Briefs/Request for Proposals
■ Community Mapping
■ Fact Sheets/Backgrounder
■ Focus Groups
■ 1 800 numbers
■ Info Fair or Exhibit
■ Information Kits
■ Mailouts
■ Media Events
■ Open House
■ Press Releases
■ Site Visits

References

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 30

Consultation worked with the consultant in designing

Level 1 Case Study:
the questions and the format of the focus groups. The
Focus Groups on Strengthening consultant then set up the focus groups, conducted
Health Care them, and summarized and analysed results in a
report to Health Canada. Health Canada representa-
Background tives attended some of the focus groups to get direct
In the fall of 1998 and January 1999, Health Canada feedback.
was considering various policies and programs to
strengthen and modernize health care, ranging from Objectives
enhancing health research and health information ■ To test public reaction to various health policy
systems to working with provinces and territories to proposals being considered by Health Canada in
better integrate hospitals, doctors and community advance of the 1999 federal Budget
care. The department decided to test public reaction ■ To gain insight into public views in order to guide
to these ideas in order to communicate them effec- communications on these matters in the short and
tively, both in the short and long term. long term

Why Seek Public Involvement? Description of the Process

At the time the policy discussion was taking place, Sixteen focus group sessions were held in eight cities:
the public spotlight was on health care – long waiting ■ Montreal; Calgary; Toronto; Trois-Rivières, Qué.;

lists, shortages of doctors and nurses, hospital clos- Brockville, Ont.; Halifax; Red Deer, Alta.; and
ings, and fears that the publicly funded Medicare Vancouver.
system was in decline. Provincial governments and In each city, there were two focus groups:
health professionals were criticizing the federal gov- ■ one with Canadians aged 30 to 45 and another

ernment for cutbacks in health care funding in earlier with Canadians aged 46 to 65. There were 10 to
years. Prime Minister Chrétien and Health Minister 12 people in each focus group.
Allan Rock had promised more money for health care
Only those respondents who indicated they were
in the 1999 federal Budget.
moderately or very concerned about the future of
In this atmosphere, it was important to communicate health care in Canada were included. There was a
federal initiatives effectively to Canadians and to roughly even split between male and female partici-
avoid fuelling controversies and feeding anxiety. To do pants. The locations were chosen to give balance
this, the department wanted a more in-depth under- regionally and between large and small cities.
standing of what Canadians thought about the future
Each two-hour focus group session followed the same
of their health care system, the federal role in
format. Participants were assured that results were
Medicare and in health generally, and the various
confidential and that they would not be identified.
measures being considered in the pre-Budget period.
Then, they were asked general questions about the
The department decided to use focus groups because biggest questions facing Canadians before moving to
they allow for a broader exploration of issues than more specific issues about Medicare, the federal role
public opinion surveys. They also can be organized in health, and various approaches to strengthening
quickly when time is limited. Medicare over the long term.

Who Was Involved? The consultant provided a preliminary report to Health

Health Canada’s Communications and Consultation Canada and a final report a short time later. The
Directorate took the lead, arranging for a consultant report has been deposited with the National Library so
to conduct the focus groups. Communications and that it is available to the public.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 31

Resources Analysis
The focus group testing was contracted out so that Some of the focus group findings were not unexpect-
there was no demand on departmental staff apart ed while others were eye-opening. The in-depth
from input into the focus group questions and format. nature of the discussions gave substance and credibil-
The contract cost was borne by the Communications ity to the conclusions. The focus group results were
and Consultation Directorate. useful in short-term communications surrounding the
Social Union Framework Agreement and the federal
Summary of Outcomes Budget and its immediate aftermath. They also con-
The consultant’s report helped Health Canada under- tributed to the department’s long-term planning for
stand how certain initiatives would be received by communicating federal initiatives and the federal role
Canadians and it guided the approach to messaging in health. For example:
and long-term communications planning on the
federal role in health. In effect, the objectives of the ■ Messaging at the time of the Budget emphasized
focus group testing were met. that the government had a long-term plan for
strengthening Medicare and that this was based on
Among the report’s key findings: a renewed partnership with the provinces and
■ The most effective approach to communicating territories.
federal health initiatives is to emphasize what ■ Budget messaging also underlined that
government is doing to improve the long-term $11.5 billion was being transferred to provincial
future of health care in Canada and restore public and territorial governments under the CHST to
confidence. help them deal with their health care needs.
■ Canadians want a balanced approach involving a
■ The findings on low public awareness of the feder-
clear vision with specific goals and innovative al role pointed to the need for more proactive
initiatives and additional federal funding and other outreach to Canadians on the programs and
assistance for provinces in dealing with health services provided by the federal government.
care issues. A plan to advertise the Canadian Health Network
■ Canadians do not want the federal and provincial
and increase participation in exhibits and info fairs
governments to fight over health care and they is under way.
view positively the idea of a federal-provincial
agreement or accord; Factors contributing to success in this initiative
■ There is a very low awareness of the federal govern- include:
ment’s role and responsibilities in health care and a
■ The age and gender distribution in the focus
clear desire for federal leadership and national
groups. The findings gained credibility because
“standards.” This calls for a sustained communica-
they covered a wide range of participants.
tions effort to raise awareness of the federal role in
health to include funding, medical research, ■ The regional nature of the focus groups. The
innovative initiatives to deal with specific health regional differences in opinions on key issues will
problems, health promotion and health protection. help in communications planning for
■ There were regional differences: for instance, those areas.
Alberta participants were more prepared to accept
user fees as a way of offsetting the costs of health
care; Quebec residents were less likely than others
to see the need for a federal role in health; and
Ontario and Atlantic participants offered stronger
support than others for a federal role.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 32

■ The focus group design. By leading participants They are clearly not a substitute for broad public
gradually from the general to the specific, the involvement in design of government policies.
focus group leaders were able to draw out more
thoughtful opinions on the federal role and specific Public Involvement Techniques Used
initiatives. ■ Focus Groups

There were no significant barriers to success in this Contact information

particular initiative. Conceivably, segmentation of the Robert Douglas
focus groups into even more demographic groups Senior Communications Executive
might have yielded further insights. Corporate Planning and Research
Health Policy and Communications Branch
Policy Implications (613) 957-1412
Focus groups are useful in exploring the views of Robert_Douglas@hc-sc.gc.ca
Canadians in a relatively unbiased and in-depth way.
They are particularly valuable in preparing communi-
cations strategies where public opinion of various
options is key to determining an approach that
resonates with the public.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 33

When Is It Most Useful?

Level 1 Technique:
Social marketing is most useful for informing, per-
Advertising and Social Marketing suading, influencing, motivating, promoting causes
and communicating with specific and identifiable
What Is It? groups; in reinforcing behaviour; or changing it for
Social marketing is a planned process for influencing social benefit. It provides the highest value when it is
change. With its components of marketing, consumer coordinated and integrated strategically within other
research, advertising and promotion (including posi- programs, such as education and training, research
tioning, segmentation, creative strategy, message and knowledge development, community support,
design and testing, media strategy, evaluation and legislative action and taxation.
tracking), social marketing can play a central role in
promoting health and other important issues. Logistics and Limits
Social marketing requires resources: people, time,
Social marketing combines the best elements of the money and effort. Because it aims to reach specific
traditional approaches to social change by utilizing target groups to initiate and effect changes in their
advances in communication technology and market- ideas, attitudes and ultimately, behaviour, it is neces-
ing skills. It uses marketing techniques to generate sary to take steps to get to know the intended
discussion and promote information, attitudes values audience thoroughly through market research.
and behaviours. By doing so, it helps to create a Research efforts will be directed toward analysing the
climate conducive to social and behavioural change. target audience’s social and demographic makeup
In its truest form, social marketing is “the application (e.g. economic status, education, age structure), its
of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, psycho-social features (e.g. attitudes, motivations,
planning, execution and evaluation of programs values, behavioural patterns), and its needs.
designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of
target audiences in order to improve their personal Once this research has been completed, efforts to
welfare and that of their society.” (Andreasen, 1995). effectively communicate key messages through appro-
priate vehicles can begin. Numerous vehicles can be
In recent times, social marketing campaigns have used to communicate to any given target group:
been launched on such diverse topics and issues as radio, television, print advertising in newspapers and
anti-smoking, drinking and driving, energy magazines, posters, the Internet, outdoor billboards,
conservation, literacy, violence and racism. etc. As a rule, the communication vehicles selected
are ones that the target audience encounters
How It Works
regularly and perceive as being credible.
Anchored within a broad health promotion program,
social marketing serves as a tool within an overall Cost Implications
strategy. Ideally, it should work in synergy with other The costs associated with social marketing vary wide-
programs such as community intervention, legislation, ly, and are dependent upon many factors, such as the
etc. An overall Strategic Social Marketing Plan must media chosen, the duration of the campaign, the dif-
be devised to drive decisions surrounding objectives, ficulties associated with reaching intended audiences
target groups, communication messages, budget and the overall breadth and depth of the campaign.
requirements, promotional activities and timing. While traditional paid advertising continues to be a
Audience analyses are essential to the success of all mainstay of many successful social marketing cam-
social marketing plans. Clearly stated marketing paigns, their high costs can be prohibitive for many.
objectives that incorporate the overall goals of a Several effective, low-cost marketing activities can be
health promotion program are key to ensuring a considered, particularly those that take advantage of
winning campaign. new technologies, including the Internet. Forging

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 34

partnerships, strategic alliances and sponsorship Contact Information

arrangements with other key players who share com- Health Canada’s Partnerships and Marketing Division
mon objectives with you can also be cost-effective is the Health Policy and Communications Branch cen-
means to communicate your messages. tre of expertise in social marketing, electronic
information dissemination, Web marketing and part-
Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up nership development.
Evaluating social marketing plans is important for a
variety of reasons. A substantial evaluation will deter- Jim Mintz
mine whether the plan is well implemented, is Director
achieving the measurable objectives that have been Partnerships and Marketing Division
set and is making a strong contribution to the overall Communications, Marketing and
health promotion program goals. Consultations Directorate
HPCB
Engaging the intended target audiences in creating, (613) 954-2402
assessing and evaluating communications products is
an important element. Pre-testing your messages with or refer to the Social Marketing Network, the single
the target group will help to ensure relevance. There point of access to social marketing resources, publica-
exist a wide range of mechanisms for assessing the tions, tutorials and other material at (www.hc-
impact and evaluating the effectiveness of your social sc.gc.ca/socialmarketing).
marketing effort, including polling, tracking and focus
group testing.

Timelines
Timelines vary significantly in social marketing
planning. Budgets, advertising schedules, deadlines for
print and/or audio/video production, campaign
duration and the time required to reasonably expect
positive behavioural or social change all must be
considered.

Potential Pitfalls
The following may act as barriers to the effectiveness
of social marketing planning:

■ Lack of available resources

■ Lack of knowledge about key marketing
principles
■ Insufficient consideration of environmental
factors that can impact social marketing efforts
■ Poorly defined objectives, poorly defined target
audiences, poorly crafted messages
■ Inappropriate choice of media vehicles and
timing.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 35

■ When the event arrives, and/or all briefs are to be

Level 1 Technique:
reviewed, they should all be made available elec-
Call for Briefs/Request for Proposals tronically or at a viewing centre.
■ Moreover, to help encourage submissions, a formal
What Is It? paper should be prepared to show how the briefs
A call for briefs is an invitation to the public to will be used.
address a project or policy idea by formulating alter-
native and creative solutions and submitting these in When Is It Most Useful?
a formal presentation. A call for briefs may be prelim- ■ receive input at any stage of the planning and
inary to further consultation or another public decision-making process
involvement activity. Generally, within the government ■ receive carefully researched and well-considered
context, this is a process that asks for briefs to be positions
submitted for a legalistic procedure such as a ■ supplement less formal consultation techniques
Standing Committee. However, in an extended form it ■ when an issue has received public attention and
could be a call for papers or presentations to be given academic support
during a symposium or conference (the procedures are ■ to encourage research and ideas on a topic of
virtually the same). importance that has not yet been addressed.

How It Works Logistics and Limits

Call for the submissions: Background information must be gathered and com-
Generally, a call for briefs is used when a conference municated in the preparation of the call for briefs.
or meeting has been scheduled to take place. Submissions will need to be collected, collated and
■ The first step is to determine the issue at hand. analysed – it will be necessary to assign personnel to
Once the issue has been determined and if it is these functions. There is a likelihood that responses
fairly general (e.g. Information Systems), sub-topics may be limited to interest groups, so “horizontal”
can be suggested. issues may not be addressed. Moreover, when a call
■ The second step is to determine what type of briefs for submissions is put out, adequate information
are required – research papers, alternative ideas, or about when the submissions must be submitted and
a form which is filled out by individuals. the proper form for submission must be provided to
■ If it is decided that only research that has not yet ensure the fullest response.
been published or presented at other conferences
Cost Implications
will be accepted, or if the subject is complex,
Costs can vary a great deal depending on the
approximately one year’s notice must be given for
complexity of the issue and the expectations of the
people to submit briefs. Also, the topics and the
host. The cost of an event is similar to other hosted
desired form of the brief must be made clear and
events and might include room fees, the production
available to potential submitters.
and reproduction of materials, etc. There is usually no
After submissions have been received: expectation of payment for briefs, although if the
■ Once a brief is submitted, a timely review and person is asked to come from out of town to
response should take place to help ensure the use present it, travel costs are usually covered.
of that brief.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 36

Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up

A summary of how the briefs will be used and a
collection of the briefs that were accepted should be
compiled and distributed. Also, all those whose briefs
were accepted should receive information as to the
outcome of the event and/or the use of the briefs. If
appropriate, the event could be published and results
forwarded to the media and those whose submissions
were not accepted.

Timelines
While it may not be an intensive public involvement
technique, calls for briefs can be a very long process.
Ideas and topics must be determined, the proper
information communicated to the public, an event
organized (if applicable), and enough time given to
participants to respond. The timing on briefs for a
government process, such as a Standing Committee,
can be very tight, often less than three months. If
asking for papers for a conference or a publication,
the timelines may be much longer, sometimes as
much as six months to one year.

Potential Pitfalls
■ The briefs and submissions received could be
off topic.
■ Very few are received.
■ Too many are received, making the review
process arduous.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 37

Level 1 Technique: How It Works

Noting that “[s]he who owns the map owns the terri-
Community Mapping tory,” the Los Angeles Learning Exchange suggests the
following steps for a community mapping process:
What Is It?
■ defining the community or area to be mapped
Community mapping is a community development
■ agreeing on key questions to be addressed through
process that enables citizens to assemble an inventory
the mapping process
of the resources at their disposal and identify the
■ agreeing on a method for visually portraying the
needs that they hold in common. Participants are
results of the mapping process (e.g. an actual map,
often encouraged to locate the resources they identify
photographs, videotape)
on a physical map of their community, as a first step
■ mapping the community, by showing the physical
in understanding the potential connections among
location of all pertinent resources and needs
supports and services as well as any limitations in
■ analysis of the mapping results, to identify
their existing capacity.
community strengths and gaps
In a community mapping process, participating citi- ■ presentation and discussion of the results – initial-
zens and organizations develop detailed profiles of ly among participants, eventually (potentially) with
their resources, interests and needs. The focus can be the wider community.
broad, covering many or all aspects of community life,
This description suggests the following questions that
or more narrow.
should be answered as early as possible in the
The results of a community mapping exercise might process:
enable participants to:
■ Should the mapping exercise be open to all inter-
■ redefine local service needs or delivery models ested citizens, or focus primarily or exclusively on
■ establish a stronger information infrastructure to representatives of community organizations? Is
support community cohesion or service delivery there any limit to the number of participants and,
■ identify common problems, concerns, issues or if so, how should they be chosen?
solutions, using the community map to demon- ■ Should a group of key community associations or
strate connections that may not otherwise have stakeholder organizations serve as co-sponsors? If
been as obvious. so, how many, how quickly can they be brought on
board, and how central a role can they play in set-
A community mapping project in Washington State
ting the basic definitions for the process? (If they
distributed separate inventories to capture:
are not involved from the very beginning, how
■ individual capacities and interests, including areas closely can they be associated with the final
where participants were interested in learning new outcome?)
skills ■ Can other public involvement tools be used in the
■ institutional facilities, equipment, purchasing course of a community mapping exercise to ensure
power, hiring practices and training capacities that the map reflects the widest range of views
■ citizens’ perceptions of the community’s organiza- and experience? What is the process for reconcil-
tional resources – from book clubs and socials, to ing or integrating conflicting views?
self-help groups and neighbourhood associations.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 38

■ If the momentum behind a community mapping even if you have just yourself, no money, and little
exercise begins within a federal government time, you can still do useful work in identifying assets
department or agency, how can these questions be that will be helpful to the community – especially if
resolved in a way that meets the needs and expec- nothing like this has ever been done before.”
tations of senior management, while allowing for a
full, participatory process to unfold at the Cost Implications
community level? The cost of a community mapping exercise depends
on its breadth and duration. Specific cost items will
When Is It Most Useful? likely include advance publicity and networking
An introduction to the Washington State community among participants, space rental for the mapping
mapping process observed that “every single person session, mapping supplies (small and large sheets of
has capacities, abilities and gifts. Living a good life paper, pens and magic markers, possibly stickers to
depends on whether those capacities can be used, represent specific types of resources or needs), and
abilities expressed and gifts given. If they are, the payment for a professional facilitator.
person will be valued, feel powerful and well-con-
nected to the people around them. And the Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
community around the person will be more powerful Extensive use of inventories and interviews is intend-
because of the contribution the person is making.” ed to generate sustained community interest and
participation. Community members who contribute
More concretely, an Edmonton company involved in their time and effort will likely expect a written report
community mapping and capacity building cited the as soon as possible. The process also lends itself to
following goals for its copyright-protected workshop ongoing progress reports, both to participants and to
process: the wider community, which can become a catalyst
for tangible follow-up activities.
■ discovering the assets and capacities that might be
available to a community and its citizens Timelines
■ designing an asset map that shows the available Timing depends on the needs and capacities of each
supports and the connections among them participating community.
■ developing appropriate community resources
■ building relationships at the community level Potential Pitfalls
■ creating “measures of success that show positive The effectiveness of a community mapping exercise is a
economic and social changes in the community.” reflection of the range of community interests and
resources it captures – so a process with only limited
The process has been undertaken with rural and urban
community support or input will not have a great
communities, health and children’s services groups,
impact. If organizers inadvertently allow a community
small businesses and non-profits, youth and youth
map to be taken over by a limited number of local
groups, schools and corporations.
stakeholders, the results may be considerably less
Logistics and Limits meaningful or acceptable to the rest of the community.
Some of the literature on community mapping sug- Like any other public involvement process, community
gests that the success of the process may be limited mapping presumes a degree of sustained interest and
by the resources in place – volunteers, money and attention on the part of participants and the communi-
available time – to complete the task. But this is not ty at large. If that interest wanes for any reason, the
necessarily a severe constraint. “The more people, mapping exercise may not generate the ongoing
time, and money available, of course the more you discussion and action that might otherwise result.
can do,” states the University of Kansas guide. “But

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 39

Level 1 Technique: Cost Implications

■ Minimal costs because information is developed for
Fact Sheets/Backgrounder program or policy and then summarized for the
fact sheet
What Is It? ■ Costing considerations include professional fees for
A fact sheet is a list or document providing concise writing and the format for distribution (i.e. hard
and factual information on a topic or initiative which copy distribution, emails, website).
is expected to attract considerable public attention.
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
How It Works ■ Fact sheets may help focus attention on an issue
The fact sheets are disseminated to the public and the that requires additional research.
media either on a proactive or reactive basis in order ■ Statistics and information supporting the fact
to answer some of the most frequently asked ques- sheet will have to be tracked and updated over
tions on an issue. Efforts should be made to present time.
information in plain language, and the overall needs ■ If possible, other supporting materials may have to
of the audience need to be considered when develop- be prepared to address questions and media
ing fact sheets or any other public document. Fact attention.
sheets are issued to newspapers, TV stations, radio
and emailed or made available on websites, to jour- Timelines
nalists and other stakeholders. They may also be ■ Fact sheets may be used to address breaking news
included as supplementary material for a press on an important and much publicized subject.
release, media event or information kit. Before being ■ Fact sheets may require some time to allow for
issued, fact sheets require the appropriate levels of significant research and information to be
approval. produced on an issue.

When Is It Most Useful? Potential Pitfalls

A fact sheet is most useful as a strategic compilation ■ Lack of available or credible data on certain issues
of key information sources on an issue for the public. ■ Failure to appropriately use facts to define a
It may define an issue or promote discourse and problem or scope the issue
informed debate on a subject. It is an ideal way to ■ Failure to keep fact sheet current and relevant
inform stakeholders and heighten awareness with a ■ Distribute to target audience
broad overview of an issue, policy or program.

Logistics and Limits

■ Limited to main facts, statistics and a summary
of issues
■ Not always detail oriented to provide full context
on an issue
■ Little or no opportunity for feedback
■ Should be relatively short (one to three pages)
■ May be contracted out, especially to accommodate
time constraints.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 40

Level 1 Technique: When Is It Most Useful?

Focus groups are a highly specialized technique that
Focus Groups can be a useful public consultation vehicle to:

■ gauge the nature and intensity of stakeholders’

What Is It?
concerns and values about the issues
A focus group is a gathering of eight to 10 individuals
■ obtain a snapshot of public opinion, when time
with a strong interest in an issue or goal. Participants
constraints or finances do not allow a full review
generally represent a cross-section of the public
or survey
affected by this issue and may be chosen to represent
■ obtain input from individuals as well as interest
specific interests. Focus groups are often used to test,
groups
evaluate and/or do a program review. They are fre-
■ obtain detailed reaction and input from a
quently used by various types of marketing research.
stakeholder or client group to preliminary
Focus groups are used to generate issues and to
proposals or options
structure questionnaires or research methods. They
■ collect information on the needs of stakeholders
are most appropriate to get a sense of regional,
surrounding a particular issue or concept
gender, age and ethnic differences in opinion.
■ determine what additional information or
How It Works modification may be needed to develop
Planning is essential. The moderator and client agree consultation issues or proposals further.
on the meeting agenda (also termed a “protocol”)
Focus groups can be used in conjunction with several
which will guide the group discussion.
other public involvement mechanisms/techniques.
Guidelines for effectiveness:
■ Secure skilled personnel to identify and
Logistics and Limits
Focus groups are good for initial concept exploration,
moderate/lead focus groups.
creativity and for situations where qualitative data
■ Record (audio or video) the sessions.
are required.
■ Ensure the atmosphere in the group is informal.
■ Use an interviewer, guide or facilitator – do not A focus group is not:
use a questionnaire. ■ effective for providing information to the
■ It is not always appropriate to give participants general public
advance notice of material. ■ a forum open to responding to general questions
■ a vehicle used to seek or build consensus or make
How to select the group members:
decisions.
■ Try to make the group representative of your target
market (non-random). Cost Implications
■ Do not use regulars (focus group addicts).
It is not uncommon for market researchers to pay
■ Members should not be known by moderator
participants for their involvement in the process. As
(do not use relatives/friends). public involvement techniques become more popular,
■ Members should not know each other (snowballing
and the constraints on “key” people’s time become
recruitment methods). more limited, payment may in fact become routine.
■ Choose people who can communicate.
Furthermore, skilled moderators have substantial fees.
■ Do not choose people involved in marketing.
The cost of a single focus group can vary from $1,500
to over $7,000. Costs decline when the focus group is
part of a general research program, or when several
groups are conducted on the same topic.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 41

Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up

Generally, there are few expectations from the partic-
ipants for follow-up. However, it may be useful to
share outcomes with participants in the interest of
relationship building.

Timelines
Usually, specific product-based focus groups last one
to two hours, while policy-based initiatives may be a
day-long workshop. Locating and securing the cooper-
ation of a single participant can often take 20 or 30
calls depending on the “expertise” required of
participants.

Potential Pitfalls
A focus group needs to build synergy and secure
cooperation from the members; thus, it is crucial that
communication be open and that trust is built quickly.
This helps encourage new ideas. It is necessary to
choose the right focus group members, as well as
facilitator, in order to make the information flow
positively.

Note: A focus group may also be considered as a

Level 2 Technique.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 42

When Is It Most Useful?

Level 1 Technique:
A 1 800 number is usually developed and maintained
1 800 Numbers in response to a current issue. Therefore, most 1 800
lines will be temporary communications techniques.
What Is It? There are two ways to use 1 800 numbers:
A 1 800 number is a telephone transmission of a mes-
A. To inform stakeholders
sage or information made free of charge to the users.
These 1 800 numbers have pre-prepared electronic
The goal is most often a facilitatory one, enabling
answers to common inquiries or communication
institutions and the public to communicate quickly,
operators who can answer questions. In this way, the
effectively and inexpensively.
1 800 number allows the government to fulfil its
A 1 800 number, accessible throughout Canada, can obligation to inform Canadians about its programs
be used to give out or collect information, request and policies and encourages social relations. It is an
documents or information packages, and offers a easy way for the public to have access to new
two-way information exchange. government policies, programs and regulations.

1 800 O CANADA is a permanent federal service B. To collect stakeholder responses

which provides support to callers across Canada. This type of 1 800 service is less frequent. These
Health Canada is currently participating in the 1 800 numbers are used to determine stakeholder
1 800 O CANADA program. Health Canada is providing opinion about policies and programs which are pro-
up to a dozen publications that Canadians can access posed or already in existence. The number can either
through this toll-free service. The service helps callers collect verbal responses from the callers or give the
access federal programs and services across Canada. caller several choices of response to select from. These
Orders for documents are recorded by the O CANADA responses may then be analysed for policy planning
staff and faxed daily to the Health Canada’s and evaluation.
Publications Distribution Unit for fulfilment.
A 1 800 number is most useful to reach the public,
Other examples of the Government of Canada’s use of who can call from any location at any time. The 1 800
1 800 numbers include a toll-free line to provide number has the advantage of being used when the
information on the New Tobacco Act, May 2, 1997. caller is unable to visit an office, or would be calling
Health Canada has a 1 800 number to provide using long-distance telephone rates; thereby reaching
Hepatitis C information to the public. people in remote or distant locations. Another benefit
is that the 1 800 number can offer anonymity to
How It Works callers when necessary, thus offering a sense of
Decide on the type of communication which is security.
desired. If information is routine, it may be possible to
have an automated response. Some systems are By directing inquiries to the appropriate source, the
automated and many callers may be served without 1 800 number can free administrative staff from
speaking to an operator. If information is more interruptions by telephone inquiries.
complex, then a person(s) will be needed to respond
Guidelines for effectiveness:
to calls with or without an automated service.
■ Secure knowledgeable personnel to answer
the calls.
■ Ensure that there is consistency between responses
provided by operators through adequate training
and available materials.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 43

■ Ensure that service is available in both French 1 800 O CANADA asks each caller where they are
and English. calling from, the purpose of the call and if the person
■ Make the 1 800 number well known to the public. needs any other assistance. These data are recorded
Often the numbers are associated with the organi- and are available for analysis of the 1800 O CANADA
zation. Publish it with the agency’s literature, and service.
include it in other forms of advertising.
■ Ensure that the number is listed in local phone Timelines
directories and in the Internet 1 800 directory. The 1 800 number can be maintained indefinitely, as
long as it is useful and cost-effective.
Logistics and Limits
A 1 800 number is good to provide simple answers to Potential Pitfalls
common inquiries, clarifications and concerns or to ■ It is not a source for obtaining in-depth informa-
collect opinions on possible services. A 1 800 number tion on an issue.
communication may not be sufficient to resolve an ■ Effectiveness is hindered if appropriate language
issue or concern, but may succeed in directing a support is not provided (English and French).
stakeholder to an appropriate source for resolution. ■ Not every potential user has access to a phone.
■ A 1 800 number depends on citizens to be
Cost Implications proactive in initiating communication.
Costs include the 1 800 number subscription, the ■ It carries expensive support and operational costs.
number of lines into a call centre, the number of calls
and where people are calling from. Staff costs include
the number of required staff, staff training and the
preparation of material for the staff answering these
calls. A 1 800 line’s costs are high.

Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up

Statistics may be collected on the line’s use to give
feedback about its effectiveness. Caller comments
may be used directly to analyse stakeholder opinions
about policies or programs. Moreover, data collection
on the types of inquiries could indicate how well the
department informs stakeholders of its policies and
programs.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 44

■ partner agencies for these programs

Level 1 Technique:
■ agencies with related stakeholders.

Info Fair or Exhibit ■ Choose and approach other agencies as

contributors.
What Is It? ■ Select and book a time and location for the info
An info fair is a presentation or exhibit made by a fair which is easily accessible to both the agencies
governmental body to inform stakeholders of the exis- and the stakeholders. Also arrange necessary
tence of services, policies or programs. This technique resources for the displays.
is most useful for departments that are less known to ■ Prepare display or presentation.
their market, are presenting a new program or provid- ■ Notify stakeholders of the fair through mailouts,
ing services which cannot be easily explained in brief. posters, public service announcements and/or
Moreover, if the stakeholders are broad or the specific advertising.
users are unknown to the agency, direct advertising
B. By Invitation
may be more difficult.
When invited to attend an info fair, it is important to
Health Canada participates in several exhibits/fairs on learn about the nature of the fair and which agencies
a yearly basis. It does so at a more corporate level for or programs are being included. Before creating the
displays that need to be departmental in scope and display, it is important to know the space and
directed to a wide range of audiences, but also at a resources which are provided. It is also important to
branch or program level when the venue is more determine the stakeholders/public being targeted.
focussed on a file or topic and targeted to specific This information will help determine whether or not
segments of the population. Health Canada also to participate and the type of exhibit to produce.
participates in info fairs to promote jobs among post- Further, it is important to communicate with the
secondary students. promoters, and agree on how your participation will
be advertised.
Human Resources Development Canada uses info fairs
to promote job creation programs, and Industry Guidelines for effectiveness:
Canada uses info fairs to promote its small business ■ Secure knowledgeable personnel as representatives
creation programs. at the fair or exhibit. These persons may be
employees, volunteers or stakeholders.
Health Canada anticipates an increase in its use of
■ Choose a time when the members of the public or
info fairs in the future. These include corporate
the stakeholders are available.
exhibits as opposed to exhibits by each branch or for
■ Have materials which the stakeholders can collect
each program. The intention is to have each region
and take away with them (e.g. info kits).
equipped with a corporate exhibit.
■ Have a log through which the interested members

How It Works of the market may supply contact information for

There are two ways to be involved in an info fair: follow-up.
■ If the market is broad (e.g. youth) and difficult to
A. Promote Your Own Program reach through advertising, choose a time and place
■ This is typically done at the corporate level. for your exhibit or info fair which will already be
■ Decide whether to invite other departments or attended by stakeholders (e.g. a mall on a week-
branches to your info fair. When hosting an info end, or another event which is popular with the
fair, it is important to identify the following: target group).
■ the program or programs to promote

■ the stakeholders to be reached

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 45

When Is It Most Useful? Timelines

■ Information from a variety of stakeholders Usually the fair or exhibit will be part or all of a day,
is required. though some exhibits might last longer.
■ The target audience is from a large group.
■ The exact stakeholders are unknown or the service Potential Pitfalls
users and providers may not be easily matched. ■ The fair or exhibit might not be attended by those
■ In order to be secure against alteration, documents needing to be reached most. This pitfall is especial-
should be in print form. ly likely if the time and location for the info fair is
not well chosen to meet the right stakeholders.
Logistics and Limits ■ Info fairs and exhibits are difficult to staff because
■ The quality of the information is dependent on typically the exhibits must be staffed after hours.
the resources and interest of the participating Also, there is a need for the staff of a corporate
stakeholders. event to be knowledgeable about a wide variety of
■ Coordination of Health Canada participation at programs, services and issues to act as a valid
events. There is a benefit in pulling kiosks together ambassador.
to create an overall corporate image. ■ Exhibits which are transported may be damaged,
■ The market must be attracted by other advertising. materials or components may be lost or there may
■ The info fair is generally a short-term, one-time be shipping delays.
event. ■ At this time, many programs do not have sufficient
■ There are difficulties in transporting exhibits. materials to present at an exhibit.
■ Exhibits are run at the corporate level and so may
not be available to promote a specific program.
Cost Implications
Four types of direct costs may be incurred.
■ The cost of securing the location of the exhibit.
■ The cost of preparing the exhibit and related
materials.
■ Travel and transportation of the exhibit and staff.
■ Advertising costs.

Indirect costs may be incurred by using staff time to

prepare or represent your organization at the fair.

Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up

Exhibits and info fairs represent a good opportunity to
feel the “pulse” of the audience on given subject
matters. It could be done at the fair informally, for
example, in face-to-face interactions, or using a more
formal process, such as short questionnaires being
handed out to people visiting the kiosk. This would
help in learning the fair’s effectiveness.

Follow-up evaluation of the fair can be made by

asking people who took the information whether the
info fair was useful to them.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 46

Level 1 Technique: Cost Implications

■ Costing will be influenced in part by the writing,
Information Kits (see also Info Fair, production, amount and quality of materials
Mailouts, Fact Sheets)
provided.
■ Distribution costs can be high.
What Is It? ■ Costs will increase if the kits have to be updated
Information kits are prepared for significant or new and provided on an ongoing basis.
announcements or initiatives. They often contain
press releases, fact sheets, articles or pamphlets, a Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
detailed report, ministerial cover letter and other ■ Make sure that the information kit contains all
communication materials to provide knowledge on a relevant documents.
subject to stakeholders and other interested parties. ■ Be prepared to handle additional requests for
information.
How It Works ■ Follow-up kits may be needed to provide new
Information kits are often used at media events such information and developments.
as press conferences, info fairs and technical brief-
ings, as well as trade shows and other special events. Timelines
They can also be distributed by mail and are increas- ■ Kits are most effective when they are positioned as
ingly being provided over the Internet. The appropriate part of a larger strategy, and their timing must be
approvals must be obtained, which depend on the planned accordingly.
content/subject of the kit. ■ Information kits may be offered on a one-time
basis or continually to address and promote an
When Is It Most Useful? issue, policy or program.
Information kits are used for communication, educa-
tion and promotional purposes. The information Potential Pitfalls
provided will be more comprehensive, and contain ■ Relevant materials are missing for inclusion
more detail and context than a single press release or in the kit.
fact sheet. Information kits may provide technical and ■ There is a lack of coordinating information with
statistical data, policy developments and updates, other groups, departments.
program details and promotional materials. They may ■ Outdated or inaccurate information is provided.
be targeted to the general public or to a specific
group or issue. Kits may be used by stakeholders for
planning, generating ideas and for decision making.

Logistics and Limits

The usefulness of the information kits will depend on
the quality of the information provided and thus
revisions may be necessary. In addition, information
kits delivered over the Internet are limited to citizens
who have the appropriate access.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 47

the Internet or some documents are not practical for

Level 1 Technique:
webpages. Electronic list servers outlined in the Level 3
Mailouts (also see 1 800 Numbers) Techniques of this Toolkit fill a similar function to
mailouts.
What Is It?
Logistics and Limits
A mailout is the distribution of department or branch
■ Stakeholder addresses must be known and the
documents to stakeholders or the public on a
mailouts would be limited to the available agency
predetermined sign-up mailing list.
publications.
Health Canada’s Mail Room Distribution Unit is ■ Mailing lists may become outdated quickly.
available for the distribution of bulk quantities of
departmental materials. Programs wishing to have Cost Implications
new publications mailed to their stakeholders provide Secretarial services, including labour and supplies. If
the Mail Room with a mailing list. The Mail Room the mailout is contracted to an outside provider, the
charges the program for postage and materials that providers’ charges must be included.
are used for the mailing.
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
In the future, this service will be personalized to the There are no established criteria for feedback or
recipients’ interests so they can be sent relevant follow-up. However, two available methods to receive
information when it becomes available. subscriber feedback are:

How It Works ■ Include a questionnaire in the package with a

Programs prepare lists of stakeholders in-house, from a request for feedback. This is most likely to be
variety of sources, often from regular correspondence. completed if return postage is included.
The stakeholders or public may be added to the list ■ Follow up with a second mailing or a phone call to
only with their permission. Programs, their stakeholders the stakeholders requesting feedback or
or members of the public may be added to a mailing information.
list by telephone or mail request. Lists are rarely
Timelines
purchased. These lists are provided to the Mail Room or
Subscriptions could be offered on a term basis
the third party contracted to provide this service.
with a renewal requirement.
I 800 O CANADA is also involved in the mailout
Potential Pitfalls
process. Some requests for documents from callers are
■ A stakeholder who wants a limited or personalized
fulfilled directly through 1 800 O CANADA. If the
response may be frustrated by this system.
documents are not ones available directly from
■ The mail requires shipping time, and if information
1 800 O CANADA, the program is faxed the request.
is inadequate there would be a delay in follow-up.
When Is It Most Useful? ■ Mailouts may not reach the broader public.
This system is useful when large amounts of current ■ The mailout is only as good as its mailing list.
information are needed about an organization or ■ There is the danger in sending out too much “junk”
department and their programs or policies. Although to the recipients.
much information is now available on-line, traditional
mailouts still exist because not everyone has access to

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 48

Logistics and Limits

Level 1 Technique:
■ In order to achieve the greatest impact, timing of
Media Events (also see Information the event is key to avoid competition with other
Kits, Press Releases, Fact Sheets) high-profile events.
■ Coordination and briefing of officials may be
What Is It? needed for presenting the information.
Media events are used to introduce or explain initia- ■ Other forms of communication, such as press
tives to journalists in order to communicate and releases and information kits, are usually needed to
promote a department’s objectives and mandate. supplement the media event in order to effectively
They can incorporate written materials such as press reach the audience.
releases and fact sheets for journalists and other
stakeholders and also provide the opportunity for Cost Implications
questions and comments from these parties. In ■ Costing requirements include location and organi-
practice, a media event is organized by the Media zation of event, technical equipment and providing
Relations Office in conjunction with branch written materials to media, as well as staff time
Communications and the program area. and coordination of other personnel.

How It Works Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up

Spokespersons from the program are normally ■ Media events often create feedback in terms of
required to provide journalists with both background additional news stories and press coverage.
and on-the-record information on the initiative being ■ There may be a need for follow-up events to
announced or explained. When the Minister is partici- communicate pertinent information.
pating in a media event, program officials are often ■ Choice of events will vary, depending on the
required to brief the Minister in advance and to pro- initiative.
vide technical information to the media following the ■ Sufficient time is also needed for targeting
Minister’s announcement. All media events require reporters and follow-up phone calls.
prior approval by the Minister.
Timelines
When Is It Most Useful? ■ A media event itself is short, sometimes
Media events are most useful to publicize an impor- 20 minutes to 1 hour;
tant initiative when a large communication impact is ■ Sufficient time is needed to notify necessary
required. Since it provides the forum for questions media representatives to gain maximum exposure.
and answers, the event has the capacity to gather a (Good advance preparation).
high profile from journalists to help set the public
Potential Pitfalls
agenda. Media events can raise awareness of issues
■ There is limited success due to insufficient
and ideas and can be used to help publicize results of
preparation time.
prior initiatives and policy successes. The potential for
■ The spokespersons receive ill-prepared briefings.
ministerial involvement also contributes to the media
■ There is inability to control outcomes of an
event’s exposure. Media events are either used proac-
open-ended question and answer forum.
tively to promote an issue or reactively to respond to
■ Accurately targeting the right audience for the
a publicized subject.
message can be difficult.
■ It may be overshadowed by other newsworthy
events.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 49

■ where an informal, casual and friendly ambience

Level 1 Technique:
encourages participation and allows people flexible
Open House attendance
■ to attract a greater number and diversity of people
What Is It? than is possible through public meetings
An open house is a relatively informal event that ■ when detailed answers are necessary
enables people to drop in and obtain information, ■ as an “idea fair,” by inviting special interest groups
usually pertaining to a plan or project. Generally, open to set up booths.
houses include handouts, display presentations and
Logistics and Limits
staff to answer questions.
■ If you do not get people who have a stake in the
How It Works project to attend, they do not receive vital
The first step in preparing and running an open house information.
is to define the issues which are to be addressed. ■ One event may not reach enough people; it may,
During this step, the appropriate audio-visual and therefore, be necessary to hold several open
written material related to the issue should be select- houses.
ed or developed. Next, an event coordinator needs to ■ Ensure you have all the proper technical devices.
be assigned. The selection of this individual should be
based on the purpose of the presentation. For exam- Cost Implications
ple, someone more familiar with technical aspects of Usually, the greatest expense is the staff time needed
the project may be more appropriate if the project is to prepare and reproduce materials. The more elabo-
to be announced or explored. Exploring a project rate the presentations and advertising, the greater the
involves presenting alternative solutions to a problem costs. Also, the location of the event may be
or issue. Thirdly, the date and time must be set expensive.
according to those who have an interest in the
Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up
project. Locating a suitable space for tables and
Pamphlets, leaflets and other written material are
traffic flow is the fourth step. A neutral location is
generally used. Evaluation forms for people to fill out
favourable if the project is controversial. Some
at the event or at home are also appropriate.
examples of locations are schools, city halls, hotels,
conference centres, fire halls and university campuses. Timelines
Presentations (e.g. videos, boards), copies of docu- The actual event usually runs for three to four hours.
ments, and other information devices should be However, if a large number of people show up or the
prepared by the organization holding the open house. project is controversial, it could last much longer.
The organization must also staff the event with Depending on the complexity of the project and
people who have specific areas of expertise. presentation, preparation time can range from one or
two weeks to several months.
When Is It Most Useful?
■ can be a useful public consultation vehicle as a Potential Pitfalls
lead-in for another public consultation activity ■ It is hard to predict the number of people who will
■ when information can be disseminated at an early attend.
stage of a project or prior to decision making ■ Selecting the appropriate information and having
■ for potential projects or policies with great enough copies is difficult to determine.
local impact

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 50

Level 1 Technique: When Is It Most Useful?

Press releases are an effective means for communi-
Press Releases (also see Media Events, cating new departmental initiatives. Releases are
Fact Sheets)
targeted to both national and regional media repre-
sentatives to be communicated to the broader
What Is It? Canadian public. An effective media strategy and
Press releases are used by a department to announce press release can often be part of an overall strategic
a brief narrative of a specific initiative, program or communications approach. Releases offer a conven-
policy development. They are a form of print media, ient method of accurately transmitting the same
composed of written materials that may be supple- information to many publications. Releases should be
mented with other attachments such as fact sheets or noteworthy and answer who, what, where, when,
information kits. Press releases are a government’s why and how, and can be developed in-house or
main tool for communicating directly with the media. contracted out.
Press releases are distributed to newspapers, radio, TV
stations and posted on websites. The media, in turn, Logistics and Limits
can communicate the information to their readers, ■ In order to effectively reach the desired audience
viewers or other audiences. In most cases, press and achieve maximum impact, the timing of
releases offer specific information concerning pro- releases should coincide with new initiatives.
grams or policies, and identify a departmental contact ■ Releases should not be longer than three pages.
whom reporters can call to ask questions or develop ■ Target your audience (know who to reach).
more in-depth storylines. ■ Know the best way to contact your audience (i.e.
paper copies, emails, nationally, regionally or both).
How It Works ■ Communicate only one issue at a time.
As an example, press releases within Health Canada are ■ Other important issues may overshadow your
prepared by communications officers in branch issue/event.
Communications and are assigned to departmental
sectors/divisions and programs to service as clients. All Cost Implications
news releases are distributed to the media through the Considerations include writing, editing and printing
Media Relations Office which is also responsible for costs but these tend to be rather minimal. Costs will
coordinating approvals in consultation with the also depend on whether one or a series of announce-
Communications office. Releases are sent both to ments is necessary.
specific news service organizations to be distributed,
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
and directly to newspapers, radio, TV stations and
■ Press releases may generate considerable public
Internet media sources. Depending on the distribution,
and media feedback depending upon the topic, and
the media can feature information gleaned from the
the media may follow up with communication
press release in their stories. The press release is gener-
officials for more information.
ally developed as one of a number of communications
■ Follow-up press releases may also be necessary to
tactics within a communications strategy.
transmit new policy or program developments or
clarify a particular problem.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 51

Timelines
■ Press releases should be coordinated with the
timing of a new initiative or to announce
additional information, otherwise it will lack the
desired publicity impact.
■ Appropriate time should be allowed for preparing,
writing and seeking approvals for the release.

Potential Pitfalls
■ The releases may not be newsworthy.
■ Releases should not be too long.
■ Information can be biased.
■ The release may lack impact if other highly
newsworthy events happen at the same time.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 52

If a group of participants must sign up for a site visit

Level 1 Technique:
before it takes place, publicity materials should be
Site Visit distributed at least six to 10 weeks before the event
and emphasize timing, cost (if any), and specific
What Is It? information related to comfort and safety (appropri-
A site visit is a scheduled tour designed to give deci- ate dress and any advance preparations required).
sion makers or members of a public involvement panel At a conference, it may be necessary to supplement
a more immediate, hands-on perspective on an issue advance publicity with announcements on-site, from
or discussion point. The most common types of site the podium and through the conference newsletter.
visit include:
Participants should be fully briefed on any cross-cul-
■ Optional tours associated with a conference or tural issues or other sensitivities that may arise during
workshop the visit. For example, for a group of non-Aboriginal
■ Site audits related to regulatory or review participants about to visit a First Nations, Inuit or
processes that may be defined by legislation Métis community, the experience will be greatly
■ Fact-finding missions, in which elected officials, enhanced and the potential for misunderstanding or
appointed panelists or senior policymakers embarrassment will be greatly reduced if the itinerary
visit one or more communities, eco-regions, begins with a session with an experienced cross-cul-
businesses or public institutions during a tural facilitator. The same would apply for a visit to
larger deliberative process an ethnocultural centre, an adult literacy program, a
■ Orientation or information sessions, in which com- shelter for homeless people or battered women, or
munity representatives are invited to visit adjacent any other event that takes participants out of their
neighbourhoods or facilities (e.g. schools, hospitals accustomed cultural milieu.
or libraries) to build broader understanding of a
Hosts may require time to prepare presentations or
common issue or concern
demonstrations, or to assemble the specific informa-
■ Professional development opportunities, where
tion that will make the program a success. Scheduling
participants pay an extended visit to a specialized
should be rigorous enough to give participants an
facility to follow a specific curriculum.
intensive experience and make best use of limited
One or more site visits may take place as part of a time, while allowing sufficient time for rest and
larger public involvement strategy. reflection.

How It Works When Is It Most Useful?

A site visit can last anywhere from a couple of hours to Site visits are a useful tool when:
a couple of weeks, depending on the purpose, context
■ a theoretical or abstract discussion can be brought
and audience for the activity. The best site visits are
into focus by seeing direct evidence that is avail-
scheduled well in advance and orchestrated carefully,
able in the field or at a specific location
with close attention to minute details of content,
sequencing and logistics. Even if a site visit is requested ■ an issue can be clarified through face-to-face
by the host organization, advance discussion and joint interaction with stakeholders or field specialists, or
design of the on-site process can help ensure full among different groups of stakeholders.
buy-in and cooperation by everyone involved.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 53

Logistics and Limits Timelines

Logistics for a site visit are similar to the concerns As suggested above, the time frame for a site visit can
associated with any conference, event or tour. For range from a couple of hours to a couple of weeks,
large, complex or high-profile visits, it may be advis- depending on the purpose and context of the visit. For
able to involve an experienced meeting planner or advance planning, it is best to allow at least four to
special event organizer. six weeks for a simple site visit – or longer, for a more
in-depth event.
Cost Implications
Costs depend on the purpose, scale and overall design Potential Pitfalls
of a visit and on the number of visits in a series. While site visits can provide valuable perspectives on
Standard cost items will likely include travel, lodging, specific issues or experiences, it may eventually be
meals and incidental expenses for visiting panelists necessary to place this information in a broader con-
and support staff, staff time, telephone and telecom- text. It is also important to avoid disappointment or
munication costs for the event organizer, and any disillusionment on the part of hosts, by clearly
specific expenditures associated with staging the visit. explaining the outcomes they can and cannot expect
as a result of the visit.
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
Feedback mechanisms should be clarified from the
outset, for hosts and panelists alike. If a deliberative
or decision-making panel undertakes a site visit as
part of a broader public involvement exercise, other
participants will want to be informed of the panelists’
findings, and the hosts will likely want to hear about
the eventual outcome of the process.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 54

Level 1 References

Advertising and Social Marketing:

■ Berkowitz, Eric N. et al. Marketing: First Canadian Edition. USA: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1991.

■ Canada. Treasury Board Secretariat. Communications: Government Communications Policy, Ottawa,

1 December 1996.

■ Social Marketing, Prevline: prevention online - http://www.health.org/pubs/primer/smarket.htm

■ Social-Marketing.com, Weinreich Communications - http://www.social-marketing.com/

■ What is Social Marketing? Social-Marketing.com, Weinreich Communications -

http://www.social-marketing.com/whatis.html

■ Social Marketing Network, Health Canada - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/socialmarketing/

1 800 Numbers
■ Bell Canada - http://www.bell.ca/en/

■ Sympatico - http://canadatollfree.sympatico.ca/Search/

■ ICB Toll Free - http://www.icbtollfree.com/

■ TollFreeNumbers.com - http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/

Info Fair or Exhibit

■ Human Resources Development Canada – Youth Employment Strategy -
http://www.careerfair.org/background.htm

■ Health Canada - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/jobs/index.html

■ Human Resources Development Canada – Press Release, 14 November 1997 -

http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/common/news/youth/9766.shtml

■ Industry Canada, Strategis - http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/wn00044e.html

Mailouts
■ Careers and Employment, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052 -
http://careers.cac.unsw.edu.au/Employ/DMO.htm

■ What’s in a Puff?, Health Canada -

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/tobaccoreduction/publications/public/factsheets/inapuff. html
inapuff.html

■ Social-Marketing.com, Weinreich Communications - http://www.social-marketing.com/whatis.html

Press Releases
■ InfoScavenger Communications, Inc. - http://www.infoscavenger.com/prtips.htm

■ World Health Report 1999 – Press Release - http://www.who.int/whr/1999/en/press_release.htm

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 55

■ The White House – Office of the Press Secretary -

http://www.cdt.org/crypto/CESA/whousepress091699.shtml

Media Events
■ The Sleep Well Homepage - http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/media.html

■ Wordsworth Communications - http://www.wordsworthweb.com/eventsFR.htm

Information Kits
■ Child Alert Foundation (CAF) - http://www.childalert.org/download.htm

■ International Diabetes Institute - http://www.idi.org.au/infokit.htm

■ The New Children’s Hospital – Sydney Westmead Australia -

http://www.nch.edu.au/parents/health/books/bookli10.htm

■ Suicide Information and Education Centre - http://www.siec.ca/resource.html

■ Population Action International - http://www.populationaction.org/forms/ppik.htm

Fact Sheets
■ World Health Organization - http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/pages/facts.html

■ Centres for Disease Control and Prevention - http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/cmprfact.htm

■ Administration on Aging - http://www.aoa.dhhs.gov/factsheets/

■ National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases – National Institutes on Health -

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/aidsfact.htm

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 57

Level 2

Level 2
When Do We Gather Information/Views?
■ The purpose is primarily to listen and gather information
■ Policy decisions are still being shaped and discretion is required
■ There may not be a firm commitment to do anything with the views collected (we advise
participants from the outset of this intention in order to manage expectations)

This section includes:

Level 2 Case Study

■ The Northern Secretariat Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative

Level 2 Techniques
■ Bilateral Meetings with Stakeholders
■ Community or Public Meetings
■ Parliamentary Committees
■ People’s Panel (UK)
■ Polling
■ Public Hearings and Seminars
■ Questionnaires
■ Royal Commissions
■ Surveys
■ Workbooks

References

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 58

The following statistics outline the emergence of dia-

Level 2 Case Study:
betes as an increasingly important issue in Canada:
The Northern Secretariat
Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative ■ 1.2 to 2.2 million Canadians have diabetes
■ about one third of diabetes cases are undiagnosed
Background ■ diabetes contributes to an estimated 25,000
In February 1999, the federal Canadian Diabetes deaths annually
Prevention and Control Strategy was announced in ■ the total economic cost of diabetes is $9 billion
the federal Budget. The central component to this per year.
strategy is the Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative (ADI), High public expectations and strong media coverage
which was developed in consultation with First on the growing problem of diabetes prompted the
Nation, Inuit and Métis peoples across the country. federal government to take visible action.
The ADI focusses on four specific areas:
Who Was Involved?
1. Direct care, treatment, and support programs
The National Steering Committee (NSC), a committee
2. Culturally appropriate education and training in
with First Nation, Inuit and Métis partners, oversaw
diabetes care and prevention
the consultation process. MSB and the governments
3. Health information and surveillance initiatives, to
of Nunavut and the NWT, in partnership with Inuit
ensure Aboriginal needs are met
and First Nation organizations, consulted with health
4. Lifestyle supports to enhance community capacity
organizations, First Nation and Inuit organizations,
to deal with diabetes and its complications in a
NGOs (e.g. NWT Medical Association and the
holistic approach
NWT/Nunavut Health Care Association) and other key
The Medical Services Branch (MSB) of Health Canada is stakeholders.
responsible for the ADI. The following case study
The consultations were focussed on four core
relates directly to the consultations facilitated jointly
questions to guide discussions:
by the Northern Secretariat and the governments of
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories (NWT). It is an 1. Is diabetes among Aboriginal peoples important to
example of how a federal initiative was used to get your organization? Why?
feedback during a pre-budgetary process from a specif-
2. What work (a) have you done in this area? (b) are
ic region on issues related to diabetes in Aboriginal
you planning on doing in this area?
communities and to gain information and insight from
the public on a potential budget-related issue. 3. What roles do you see your organization taking in
the following areas (prevention, education, care
Why Seek Public Involvement? and support, research, and surveillance)?
MSB has a long history of involving First Nation and
Inuit communities. As a result, using a consultation 4. What will your organization offer to the ADI when
approach has become a policy of the branch. MSB is a it is implemented? Identify types of contributions;
highly decentralized, client-oriented organization include linkages, coordination and integration.
which is responsible for several programs, particularly
around providing health services to status Indians Description of the Process
living on-reserve and to Inuit peoples. The ADI Consultation sessions occurred in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet,
emerged out of the fact that diabetes has become a Yellowknife and Cambridge Bay with approximately
large problem in Canada, particularly in Aboriginal 15 to 20 participants per session. Sessions ranged in
communities. length from three hours to three days. People and
communities which were to be involved in the process

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 59

were sent joint letters from the territorial govern- was often sent to the territorial coordinator, who was
ments and MSB, while some stakeholders were then responsible for circulating it to the participants.
contacted directly by a representative of MSB.
Future plans will involve MSB working with territorial
A MSB representative travelled to the respective loca- partners (both government and Aboriginal) on all
tions and provided an overview of the ADI. Citizens budget announcements. The prospect of joint rela-
and key participants who were involved in the consul- tionships was improved because of the positive
tation were selected by the federal and territorial experience in the two territories on this project. These
governments based on their roles in the community consultations demonstrated that MSB has the capa-
and/or their expertise. The majority of the time was bility of continually improving its consultation
devoted to a roundtable discussion which related procedures in order to obtain the best results.
directly to the four core questions.
These consultations also enabled MSB to learn about
The consultations were held jointly by the two diabetes programs currently being undertaken in
territorial governments and MSB. Tripartite sessions various communities.
involving the national Aboriginal organizations were
held in Yellowknife and Cambridge Bay. Analysis
This consultative strategy was deemed effective, as
Resources answers to all questions were obtained, and the joint
The Canadian Diabetes Prevention and Control consultation process generally worked well.
Strategy as a whole received $55 million over three
Factors for Success
years in the February 1999 federal Budget. The specif-
ic amount that will be devoted to the ADI has not yet ■ The media were involved in some of the consulta-
been determined. tion sessions which helped to increase the
exposure of the initiative and raise public
For the consultations within Nunavut and the NWT, awareness of Type II diabetes.
MSB contributed two full-time staff, of which one ■ It was an open and transparent process which was
was committed to travel to the two territories for the tailored to the needs and nature of the specific
consultations. Accommodation, translation and other community.
base costs were also provided by MSB, resulting in a ■ Focussed questions and key strategies were clearly
total operating cost for the consultation of $21,000 identified.
(not including salaries). Other federal departments ■ People were pleased that their opinions were being
and territorial governments sometimes provided sought and considered and that they were included
meeting rooms, while the Aboriginal communities in follow-up documentation.
provided experts, citizens and other notables in the
consultation process. The overall approach to funding Barriers to Success
these consultations was to contain costs in order to ■ No specific funding for the ADI could be disclosed
maximize existing funding. to the communities.
■ The time frame was very tight as the consultations
Summary of the Outcomes had to be completed by May 15, 1999.
The main objective of the consultation process was to ■ Partnership relationships between federal/territorial
answer the core questions and the organisers felt this partners and between the Aboriginal/federal
was accomplished. Answers and discussions were pre- partners were not well defined and consolidated in
sented in a report which was circulated among the advance of planning the sessions. If this process
meeting participants for validation. Instead of MSB were to be done again, more of an effort for joint
sending out the information to each participant, it consultations would have to be made.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 60

■ Often, other federal departments or Health Canada Public Involvement Techniques Used
branches are interested in doing consultations in ■ Community Meetings
the same communities about a wide variety of ■ Focus Groups
issues. As a result, the different sessions often ■ Roundtable Discussions
bring together the same key stakeholders.
Therefore, those considering consultations need to Contact Information
be cautious of “over-consulting” with the same Judith D. Ross
people. This can be avoided by finding out what Senior Program Analyst and Coordinator
other consultations were done and are being con- Northern Secretariat
sidered for the future in a particular community. First Nations and Inuit Health Branch
(613) 957-6579
Policy Implications judith_ross@hc-sc.gc.ca
While public involvement is a standard MSB
approach, the success of ADI in Nunavut and the NWT
reinforces its validity and credibility. The success also
makes this approach a useful model for understanding
the consultation process.

The long-term impact of this model is, however, limit-

ed to some extent. MSB and its partners must wait
for Cabinet approval and funding decisions to be
made before they can report back to the communities.
Despite these obstacles, some programs have already
been initiated in communities building on existing
programs.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 61

involved, and discuss strategies for achieving objec-

Level 2 Technique:
tives. They can serve to provide opinions, interests,
Bilateral Meetings with Stakeholders values and objectives as the precursor to the policy
development process or the implementation phase.
What Is It? Consultations resulting from bilateral meetings are
Bilateral meetings generally comprise one-on-one often used for the establishment and organization of
meetings between two groups that may represent an advisory committee, or steering committee and
organizations, sectors, regions or nations. They can be working groups to represent various interests (e.g.
government-to-government, organization-to-organi- consulting on how best to implement a government
zation or any combination of public/private bodies department’s decision or a policy design process).
organized primarily to listen and gather information. Bilateral meetings with stakeholders could also be
Bilateral meetings with stakeholders involve groups used to fulfil objectives, such as:
with an interest in the proceedings, which may ■ Identifying all the relevant stakeholder groups
include multiple bilateral meetings with various ■ Seeking advice on issues
groups. Consulting stakeholders aid the process of ■ Obtaining feedback on public involvement pro-
identifying and defining the relevant issues and grams, gathering local and community information,
increasing the knowledge base of the process by and advice on options.
involving a number of key people and groups with
multiple skills, broad experience and expertise. Logistics and Limits
■ Control of outcome rests with organizing player
One player, usually the government, assumes the
■ Limited to one-way interchange of two partners
responsibility for initiating bilateral meetings with
other stakeholders to solicit their views and input. Bilateral meetings must be distinguished from the
This, however, means that this player has the primary more participatory method of multi-stakeholder
responsibility to act, devise policy or implement, and consultations which usually include a wider range of
therefore make the final decision. interests and debate on issues. Multi-stakeholder
consultations would represent a higher form of public
How It Works involvement on the continuum and allow for more
Conduct briefings for stakeholders on relevant infor- interaction between stakeholders.
mation well in advance. Bilateral meetings proceed by
setting an agenda in order to inform all participants Cost Implications
of their roles and responsibilities. While policy deci- There could potentially be considerable travel costs
sions may still be open for discussion, there may not associated with bilateral meetings, depending on
be a commitment to follow through with the views where the meetings are situated. The location and
collected. Therefore, the scope and parameters of the venue should reflect the number and type of partici-
meetings should be defined beforehand in order to pants involved and generally would not require
manage expectations. operational costs such as staff and equipment for the
preparation of documents.
When Is It Most Useful?
Bilateral meetings allow the main decision-making
body to ensure that views are represented and under-
stood. Bilateral or multilateral meetings are useful as
a formal process to determine the nature of a prob-
lem, identify common ground among the parties

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 62

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up Potential Pitfalls

Bilateral meetings with stakeholders may be conduct- The possibility exists that the process would not be
ed at various times, such as: inclusive enough, and fail to adequately address the
concerns of various stakeholders. The process may be
■ Problem definition
seen as predetermined and used to achieve political
■ Policy phase
“buy-in” and support rather than to share ideas and
■ Implementation
information.
■ Monitoring phase

There may be a need for further follow-up sessions.

Furthermore, the government or stakeholders may
require feedback on the effectiveness of the meetings,
follow-up materials, and periodic written reports on
the status of the meetings.

Timelines
Bilateral meetings may be used for a distinct phase of
a process or as an ongoing reference base, and there-
fore may occur annually or semi-annually as a formal
consultative process. The actual meeting typically
takes place over a short time frame, depending upon
the number of sessions scheduled. A meeting may be
held anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days
or week depending upon the number and complexity
of issues on the agenda.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 63

■ Choose room set-up and seating arrangements

Level 2 Technique:
carefully; they should reflect the type of meeting,
Community or Public Meetings the size of the group expected, the size and
function of the room.
What Is It?
A community or public meeting is a forum where the
When Is It Most Useful?
Public meetings can be a useful public consultation
consulting team makes a formal presentation to the
vehicle:
public and the public is given the opportunity to
respond with questions, reactions and comments. The ■ as an information-sharing activity
meetings generally take place within the community ■ as a forum
in community centres, churches or schools. ■ to air concerns, to seek views and preferences,

Community and public meetings are extensively used and to present problems needing community
by government officials and agencies to solicit infor- consideration
mation and input on particular issues. ■ for giving all stakeholders an opportunity to hear
from each other first-hand and to seek general
How It Works
agreement on ways of dealing with an issue to
There are several possible formats for public meetings,
convey information directly and personally to a
depending on the issue, the size of the expected
large population.
audience, and the desired and expected level of
interaction with and among participants. Essentially, Logistics and Limits
members of a community are brought together to Community or public meetings must be well focussed
discuss a common concern. Notice of the meeting is and frequent enough for an organization to demon-
imperative and the meetings should take place early strate real credibility. Moreover, meetings must be
in the consultation process to help reassure the public held early in the process to minimize fears that they
that their input is valuable. are perfunctory.

Formats include: Cost Implications

■ Presentation followed by questions and answers Community or public meetings are relatively inexpen-
■ Town-hall meeting sive to hold, especially if the venue is a community
■ Panel/roundtable centre, church or local public school.
■ Large group/small group
Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up
Guidelines for effectiveness: Little formal follow-up through written means is
■ Have an impartial facilitator chair the meeting if generally required for a community or public meeting.
the issue is controversial. However, depending on the issue, the community will
■ Establish an agenda, display it and follow it. likely expect that their concerns will be acted upon
■ Select an appropriate format, according to (e.g. through a change in legislation).
audience factors, including:
■ audience size

■ intensity of public interest

■ familiarity with meeting format

■ your organization’s credibility.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 64

Timelines
A general meeting should not last longer than a cou-
ple of hours. Consider being flexible on the night/day
of the week, as well as the time of day, based on your
target audience. Often, meetings are held on a
weeknight. Depending on the issue, you may consider
holding a series of meetings which target different
audiences, varying the locations and time of day.

Potential Pitfalls
There are real process challenges, including:

■ unpredictable dynamics because little control can

be exercised over participants
■ the potential participation of non-constructive
groups and individuals who monopolize the
meeting
■ a potentially inexperienced public, who may be
afraid to speak in front of large groups and will
not speak out
■ potentially valuable information may not be
transmitted
■ people raise unrelated issues
■ resistance from local community leaders
■ a high risk of failure, as the consulting team has
only one chance to do things right.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 65

required to swear an oath and, in theory, usually have

Level 2 Technique:
no right to refuse to answer a question.
Parliamentary Committees
Government relations specialist David McInnes,
another author in Canadian Parliamentary Review,
What Is It?
sees Parliamentary committees as citizens’ best point
In each session of Parliament, a great deal of discus-
of access to the legislative process. “Parliamentary
sion and debate takes place before standing
committees are also the place where members truly
committees that are established to oversee different
roll up their sleeves to delve into the issues.”
aspects of federal government operations. The House
Although committees “are unmatched in channelling
of Commons and the Senate may also establish spe-
Canadians’ views to government,” he stressed the
cial committees to take an in-depth look at one or
importance of influencing the policy process at the
more specific issues. Committees are often the forum
earliest possible stage through departmental consul-
within the Parliamentary process where issues receive
tations, caucus briefings, and one-on-one meetings
the most in-depth consideration, and where citizens
between stakeholders and MPs.
and other stakeholders have the greatest opportunity
to present specific views and positions. How It Works
As part of their review of proposed legislation, McInnes observed that “witnesses, whether from the
Parliamentary standing committees may invite written private or public sector, can face a daunting task in
briefs or live testimony from members of the public. getting their message across to Parliamentarians and
In some cases, they may travel to different parts of in ensuring that their appearance before a standing
the country to hear first-hand evidence from local committee of the House of Commons or Senate is a
stakeholders. Committee meetings are scheduled very meaningful one.” His last-minute checklist for com-
tightly, to make best use of limited time. mittee witnesses included the following points (please
see the Internet reference at the end of this toolkit
Lawyer Diane Davidson stressed the important powers entry for the rest of the list):
of Parliamentary committees in a recent edition of
Canadian Parliamentary Review. “While Parliamentary ■ Telephone the clerk the day before the appearance
committees are often seen as just another player in to confirm the location and time.
the overall governmental process,” she said, “they are ■ Confirm the time available for opening remarks
an integral part of the House of Commons or the and the length of the question/answer session to
Senate.” They can examine any matter referred to follow.
them by the Senate or the House, and have the right ■ Identify any substitutions on the committee, or
to launch their own study of any matter that falls new witnesses appearing before or after the
within their overall mandate. In both instances, a presentation.
committee has the time and resources to give an ■ Find out whether the hearing will be televised.
issue far greater attention than it would ever receive ■ Plan to leave for the hearing early enough to clear
in Parliamentary debate. security, find the room and get settled.
■ Review the objectives for the presentation and
As long as it is working on a topic within the jurisdic- related key messages. Remember that a public ser-
tion of Parliament and its own terms of reference, a vant’s role is to explain government decisions –
Parliamentary committee has virtually unlimited pow- defending them is up to the Minister responsible.
ers “to compel the attendance of witnesses and to
order the production of documents,” Davidson wrote.
Witnesses can either be invited or compelled to
appear before a Parliamentary committee, may be

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 66

■ Presentations should be rehearsed and timed in When Is It Most Useful?

advance, with colleagues if possible. The speaker Although full public access to committee debates may
should look for feedback on his or her reading and be limited by Parliamentary schedules or other con-
presentation style. straints, timing and procedural rules are even more
■ The presenter should decide in advance how he or restrictive in the Commons and Senate. This means
she will conclude if time runs out and the presen- that committees provide citizens with the best
tation is cut off. opportunity for direct input into the formal but
■ To leave the best impression, remarks should be fundamentally important process by which laws are
presented in English and French. enacted in a Parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary
■ Answers should be scripted in advance for the key committees may also be more likely to receive media
discussion areas that could present the most attention than a less formal, community-driven
difficulty for the presenter. consultative exercise, making them an extremely
■ Presenters should consciously enter the committee important venue for stakeholders seeking a wider
room with a positive, constructive attitude. The public audience for their views.
goal is to help members understand a position, not
Depending on local capacity and inclinations,
to confront them.
Parliamentary committees can serve as a catalyst for
Witnesses may be able to strengthen their presenta- communities to address issues in a less formal,
tions to Parliamentary committees by incorporating potentially more inclusive format.
viewpoints from a large number of citizens or a wider
range of stakeholders. Logistics and Limits
Logistical needs related to the organization of
From a public involvement perspective, a public ser- Parliamentary committees are addressed by commit-
vant can play an important supportive role in helping tee staff assigned to the House of Commons and
stakeholders gain access to Parliamentary committee Senate. For prospective witnesses before a
hearings, and to get the most out of the process. At Parliamentary committee, logistical challenges might
minimum, enquiries should be referred promptly and include the announced deadline for written submis-
efficiently to the clerk responsible for the specific sions, the time limits attached to live testimony, and
committee (up-to-date contact information is avail- the need to travel to the location where a committee
able through the federal government’s online is meeting.
telephone directory). If it appears that several stake-
holder groups will want to take part in the same Cost Implications
process, it may be worthwhile to assemble a standard Costs associated with the committee process are
information package that can be sent out as soon as included in the budget for Parliamentary operations.
a query is received. The package could include the Stakeholders may incur costs associated with
committee’s schedule and mandate, specific rules of research, travel and follow-up contact with commit-
procedure (advance submissions, duration of presen- tee members.
tations, question and discussion format), a contact
name for more current or detailed information, and
reprints of the references listed at the end of this
toolkit entry.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 67

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up Potential Pitfalls

Parliamentary committees generally issue written The formality associated with the committee process
reports after completing their review of specific bills may be intimidating for some potential witnesses.
or issues. Stakeholders might attempt to organize Time constraints may also limit the number of wit-
their own follow-up in the weeks following a written nesses who can be heard, and the sheer volume of
submission or live presentation, by maintaining one- written submissions on a contentious issue may make
on-one contact with committee members and talking it difficult or impossible for even the most dedicated
to neighbours or colleagues about the outcome of the committee members and staff to give due considera-
committee hearing. tion to each viewpoint.

Timelines Because of the wide range of interests that must be

The timing associated with the committee process is reflected and reconciled in Parliamentary decision
ultimately dictated by the four- to five-year life span making, some stakeholders may become disillusioned
of a Parliament. The scheduling of specific legislative if it seems that a committee report has failed to cap-
measures may coincide with major government initia- ture their particular concerns – or if a government
tives, like a budget or a Speech from the Throne. appears unnecessarily slow in responding to a
Governments often attempt to speed up the passage committee report that is seen to have captured
of legislation before the Commons and the Senate rise community concerns.
for the summer, or for major holidays.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 68

The database of individuals is a cost-effective means of

Level 2 Technique:
identifying representative groups and service users. It is
People’s Panel (UK) also large enough to do regional studies, allowing local
research to be undertaken and compared with national
What Is It? norms. It is time saving and more effective as the
The people’s panel was initiated in 1998 by the members of the panel previously agreed to be consulted
Service First Unit of the British Cabinet Office. It was on a regular basis about public service issues.
prompted by government in recognition of the need
to listen to and learn from people’s views over time. When Is It Most Useful?
The unit commissioned a market research company ■ when a large sample audience is needed, for both
and the Birmingham University’s School of Public qualitative and quantitative analysis
Policy to set up the “people’s panel.” The purpose of ■ when two departments are interested in conduct-
the panel is to increase public involvement in govern- ing research at the same time, there will be
ment on a regional and national level, and to assure cost-sharing benefits (e.g. setting up a central
that government is responsive to public needs. This is resource like the people’s panel, it is easier for the
an ongoing mechanism to involve ordinary citizens in sharing of data between departments)
a range of issues. ■ when attempting to determine change in ideas and
opinions over a period of time
The people’s panel: ■ when regional data need to be compared to
■ enables government organizations to assess public national data.
views and how/why they are changing
■ provides an ongoing mechanism and list of Logistics and Limits
representative individuals to which government The people’s panel is a formula to be used on a
can use for any issue at different times national level, rather than for regional or local uses.
■ is an ideal vehicle for examining cross-cutting issues. Initial start-up is both timely and costly.

The people’s panel can be used to research a variety of Cost Implications

issues, such as the impact of government policies on Cost includes construction of a database of represen-
public service, information aspects of public service, and tative individuals, staff and office to run this ongoing
ideas or recommendations about public policy and mechanism. Each government organization would pay
services. This research is then used to inform the public for use of the people’s panel.
service sectors, giving a real voice to the general public
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
in policy making.
There is an expectation that all results from the
How It Works people’s panel should be published for public and
The people’s panel consists of 5,000 adults over the government use and research.
age of 16, randomly selected from across the country.
Timelines
The panel is designed to be a representative cross
It is an ongoing mechanism, with long preparation time
section of the population; by gender, age, background
lines due to the number of people being contacted.
and other demographic factors. This panel then
provides a database of individuals that can be used Potential Pitfalls
for a wide range of research and consultation, both Although a representative cross section of the popula-
quantitative and qualitative. tion, the people’s panel is not meant to represent the
people absolutely; rather, it is set up to inform the gov-
ernment on the ideas and opinions of the people on
public service so that they may better assist the public.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 69

Determining the sample size is dependent on the

Level 2 Technique:
researcher deciding what level of accuracy is expected
Polling and how large the margin of error should be.

In order to determine the sample size for a simple

What Is It?
random sample, the researcher must:
Often referred to as public opinion polling, polling is
used to gauge public attitudes, values and perceptions ■ estimate the standard deviation (variability of the
on various issues. The polling technique utilizes a population)
specific methodology to provide a statistically valid ■ make a judgement about the desired amount
representation of a community, region or country’s of error
views. News stories are inundated with the latest ■ determine a confidence level.
information from polls and they are frequently used
by political parties. In addition, there are many firms When Is It Most Useful?
specializing in polling on various issues. Public opinion polling can be useful for gauging
opinion, obtaining raw data and options from
How It Works stakeholder or client groups, and for determining the
Trained interviewers ask a random selection of the public’s level of understanding on certain issues.
population a list of pretested questions. There are Decision makers can use polls to solicit positions,
three main options when conducting a poll: in person refine solutions and secure “buy-in.”
at home, by telephone or by mail. Mail surveys can
Advantages
provide an excellent source of information, yet can be
■ The main strengths of a poll is its highly
a timely process which means the results cannot be
representative nature.
accessed and processed as quickly as a telephone sur-
■ Using scientifically developed techniques,
vey. Furthermore, mail surveys are more susceptible
samples from polls generate an accurate match
than telephone surveys to low response rates. Polls
of the population.
are often conducted in call centres using Computer
■ Polls allow issue specificity with immediate
Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) because it
feedback.
reduces the chance for coding errors.
■ Polls can be done on a continuous basis, which

Random samples are often obtained by professional allows the current state of opinion to be tracked.
polling firms through Random Digit Dialing (RDD), a
Logistics and Limits
process that employs computer technology to gener-
■ Polls measure an immediate response to a
ate phone numbers from a database. Polls are
question, thereby granting little opportunity for
statistically valid when they have a low margin of
informed opinions or discussion of issues.
error and a high confidence level. The lower the mar-
■ Polling information is meaningless if it is not
gin of error, the more accurately the views of those
statistically valid.
surveyed match those of the entire population. This is
■ Polls offer no closure and no certainty of decisions
usually measured using a 95% confidence level. The
linked to input.
confidence level, in percentage terms, is the long-run
■ Polls often use closed-ended questions, making
probability that the results will be correct. For exam-
respondents choose between predetermined
ple, if 50% of a sample of 1,000 randomly selected
answers.
Canadians said they favour gun control, in 95 cases
out of 100, 50% of the entire Canadian population
would also have granted the same response had they
been asked, give or take three percentage points
(the true proportion could be 47% or 53%).

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 70

Cost Implications Timelines

The cost of polling and the tabulation of results is CATI-based telephone surveys grant quick information
generally high. There will also be a variation of cost in terms of gathering data, although additional tasks
between different methods of polling information. include interpretation of the results. Polls offer timely
For example: results, yet external events can have a dramatic
■ Polls conducted by telephone surveys are more
impact on polling results. Thus, interpretation of a poll
expensive than mail questionnaires. should depend on when it was conducted relative to
■ Another factor is the sample size of the poll; the
other relevant events. The size of the sample can also
larger the sample size, the higher the cost. lengthen or shorten the process.
■ Polling firms will phone participants or comput-
Potential Pitfalls
er-generated lists can be purchased from
Polls are susceptible to the problems of other research
companies.
methods, such as improper terminology, question
■ Costs will also vary by the interpretation of
phrasing and ordering, which can create biased
results.
results. The margin of sampling error (the amount of
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up error the researcher is willing to accept) can be
■ Interpretation of the data is required as a follow- another source of inaccuracy. Other potential problem
up activity. areas include inadequate interview training and
■ Summaries of the results and communication lines supervision and data-processing errors. These errors,
should be established in anticipation of feedback however, are less likely when a professional polling
from media and other stakeholders. firm is used.
■ Generally, there is no direct feedback to partici-
pants (e.g. reports).

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 71

■ relatively open-ended consultative meetings or

Level 2 Technique:
public inquiries, exemplified in the 1970s by the
Public Hearings and Seminars Berger Commission on the Mackenzie Valley
Pipeline. A more recent example is the Royal
What Is It? Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, where an
A public hearing or seminar is a time-limited meeting, independent panel sought a wide range of stake-
convened to gather community input or convey infor- holder views with the intention that those views
mation on a specific topic. Each year, the Canadian would be incorporated into a major set of recom-
public is invited to take part in hearings and seminars mendations on policy or resource allocation.
on a wide range of issues – from routine meetings
dealing with licence renewals or bylaw amendments,
How It Works
A public hearing panel can consist of elected officials,
to high-profile (and high-pressure) consultative ses-
policymakers, subject specialists, members of the
sions dealing with the most controversial questions
public, or any or all of the above. Panelists may be
facing society.
appointed by an elected body or nominated by stake-
The focus of a public hearing or seminar can be nar- holders. The group’s mandate may be limited to one
row or broad, purely technical or largely philosophical. specific issue or might extend over a series of unrelat-
Discussion can be oriented primarily toward experts or ed hearings within a fixed period of time.
can incorporate a wider range of stakeholder interests
The composition of a panel should reflect the mix of
and types of knowledge. Depending on the issue, the
partners involved in a decision, the range of expertise
context and the time available, a public hearing
required to reach a thoughtful conclusion, and any
process can involve a single event or several dozen
representational issues related to geography, sectoral
separate meetings in one or many communities. The
interests or conflicting viewpoints. If at all possible,
events can be structured as formal or semi-formal
both the composition and the mandate of a public
hearings, where individuals and organizations make
hearing panel should be determined with advance
presentations to a panel and then engage in discus-
input from key stakeholders – otherwise, special
sion with panelists, or as roundtable discussions. The
efforts may be needed to build trust in the process
Berger Commission is seen as a template for public
and its final outcome. The choice between a hearing
hearings at their most ambitious, broadly based, and
or roundtable format – or the most appropriate mix of
successful. However, one recent Internet posting
formats – may be determined by legislation, but
describes a two-year process in Sauk County,
should otherwise be decided according to the scope
Wisconsin, in which more than 70 public meetings
and objectives of a specific panel process.
were held to gather public input on a county
development plan. Once a panel has been established and an issue has
been identified, the hearing or seminar is publicized
The overall category of public hearings and seminars
through the most appropriate combination of general,
includes:
neighbourhood and specialist media. Prior to a hear-
■ regulatory and legislative reviews ing, it is important to identify any reference materials
■ licensing and licence renewal hearings that are available to participants in advance. Specify
■ local bylaw or zoning reviews whether the panel will accept written submissions or
■ single or multiple meetings, designed to inform public presentations, indicate the time limits that will
stakeholders about new policies and/or seek public be applied to presentations or discussion from the
input as part of the decision-making process floor, and allow enough advance time for prospective
participants to hear about the event, register and
prepare their statements. For a seminar, advance

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 72

publicity should include information on the intended audiences, special efforts may be required to reach
agenda, including presentation topics, names and stakeholder groups that are sometimes less visible in
qualifications of speakers and panelists, and time consultative processes, such as recent immigrants,
available for questions and discussion. If a topic is people with low literacy skills or lower-income house-
expected to be controversial, organizers should be holds. It is best to start early and make contact with
particularly clear about the rules of procedure for the community associations, service agencies or other
session, including start and end times, time allocation, organizations with the required grassroot networks.
and follow-up or feedback opportunities for anyone
whose views have not been fully aired by the time the Cost Implications
event concludes. Standard costs for public hearings include advance
publicity, space rental, refreshments for participants
When Is It Most Useful? and panelists, travel costs for panelists attending
A relatively linear style of public hearing is built into hearings outside their home communities, and per
many regulatory and licensing processes, to ensure diems for panelists and staff.
stakeholder compliance with legal requirements or
For some types of hearings on some topics, it may be
community expectations. More open-ended, iterative
necessary to fund communities to conduct research
processes can provide valuable insight to help guide
and prepare their presentations to ensure full,
the development of new policies, programs or proce-
meaningful stakeholder participation.
dures, or to determine an overall direction or
philosophy on an emerging issue. Public hearings can Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
also be organized in two or more stages, to allow Stakeholders who participate in public hearings con-
interested parties to comment on the panel’s initial tribute significant time and effort to the process, and
findings or on the tangible results flowing from an almost invariably expect tangible feedback in return.
initial round of discussion. Different stakeholders may be satisfied with different
Public-hearing panels can gradually develop a broader types of outcomes, depending on the level of contro-
view of the themes and principles that underlie a par- versy and polarization associated with an issue and on
ticular issue or controversy. This is especially the case if the opening positions that they bring to the table.
given the opportunity to visit several communities and While some participants in a public hearing may
get a sense of the common concerns that emerge. simply be satisfied with the knowledge that their
Using some of the specific techniques in this toolkit, views were heard and incorporated within a consen-
such as televoting, it is also possible to design a sus decision, others will be angry and disillusioned
public-hearing process that builds consensus or com- unless a public hearing process leads to a specific
mon ground on an issue, by helping stakeholders move result. Either way, all participants should receive a
beyond the initial positions that they bring to the table. print or electronic copy of the written report flowing
from the hearing. Periodic updates may be useful, if
Logistics and Limits they are feasible, as a means of measuring the
The time period between the initial announcement ultimate impact of the exercise.
and the actual hearing must be sufficient to allow
stakeholders to find out about the process, consult Timelines
with colleagues or constituents, and develop a posi- The time frame for a single public hearing can range
tion paper or verbal presentation. Ideally, the advance from a couple of hours to two or three days. A broad-
publicity period should be no less than three to six er public-hearing process, including adequate
weeks – longer for more technical topics, or during preparation time, can run anywhere from six to eight
the summer months. Depending on topic and target weeks to two years or more.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 73

Potential Pitfalls
The key challenge in any public-hearing process is to
ensure that most if not all participants can see an
acceptable progression from their own viewpoints to
the eventual decision. If participants believe that their
input has been ignored or trivialized, they will end up
feeling betrayed by the process and cynical about the
organization that hosted it. They will also be far less
likely to participate in future consultative exercises.

In one Ontario community, a recent series of public

hearings brought together a group of 200 volunteers
who contributed more than 10,000 hours of research,
negotiation and meeting time over a three- or four-
month period. In the end, the volunteers were virtually
unanimous that their findings had no impact on the
host organization’s decisions. Understandably, relatively
few of them will be back for a second round.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 74

quick to answer and easy to analyse, yet may

Level 2 Technique:
introduce bias by making respondents choose
Questionnaires (also see “Surveys”) from a set of predetermined options.

■ Contingency questions: This is a type of closed-

What Is It?
ended question that applies only to a subgroup
Questionnaires are a method of data collection using
of respondents. The subgroup is decided by the
a sample of people and are generally used to gather
answer of all respondents to a preceding filter
information on the telephone, face to face, or by self-
question, which will either include or exclude
administered means through the mail. The ultimate
them from the subgroup. They are useful
utility of a questionnaire will depend in part on
because it may be necessary to include some
proper problem definition and clear objectives.
questions that may be applicable only to some
How It Works respondents.
Questionnaire Construction
3. Format: There are many techniques for structuring
The questionnaire must translate the research objec- the response categories of closed-ended
tives into the specific questions and convince the questions.
respondent to provide the information. The major ■ Rating scales capture the intensity of the

considerations involved in formulating questions are respondent for a set of ordered categories, such
their content, structure, format and sequence. as “strongly agree,” “favourable” or “very often.”
Depending on the degree of sophistication being ■ Semantic differential is a rating scale that meas-

sought, an expert may be best able to design the ures reactions to objects or ideas in terms of a
questionnaire. bipolar scale defined with contrasting adjectives
on each end, such as (Good 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Bad)
1. Content: Most questions can be classified into ■ Ranking is used to gain information regarding
either factual questions or questions about the degree of importance or the priorities that
subjective experiences. people attach to attitudes and objects. It helps
■ Factual: Designed to gather information from a to grant relative order, but does not give any
respondent’s background and his or her habits information about the distance between the
■ Subjective: Inquires about the respondent’s ranked numbers.
beliefs, attitudes, feelings and opinions 4. Question sequence: The two most common ques-
2. Structure: There are three main types of question tion sequences are the funnel sequence and the
structures; open-ended, closed-ended and inverted funnel sequence.
■ Funnel sequence: Each question is related to the
contingency questions.
■ Open-ended questions: There are no choices
previous question which has a gradually nar-
offered, and the respondent’s answers are rower scope. This sequence is useful when the
recorded. The advantage of open-ended ques- survey’s objective is to gather detailed informa-
tions is that respondents are not forced into tion. When the survey is more exploratory in
abiding by categorized answers, yet they can be nature, the funnel sequence works effectively to
difficult to answer and may be hard to analyse. ask the broad questions first.
■ Inverted funnel sequence: In this sequence,
■ Closed-ended questions: Respondents are asked
to choose, among a set of answers, the one that narrower questions are followed by more general
most closely represents their views. They are ones. This method is used when a researcher
wants to make a generalization regarding a spe-
cific situation and if the researcher is unfamiliar
with the facts but the respondents know them.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 75

When Is It Most Useful? Timelines

The questionnaire can be useful as a means of gather- In terms of the speed of data collection, telephone
ing information to measure attitudes and obtain interviews are the quickest, followed by personal
opinions. As a general rule, questionnaires should not interviews and mail surveys. The researcher essentially
exceed six pages in length due to respondents’ time has no control over the return of the self-adminis-
constraints. tered mail survey.

Logistics and Limits Potential Pitfalls

■ If a questionnaire has a low response rate, its reli- ■ It is important that the question is worded so the
ability will depend upon verifying that the respondent understands it.
non-respondents are similar to the respondents. ■ Vary the question or issue format to avoid the
■ Questionnaire format: Proper investment in format tendency for some respondents to answer all
and typography will likely result in a higher questions in a specific direction regardless of
response rate. their content.
■ Covering letter: Identify the sponsor of the study, ■ Avoid questions that the respondent interprets as
explain its purpose, tell the respondents why they leading to a specific answer. An example of a lead-
should fill out the questionnaire, how they were ing question is: “You would not say that you were
selected, and ensure the study’s confidentiality. in favour of capital punishment, would you?”
■ The lack of a self-addressed, prepaid envelope will ■ Try to minimize threatening questions that the
reduce the response rate. respondent may find embarrassing and difficult
■ A follow-up phone call (call back) for those to answer.
unavailable the first time may be necessary to ■ Avoid double-barrelled questions; those that
raise telephone interview response rates. combine two or more questions in one.
■ An expert is likely required to conduct question-
Cost Implications naires that use sophisticated methods.
Mail questionnaires are low in cost relative to person-
al interviews or telephone surveys, yet they are not
inexpensive, since additional mailings may be
required.

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up

■ For mail questionnaires, a letter reminder request-
ing that the respondent return the questionnaire is
almost always necessary to raise the response rate.
■ A follow-up questionnaire may also be required.
■ Incentives may have to be offered and may depend
on the length of the questionnaire.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 76

The following organizational considerations also apply:

Level 2 Technique:
Royal Commissions ■ The mandate and actual question under examina-
tion need to be specific, although the mandate
should be broad enough to catch all client con-
What Is It?
cerns. The actual questions should be specifïc and
Royal commissions, or commissions of inquiry, are
narrow in scope to prevent problems of interpreta-
appointed by Cabinet under the terms of the Inquiries
tion throughout the life of the royal commission.
Act in order to carry out full and impartial investiga-
■ Establish the commission in two phases:
tions of specific national problems. The terms of
a. initial consultation to determine the commis-
reference for the commission and the powers and the
sion’s scope, mandate and procedures
names of the commissioners are officially stated by an
b. formal plan addressing
Order-in-Council. When the investigation is complete,
■ participants
the findings of the commission are reported to
■ timing and procedures
Cabinet and the Prime Minister for appropriate action.
■ budget

Commissions are often referred to by the name of the ■ administrative control

chairperson or commissioner(s). For example, the ■ deliverables, such as reports, research papers,

Royal Commission on National Development in the press releases

Arts, Letters and Sciences is commonly known as the ■ communication needs - information/education

Massey Commission (chaired by Vincent Massey from ■ relationships - public, media, decision makers

1949–1950).
3. Monitor the process and adjust as you go along.
How It Works Exert quality and process control throughout.
A royal commission is usually initiated by the federal
When Is It Most Useful?
government to address specific concerns or questions,
A royal commission is a useful public consultation
but generally has powers under the Inquiries Act. A
vehicle:
commission has an official mandate and objectives
and has a separate budget and administrative process. ■ for an issue of fundamental importance, such as a
Questions are usually determined by the commission, major policy or legislation
although often in conjunction with initial public con- ■ when there is a high level of dissatisfaction and
sultations. Commissions often employ several public little agreement around an issue
involvement techniques and the expertise of lawyers ■ when trust of government officials is lacking
throughout their mandate in order to solicit more ■ when there is strong ministerial and departmental
information from the public. Public involvement tech- support for change
niques can include witnesses, paper submissions and ■ when the value conflict underlying an issue
interviews. Commissions are independently run by appears incapable of resolution
appointed commissioners and are expected to have a ■ because its work is independent of politicians
report or recommendations for reform to be reported and bureaucrats
to Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Although not a ■ because its outcome is generally taken seriously by
process which necessarily uses public involvement the public; this raises the stakes for departments,
techniques, a royal commission can provide the forum politicians and participants alike
for discussions and input from stakeholders. ■ because it creates expectations; this often con-
tributes to better-quality information and analysis

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 77

■ because it provides an opportunity for considerable Cost Implications

interest group input; as a result, if consensus does The cost of a specific commission depends heavily on
occur, it will be strong. the length and scope of the issue.

Logistics and Limits Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up

Among the key lessons learned about running an A public report and recommendations to the govern-
organization capable of supporting the work of a ing body are the results of a royal commission.
royal commission, in particular establishing and coor-
dinating the work of the staff, are the following: Timelines
Many of the royal commissions are ongoing.
1. Clarify the roles of the chair and the executive Commissions which dissolve generally last from one
director, then respect the roles without exception. year to a decade. The length of time that a commis-
2. Decide early whether the situation calls for a sion is formed depends largely on the longevity of the
large, expanding organization or a small, flexible issue being addressed.
one; then manage the choice strictly.
3. Hire only people who really want to be there. Potential Pitfalls
4. Make internal communications and decision Major challenges include the following:
making easy and quick.
■ understanding the roles of the commission,
5. Make the physical premises conducive to getting
commissioners, chair, staff and others involved
the work done.
■ planning the work – deciding what needs to be
6. Pay attention to detail.
done and how best to do it
7. Every quarter, think about when the next major
■ managing and adapting the work
shift of phases will occur, and begin planning for
■ deciding what to recommend
the organizational implications.
■ writing and publishing reports
8. Manage and provide information consistently and
■ facilitating group effectiveness
address problems quickly.
■ beware of being taken over by legalities
9. Do not underestimate the time, skill, effort and
■ avoid providing a showcase for inappropriate
resources required to publish major reports.
individual conduct
10. Announce organizational changes early and
directly.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 78

Special considerations must be made for people who

Level 2 Technique:
will answer questions on their own.
Surveys (also see “Questionnaires”)
■ Respondents must be literate in the language and
terminology used in the study.
What Is It?
■ Researchers must ensure that the terminology used
A survey is a method of primary data collection based
in the questions is appropriate.
on communication with a representative sample of
■ Ambiguities and misunderstandings should be
individuals. Surveys are usually descriptive in nature,
expected when designing questions.
yet can also be used to provide casual explanations or
explore ideas. A survey can be conducted using differ- Advantages
ent information-gathering techniques such as mailout ■ Reduction in the error that may result from
questionnaires, in-person interviews and telephone variability of interviewer’s skills
surveys. There is also an increasing use of technology- ■ Greater anonymity
driven fax, email and Internet-based surveys. ■ Mail questionnaires necessary when questions
Determining which method is best to use depends demand a considered rather than an immediate
partly on factors such as: response
■ Accessible coverage of geographic area at
■ The study’s purpose
minimal cost.
■ The topic
■ The target population’s characteristics Disadvantages
■ The importance of avoiding the use of volunteers ■ Requires simple questions in the absence of an
for the survey interviewer
■ The researcher’s resources ■ Provides no opportunity for probing, if mailout
type
When Is It Most Useful? ■ No control over who fills out the questionnaire
Surveys can fulfil a number of objectives such as iden-
■ Generally elicits a low response rate (between
tifying a group’s characteristics, measuring attitudes
20% and 40% (without follow-up).
and describing behavioural patterns. The advantages of
conducting mailout questionnaires, in-person inter- Interviews
views and telephone surveys are that they are: Face-to-face contact will most often provide higher
response rates, and the opportunity to clarify ambigu-
■ Accurate
ities or misunderstandings and to monitor the
■ Inexpensive
conditions for completing the questionnaire. In-
■ Efficient
person questionnaires and interviews share some
■ Quick
advantages and disadvantages because they are both
Logistics and Limits interactive and both rely on self-reported answers.
Comparing the three survey methods Advantages
■ Versatility and the opportunity to hear feedback
Mailout Questionnaires
from a respondent
Mail questionnaires are quite structured and the
■ Opportunity to follow up or probe complex
questions should mean the same thing to every
answers
respondent; thus, questions and instructions must be
easy to read and straightforward.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 79

■ Interviews more conducive to lengthy Mail questionnaires

questionnaires Inexpensive:
■ Personal interviews increase chance of completed ■ Cost of stationery
questionnaires. ■ Stamps
■ Follow-ups
Disadvantages
■ Respondents not anonymous, therefore there Telephone Interviews
may be reluctance to provide confidential More expensive:
information ■ Expensive and efficient technological advances
■ Bias due to different interviewer capabilities when the timing of data collection is not a
■ Characteristics of interviewer influence responses. factor

Telephone Interviews Personal Interviews

The telephone interview, often called the telephone Relatively expensive:
survey, can be described as a semi-personal method of ■ Travel cost of interviewers

gathering information. Telephone interviews used to

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
be viewed with skepticism because of the high likeli-
Regarding mail questionnaires, follow-up letters may
hood of a sampling bias by over-representing the
be necessary for reminding respondents to return their
population who could afford telephones. It is now a
questionnaires. Furthermore, to increase the rate of
respected research method and may actually increase
survey returns, reference can be made in the covering
the quality of the data because the telephone inter-
letter regarding how the results of the survey will be
view can be supervised.
sent to all respondents. As well, it can be advanta-
Advantages geous to make results available upon request.
■ Convenient, quick and cost-effective with the
■ Results of the survey have to be interpreted and
advent of technology
this is often contracted out to a research company
■ Often receives a higher response rate than
which can provide experience and credibility.
door-to-door interviews because people may
■ A final report and summaries of the results and
not want to open their doors to strangers
interpretations are almost always prepared.
■ Increased accuracy because interviewers are
■ Communication lines can be established for
monitored.
media and other stakeholders.
Disadvantages
■ Non-response (respondents hanging up before
Timelines
completing the questionnaire) ■ Personal interviews provide fast access to data.
■ Uneasiness about divulging certain information
■ Mail questionnaires take the longest time to
over the phone gather information.
■ Limited duration of interview necessary to pre-
■ All methods require careful consideration of the
vent uncompleted interviews. questionnaire’s design.
■ Time is also required to input/code the information.
Cost Implications
Personal interviews are usually more expensive than Potential Pitfalls
both telephone interviews and mail questionnaires. Special care must be made to avoid general
Pretesting the questionnaire to a small sample helps disadvantages of survey errors, such as:
to identify errors before they become costly to
change. Additional cost considerations include:

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 80

Random sampling errors

■ The difference between the result of a sample and

the result of a census of the entire population
conducted using identical procedures

Systematic errors

■ Sample bias: when the sample is not representative

of the population
■ Non-response error: caused by people who are
sampled but do not respond and by those who may
differ from the respondents in a significant way
■ Mistakes in recording responses.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 81

A solid distribution plan is essential to the success of

Level 2 Technique: any workbook. If comments are required from a spe-
Workbooks cific target audience, it may be necessary to buy
and/or assemble an up-to-date mailing list – and to
What Is It? follow up by telephone with at least a selection of
A workbook is a publication, produced in print, elec- respondents. This task may be particularly important
tronic form, or both, that provides contextual and time consuming if a workbook is expected to
information and invites users to suggest solutions to a generate quantitative results. Mailing lists are avail-
set of problems or challenges. Workbooks can also be able from commercial brokers, but the costs may be
used to impart skills related to public involvement (or significant, and even the most current lists contain a
any other body of knowledge). Depending on the proportion of inaccurate addresses by the time they
issues to be addressed and the scope and depth of are published. At the other end of the continuum, it
input required, a workbook can be distributed as a may be possible simply to distribute workbooks as
stand-alone public involvement tool, or as one part of unaddressed mail within a specific geographic area, or
a larger consultative or deliberative exercise. to leave bulk copies at key gathering places in partici-
pating communities. In one recent consultative
How It Works exercise, for example, Agriculture Canada found it
The publication is produced by an agency or panel useful to drop boxes of workbooks at rural postal
responsible for a specific issue, and distributed to any stations. The department was also able to control
stakeholders whose awareness, support or participa- printing and distribution costs by suggesting that
tion will be required to address the issue. It should respondents get together in small groups, at commu-
include any background data or information that nity centres or farms, to complete the workbook
readers/users will need to give an informed opinion. together. If a workbook is the first step in a face-to-
Detailed references should be summarized in plain face process, participants’ responses can be collected
language, so that there is no requirement to search a when they arrive for the live session.
library or the Internet for supplementary content.
Readers may be invited to fill out and return a ques- A clear, step-by-step plan for compiling workbook
tionnaire or reply form within a specified time period, responses should be put in place before the final draft
or to take part in a face-to-face deliberative process of the publication is completed. A particular process
after completing the workbook. may require results that are quantitative, qualitative,
or a combination of both – but the choice may also
A workbook can be developed by public servants be dictated by logistics. Quantitative replies to ques-
responsible for a particular issue or consultative exer- tions that require a yes-no answer, or a response on a
cise, with or without the help of outside writers, scale of one to five, are easier to compile, but a
researchers or public participation specialists. From a quantitative format may dictate a more aggressive,
public involvement standpoint, it may be extremely costly and time-consuming distribution plan if the
useful to involve key stakeholder groups in planning workbook is intended to capture a representative
the workbook and approving its final content and lay- sample of the target audience. Qualitative responses
out – both to build trust and buy-in, and to ensure to open-ended questions will be more difficult to
that the publication is suitable for the intended target compile, but may provide greater insight into respon-
audience(s). The package should be focus-tested dents’ underlying needs, concerns and motivations.
before it is released, to ensure that it is useful and
understandable for all target audiences.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 82

Workbooks can also be produced in electronic form Cost Implications

and distributed via the Internet, as long as a print Beyond the development of workbook content, cost
edition is readily available to respondents with limited elements include printing and mailing for printed
online access. Project scheduling should allow publications, long distance charges for toll-free tele-
sufficient time to publicize an online workbook. phone lines and faxback services, and programming
costs for online forms.
When Is It Most Useful?
A workbook can be distributed as a stand-alone Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
resource or used in the context of a facilitated If a workbook is one part of a larger deliberative
process. It can be designed to: process, participants’ responses can be captured in the
final report of that exercise. If a workbook is used as a
■ express a sponsoring agency’s mandate,
stand-alone tool, all respondents should receive a print
commitment or goals
or electronic copy of the final, tabulated results. Either
■ state a problem or challenge, particularly if way, replies received by mail should be acknowledged
different aspects of the issue require careful by return post card as quickly as possible. It may be
consideration or specific knowledge desirable or necessary to verify the summary report
with participants before it is released, and to consider
■ pose a series of questions, as a means of gathering including their comments as an appendix.
community feedback on priorities or strategies,
generating a sense of common cause among Timelines
citizens and stakeholders, or both The time frame for developing and generating feed-
back from a workbook depends on the complexity of
■ foster discussion and community interaction
the content and the time available for the overall
■ establish a database of community opinions or process.
needs (the database can be segmented by age,
gender, income level, geography or other factors, if
Potential Pitfalls
A workbook may generate unanticipated responses
appropriate demographic questions are included in
from citizens or stakeholders if it is distributed far
the questionnaire)
and wide as a stand-alone resource. This may or may
■ create or maintain momentum around a not be a welcome result, depending on the purpose
deliberative process or an event and design of the overall discussion process.

■ assemble and disseminate the latest knowledge or

experience and encourage self-directed learning on
a specific topic.

Logistics and Limits

A sustained effort may be required to ensure effective
distribution of a workbook, particularly if existing
contact lists are old or incomplete, or if the
publication is intended to generate a statistically
valid response.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 83

Level 2 References

Bilateral Meeting with Stakeholders

■ The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, NRTEE Sustainable Cities Initiative: Final
Report and Recommendations. 1999 -
http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/sustainable_cities/report_complete.htm
■ Metropolis Canadian Site. Meetings with Federal Partners (20 July 1998. Vol. 1 No. 4)
http://canada.metropolis.net/generalinfo/newsflash/newsflash4_e.html
■ Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Appendices A–H. Guide to a Comprehensive Study for Proponents
and Responsible Authorities - http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/comps/appendices_e.htm
■ Transport Canada, Surface Transportation Policy, Grain Handling and Transportation -
http://www.tc.gc.ca/railpolicy/kroeger/english/sh/stakeholders.htm
■ Embassy of Mexico in Canada: Bilateral Relations -
http://www.embamexcan.com/decl+ap_english.html

Community or Public Meetings

■ Canadian Centre for Management Development. Public Consultation Guide, Changing the Relationship
Between Government and Canadians. May 1997.
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development - http://ccmd- ccg.gc.ca/mainpage.html
■ PEI Literacy Alliance Homepage. MEETINGS: A Guide to Holding a Meeting -
http://www.nald.ca/PROVINCE/PEI/LITALL/holdmeet/meetcov.htm
■ U.S. Department of Transportation -
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/pubmeet.htm

Parliamentary Committees
■ General descriptions of Parliamentary process - http://www.parl.gc.ca
■ The Powers of Parliamentary Committees,
by Diane Davidson - http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/articles/david_e.htm
■ Testifying Before Parliamentary Committees, David McInnes -
http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/articles/McInn_e.htm
■ Public hearings process for committees of Quebec National Assembly -
http://www.assnat.qc.ca/eng/publications/participation/consulta.html

People’s Panel (UK)

■ UK Cabinet Office, Service First Unit - http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/index/pphome.htm

Polling
■ Canadian Petroleum Industry. Planning, Implementing Evaluating. Public Consultation Guidelines for the
Canadian Petroleum Industry. 1989.
■ Canadian Policy Research Networks. Draft #2 Public Dialogue: A Manual for Federal Departments and
Agencies. 18 November 1999.
■ Canada West Foundation. Meaningful Consultation: A Contradiction in Terms? Enhancing Public Consultation in
the 21st Century. September 1997. ISBN #1- 895992-50-8.
■ Opinion Search Inc. website (Quantitative Research and Qualitative Research) -
http://www.opinionsearch.com

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 84

■ Public Agenda Online. The Journalist’s Inside Source for Public Opinion and Policy Analysis -
http://www.publicagenda.org/aboutpubopinion/aboutpubop.htm

Public Hearings and Seminars

■ National Energy Board - http://www.oipcbc.org/investigations/site_visits/oipcbc_visits.html
■ City of Vancouver - http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/publichearing_whathappens.htm

Questionnaires
■ Berg, Bruce. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Allyn & Bacon, 1995.
■ Nachmias, Chava and Nachmias, David. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. St. Martin’s Press, 1992.
■ Zikmund, William G. Business Research Methods. Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.

Royal Commissions
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development. Public Consultation Guide, Changing the Relationship
Between Government and Canadians. May 1997 - http://ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/mainpage.html
■ Index of Federal Royal Commissions - http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifrc/about_e.htm
■ List of Federal Royal Commissions -
English - http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifrc/icrc_idx.htm#names
French - http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifrc/icrc_idx.htm#fnames

Surveys
■ Berg, Bruce. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Allyn & Bacon, 1995.
■ McMillan, Bill and Murgatroyd, Stephen. Opening the Door: Improving Decisions Through Public Consultations.
Edmonton, Equus Consulting Group Inc., 1994.
■ Nachmias, Chava and Nachmias, David. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. St. Martin’s Press, 1992.
■ Zikmund, William G. Business Research Methods. Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.

Workbooks
■ Rural Dialogue Workbook, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - http://www.rural.gc.ca/workbook_e.html
(1.4-MB PDF file)
■ CAP Workbooks & Handbooks, Industry Canada - http://cap.unb.ca/workbook/
■ Community Toolbox, University of Kansas - http://ctb.lsi.ukans.edu/ctb
■ Self-Help Resources for Community Groups, Iowa State University Extension to Communities -
http://www.extension.iastate/edu/Pages/communities/tools/resources.html

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 85

Level 3

Level 3
When Do We Discuss or Involve?
■ We need two-way information exchange
■ Individuals and groups have an interest in the issue and will likely be affected by the
outcome
■ There is an opportunity to influence the final outcome
■ We wish to encourage discussion among and with stakeholders
■ Input may shape policy directions/program delivery

This section includes:

Level 3 Case Study

■ Direct to Consumer Advertising

Level 3 Techniques
■ Advisory Committee, Board or Council
■ An Introduction: Computer-Assisted Participation I
■ Computer-Assisted Participation II: Interactive World Wide Web/Electronic Conferencing
■ Computer-Assisted Participation III: Online Discussion Groups and List Servers
■ Computer-Assisted Participation IV: Televoting
■ Issue Conferences
■ Nominal Group Process
■ Workshops

References

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 86

As prescription drugs are available only through the

Level 3 Case Study:
intervention of at least two health professionals, the
Direct to Consumer Advertising physician and pharmacist, some parties may argue
that the current health care system has enough
Background checks and balances to ensure consumer health and
Therapeutic Products Programme (TPP), within the safety. Thus, it is argued that the current provisions
Health Protection Branch (HPB), began a public limit free commercial speech. Some stakeholders have
consultation process in order to develop a renewed even called for a challenge of the law under the
regulatory program governing the advertising of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If such a
prescription drugs. The overall purpose of the consul- challenge succeeded, the current regulation would be
tation process is that it address the concerns of struck down, allowing unlimited DTCA in Canada
stakeholders and acknowledge present realities, while without any health and safety review of materials
continuing to meet health and safety objectives. There being possible.
are many conflicting views on the Direct to Consumer
Why Seek Public Involvement?
Advertising (DTCA) subject among stakeholders. Some
Increasingly, consumers are being encouraged to
would like to see no restrictions on DTCA while some
engage in shared decision making. Also, consumers
would like a complete ban of DTCA – few are satisfied
are asking for a say in policy decisions that affect
with the current situation.
them. They are becoming partners with health care
Presently, DTCA of prescription drugs to the general practitioners in making treatment choices and con-
public is limited under the Food and Drugs Act and sumers are seeking objective information about
Regulations. The Act includes an outright prohibition prescription drugs. In addition, there is a trend toward
on the advertising of any drug to the general public self-care. Some good sources of drug information
as a treatment, preventative or cure of any diseases, have been developed but these are not readily
disorders or abnormal physical states, listed in accessible or even known to all consumers.
Schedule A to the Act (section 3). Schedule A includes
The TPP Policy Development guide iterates that for
such diseases as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
significant and/or complex policy questions, consulta-
The Act also prohibits the sale or advertising of any
tions are appropriate during as many as three stages:
drug in a manner that is likely to mislead or deceive
on the issue analysis (definition of problem or issue),
the public (section 9).
on the alternative solutions generated, and on the
The Regulations limit advertising of prescription drugs ranking and selecting of the solutions. Due to the
to the name, price and quantity of a drug. DTCA of scope and complexity of the DTCA issue and the
non-prescription drugs is allowed, and is regulated impact it has on all Canadians, the TPP chose a
under the Food and Drugs Act and administered by process which included public involvement at each of
Advertising Standards Canada (ASC). As well, the these phases in the policy development process.
Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB)
administers advertising of prescription drugs to practi- Who Was Involved?
tioners, which is allowed. The TPP retains authority for The TPP worked internally with the Continuous
enforcement and compliance in relation to drug adver- Assessment Division of the Bureau of Drug Surveillance,
tising, and provides advice and guidance relating to the Bureau of Veterinarian Drugs, the Health Systems
advertising as required to the PAAB and ASC. At this Policy Divisions of PCB, and Legal Services, Health
time, no single source of comprehensive, balanced drug Canada. In addition, there was communication/coordi-
information for consumers exists in Canada. nation with the Health Protection Branch Transition
team and the TPP’s Working Group on Advertising.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 87

Public consultations included key stakeholders from 2. Generation of Solutions

various sectors; provinces, government, academia,
In fall 1998, the next phase of the consultative
health practitioners, pharmaceutical industry, con-
process began when the TPP brought together a small
sumer advocacy groups, media, advertisers and
group of stakeholders to look at the DTCA issue in
non-governmental associations.
order to generate a spectrum of available policy
Description of the Process options and to assist the TPP in the design of the next
The DTCA public involvement initiative has four multi-stakeholder consultation workshop to be held in
distinct phases: April 1999.

1. Initial Policy Analysis 3. Assessment of Alternatives

The first phase, which took place from June 1996 until In phase three, a small number of options were
July 1998, included internal and external consultations assessed by estimating the pros and cons associated
to evaluate the issues and aimed at forming consensus with each alternative. This was done through a broad
around the goals and objectives regarding the external consultation. The consultation session on
dissemination of information on prescription drugs. DTCA, hosted by the TPP, took place April 14–16,
1999. The views, concerns and comments of stake-
The TPP initiated the regulatory review process of holders with respect to the options developed during
DTCA with a multi-stakeholder consultation workshop the second stage for a revised regulatory framework
that was held in June 1996. Attendees at that session for DTCA of prescription drugs. An “As Said” report
included representatives from the provinces, academe, was produced in June 1999, and posted on the TPP
health practitioners, pharmaceutical industry, con- website in August. All guidance documents and policy
sumer advocacy groups and the media. The task for directives pertaining to drug advertising are also post-
participants in this workshop was to provide their ed on the TPP website: this promotes transparency
advice and opinions on the objectives for DTCA regu- and enhances understanding of the federal govern-
lations. The objectives reached through this public ment’s role with respect to drug advertising.
involvement initiative were to develop a regulatory
framework that addresses key principles in relation to 4. Final Decision and Implementation
DTCA, including:
Analysis of the consultation materials will be under-
■ ensuring consumer safety taken in the hope of developing long-term policy
■ ensuring that consumers have information to assist propositions, and eventually to initiate a policy imple-
them in making informed choices mentation plan. A small set of options will be put
■ respecting the roles of health care practitioners forward for further analysis. One preferred option was
■ respecting health care cost concerns determined unavailable during phase three due to the
■ providing a “made in Canada” approach that is breadth of opinion of participants. These options must
enforceable as well as consistent with the Charter. be endorsed by TPP management and then further
consultation on the subject can take place, coordinat-
In response to the outcomes from the multi-stake- ed with HPB Transition’s Legislative Renewal. After
holder workshop, the provinces requested an these broader discussions take place, a preferred
opportunity to study DTCA from their perspective. option will be selected and draft regulations, guide-
Bilateral consultations with the provinces and lines, codes of conduct, etc. will be produced. All of
territories took place in 1997–98. They reiterated this will then be the subject of another round of
their preference for a continued ban on DTCA for consultations. Only then can a final decision be made
prescription drugs. and departmental approval requested.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 88

Resources and information dissemination for prescription phar-

Expenditures on the consultative processes used by maceuticals. To date, the consultative process has
the TPP over the past three years have totalled helped TPP determine what options were available,
approximately $50,000. For information on other and has helped to TPP come to a better understanding
expenditures, contact Ross Duncan. of the opinions of the stakeholders on DTCA, in order
to assist in the decision-making process.
Summary of the Outcomes
As of the middle of August, the DTCA initiative is con- Factors for Success
cluding phase three of the process. The April 1999 The consultation informed stakeholders of regulatory
consultation session on DTCA of prescription drugs issues and concerns. The process led to a better
investigated a number of options. However, given the understanding among the stakeholders of the
lack of data and breadth of opinion regarding DTCA of perspectives and problems of each group that
prescription drugs, no preferred option was agreed participated. Most importantly, it enabled the stake-
upon. The options which were reviewed during the holders to understand all of the issues faced by
workshop included: the regulator.

■ Current Model (see Background section above) There is ongoing coordination of research into the
■ DTCA by any party allowed for a subset of prescrip- health and safety effects of DTCA within the TPP itself
tion drug products, those with an acceptable and with other parts of Health Canada, as well as
post-market safety profile, and under defined cir- with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
cumstances (adherence to codes of practices that
relate to form and content) Barriers to Success
■ DTCA by any party allowed for all prescription The breadth of opinion was very great. There were
drugs under defined circumstances, such as adher- areas where divergent opinions were evident among
ence to codes of practices for form and content the group. Some parties believed that prescription
■ Other models put together by participants drug advertising, if regulated effectively, can be a
■ Eliminate name, price and quantity exemption in good means of disseminating high-quality information
the Regulation. Allow no DTCA of prescription to consumers, patients and the general public. Other
drugs. Achieve information through a national drug parties felt that the fundamental nature and goals of
information system. advertising make it an inappropriate mechanism for
■ Phased approach – Move from the status quo to the dissemination of high-quality information to con-
option two and eventually option three. Test sumers, patients and the general public.
results as you proceed and tailor the next phase of The selection process for participants at the TPP
implementation to findings. workshops relied to a certain degree on the interest of
stakeholders in the issue and the knowledge of TPP
Analysis
staff as to parties that would clearly add to the quali-
This consultative process was effective in informing
ty of the debate. In order to fully capture the opinions
and educating key stakeholders about the role of the
of the broadest possible range of affected parties,
TPP with regard to DTCA: its responsibilities; its work-
however, a more thorough participant selection
ing relationships with others; the current state of
process might have proven useful.
research on the health and safety effects of DTCA (via a
literature review); and potential options. This process
greatly enhanced a multi-sectoral dialogue on this
health protection issue. It stimulated thinking and col-
laboration on key issues and approaches to advertising

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 89

The lack of evidence that DTCA would result in bene- Public Involvement Techniques Used
fits which outweigh the cost implications, and the ■ Workshops
absence of data which show that DTCA has a positive ■ Web-based documentation and communication
or at least a neutral impact on utilization/health and ■ Coordination of research efforts between levels of
safety, made it difficult for the groups to come to an government (federal/provincial)
informed, collective decision on the DTCA issue.
Contact information
Policy Implications Ross Duncan
This type of consultative process may be transferable Policy Analyst
to guide policy decisions on other health-related Therapeutic Products Directorate, Policy Division
issues. The process can lead to better understanding Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
and communication of the concerns and problems of (613) 941-6226
stakeholders and government. Ross_Duncan@hc-sc.gc.ca

The long-term impact in this case, however, cannot be

discerned at this time due to the lack of data on the
health impact caused by DTCA of prescription drugs.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 90

■ Clarify the committee’s role in decision making.

Level 3 Technique:
■ Provide ample time for members to maintain
Advisory Committee, Board or Council communication with their constituencies to ensure
they adequately represent the view of their
What Is It? organizations.
An advisory committee, board or council consists of a ■ Establish procedures, decision-making processes,
group of representatives from a particular community attendance requirements (alternates), and
or set of interests, appointed or selected by govern- guidelines for the participation of observers or
ment bodies to provide comments and advice on an alternates, confidentiality and reimbursement
issue. Generally, this technique is used at the local or of expenses.
regional level, but can also be used to address nation-
When Is It Most Useful?
al issues. Often, this technique is used to gather input
Advisory committees, boards or councils are used to:
on a particular set of policies or legislation requiring
reform. The committee is also asked to provide ■ consult the public on the planning and implemen-
recommendations to the governing body on potential tation of a project or policy
reform. ■ develop consensus for action on complex issues
that have a broad impact on the community
How It Works
■ facilitate frequent contact between the community
An advisory committee is asked to host and partici-
and the consulting agency or the agency sponsor-
pate in public meetings and conferences. Also, it is
ing the consultation
expected to provide a sounding board to adequately
■ encourage the sharing of information and the
reflect public opinion and to organize and coordinate
negotiating of strategies and solutions
the involvement and input of a wide range of people.
■ provide two-way communication with a number of
Providing advice and input into the development of
interested parties
projects, policy and/or legislation are also functions of
■ gain expertise and input from a number of
an advisory committee. An advisory committee helps
interested groups
to establish priorities, develop alternatives and select
■ review technical data or other material, and make
consultants. Also, all written material should be
recommendations regarding proposals, decision-
reviewed before being released to the public.
making processes and budgets
Selection of participants can be carried out by: ■ assist in educating the public
■ resolve conflict between groups.
■ the consulting agency
■ groups asked by the consulting agency to select a Logistics and Limits
representative A committee’s mandate, terms of reference, duration
■ a third impartial party and the frequency and locations of meetings should
■ a call for volunteers from one or all of the above be specified and limited to the scope of the task.
■ Appointment by advisory committees/boards/ Furthermore, the actual ability of the committee to
councils’ influence change needs to be committed to from the
The selection of participants should represent a cross beginning. The work of the advisory committee will
section of interests. lose credibility if there is little support for implement-
ing or influencing the recommended reforms.
Guidelines for effectiveness:

■ Ensure that the full range of interests and values is

represented by the committee.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 91

Cost Implications Timelines

Ensure a commitment of adequate professional staff, Often, the advisory committee members are appointed
taking into account the amount of time needed to to terms of one to two years, although shorter terms
arrange meetings, write minutes and follow-up could be adequate, depending on the particular issue
reports, and tend to administrative details and other or reform.
practical concerns.
Potential Pitfalls
Expectations for Feedback or Follow-up If the advisory committee is not open enough, or does
All activities undertaken by the advisory committee not offer activities which include the public, it will
should be open and available to the public. Therefore, lose credibility. Also, if the governing body is split
all reports and meetings should include public about implementing the recommendations offered by
involvement at all stages, including review and feed- the advisory committee, the inability to complete its
back. There needs to be commitment for follow-up on mandate will also harm the committee’s credibility.
the part of the governing body which appointed the
committee in the first place.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 92

At least one U.S. clearinghouse on electronic democ-

Level 3 Technique:
racy rates computer-assisted participation techniques
An Introduction: on a three-point scale, representing a continuum from
Computer-Assisted Participation I citizen input to more or less binding decision-making
authority.
What Is It?
How It Works
Computer-assisted participation refers to a category
The step-by-step practicalities of computer-assisted
of structures and strategies, in which email and
participation may vary from one technique to the
Internet-based communication are used to enhance
next. For the most part, computer-assisted participa-
public involvement in decision making. A number of
tion exercises use email, websites or telephone
specific computer-assisted participation techniques
hook-ups with computer-assisted voting to involve a
are presented in this toolkit.
wider group of citizens in deliberative processes.
Relatively early in the development of Internet com- Questions and background information may be dis-
munications, one leading observer gave the following tributed in advance in electronic form or broadcast
overview of the unique potential of this grouping of via local television. At some point, participants gener-
public engagement resources: ally have the opportunity to express a viewpoint or
cast a vote on the issue under discussion, so that
Interactive communications supports all forms
their input is incorporated in the broader decision-
of dynamic communications – one-on-one,
making process.
small group, mass broadcasting and a wholly
new form of many-to-many interactive mass Here are just a few examples of computer-assisted
communications. One of its most powerful participation in action:
characteristics is that it can enrich communi-
■ In Honolulu in 1987, citizens participating by tele-
cation by combining all other forms of
phone played a decisive role in shaping the
communication – text, audio, graphics and
outcome of an electronic public hearing on a pro-
video – in a single message. It does so without
posed public works project. Live testimony
regard to the distance or time differences
demonstrated a dramatic difference in opinion
between people, since it can store and hold
between the 100 participants in the city council
messages until the receiver chooses to view
amphitheatre and the estimated 10,000 home
and respond to them. It offers powerful and
viewers who tuned in for at least part of the hear-
timely access to information and knowledge,
ing. Nearly 7,500 citizens voted on the initiative by
which opens up a vast array of opportunities.
dialing one of two phone numbers attached to a
The most important aspect of interactive com- computerized voting system. City councillors
munications is that it inspires engaged defeated the proposal by a three to one margin.
participants rather than passive listeners or ■ One online networking initiative generated broad
viewers [emphasis added]. Its unique potential public participation as a result of extensive cover-
is that it empowers every participant to be a age in local media, and is now using a combination
publisher or producer of information as well as of email and media announcements to involve citi-
a consumer. Experience with the Internet, zens in a series of moderated online conferences
commercial services like America Online, elec- on specific issues.
tronic bulletin board systems, and local ■ A number of non-profit organizations and commu-
networks indicate that this is what people nity coalitions in the United States have organized
want most, by a large margin.1 electronic town hall meetings to broaden public

1 Morino Institute, The Promise and Challenge of a New Communications Age, 1995.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 93

participation in governance and civic networking. When Is It Most Useful?

Published summaries of specific projects stress the Computer-assisted participation is a valuable tool for
value of using the latest computer technologies to reaching out to public audiences, fostering interaction
reinvigorate local communities, support and among citizens on specific issues, and ensuring that
strengthen community leadership, and bring people public views and concerns are captured in policy
together to discuss and solve neighbourhood prob- decisions.
lems. One initiative, based on a networking system
developed by the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Logistics and Limits
Institute of Technology, is designed to “support Successful use of specific techniques may hinge on
activities taking place in real proximal communities access to technology and technological expertise, and
as opposed to virtual communities.” With terminals on an ability to distribute background materials to a
in homes, community centres, health centres, large participant group in advance of a consultative
schools and religious institutions, the system shows or deliberative exercise. To some extent, it may be
“how local neighbourhood infrastructure can be possible to bridge this gap using the community
advanced by information technologies.” access terminals funded by two Industry Canada pro-
■ Advocates and practitioners of computer-assisted grams, Canada’s SchoolNet and the Community
participation generally give less credence to struc- Access Program. However, depending on the breadth
tures designed to disseminate content or foster and diversity of a target audience, it may be necessary
informal communication, with no mechanism to combine computer-assisted participation with
empowering communities, informing the policy other public involvement techniques that rely on
process or ensuring that community voices are printed materials and face-to-face interaction.
heard and heeded.
Cost Implications
■ Internet-based communications can also be used
Cost items associated with different computer-assisted
to foster offline communications. In Los Angeles,
participation techniques may include technology and
like-minded participants use an electronic bulletin
related support, space rental and local logistics for any
board to organize face-to-face “salons” and dis-
live meetings associated with the process, and prepara-
cussion groups on specific issues. And in one
tion and distribution of background documents.
experiment in North London, 23 households on a
single street used state-of-the-art PCS and Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
modems supplied by a major software manufactur- Like other public engagement techniques, computer-
er to form a “virtual neighbourhood” – much to assisted participation creates the expectation that
the resentment of the 67 other households that citizens’ views and concerns will be reflected in public
were left out of the project. policy decisions. Although the available literature
makes no reference to specific follow-up measures,
Please turn to the toolkit entries on interactive World
participants in a computer-assisted participation
Wide Web/electronic conferencing, online discussion
exercise would likely appreciate periodic updates, in
groups and list servers and televoting for more
print or electronic form.
detailed information on specific aspects of computer-
assisted participation.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 94

Timelines Electronic communication can be an extremely

No time frame is specified in the available literature, effective mechanism for sustaining a debate or a
but the planning period for a computer-assisted par- deliberative process that is already under way, but
ticipation exercise should be sufficient to allow for may not be the best means of launching the discus-
public notice, preparation and distribution of any sion or setting its initial parameters. For issues that
advance documentation, and acquisition and testing are complex, painful or value-laden, computer-assist-
of technology. The length of the actual discussion ed participation may not be an adequate substitute
process could range from several hours, for a public for live discussion groups, though they may help
meeting transmitted by cable television, to one or prepare the ground for a live session or extend the
more weeks, for a moderated discussion group. discussion beyond a single day. With controversial
topics, an online moderator can play a crucial role in
Potential Pitfalls keeping discussion on track, without unduly impeding
By definition, as noted above, most forms of comput- the free flow of ideas.
er-assisted participation exclude community members
with limited access to computers, email and the Computer-assisted participation can be quite time
Internet, or who are not comfortable expressing consuming for anyone involved in moderating an
themselves in an online environment. Although use of ongoing discussion – and therefore quite expensive,
the Internet has been growing explosively, and demo- unless the moderator is a volunteer. As noted else-
graphic limitations are not as clear cut as they once where in this toolkit, the legal implications of
were, online audiences still tend to be disproportion- allowing some types of information to be posted have
ately male, white and wealthier than non-users. not yet been clarified by the courts – but attempts to
World-wide, Internet use is still centred primarily in control or censor the free flow of electronic informa-
the wealthiest countries, and English remains the tion can generate ferocious opposition and sustained
dominant language. mistrust.

Communities that experiment with computer-assisted

participation may also encounter institutional resist-
ance – while the Honolulu electronic public hearing
was deemed a huge success from a public participa-
tion standpoint, the local council never repeated the
experience.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 95

■ Interactive learning tools, including affordable

Level 3 Technique:
distance education programs and personalized or
Computer-Assisted Participation II: informal learning packages
Interactive World Wide Web/Electronic ■ Educational games, usually requiring participants
Conferencing
to gather knowledge or information in order to
complete a challenge or quest
What Is It? ■ Community maps, virtual tours and online trade
The World Wide Web is a major component of the shows, in which participants visit a website that
Internet, originally designed to foster global interac- may combine photography, graphic art, audio,
tion and shared knowledge. video clips or three-dimensional settings to
represent a real-life location or event.
The range of interactive applications on the World
■ A diverse and rapidly expanding network of web-
Wide Web and the Internet is limited only by citizens’
sites, bibliographies, digital libraries, indexing tools,
ability to define their communication and information
online newsletters and electronic magazines
needs, and by the creativity with which those needs
(e-zines), and news summaries, many of which
are met. A specific interactive tool can be designed to
provide valuable, reliable information at no cost to
serve a geographic community, or a virtual community
anyone with access to the Internet.
defined by a common issue or area of concern.

Websites and other interactive tools can be used to How It Works

disseminate information rapidly, collect responses The first step in using World Wide Web or electronic
within hours or days, and mobilize large numbers of conferencing techniques is to become familiar with
citizens around common concerns – particularly if the the technology, how it works and how it is currently
individuals involved have already expressed interest in used. To get started, you’ll need an email account
the issue or in a related topic. This quick response can with Internet access – depending on your organiza-
be extremely helpful in laying the foundation for a tion, you can make arrangements either through your
more formal deliberative process, such as a citizens’ in-house system administrator or contact a private
panel or a deliberative voting exercise. Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Electronic communication tools can also be used to Libraries, bookstores and the Internet itself are full of
educate members of geographic or virtual communities cutting-edge resources on electronic conferencing
on specific issues, when a public involvement process that will be out of date three to six months after you
allows time to develop an online presence, publicize it obtain them. Anyone contemplating a public involve-
extensively using a variety of targeted media (both ment exercise that includes an online component
electronic and conventional), and gradually build up a should consider the following steps:
large group of repeat visitors. Websites can also include ■ Arrange online access, if you haven’t already done so.
opportunities for visitors to sign up for online discus- ■ Briefly scan a current guide to online resources to
sion groups or list servers, which enable them to ensure that you understand the basic process of
receive information more frequently and play a more logging on and navigating the Internet.
active role in framing or exploring an issue. ■ Visit at least a selection of the public involvement
Specific World Wide Web and electronic conferencing websites listed in this toolkit to get a hands-on
tools include: snapshot of what other practitioners are doing to
build electronic components into their community
■ Online conferences, discussion groups and list strategies.
servers, allowing neighbourhoods and communities
of interest to share information and resources

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 96

■ Define the online presence and techniques that collection, analysis and synthesis of that information
make the most sense for the specific process that – and a reasonable budget for any paid staff time
you are undertaking, bearing in mind the geo- that may be required.
graphic scope and duration of the exercise, the
technical proficiency and online access of the tar- Cost Implications
get audience(s) and any partners in the process, The cost of interactive media depends on the com-
and the likely role of interactive media alongside plexity of each specific tool, and on the amount and
more traditional public involvement techniques. quality of individualized design required to develop it.

For specialized services, such as computer-assisted Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up

voting linked to a website, you will likely have to call The opportunity to interact directly with other stake-
upon outside resources. For somewhat less complex holders and with decision makers encourages many
tasks, such as designing a website with a limited participants, especially those who are most active in a
degree of audience interaction, you will likely be able deliberative process, to expect regular written updates
to arrange in-house or in-kind support. You may find and tangible outcomes as a result of their involvement.
that learning to do the work yourself is easier and
Timelines
faster than you think.
The shelf life of an interactive tool depends on the
When Is It Most Useful? public involvement process of which it is a part, and
Interactive media allow facilitators and participants to on the frequency with which it is updated. If a web-
share information, quickly and effectively, without the site is out of date, and there is no opportunity to revise
controls or delays traditionally imposed by gatekeep- it, it is far better to remove it from the Internet than to
ers or intermediaries. Participants in a deliberative give the impression that an ongoing initiative is frozen
process can take part in an ongoing discussion at in time. A website can be updated or deleted by
their own convenience, rather than agreeing to meet obtaining the appropriate password from an in-house
for a limited time at a specific location. Interactive system administrator or private Internet Service
media can be used to generate broader interest in a Provider (ISP).
topic, since a single message can conceivably reach
Potential Pitfalls
thousands of readers in a matter of hours.
As noted elsewhere in this toolkit, the effectiveness of
The anonymity of online fora can disguise or reduce any online participation tool is limited by participants’
the immediacy of surface differences that often hin- access to and comfort with email and the Internet,
der live communication, such as social position, and by their literacy skills. As well, the anonymity
physical impairment, gender or ethnocultural origin. associated with online communication can encourage
distribution of false, misleading or malicious content.
Logistics and Limits The immediate, dispersed character of Internet com-
The logistics behind technically simple interactive munication requires users to develop more cautious
techniques are straightforward for anyone with access habits – a message posted in a moment of anger or
to email and/or the Internet. Programming expertise is confusion might be distributed (and redistributed)
required for educational games and other tools that across the country or around the world, with serious
involve specialized scripts and minute-to-minute repercussions for the individual, his or her organiza-
feedback. Any public involvement plan that relies on tion, and the overall process within which the
the collection or dissemination of electronic informa- discussion takes place. Finally, online resources can be
tion must allow sufficient time for thoughtful difficult to find and almost impossible to prioritize
without at least minimal search skills and experience.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 97

become familiar with the technology, how it works

Level 3 Technique:
and how it is currently used. To begin, you will need
Computer-Assisted Participation III: an email account with Internet access – depending on
Online Discussion Groups your organization, you can make arrangements either
and List Servers
through your in-house system administrator or con-
tact a private ISP.
What Is It?
Online discussions groups, including list servers (list- Most printed and online resources on the Internet and
servs), are among the many public engagement tools electronic communication include sections on email, and
that build on the interactive character of the Internet. may provide detailed information on list servers. Anyone
They consist of a series of email messages or postings interested in building email into a public involvement
on one or more topics, allowing participants to exercise should consider the following steps:
explore issues in a relatively open-ended format. ■ Arrange online access, if you have not already
Most discussion groups are organized in one done so.
of two ways: ■ Briefly scan a current guide to online resources to
ensure that you understand the basic uses of email
■ In an informal discussion group, participants simply
and list servers.
exchange email addresses in order to share informa-
■ Visit a selection of email lists, whether or not they
tion on a topic of mutual interest or concern.
relate to your specific area of interest, to see how
Communication is completely decentralized, in the
they work (http://www.onelist.com is a good place
sense that any participant can initiate or contribute
to start).
to a topic of discussion thread. In practice, one or a
■ Decide on the specific role that an email list or list
small number of participants may emerge as leaders
server can play in your overall process, bearing in
within the discussion group or as moderators seek-
mind the geographic scope and duration of the
ing to engage other participants.
exercise, the literacy skills, technical proficiency
■ A list server uses a standard software package to
and online access of the target audience(s) and
establish a central clearinghouse for information
any partners in the process, and the likely role of
and discussion on a specific topic or set of topics.
interactive media alongside more traditional public
Regular participants and guests can add their com-
involvement techniques.
ments or open new discussion threads by visiting a
specific Internet site. An informal email list requires a good deal of time
and patience, but relatively little in the way of techni-
In an unmoderated newsgroup, messages are posted
cal skills or resources, on the part of the
as they are produced. In a moderated group, a desig-
administrator. Software packages are available to sup-
nated individual reviews all messages before they are
port more formal list servers. Either way, though, a
posted, and may block some messages according to a
considerable time commitment is required to keep a
previously established standard based on relevance
list current, filter out inappropriate or overly provoca-
and etiquette. The moderator might be a paid staff
tive messages (in the case of a moderated list), and
member or a volunteer, but should generally be able
help individual users with specific technical questions
to demonstrate a degree of independence and balance
or problems.
in relation to the discussion topic.

How It Works
As noted above, in the toolkit entry on World Wide
Web and electronic conferencing techniques, the first
step in using email as a public involvement tool is to

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 98

When Is It Most Useful? To some extent, the legal boundaries for email lists
Online discussion groups can be an extremely valuable and list servers have yet to be fully defined. For exam-
mechanism for: ple, it may be prudent to filter out any messages from
participants that appear to offer qualified medical
■ Disseminating information very quickly to a
advice on a specific topic. At the same time, most
pre-established group of interested parties
moderators learn to tread lightly into the realm of
■ Generating a rapid response from an established
perceived or actual censorship of content. But
online community in relation to a specific issue,
unmoderated newsgroups lack a degree of protection
announcement or decision
against inappropriate content that could limit their
■ Sustaining or expanding the interest behind a
credibility or lead to legal action.
broader public engagement process, usually after
the initial momentum has been established using Cost Implications
more intensive, face-to-face methods. Except for the time required, participation in an
online discussion group is free for anyone with prior
It can be extremely useful to provide periodic sum-
access to email and/or the Internet. The software
maries of the comments generated by online discussion
required to host a list server is often free or available
groups. The summaries can be produced by the moder-
at a nominal cost.
ator, although it is often worthwhile to call in an
outside resource person with the time and distance to Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
give participants and/or outside observers a stream- Within an online discussion, the fastest feedback is
lined, thematic snapshot of the discussion as it is literally immediate. More broadly, participants in a
unfolding. This strategy is particularly useful as a discussion group can be expected to watch closely to
means of keeping discussion active and lively, while ensure that their views and concerns are reflected in
engaging participants in the process of synthesizing the public engagement process or policy decision in
their own input to a broader deliberative process. A which they have been involved.
series of summaries can also foster communication
across language groups – if a discussion is conducted Timelines
in both French and English, for example, unilingual par- Online discussions often lose momentum over a peri-
ticipants can update themselves on issues raised within od of weeks or months, unless there is some shared
the other language group by reviewing the summary. interest or focus that keeps a core group of partici-
pants together.
Logistics and Limits
The logistics behind online discussion groups are quite
straightforward for anyone with access to email
and/or the Internet.

While online discussion groups are open to anyone

who wishes to participate in good faith, the reverse is
also true – discussion threads can rapidly lose
momentum and wither away, and lists can lose their
vibrancy and relevance if a large proportion of users
lose interest or have limited time to participate.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 99

Potential Pitfalls Deliberative processes based on email and/or the

Full, timely participation in an active online discussion Internet exclude citizens with limited or no access to
group can take as much as an hour or two per day – the required technology, or who lack the computer
sometimes to the surprise and dismay of participants. experience or literacy skills to participate fully and
Serving as moderator or facilitator for an email list or comfortably in an online discussion.
list server can be at least as time consuming. This can
raise an issue of sustainability for many participants –
leading to the possibility that issues will be evaluated
or positions decided only by those who have the most
time to contribute.

Online discussions can also evolve into peripheral cor-

respondence of little or no relevance to the original
topic. While moderators generally allow considerable
latitude in this area, intervention is sometimes
necessary to maintain the relevance and focus of the
discussion group and to control the number of
messages that participants must review in the limited
time available to them.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 100

“unsign” petitions or change their votes as new

Level 3 Technique:
information emerged. A list of voters and their votes
Computer-Assisted Participation IV: was available to the public at all times, just as a
Televoting show of hands would be visible at a live town
hall meeting.
What Is It?
Televoting refers to a variety of mechanisms that How It Works
allow citizens to cast ballots on specific issues or The first step in launching a televoting initiative is to
questions – from home or from work, by electronic or contact local telephone companies and/or Internet
regular mail or by telephone, from public polling service providers to determine the technical con-
places, or even from abroad. straints and costs that would apply. If the basic
approach is feasible and cost-effective, it is important
Some observers see this form of “touch-tone democ- to decide on the role of televoting in a broader public
racy” as a public opinion research technique that engagement initiative; the specific question(s) which
allows for more in-depth, considered thought and will be put to a vote; the educational, deliberative and
deliberation than a regular telephone survey or focus consultative steps that will lead up to the vote; the
group. Elsewhere, televoting is described as a broader, duration of the vote (hours, days or weeks); and the
more radical application of the electronic voting extent to which public deliberative processes can or
machines that are already used in general elections in should be broadcast to home voters via community
some jurisdictions. cable or radio, or by other means. The ultimate ques-
Consistent with the wide variety of approaches that tion, based on past experience with televoting, is
fall under this heading, the literature describes some whether the partners in a public involvement exercise
televoting measures that would be binding on are prepared to be bound by the results of a televote
legislators, and others that would not. or if not, how they propose to present the exercise in
a way that will be meaningful and acceptable to
■ In 1992, the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia became public participants.
the first political party in the history of representa-
tive democracy to select a leader by telephone When Is It Most Useful?
vote. For a small fee, all dues-paying members Although “televoting” describes a number of distinct
could receive a Personal Identification Number to public involvement techniques, its advocates and
vote from home after watching the convention on practitioners generally present it as an opportunity to:
television, or attend the event live and vote at a
■ build closer contact between citizens and their
phone bank onsite. Although the Maritime
elected representatives
Telephone & Telegraph computer crashed on the
■ promote citizen awareness and interaction around
first attempt, the process was considered a success
complex policy issues
on the second attempt, a couple of weeks later.
■ establish a practical basis for direct democracy, by
■ In Palo Alto, California, a citizens’ group organized a
promoting and measuring the development of
discuss-and-vote website to measure public opinion
informed, deliberated public opinion.
on a controversial development plan proposed by a
local university. The polling process was built into an One recent publication suggests that the principles of
ongoing discussion, in which participants could probability and quantum physics can contribute to the
development of successful televoting initiatives.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 101

Logistics and Limits Timelines

Logistical implications vary across the different The Nova Scotia Liberal Party convention took place
televoting techniques and depend in large part on the within the standard time frame for similar events and
geographic scope and duration of the exercise. The the Oregon primary was held within a 20-day span.
degree of rigour required by stakeholders and the Other initiatives, such as the Palo Alto discuss-and-
general public will likely hinge on the levels of con- vote website, appear to allow longer periods for
troversy and complexity associated with the issue, and exploration and deliberation.
on the extent to which a televote is binding. In gener-
al, logistical concerns fall into two categories – the Potential Pitfalls
actual deliberative process (space rental, advance To the extent that televoting promises a representa-
printing and publicity, travel and accommodation for tive sample of informed public opinion, its
out-of-town witnesses, on-site refreshments) and the effectiveness can be limited by:
technology, which will almost certainly be supplied ■ participants’ access to and comfort with email and
and organized by the local telephone company or the Internet;
some other qualified contractor. ■ participants’ access to a telephone and their
comfort interacting with telephone pollsters
Cost Implications
■ participants’ literacy skills, unless issues and
Televoting is believed to be less expensive than con-
questions are posed in a manner that accommo-
ventional ballot initiatives, but costs vary according to
dates the widest possible range of languages and
the design of each exercise. Cost elements include
reading levels.
standard aspects of the live event (space rental, print-
ed materials, travel and accommodation for Although the Nova Scotia experience was considered a
out-of-town speakers, facilitator’s fee). Set-up and success, it showed that time-sensitive events can be
connection charges for the electronic aspects of the vulnerable to equipment malfunctions. In Denmark, an
event should be estimated in advance by the local electronic voting initiative generated strong opposition
telephone company or other supplier. from some elected officials, who raised the possibility
of voter fraud or untimely computer crashes.
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
Sustained, informed public participation is a stated
goal for televoting advocates. With this in mind, a
follow-up plan should be built into any televoting ini-
tiative and should be articulated to participants at the
earliest opportunity. At a minimum, the plan should
include written reports back to direct participants;
ideally, results can be reported to the general public
through community newspaper columns, householders
or advertising.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 102

Logistics and Limits

Level 3 Technique:
It is important to be clear on what the appropriate
Issue Conferences definition of “expert” is, given the topic area, and to
ensure that experts represent a cross section of
What Is It? viewpoints at the table.
An issue conference is a formal meeting taking place
over one or more days. It is convened to review issues
Cost Implications
As participants will be brought in from various parts
related to a decision area and is a means to elicit and
of the country, travel and accommodation expenses
summarize formal analysis of research on the topic.
can be high. However, the remainder of the costs will
Issue conferences are primarily mechanisms to involve
be affordable, as they are limited to the cost of the
experts in the analysis process.
meeting room, flipcharts and fees for the recorder.
How It Works
About 10 to 20 participants are selected based on
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
Participants will expect feedback from the host
their broad knowledge of the topic and usually for
organization about how their input was applied in the
their specialty knowledge in a particular content area
decision-making process.
of the topic. As a group, the participants will repre-
sent a variety of approaches and points of view. Timelines
The conference follows a formal agenda based on key Provide participants with at least two to four months’
themes related to the decision area. It is usually facili- notice as you are dealing with experts who have
tated by a chair who has been appointed by the numerous demands on their time.
organizers. The facilitator will possess subject matter
Potential Pitfalls
expertise and should be skilled in handling group
By focussing on “experts,” you are excluding the
processes. A formal note taker will transcribe the pro-
“ordinary” public. It is important to publicly convey
ceedings. The facilitator proceeds theme by theme and
the message that specialist views are being sought at
elicits input for and against the wisdom of applying dif-
an appropriate point in the decision-making process,
ferent aspects of the research to the decision area.
and that these views will not preclude other consulta-
Essentially, open discussion then takes place on each
tive processes involving the public at large.
theme.

The output will be majority and minority opinions, and

both will be conveyed to decision makers with their
supporting rationales. A written summary of the pro-
ceedings with a section on key recommendations for
each theme area will be produced after the conference.

When Is It Most Useful

Issue conferences are valuable early in the decision-
making process where officials are seeking access to
“best opinions” on the relative merits of the research
available on the topic area.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 103

■ Reassessing the ideas, based on group discussion of

Level 3 Technique:
why the ideas were graded as they were, after
Nominal Group Process which the group selects its top five priorities using
a similar point-rating system
What Is It? ■ Measuring of revised judgements, in which points
A nominal group process is a structured group inter- are tallied and the final, prioritized list is recorded.
action technique designed to generate a prioritized This mechanism provides closure for the entire
list of high-quality ideas within two hours or less. process.
Contact between participants is restricted to specific
A wide variety of participants can be invited to take
steps in the process, so that individuals have suffi-
part in a nominal group process, although the small
cient opportunity to come up with their own ideas.
numbers involved usually mean restricting groups to
The process makes it possible to assess individual
local participants. All ideas belong to the individuals
participants’ knowledge of an issue, monitor the
who put them forward and are given equal opportuni-
similarity of ideas coming from different participants
ty to be critiqued. While the process is designed
and encourage innovation.
primarily for information sharing, it can also be used
How It Works to gather background data in support of an action
A nominal group generally involves eight to 12 partic- plan or strategy.
ipants and a facilitator, who must be very familiar and
When Is It Most Useful?
comfortable with the technique in order for it to
The nominal group process is used to:
work. Participants receive advance background
information on the discussion topic or theme. The ■ set goals
facilitator opens the session with an open-ended ■ identify obstacles
problem statement, along the lines of “The most ■ gauge opinions on specific issues
important concern in (topic area) is...” or “The best ■ assemble a variety of creative responses to a
way to increase public trust in HPB is...” The problem particular question
statement must not include any specific details that ■ find solutions and recommendations in response to
would direct or limit participants’ responses. specific issues.

From this starting point, the group goes through the Logistics and Limits
following steps: This technique can be used to address only one theme
or issue at a time and participants must receive
■ Silent idea generation, in which participants write
sufficient background information in advance.
down their ideas on cards
No more than eight to 12 participants can be included
■ Round-robin sharing of ideas, in which each partic-
in a single group.
ipant explains one idea at a time and the
facilitator notes each idea on a flipchart Cost Implications
■ Discussion and clarification, to allow participants Direct costs for the nominal group process include
to contrast, clarify and justify the ideas on the standard supplies, such as paper, pencils, pens, photo-
flipchart without passing judgement on any copies, postage and faxes. (Some advance costs may
of the ideas be reduced or eliminated if participants have conven-
■ Prioritizing the ideas, usually through a point-rating ient access to email.) Other cost factors could include
system travel for out-of-town participants and fees for facili-
tation and recording. It may be possible to absorb
some costs by working with in-house personnel.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 104

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-Up Potential Pitfalls

Participants may ask for a final report on the process The short time frame for a nominal group process may
and for information on the sponsoring organization’s leave some participants dissatisfied with the amount
response to their findings. The process may inspire of time they received to air their views. It may be
some participants to take a longer-term interest in impossible to fully clarify issues or problems, and the
the issue. results of the process may suffer as a result.

Timelines
A nominal group can be assembled within two or four
weeks, unless extensive advance research is required
to identify participants. Charges for space rental and
distribution of background information may be lower
if a planning period is available.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 105

Another format might include small group work

Level 3 Technique:
where participants move through experiential situa-
Workshops tions where they can develop and practise different
strategies which may be used to address the work-
What Is It? shop issues. The notion here is “if there is a particular
Workshops are meetings at which participants expect political scenario involving this portion of the issue,
to be involved in group discussion tasks. They are nor- with X players, at X point in time, how could we pro-
mally organized around one or more theme areas. The ceed?” Depending on the time available, there could
themes are often identified by a working group with be several scenarios, each handled by various smaller
representation from the interest groups which will be groups. Here, facilitators present the issue and “rove”
targeted as participants. to ensure the groups get going. The facilitators will
thus provide encouragement, but not solutions. Each
Workshops allow participants with differing values group would then present its scenario and the facili-
and priorities to build a common understanding of the tator would lead ensuing discussion on the type of
problems and opportunities confronting them. The strategy demonstrated, its value and the challenges it
intent of most workshops is to either identify prob- poses. The facilitator and/or a group designated
lems and expectations, or to recommend solutions. recorder would note key insights on the flipchart.

How It Works Often, there is a mix of the above activities. In most

Workshops may last from one to approximately five instances, workshops also have “roving observers.”
days. The format is usually as follows: These can include the speaker or panel members,
workshop organizers or acknowledged local experts
Introductory Remarks
who have a broad knowledge of the issues. Their task
The chair of the working committee or the “workshop is to observe the flow of the discussion in all the
provider” will welcome participants, introduce the mini-workshop or group activity sessions and pull out
issues that will be discussed and present an agenda key themes. Prior to the end of the overall workshop,
for the day. observers will meet to prepare a “report-back” which
Plenary Session shows the major directions of the discussion and the
key recommendations, or “next steps” in the problem
The workshop usually opens “formally” with remarks
resolution process.
from a keynote speaker or a small panel of experts who
introduce the issues and challenges to be discussed. Closing Plenary

Working Sessions This is the point where the roving observers, in a

panel format, present their key themes/next steps as
At this point, participants normally head off to vari-
described above. Also, there is an open question
ous mini-workshops clustered under the theme areas.
session where participants interact with the panel.
These activities may consist of, for example, a series
of panel or individual presentations on a specific por- Closure
tion of the issue followed by question sessions, or a The individual who opened the session now provides
request by the presenter(s) that participants break final remarks. The “chair” usually indicates how the
into further, smaller groups to flesh out potential proceedings of the workshop will be shared (e.g. by
solutions. Facilitators of these informal smaller groups hard copy report, email, on a website) and may
are usually selected by the group itself. Flipchart discuss potential plans for a future event to build on
recorders may also be appointed to capture key points the learnings of this event.
of the discussion.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 106

When Is It Most Useful? Timelines

Workshops are most useful when it is important to Workshops may last from one to approximately five
bring together representatives from diverse groups days. It is best to allow at least six to eight months to
who share a common interest in an issue but bring plan and implement a workshop, regardless of the
different perspectives on how it should be addressed. number of participants involved. This allows time for
The format can be used for groups of varying size – busy people to fit it into their schedules. In particular,
for example, 20 to 30 people or as many as 80 to 120. you need to contact your keynote speaker/panel and
roving observers well in advance. Also, booking hotel
Logistics and Limits meeting rooms, accommodations and food services
The process works best when limited to people who needs considerable lead time.
are actively involved/working with the issue. They will
have a true stake in the issue and are motivated to Potential Pitfalls
find realistic solutions to the problems posed. Participants need to keep focussed on what is “do-
able” with the resources that are available, given the
Cost Implications current political dynamics. There may be a tendency
There will be the cost of meeting/accommodation to recommend rapid, broad changes to the social and
space and catering. As well, keynote speakers/panels political fabric of the country. Facilitators must work
will receive honoraria and have travel costs covered. hard to keep participants focussed and realistic in the
Workshop participants may or may not have their trav- solutions they suggest.
el costs covered as well. Other ancillary costs include
publicity (brochures, mailouts), workshop information
folders, name tags, flipcharts, multi-media equipment,
microphones (if a large number of participants), basic
writing supplies, and costs for report preparation/
distribution by mail or electronic means.

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up

Workshop participants will expect feedback – first in
terms of the proceedings and outcomes of the work-
shop and also follow-up later on concerning how
their proposed solutions have been used – or if not,
why not.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 107

Level 3 References

Advisory Committee, Board or Council

■ Berkeley - http://campus.chance.berkely.edu/wwwsteer/committee_charge.html
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development - http://ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/mainpage.html
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development. Public Consultation Guide, Changing the Relationship
Between Government and Canadians. May 1997.
■ Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs for the Government of Nova Scotia -
http://www.gov.ns.ca/homa/muns/plan/planact/pac.htm
■ McMaster University - http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~misc2/mgtheme.htm
■ Meteorites Impact Advisory Committee -
http://dsaing.uqac.uquebec.ca/~mhiggins/MIAC/information-english.htm
■ Occurrence Reporting Special Interest Group Steering Committee - http://www.orau.gov/or/scguid.htm
■ Sector Councils’ Steering Committee - http://www.councils.org/about/index.html
■ Task Force on Gender Issues - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D-Gender/Execsum.htm
■ Oregon Department of Education - http://www.pcc.edu/edserv/acadpol/acad5.htm
■ Planning Advisory Committees of Nova Scotia - http://gov.ns.ca/homa/muns/plan/planact/pac.htm
■ University of Ottawa - http://www.uottawa.ca/associations/clinic/steering.html
■ U.S. Department of Transportation - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cac.htm
■ Workplace Education Manitoba Steering Committee - http://www.wem.mb.ca/whatis.htm

Computer-Assisted Participation
■ Teledemocracy Action News + Network - http://www.auburn.edu/tann/tann2/project3.html
■ Global Ideas Bank - http://www.globalideasbank.org/crespec/CS-96.HTML and ...CS-97.HTML
■ The Promise and Challenge of a New Communications Age - http://morino.org/publications/promise.html
■ Bell Canada electronic service delivery - http://www.bell.ca/en/minisite/products/govt/
■ Canada’s SchoolNet - http://www.schoolnet.ca/home/e/index.html
■ Community Access Program, Industry Canada - http://cap.unb.ca/english.html

Interactive World Wide Web/Electronic Conferencing

■ Electronic conferencing service - http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca/econf/
■ Postings on interactive communications technology - http://www.markle.org
■ Canadian interactive communities in action - http://cap.unb.ca.interact/
■ Early philosophy of the World Wide Web, in the words of WWW founder Tim Berners-Lee -
www.w3.org/talks/1999/0408-cfp-tbl

Online Discussion Groups and List Servers

■ ONElist email community news service - http://www.onelist.com
■ Explore the Internet!!! - http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/internet/
■ Listserv Conferencing - http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/pub/courses/la283/jth/listserv.html
■ Listserv FAQ (guide to standard list server commands) -
http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/internet/list-faq.htm

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 108

■ Overview of online services available via email -

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email
■ List server software - http://www.tucows.com is an excellent source of information on free and low-cost
software. Tucows lists http://www.ntmail.co.uk as the address for a free mail management package that
includes a list server function.

Televoting
■ Teledemocracy Action News + Network - http://www.auburn.edu/tann/tann2/index.html
■ Bedford, NS televoting initiative - http://www.cipa.com/win96/html/default_win_bedford.html

Issue Conferences
■ McMillan, Bill and Murgatroyd Stephen. Opening the Door: Improving Decisions Through Public Consultation.
Edmonton, Dark Horse Books/Equus Consulting Group, Inc., 1994.
■ Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Consultations Toolbook: A resource guide for those involved in planning and
carrying out departmental consultations.

Nominal Group Process

■ Delbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH, Gustafson, DH. Group Techniques for Program Planning. 1975.
■ Iowa State University Extension website
http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/communities/tools/decisions/nominal.html
■ Cleveland State University website - http://www.csuohio.edu/mlr605/mlrnom.htm

Workshops
■ McMillan, Bill and Murgatroyd Stephen. Opening the Door: Improving Decisions Through Public Consultation.
Edmonton, Dark Horse Books/Equus Consulting Group, Inc., 1994.
■ Personal notes related to workshop development and implementation.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 109

Level 4

Level 4
When Do We Engage?
■ We need citizens to talk to each other regarding complex, value-laden issues
■ There is a capacity for citizens to shape policy and program decisions that affect them
■ There is opportunity for shared agenda setting and open time frames for
deliberation on issues
■ Options generated together will be respected

This section includes:

Level 4 Case Study

■ Joint Working Group on the Voluntary Sector

Level 4 Techniques
■ Charrette
■ Constituent Assembly
■ Delphi Process
■ Retreats
■ Round Tables

References

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 110

Who Was Involved?

Level 4 Case Study:
The JWG was co-chaired by a senior Health Canada
Joint Working Group on the representative and a senior official representing nation-
Voluntary Sector al voluntary organizations working in health. Members
for both sides of the JWG were selected to be inclusive
Background of departmental branches and voluntary organizations.
Health Canada and voluntary health organizations In recognition of the important leadership role carried
have a long history of collaboration and cooperation. out at the national level, the decision was jointly made
Voluntary organizations contribute to the health of to concentrate work on a national framework, cog-
Canadians through service delivery, public and profes- nizant that this national framework would also be the
sional education, research activities, participation in basis for guiding work of voluntary organizations
policy development and through public involvement. operating at the local and regional levels.

The Joint Working Group on the Voluntary Sector The efforts of the JWG were supported at the bureau-
(JWG) was initiated by several National Voluntary cratic level by the Health Canada Inter-Branch
Health Organizations (NVHO) affected by the pro- Committee on the Voluntary Sector. Secretariat support
posed elimination of the National Voluntary Health was coordinated by the Policy Development and
Organizations’ grants and contributions program. The Coordination Division, HPPB. The Health Promotion
voluntary organizations banded together to consider Centre of Excellence in Toronto, because of its reputa-
how to respond to the proposed program decision and tion for excellence both within government and the
met with the former Deputy Minister of Health to dis- sector, was engaged as a contractor to conduct
cuss the impact of funding termination. At the workshops on the Framework for Action document with
request of the Deputy Minister, a Joint Working Group approximately 160 national voluntary organizations
on the Voluntary Sector was established in March working in health.
1997. The mandate of this joint Health Canada –
Voluntary Sector-led process was to produce a pro- Description of the Process
posed framework to re-establish Health Canada’s The development of the proposed Framework for Action
working relationship with the national voluntary has been a groundbreaking activity representing almost
sector in light of funding reductions. two years of collaboration. The JWG asked the consult-
ing firm PPF to prepare an initial draft of the
Why Seek Public Involvement? Framework, which was presented to the JWG in
Given the vast number of voluntary organizations December 1997. Interquest Canada worked on a follow-
working in health in Canada, it was crucial to Health up document which was then distributed for comment
Canada that the viewpoints from organizations work- to more than 160 national voluntary organizations
ing on a diversity of health issues be reflected in the working in health in May 1998. The following month,
JWG process. The goal was to create an enduring these same groups were invited to participate in a
framework for an improved long-term working rela- one-day plenary and workshop session on the
tionship and ongoing dialogue between the Framework, organized by the Health Promotion Centre.
department and national voluntary organizations These sessions were scheduled in Ottawa and in
working in health. Intensive involvement of the Toronto, with approximately 70 of the 160 invited
voluntary sector was therefore crucial. groups attending one of the two venues. Organizations
that were unable to attend the meeting were provided
with a questionnaire for written input. A generous time
frame was provided for input in light of the summer
timing of the public involvement activity.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 111

The JWG then met in August 1998 to consider the cooperation to benefit the health of people in Canada,
findings from the workshops and produce a revised recognition of diversity, respect, transparency and
Framework. In mid-October, a revised Framework accountability.
based on the findings was again sent for review and
Since the approval of the document, ongoing work
comment to the more than 160 organizations that
has begun on joint incremental implementation of the
received the previous draft. The final draft of the pro-
recommendations outlined in the Framework.
posed Framework, based on the second round of
Discussions between voluntary sector representatives
input, was finalized by the JWG in December 1998. In
and the Deputy Minister have been held to determine
January 1999, the Framework was formally submitted
how to best implement the recommendations. No
to the Deputy Minister of Health. Copies of the final
formal evaluation of the process was undertaken.
draft also went to all of the organizations that partic-
ipated in the process. This initiative has also had an impact on the relation-
ship between national voluntary organizations
Resources
working in health. It provided a forum for these
This public involvement process was not resource
organizations to come together on common issues
intensive – less than $50,000 was spent to support this
and concerns. Furthermore, it has facilitated the
initiative over two years. Resources were allocated to
building of national coalitions of voluntary organiza-
the consultants to hold the workshops, the writing of
tions around common issues such as the creation of
the document and travel expenses for the JWG
the Canadian Institutes on Health Research.
members. The secretariat support provided by HPPB
was responsible for supporting the work of the depart- The JWG model has also been examined extensively
mental co-chair, for organizing meetings and for by other federal departments. Specifically, the
coordinating the federal government policy response to Framework for Action document served as a base for
the proposed initiatives under the JWG. Participation in the Privy Council Office’s Engaging the Voluntary
the initiative involved significant amounts of volunteer Sector initiative in 1999.
time on the part of organizations.
Analysis
Summary of the Outcomes The JWG process provides a practical model for
This public involvement process marks the first time engaging stakeholder groups in long-term public
that national voluntary organizations working in involvement activities. The development of the
health have come together to work with Health Framework for Action promoted a better understand-
Canada in developing a proposed Framework to ing of departmental and voluntary sector viewpoints
strengthen the relationship between the department and strengthened the lines of communications
and the sector. Although the impetus for the creation between the two sectors. The proposed Framework for
of the JWG was funding pressures, the outcome of Action now serves as the basis for future relationships
the JWG process was the creation of a joint between Health Canada and one of its most critically
Framework for Action which outlines recommenda- important partners in health promotion and program
tions for action on several fronts, as well as a and service delivery.
strengthened and renewed relationship.

The proposed Framework for Action outlines the com-

mon goal to help people in Canada to improve their
own health, the health of others and the health of
their communities. Also highlighted are the shared
principles of Health Canada and the voluntary sector:

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 112

Factors for Success Policy Implications

■ Strong level of commitment was demonstrated by The JWG mechanism is an appropriate process to
Health Canada senior officials, specifically in terms engage the participation and solicit the views of
of policy support. many diverse interests. The Framework will have
■ This initiative was strengthened by the fact that significant and lasting impacts on the policy develop-
the impetus originated with the national voluntary ment process in that it will serve as a basis for future
organizations working in health. relationship building and discussions between the
■ The two-year public involvement process was gen- department and the voluntary sector. This public
erous and able to scope out and discuss pertinent involvement mechanism has been applied to guide
issues. both other Health Canada and federal government-
■ The structure of the JWG (co-chairs from Health wide policy initiatives. This process also marked the
Canada and the voluntary organizations working in beginning of a renewed relationship with national
health) permitted an open environment for voluntary organizations critical to the delivery of
discussion. health care in Canada.
■ One of the main factors for success was that the
voluntary sector was able to organize itself to Public Involvement Techniques Used
achieve consensus among the various groups. ■ Advisory Committee
■ Multilateral Meetings with Stakeholders
Barriers to Success ■ Workshops
■ The process was representative but not inclusive of
all the possible players. Organizations were agreed Contact Information
upon jointly by Health Canada and the voluntary Mary Jane Lipkin
sector members of the JWG to represent an appro- Policy Group Manager, Policy and Major Projects
priate spectrum of views. Directorate
■ As evaluation was not built into the process, it is Population and Public Health Branch
difficult to apply lessons learned for future public (613) 946-2067
involvement efforts. Mary_Jane_Lipkin@hc-sc.gc.ca
■ Public involvement activities were directed solely
at the organization level, and not the constituency
level of voluntary groups.
■ There was a lack of local and regional representa-
tion at the JWG level.
■ There is no single mechanism accepted across vol-
untary organizations working in health as
representing the sector as a whole.
■ Many of the government representatives changed
over time while the voluntary sector representa-
tives, on the whole, remained the same.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 113

Since a charrette is a one-time event, the partici-

Level 4 Technique:
pants’ list and the timing must receive careful
Charrette consideration, to maximize the value of the process.
Goals and timing must be established in advance and
What Is It? made clear to all participants. Blank flipchart sheets
A charrette is a meeting that convenes to address a are hung on the walls at the beginning of the process,
specific issue or question, within a fixed time period. so that participants can write down suggestions that
Participants work cooperatively to find a fresh and might trigger new ideas in other group members, and
innovative solution to the issue at hand, in a setting emerging ideas are posted on flipcharts as the
where the time limit encourages quick, open and can- discussion unfolds.
did discussion.
Suggested ideas become the basis for deliberation.
How It Works The debate continues until general agreement is
A charrette can accommodate 20 to 60 participants, reached. At the end of the process, a report is usually
depending on the breadth of the issue and the time compiled to indicate how the proposed solution has
available. Participants can include anyone with a been implemented.
stake in the issue, including experts and staff.
When Is It Most Useful?
A charrette should run at least two hours; most
Charrettes are used to:
usually require a full day or more. Preparation for a
charrette should be thorough and methodical, and an ■ resolve difficult matters involving many different
experienced facilitator is necessary. people and/or interests
■ assemble practical ideas and viewpoints at the
A charrette usually involves the following steps:
beginning of a planning process
■ definition of the issues to be resolved ■ facilitate decisions on difficult issues when a
■ group analysis of the problem and general process is mature
discussion of possible approaches and solutions ■ resolve indecision or deadlocks between groups
■ assignment of smaller working groups to discuss toward the end of a process
and clarify issues (it is recommended that at least ■ encourage input and collaboration from a wide
one expert or staff member should be assigned to range of participants, including staff and experts
each working group) with a direct stake in the issue.
■ working group development of proposals and
Logistics and Limits
solutions in response to specific issues
Charrettes require discipline and may become difficult
■ group presentation and analysis of each group’s
when particularly vocal individuals are invited to
final proposal(s)
attend. Advance preparations are extensive, and can
■ debate and discussion, to reach consensus and
take a month or more. A shorter charrette (two to
final resolution.
three hours) may yield only a limited number of ideas.

Cost Implications
Cost factors include ample meeting space, background
materials, an experienced facilitator, resource people
and on-site supplies. It may also be necessary to cover
travel and accommodation, hospitality and compensa-
tion for individuals who must take time away from
their regular jobs to take part.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 114

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-Up Potential Pitfalls

A follow-up report to participants is usually built into Depending on the definition of “expertise,” the
the process. emphasis on specialist participation in a charrette
may exclude community voices from the process. This
Timelines could cast doubt on the credibility of the overall
At least two to four months may be required to public involvement plan of which the group is a part.
gather background materials and expert participants. The continuous nature of a longer charrette may
As already indicated, the process itself usually takes exclude some participants whose interest in a particu-
at least a day. lar health issue relates to, or is hindered by, a
disability or activity limitation.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 115

■ when trying to build consensus on a controversial

Level 4 Technique:
issue, such as making changes to the constitution
Constituent Assembly or initiating government reforms.

What Is It? Logistics and Limits

The constituent assembly is a formula to be used pri-
Constituent assemblies are extra-parliamentary bodies
marily on a national level, rather than for regional or
convened to address major constitutional issues or
local uses. However, it can be successfully adapted to
reforms. This process allows citizens to feel as if they
regional politics, as in the case of the municipality of
had a say in decision making around political reform.
Hamilton-Wentworth. Although the infrastructure can
Constituent assemblies are increasingly being applied
be initiated by a government body, the assembly
to a wide array of governance issues, both locally and
needs to “take a life of its own” and be seen as inde-
nationally. Bringing together ordinary citizens and
pendent from governing structures. Also, the process
elected officials in a public and open process is key.
needs to be very public and open in order to generate
Also, this process works best when it addresses a single
public interest and support for the decisions.
compact issue, although suggested recommendations
around reforms may be multifaceted. Cost Implications
Initial start-up can be both timely and costly, but
How It Works
definitely worthwhile once the infrastructure is put
The constituent assembly consists of a number of citi-
into place.
zen delegates and elected or appointed officials for a
fixed term. Information on the main issues is usually Expectation for Feedback or Follow-Up
provided at the conference and sessions should be The assembly has to make every effort to encourage
facilitated by impartial experts on the topic the community to participate fully and meaningfully
(i.e. constitutional representatives). by using a wide range of consultative methods. There
A second form of the assembly (Community Working is an expectation that all the research and recom-
Group) can be applied at a regional level, consisting of mendations should be published for public and
citizen volunteers who undertake the job of researching government use. There is also a need for citizens to
and offering recommendations to a governing body. In feel as if their participation counted for something;
this case, citizen volunteers offer advice to the regional therefore, consultations may have to be ongoing.
council (elected officials) based on their findings. This
Timelines
type of assembly requires support from the elected
This is usually an ongoing process that could take
body in order to carry out the mandate and is often
upward of a year as a full-fledge commitment for public
initiated by government officials in order to have an
involvement. The actual assembly could be one week, or
external body enact necessary reforms.
a series of smaller meetings between participants.
When Is It Most Useful?
Potential Pitfalls
■ when addressing single-issue–oriented topics,
The assembly can be a labour-intensive process and,
such as a constitutional debate
because of the amount of time required, may not gener-
■ getting citizens and elected officials together to
ate the interest or resources necessary to maintain it.
discuss views on a particular topic
Also, if it does not gain support either by the public
■ circumstances where it is useful to educate with
(seen as “top-down”) or the elected officials (seen as
the intent of facilitating a meaningful discussion,
releasing too much power), the assembly will not work.
particularly on governance issues
Furthermore, this particular process is not right for
addressing issues that are very controversial or broad.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 116

In the period following the discussion, the facilitator

Level 4 Technique: compiles a report that documents the group’s
Delphi Process response to the issue. Participants compare their indi-
vidual comments to the group’s normative response,
What Is It? then take part in a second discussion designed to
The Delphi process is used primarily to build expert share, support and test different viewpoints on the
consensus in attempting to forecast future trends, issue. At the end of the discussion, participants com-
although it can also support group decision making ment anonymously on the issue by writing their ideas
on a variety of issues. The process relies on an orderly on cards. A new report is written, and the process
series of planned, facilitated discussions among par- repeats itself until the group reaches a firm consensus
ticipants. These can occur either face-to-face or by or a stable disagreement.
correspondence. Participation is limited to people with
When Is It Most Useful?
expertise or a common interest in a specific issue, and
The Delphi process is used to develop fact-based deci-
groups are structured to ensure that each member
sions and strategies, reflecting expert opinion on
brings a unique perspective to the process.
well-defined issues. It is a particularly useful mecha-
How It Works nism for capturing expert opinion at a distance,
The facilitator opens the session by introducing the without organizing a live meeting. It can also help
issue(s) under review. There is usually no need for break down barriers in situations where differences
background information, since participants have been between participants threaten to inhibit the free flow
chosen for their pertinent expertise. The facilitator of ideas. Since input to the Delphi process is anony-
must be well informed on the issue as well, since she mous, there is less chance that some participants’
or he will play a key role in building consensus among ideas will automatically take precedence over others.
participants.
Logistics and Limits
Following the introduction, the group enters into a The process is limited to participants with expertise or
facilitated debate, in which participants’ views are interest in a common issue, including the facilitator.
expressed and verbally evaluated. The purpose of the Consistent and timely contact is crucial for remote
debate is to produce informed judgement on the consultations.
issue. This continues until participants and the facili-
tator feel that all aspects of the issue have been fully
Cost Implications
Direct costs associated with remote consultations are
addressed and general agreement has been reached.
limited to printing and distribution of correspondence
All comments and opinions are recorded by the facili-
and materials, report preparation, and fax and long
tator or an assigned note taker. This ensures that the
distance charges. The budget for a sequence of live
information cannot be misconstrued or misinterpreted
meetings will likely include meeting supplies, written
later on. Remote discussions must be kept fairly
materials, travel and accommodation. There is poten-
consistent (a teleconference each week or a mailing
tially the need to compensate individuals who must
every two weeks), so that the issue remains fresh in
take time away from their regular jobs to take part.
participants’ minds.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 117

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-Up Potential Pitfalls

Participants may ask for a final report on the process. Depending on the definition of “expertise,” the
Follow-up information on the sponsoring organiza- emphasis on specialized debate in a Delphi group may
tion’s response to their findings is also appropriate. exclude community voices from the process. This
could cast doubt on the credibility of the overall pub-
Timelines lic involvement plan, of which the group is a part.
It may take two or three months to assemble a Delphi
group, since expert participants will likely have other
demands on their time. As already noted, the duration
of the process varies. Face-to-face discussions usually
take about a half-day.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 118

When Is It Most Useful?

Level 4 Technique:
A retreat is a useful technique when:
Retreats
■ the current environment is too full of distractions
■ the process is as important as the end product
What Is It?
(i.e. people need to feel they contributed to the
A retreat is a meeting convened in a relaxing and sup-
product and agree to act on the results)
portive environment, often in a natural or rural setting.
■ there is a need/desire to strengthen the interper-
Participants stay together at the retreat with opportu-
sonal relationships and build stronger teams
nities for recreational and social activities encouraged
■ there is a need to establish different norms of
within the meeting schedule. The intent is to have a
behaviour (i.e. the way people treat each other in
more enjoyable space, with fewer outside distractions,
the work environment)
and time and space to complete the work.
■ a “captive audience” is the best way to complete
How It Works? the desired outcomes.
Retreats require careful preparation and planning to
Logistics and Limits
ensure maximum benefit is made of the environment.
Retreats require more preparation in finding the best
Retreats will vary in size and length depending on
location so that the meeting is maximized, not com-
purpose, but rarely last more than three days because
promised, by being in a retreat setting. The design
family and other commitments can be suspended only
should ensure that time is set aside to enjoy the
so long. In the planning stage, it is important to iden-
environment, but balanced with time to work. This
tify when a retreat might be necessary, instead of a
work–play is a key factor in the success of retreats.
workshop or meeting. They are most often used when
An independent facilitator is preferred as the process
trying to bring staff closer together.
guide, leaving everyone else the opportunity to
Most retreats begin with an ice-breaker or social participate in the content of the retreat.
activity. If a retreat is to be successful, it is important
Cost Implications
to set a comfortable and supportive climate and
Cost for a retreat is usually more expensive than “in-
re-establish the norms from the workplace to fit the
town” meetings. Costs include participant expenses,
retreat environment (e.g. casual, dress no hierarchy
including travel, accommodation and meals (often
among participants).
done as a package); leisure expenses (optional); facili-
Clarity of purpose and desired outcomes is critical at tator expenses; and increased hospitality costs,
a retreat so participants know what is expected. The audio-video rental and ground transportation to get
agenda of the retreat should allow time for partici- to the location. Preparation materials/documents,
pants to socialize, participate in recreation and enjoy group exercises/assessment resources also need to be
the environment, not just complete their work in a considered. Some experts may require a fee for service
more pleasant setting. As a result, many retreats and other participants may require compensation for
modify the work schedule to allow participants such forgone wages.
time (e.g. working session in morning and evening
with afternoon golf tournament). Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
■ A summation of the retreat’s results should be
Often, small group discussions are conducted outside provided to members and broader stakeholders.
of the meeting room in a more informal setting. With ■ An evaluation report on the retreat’s findings could
this format, tasks and timelines must be very clear for be used to track results and provide best practices.
small groups so the flow and work of the meeting
continues, while maximizing the retreat setting.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 119

Timelines Potential Pitfalls

■ Sufficient time is necessary to plan and organize ■ Lack of establishing a clear mandate before the
the retreat. retreat
■ They are most often organized and held once or ■ Poor facilitator
twice a year. ■ Lack of planning and preparation of participants
■ They usually last between one-half a day to three ■ Failure to integrate or implement the positive
days. results of the retreat within the regular working
environment.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 120

and con’s and the final recommendations with an

Level 4 Technique:
accompanying rationale.
Round Tables
When Is It Most Useful?
Round tables are used to gather input and ultimately
What Is It?
develop recommendations on broad courses of action.
Round tables are meetings at which a group of people
They are most valuable if held early in the period
gather to make decisions on an equal footing. The
when decision makers are seeking advice about
concept of “round” table comes simply from the fact
community opinions on a particular area.
that no one is the “head” of the table – everyone is
equally empowered to contribute to the decision. Logistics and Limits
Participation is limited to people with a common The process is limited to participants with an interest
interest or expertise in a specific issue. or expertise in a particular issue. The facilitator should
be knowledgeable about the issue, but the key
How It Works
element is that she or he remains objective and
Round tables usually involve about 10 to 20 people
impartial.
and a facilitator. Participants receive background
information on the issue to be discussed prior to the Cost Implications
gathering so that everyone will share a common Round tables may last from one to several days
context. depending on the complexity of the issue(s) discussed.
The meeting follows a formal agenda and is facilitat- In terms of meeting space, all that is needed is a
ed by an individual who can provide process guidance comfortable room, flipcharts, a computer for the
but who has no stake in the outcome. recorder to use, and other basic writing supplies. If
the round table draws on national participants, there
The facilitator opens the round table by introducing will be travel and accommodation costs, and possibly
the issue(s) to be discussed and the key question wage compensation for individuals who must take
areas to be addressed. The facilitator also shares time away from their regular jobs.
information about the group process that the partici-
pants will undertake, pointing out that the round Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
table is seeking collective advice, choices and/or Participants and the communities of interest/expertise
options for action from those assembled. Since deci- which they represent will expect feedback on how/if
sion making rests with the entire group, it is critical their recommendations will be used and when they
for the facilitator to help the group define their deci- can expect this to happen.
sions and build agreement in a logical manner.
Timelines
There is a formal note taker. As well, the facilitator A round table may last from one to several days
often uses a flipchart to record the milestones where depending on the complexity of the issues discussed.
participants determine that decisions must be made Allow about two to three months lead time to setting
and the decision criteria which must be used. the meeting date. Remember, experts are in demand.

Subsequent to the round table, a report is drafted and Potential Pitfalls

submitted to the participants for verification of dis- The round table may lead to circular non-conclusive
cussion content and direction setting. Ultimately, a discussion unless you choose a facilitator who has
final document is prepared. Normally, an executive demonstrated ability to guide the participants logical-
summary is produced which outlines key elements of ly, but non-intrusively, toward areas of agreement.
the discussion, the options for action with their pro’s

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 121

Level 4 Technique:
References

Charrette
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development - http://ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/mainpage.html
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development. Public Consultation Guide, Changing the Relationship
Between Government and Canadians. May 1997.
■ Innovations in Public Involvement for Transportation Planning - http://pin.org/library/fha&fta.htm#table

Constituent Assembly
■ A call for Action on the Canadian Constitution -
http://fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~davidwss/ca.html
■ Australia’s Constitutional Convention - http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980215/republic/index.html
■ Hamilton-Wentworth Region, Constituent Assembly project -
http://www.hamilton-went.on.ca/vis2020/index.htm
■ Yahoo’s coverage of the Australian republic debate -
http://headlines.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/aunz/australian_republic_debate

Delphi Process
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development - http://ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/mainpage.html
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development. Public Consultation Guide, Changing the Relationship
Between Government and Canadians. May 1997.
■ Delbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH, Gustafson, DH. Group Techniques for Program Planning. 1975.
■ U.S. Department of Transportation - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/smlgroup.htm

Retreats
■ Bader, Barry S. Planning Successful Board Retreats. National Center for Nonprofit Boards. 1991.

Round Tables
■ McMillan, Bill and Murgatroyd Stephen. Opening the Door: Improving Decisions Through Public Consultation.
Edmonton, Dark Horse Books/Equus Consulting Group, Inc., 1994.
■ Canadian Petroleum Association. Canadian Public Consultation Guidelines for the Canadian Petroleum Industry.
Calgary, 1989.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 123

Level 5

Level 5
When Do We Partner?
■ We want to empower citizens and groups to manage the process
■ Citizens and groups have accepted the challenge of developing solutions themselves
■ We are ready to assume the role of enabler
■ There is an agreement to implement solutions generated by citizens and groups
■ To develop policies and programs in partnership

This section includes:

Level 5 Case Study

■ Joint Action Group on Environmental Clean-Up

Level 5 Techniques
■ Citizens’ Juries

■ Citizens’ Panels

■ Consensus Conference

■ Deliberative Polling

■ Search Conference

■ Study Circles

■ Study Groups

■ Think Tanks

References

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 124

Level 5 Case Study: Who Was Involved?

In August 1996, municipal, provincial and federal gov-
Joint Action Group on Environmental ernment officials met with community representatives
Clean-Up
to share concerns and suggestions, and evaluate the
feasibility of a community-based approach to identify
Background and evaluate remedial options for the Tar Ponds and
In Sydney, Nova Scotia, the deplorable environmental Coke Ovens sites. That meeting clearly indicated a
conditions of the Muggah Creek Watershed led to the solid base of support for a community-based initia-
creation of a citizen-based group entitled the Joint tive, and a Joint Action Group (JAG) on the
Action Group for the Environmental Clean-Up of the Environmental Clean-Up of the Muggah Creek
Muggah Creek Watershed. Formed in the summer of Watershed, representing community interests in
1995, the purpose of the group is to find a remedial partnership with the three levels of government, was
solution to the Sydney Tar Ponds, the former Coke formed. In addition to being represented on the JAG,
Ovens site, and the impacts of the municipal landfill – the federal, provincial and municipal governments
all part of the Muggah Creek Watershed area. have committed to support its activities.

Why Seek Public Involvement? Description of the Process

The Sydney Tar Ponds is a 33-hectare estuary in JAG was an initiative founded by the three levels of
Sydney, Nova Scotia. This estuary, otherwise known as government: Health Canada and Environment Canada
Muggah Creek, has been contaminated with the coal at the federal level, the Government of Nova Scotia at
tar effluent from the local steel plant’s coke ovens the provincial level, and the Municipality of Cape
over the last 90 years. It is estimated that 700,000 Breton at the local level.
tonnes of toxic sediment contaminated with PAHs and
JAG’s mission is to educate, involve and empower the
PCBs have killed aquatic life and led to the closure of
community through partnerships, to determine and
lobster fishing in the area.
implement acceptable solutions for Canada’s worst
The tar ponds are but a small component of the site hazardous waste site and to assess and address the
targeted for improvement. Buildings are partially impact on human health. As outlined in a
demolished – the site also has a number of deep Memorandum of Understanding signed in September
water holes, underground tunnels and trenches, as 1998, all levels of government have committed to
well as a marsh dump, the Domtar tank and many pooling their collective resources in order to support
coal and coke piles. Contamination is extensive and the activities of the JAG.
hazardous; in 1986, it was recognized as one of
The citizen round table, consisting of 50 community
Canada’s worst environmental sites.
members, is the ultimate decision-making body of the
The conditions of the site indicated that immediate JAG. A smaller steering committee consisting of
action was required. The initiation of a public consul- 18 members reports to the round table. A handful of
tation process ensured that policy developments and smaller working groups report to the steering com-
recommendations clearly reflect the needs of the mittee. The steering committee is incorporated and is
immediate community. supported by a chair, two-vice chairs, a secretary and
treasurer. In addition, a small secretariat was formed,
consisting of a coordinator, a public information offi-
cer, a community outreach officer, an office manager
and one JAG chair, as well as four administrative
support staff. All JAG meetings are public, as are all
files, recordings and transcripts.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 125

Resources Summary of the Outcomes

The federal and Nova Scotia governments pledged The guiding principles of the JAG process are open-
$750,000 over three years to support the JAG; the ness, transparency, representativeness and inclusion.
Municipality of Sydney agreed to provide services in- These principles have provided the foundation for a
kind worth $750,000 over the same period. A further community-based process to address the challenges
$175,000 was also forwarded to respond to the rec- presented by the contaminated site. The key issues to
ommendations of the Health Studies Working Group. be examined, through a variety of working groups,
include: environmental data gathering, health studies,
Health Canada offered $195,000 in support of the
security of the site, potential remedial options, future
following:
site use, and public education and participation.
■ $70,000 to the Cape Breton County area at the
To date, the JAG has undertaken several initiatives,
University College of Cape Breton for the review of
including:
existing community health data
■ $25,000 to update the Cancer Registry for the ■ The completion of a Mortality Study (led by Health
years 1965–1995 Canada)
■ $100,000 to support the Health Study Working ■ The completion of a Reproductive Outcomes Report
Group to develop study requirements. (led by Nova Scotia Department of Health)
■ Phase 1 Site Assessment Report
Environment Canada, the Government of Nova Scotia
■ Public Opinion Poll (two polls have been completed
and the Municipality of Sydney offered $250,000 to
– one on behalf of the Health Studies Working
support the following:
Group and another on behalf of the Public
■ $100,000 to monitor the movement of contami- Education and Participation Working Group)
nated water from the watershed to the municipal ■ A Vegetation Study.
landfill
Many other studies and activities are currently
■ $100,000 for the design of a sewer collector
under way.
system to reduce the collection of raw sewage in
Muggah Creek Analysis
■ $50,000 for a sampling and chemical analysis to The committee structure is an ideal mechanism to
assess the contamination levels within the tanks, address the complex and controversial issues raised.
piles of coal, coke and sulphur. Solutions to provide long-lasting clean-up require the
commitment of many interests and the coordination
The three levels of government also agreed to:
of professionals in many disciplines. The community-
■ $100,000 for community education, safety and building approach was seen also as an effective
awareness in the Muggah Creek area. response to reducing the overall dependency on gov-
ernment. As well, the process is seen as an effective
Most recently, the three levels of government reached
response for such an interdisciplinary issue as envi-
a cost-share agreement and have pledged to invest
ronmental clean-up, which involves a range of issues
$62 million over the next three years to fund JAG ini-
such as health, social, economic, research, financial
tiatives. The funding will support activities and
and legal dimensions. Thus far, the recommendations
projects already recommended by JAG – activities and
set forth by the JAG have received much public
projects which are environmentally sound, health con-
support and attention.
scious, economically responsible, publicly accountable
and socially acceptable.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 126

Factors for Success Public Involvement Techniques Used

■ The collaborative process is community-driven. ■ Citizens’ Jury
■ Strong policy support and resource commitments ■ Community Meetings
are offered by all levels of government. ■ Public Opinion Polls
■ The consultation process and supporting research ■ Round Table
initiatives allow for a comprehensive review of
pertinent issues. Contact Information
Tracey Taweel
Barriers to Success Senior Communications Advisor
■ The pace of the decision-making process is Atlantic Region
deliberative, but is very slow. (902) 426-2668
■ The process itself is very costly. Initial disburse- Tracey_Taweel@hc-sc.gc.ca
ment totalled $1.67 million.
■ Achieving true representation of the community
around the JAG table can be problematic.
■ Distrust of government is inherent.

Policy Implications
The JAG process is unique and innovative. The model
which has been created has drawn attention from
across North America and throughout the world. It is
expected that this model of community involvement
and empowerment will be used for other contaminat-
ed sites in Canada and beyond.

Over the long term, it is expected that the JAG’s

efforts will ultimately result in the clean-up of the
Muggah Creek Watershed area. In addition, the in-
roads being made by all levels of government through
the partnership they have formed with the JAG will
prove to be invaluable in the coming years.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 127

When Is It Most Useful?

Level 5 Technique:
Citizens’ juries are used to:
Citizens’ Juries
■ bring everyday citizens to the discussion table in
order to reach an understanding on an issue
What Is It?
■ assemble unprejudiced opinions and
A citizens’ jury, also known as a planning cell, brings
recommendations
together a group to represent the profile of a local
■ gauge broader public opinion on relatively complex
community or the population as a whole. Participants
issues with the help of a relatively small
are asked to consider an issue of local or national
participant group
importance, usually involving a matter of policy or
■ complement broader public involvement processes
planning. Although participants are called “jurors,”
■ give participants a sense that they have a voice in
they also serve as lawyer and judge during the
democracy.
process. Information is presented and deliberated in a
quasi-courtroom setting, and jurors are asked to Logistics and Limits
reach consensus on the issue as representatives of a The process can take one to four days, requires
collective public voice. independent moderators, and may call for several
expert witnesses.
How It Works
Twelve to 16 citizens are selected to represent a cross Cost Implications
section of the population, usually based on national Costs depend on the design of a specific process, with
or municipal voters’ lists. Jury selection should reflect local juries generally costing less than national initia-
the scope of the issue – a national jury for an issue of tives. Participants’ expenses will likely have to be
national scope; a regional jury for a local issue. covered for the duration of the process. Standard
Prospective jurors should clearly express their willing- budget items include meeting supply costs, hospitali-
ness to take part before finalizing the selection. No ty, accommodation, and travel between the hotel and
background information is given to the jurors to help the meeting site. Some participants may require com-
ensure that their input will be evidence-based. pensation for forgone wages.
At the beginning of the process, the issue is
introduced by a group of independent moderators,
who subsequently help guide the discussion. Expert
witnesses are brought forward to help jurors reach an
opinion. Jurors are permitted to ask questions one at
a time, and may cross-examine witnesses as they see
fit. Deliberation begins after the testimony is com-
plete and jurors are satisfied with the answers they
have received. The process continues until the jurors
reach consensus on the issue. Their findings are then
compiled into a final report, which each juror must
approve before it is forwarded to the sponsoring
organization.

The sponsor is expected to publicize the jury and its

findings, and to explain its reasons for accepting or
rejecting the results of the process.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 128

Key elements of a citizens’ panel include the lay pan-

Level 5 Technique:
elists, a steering committee selected by the sponsor
Citizens’ Panels that establishes the process for the event, a group of
expert advisors and professional support staff. The
What Is It? selection of panelists reflects a variety of trade-offs
A citizens’ panel is a form of consensus process in between the value of a random sample and the
which non-experts are brought together to reach a importance of built-in diversity:
common opinion on a public policy issue. According
■ In Calgary in March 1999, a 15-member panel on
to an evaluation of one U.S. citizens’ panel, “its
food biotechnology was selected from more than
general aims are to improve decision making about
350 volunteers from across Western Canada.
science and technology by expanding access and per-
Individuals associated with biotechnology organi-
spectives beyond the normal elite, to increase public
zations, biotech industries and advocacy groups
understanding of science and technology through
were excluded from the panel.
informed public debate, and to enhance democracy by
■ For an April 1997 panel on telecommunications
fostering civic engagement.”
and democracy at Tufts University, a group based
The approach is based on a European model for con- on a random sample of 1,000 Boston residents was
sensus conferences, and is considered particularly eventually supplemented to ensure an appropriate
promising as a means of gathering valid and con- balance based on race, age, educational attain-
structive citizen input on technically complex issues. ment and computer use.
Between 1987 and mid-1999, about 30 citizens’ pan- ■ In Denmark in 1999, a 14-member panel on genet-
els had been convened in a dozen countries (18 of ically engineered food was balanced according to
them hosted by the Danish Board of Technology). The gender, age, rural/urban residency and occupation.
sessions have addressed such issues as bioengineering
At the beginning of the process, panelists receive
and genetically modified foods, food irradiation, air
background readings reflecting a diversity of view-
pollution, telework, consumption and the environ-
points on the subject at hand, and take part in two
ment, education technology, the future of the
preparatory workshops with an independent facilita-
automobile, the future of fishing, national electricity
tor. The advance sessions combine social, intellectual
policy, telecommunications, and mandatory laptop
and procedural content, enabling panelists to get to
computers in universities.
know one another, become familiar with the topic,
How It Works and help determine the content of the actual panel
A citizens’ panel generally brings together a dozen to meeting. The Danish panel prepared for its assignment
two dozen non-experts to arrive at a common posi- by developing a list of 10 major questions on geneti-
tion on a controversial issue. The required output may cally engineered food and asked each of the invited
be an absolute consensus, in which all dissenting experts to focus on one or two of the topics.
voices must be satisfied, or a more general consensus, The citizens’ panel itself begins in public session, with
where disagreements are noted and built into the expert presentations, discussion between experts and
panel report. panel members, and informal interaction between
panelists and audience members. Panelists hold pri-
vate deliberations after the presentations and
discussions are complete, and conclude the process by
issuing a consensus statement.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 129

The process often includes an opportunity for expert Logistics and Limits
witnesses to comment on the consensus statement, to Standard logistical concerns for a citizens’ panel
eliminate ambiguities and possible misunderstandings. include effective communication among the panelists,
In at least one instance, experts were able to advise and between the panel and its various audiences, space
panelists on ways of expressing their concerns more rental for meetings (choosing an appropriate space for
strongly. Sponsors of the Calgary panel on biotechnol- the event), travel and accommodation for out-of-town
ogy also maintained an interactive website to track panelists, the professional facilitator or presenters,
the progress of the exercise. on-site refreshments for panelists, presenters and par-
ticipants, timely printing of advance materials and the
When Is It Most Useful? final report, and effective media relations and follow-
Citizens’ panels bring together groups of non-experts up. A key challenge for any citizens’ panel is to find a
who can serve as a proxy for the public at large, common language and build mutual trust and
developing viewpoints that reflect the conclusions confidence among lay panelists and expert witnesses
their friends, neighbours, relatives and colleagues representing a wide range of viewpoints.
would have reached if they had the opportunity to
study an issue in similar depth and detail. Some Cost Implications
researchers have also highlighted the potential impact The budget for a citizens’ panel should allow for
of citizens’ panels on the attitudes, training and day- reproduction and distribution of materials, participa-
to-day work of expert practitioners – whether or not tion of a trained facilitator, space rental and
the process brings any change to public policy – and refreshments for three (or more) sessions, and travel
in building public awareness of technical issues. and accommodation for out-of-town panelists, if
applicable. Per diems may be standard for expert par-
Citizens’ panels also demonstrate the ability of non-
ticipants, and may be required to enable a
experts to arrive at fairly rapid, well-informed
representative cross section of panelists to take part.
judgements on complex issues. In contrast to expert
However, citizens’ panels are seen as a cost-effective
committees that rely heavily on technical knowledge,
alternative to deliberative opinion polls – one deliber-
citizens’ panels are seen as an opportunity to build a
ative poll in 1996 brought together more than 600
wider range of perspectives, concerns and values into
Americans and generated a more scientifically rigor-
the decision-making process. According to the evalua-
ous result, but at a cost of several million US dollars.
tion of the Danish process, panelists “understood that
the disagreements among experts were ideological as Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up
well as technical,” and succeeded in “locating the Citizens’ panels conclude by releasing a consensus
technology within a real social milieu.” statement to the public. Other follow-up mechanisms,
beginning with wide distribution of a written report
in print and electronic form, may be built into the
process.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 130

Timelines The planning group for a citizens’ panel can play an

Although specific panels may adopt a different time- important role in building a balanced process, by
line, the literature suggests a process consisting of helping to ensure that a wide range of interests are
two preparatory weekends and one deliberative fully represented. However, the overall process can
session running two to three days. backfire if panelists come to believe that the promise
of an independent, participatory process has no
Potential Pitfalls chance of being fulfilled. In March 1998, a citizens’
An evaluation of the Danish panel suggested that the panel reviewing local governance models for the
process had failed to adequately address cross-cutting Region of Ottawa-Carleton disbanded, citing
concerns, and could not remedy a perceived lack of “immensely destructive interference in the Panel’s
assertiveness on the part of public interest advocates. process by numerous municipalities.”
Lay participants in the Calgary panel raised an equal
and opposite concern, stating that their recommenda-
tions had been distorted by commercial media.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 131

The citizens’ panel, selected by the advisory commit-

Level 5 Technique:
tee, begins by spending two preparatory weekends
Consensus Conference going over a comprehensive and unbiased information
package which outlines the essential aspects of
What Is It? the subject.
A consensus conference, or a citizens’ conference, is
These weekends allow the panel to:
where an unaffiliated group of individual citizens
becomes informed about an issue and formulates a ■ get to know one another
set of recommendations for policymakers and the ■ learn to work together
public. Similar to a “citizens’ jury” approach, this ■ get an overview of the various technical and
technique assumes that the general public can make ethical issues concerned
sense of complicated issues when given the time and ■ identify key questions to be addressed
resources to do so. The main aim of the project is to ■ select experts/witnesses from a list drawn up by
influence the policy-making process by opening up a the advisory committee to form the “expert panel.”
dialogue between the public, experts and government.
The process concludes with a three-day public forum,
How It Works? which brings the citizens’ panel face-to-face with
Ten to 20 participants are chosen to sit on a citizens’ experts. If marketed well, the forum can also draw the
panel to consider and discuss an issue of local or media and interested members of the public. This
national importance. These issues usually involve a forum gives the citizens’ panel a chance to listen to,
matter of policy planning. Similar to the citizens’ jury, interview and cross-examine the experts. On the first
information is presented, deliberated, and experts or day of the conference, each expert speaks for one-
witnesses are cross-examined. The consensus confer- half hour, and then addresses any questions from the
ence may occur over three separate weekends, allowing citizens’ panel. The citizens’ panel then retires to dis-
the participants to increase their knowledge and cuss among themselves what has been heard. On the
awareness of the subject before questioning experts. second day, the group cross-examines the expert
panel in order to fill any gaps and to probe further on
The organization of the consensus conference must be the issue. The following day, a report on the group’s
prepared properly to ensure that conditions for an findings is prepared and presented.
open, balanced and constructive debate are met. The
process will lose all credibility if it is viewed as biased The citizens’ panel works cooperatively through the
or partial in any way. For this reason, the process use of open discussions. However, their “verdict” on
should be carried out by an independent facilitator. the key questions of the issue does not need to be
completely unanimous. The final report should reflect
The initial task is to recruit an advisory committee of the citizens’ panel’s expectations, concerns and
eight to 10 members. This committee will oversee the recommendations.
entire process, ensuring its independence and integrity.

Key tasks of this committee are to:

■ define the broad scope of the debate

■ select the method for recruiting the citizens’ panel
■ draw up a list of experts and witnesses on the
issue for the panel to call upon.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 132

When Is It Most Useful? Expectations for Feedback or Follow-Up

Consensus conferences are used to: Policymakers need to report publicly how the results
of a consensus conference were used.
■ bring everyday citizens together with experts to
learn, discuss and debate about a subject and for- Timelines
mulate a set of recommendations for policymakers At least three to four months are required for the
■ encourage a group of citizens to address scientific total process. The meetings of the citizens’ panel take
or technical issues in an informed way place over three weekends.
■ give participants a sense that they have a voice
in democracy. Potential Pitfalls
Since this process can be initiated and driven by citi-
Logistics and Limits zens, rather than government, there is the challenge
This is a two-step process requiring at least three to of assuring that policy recommendations flowing from
four months for the total process. the process are timely and used by policymakers.

Cost Implications
Costs include the work of an advisory committee,
preparation for approximately three face-to-face
meetings of the citizens’ panel, one meeting of the
experts, and advertising to the public. Costs will also
be incurred for an independent coordinator and a
public meeting space.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 133

interest and putting forward specific questions that

Level 5 Technique:
enable them to learn from each other and seek a
Deliberative Polling deeper understanding of the issue. On the second or
third day, any unanswered questions are addressed by
What Is It? a panel of experts in a news conference format.
Deliberative polling combines small-group discussions Following questions and discussion, a second survey is
involving large numbers of participants with random distributed, and participants’ responses are analysed
sampling of public opinion. Its overall purpose is to and compared with the views expressed in the
establish a base of informed public opinion on a spe- original poll.
cific issue. Citizens are invited to take part at random,
so that a large enough participant group will provide When Is It Most Useful?
a relatively accurate, scientific representation of Deliberative polling is designed to:
public opinion. ■ expand public understanding of an issue and
participation in decision making
How It Works
■ make broader use of both public and government
Deliberative polling usually involves 250 to 600 par-
information networks in order to increase public
ticipants, selected locally or nation-wide. The size of
awareness of the issue
the participant group is determined by organizers, but
■ establish a network that will facilitate decision
this is one setting in which bigger is often better – a
makers’ efforts to understand and interpret public
larger sample size usually assures a better cross sec-
opinion, in order to represent the community more
tion of views, and increases the confidence and
effectively.
credibility with which results can be seen to represent
public opinion. It is advisable to hire a facilitator with Deliberative polling is used to measure diverse public
specific experience in deliberative polling to help opinion by examining participants’ views after they
organize the process. have been given the time and necessary information
to understand an issue. It can also capture changes in
The sampling stage of a deliberative poll begins with
public opinion that occur during the process. While
a general population survey, to capture public opinion
deliberative polling is primarily a social research
and demographics. Mail surveys can be conducted
technique, designed to expose participants and organ-
with the help of a market research firm, using voters’
izers to a range of unique perspectives and expert
lists or subscriber lists purchased from telephone
arguments, the results of the poll can be interpreted
companies. Depending on the issue, the sampling
to represent broader public opinion.
component of a deliberative poll may be conducted in
partnership with a television network, in order to Logistics and Limits
reach a broader population base. In this case, the net- As noted, deliberative polling is an expensive tech-
work might invite viewers to take part in a telephone nique that relies on extensive surveying of relatively
survey by calling in to a phone bank. large population groups.
After the survey results are compiled, small-group
participants are recruited according to demographics
and their attitudes on the issue, and are asked to
review a package of background materials. They then
take part in a series of consultative meetings over a
two- to four-day period. At this stage, participants
decide the agenda themselves, identifying issues of

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 134

Cost Implications Timelines

The high cost of deliberative polling relates directly to The duration of the sampling stage depends on the
the large number of participants involved. Significant methods used. After suppliers and partners have been
costs include printing, distribution of poll materials, identified, at least two to four weeks should be set
prepaid envelopes for completed surveys, and staff aside to put logistics in place for a large-scale opinion
time for a qualified facilitator. Polls conducted in research project.
partnership with a television network will also have to
cover the cost of air time and network personnel. Potential Pitfalls
■ If random sampling is not conducted for the survey
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-Up or for obtaining group participants, results may not
Participants may ask for a final report on the process be statistically valid for the population
and for follow-up information on the sponsoring ■ Participants are not able to set a clear agenda or
organization’s response to their findings. As well, a identify common issues
deliberative polling process may generate considerable ■ Lack of a skilled facilitator.
media attention if the topic is a matter of current
news interest and a television network is involved
as a partner.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 135

■ work toward common ground/desired features

Level 5 Technique:
■ self-manage conversations/action plans
Search Conference
When Is It Most Useful?
What Is It? ■ in situations that are especially uncertain or
A search conference brings together large, diverse fast-changing
groups in order to discover values, purposes and ■ when addressing a wide range of issues in many
projects they hold in common. Rather than use different arenas such as schools, communities,
experts to answer questions, participants practise churches, government agencies and business firms
shared learning, where mutual understanding is ■ to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders
achieved by sharing information. By inviting individu- (A search conference is ideal for bridging the lines
als with a stake in the purpose, a search conference of culture, class, gender, power, status, as individu-
enables those involved to create a desired future als work on tasks of mutual concern.)
together and a possible place for implementation. ■ circumstances in which there is limited time, as
This process is most often used at a community level participants need no prior training and can build
in addressing local issues. on the combined knowledge they already have.

How It Works Logistics and Limits

A search conference usually involves 60 to 70 people, The search conference can be challenging to organize.
large enough to include a diversity of perspectives For example, determining the appropriate task at
and small enough that the full group can be in hand and getting the right people in the room is a
dialogue at each step in the process. Instead of having difficult process.
speeches by experts, the search conference has work-
Cost Implications
ing sessions with a wide range of parties who have
■ Location
information, authority to act and a stake in the out-
■ Planning and organizing costs
come, regardless of their status, skills or attitudes. In
■ Facilitator expenses
creating a level playing field and equal chance to
■ Participant travel costs
participate, it is possible for people to see issues from
■ Potential publication of findings
many more angles.
Expectation for Feedback or Follow-Up
There are 16 or more hours of work, over a period of
■ May need to produce a final report
three days, where five tasks must be completed.
■ May generate significant media and public attention
These include:
■ May lead to additional requests for research
■ establish a common history among participants
■ establish a “map” of national, regional or world Timelines
trends that are affecting the group assembled The conference usually takes place in four or five
■ assess what is currently being done half-day sessions.
■ devise ideal future scenarios
Potential Pitfalls
■ examine key features that appear in every scenario.
■ If participants lack the necessary background
Throughout the search conference, the group must information to provide input
focus on the core meeting principles: ■ If objectives are not established beforehand
■ If a diversity of opinions is lacking during the
■ get the “whole system in the room”
process.
■ think globally, act locally – explore the same world

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 136

facilitator asks participants to list the most important

Level 5 Technique:
outcomes of the process, identify any common con-
Study Circles cerns that emerged, describe any changes in their
own views as a result of the discussion, and talk
What Is It? about the actions they might take outside the study
A study circle consists of a series of informal, face-to- circle in response to what they have learned.
face discussions that take place over a period of time.
When Is It Most Useful?
The process emphasizes cooperative and integrated
Study circles are used to:
learning, democratic participation and mutual respect.
It is usually used to share ideas and opinions on ■ monitor or document the evolution of a group’s
social, political and community issues. The format is thinking in relation to a particular issue
flexible enough to meet a variety of participant and ■ track participants’ views on an unfamiliar issue, as
organizational needs in many different settings. new information is introduced and their expertise
grows
How It Works
■ generate quality ideas, suggestions or recommen-
A study circle is made up of five to 20 people who
dations based on a shared body of knowledge.
agree to meet three to five times to discuss a specific
topic. The process can also be used to convene a series Study circles can be asked to meet over a longer
of weekly or bi-monthly sessions to deal with a longer period of time, to provide advice to policymakers or
list of topics. Meetings generally run one to two hours maintain a watching brief on longer-term topics, such
with the group sitting in a circle, with or without as the future of health care. Circles can be convened
tables. The format is designed to be as comfortable as locally or nationally, although a geographically
possible for participants. A facilitator opens the process dispersed group of participants lends itself more to
by introducing a set of established ground rules: broader issues.
respect for all participants’ views, no personalization of
disagreements through insults or personal attacks, and Logistics and Limits
adequate time for everyone to speak. The gradual process of building familiarity with an
issue can make it difficult to generate a rapid
Background material is distributed to participants response to an emerging issue.
before a new topic is introduced. The facilitator also
assembles a list of discussion questions, with the Cost Implications
assistance of the organizer. Discussion flows around Local study circles are quite affordable. National
the circle, with the guarantee that each participant groups may require travel and accommodation, hospi-
will have the opportunity to take part. Facilitators tality and some compensation for individuals who
may choose to introduce a stone, a book, a stick or must take time away from their regular jobs to take
some other object, with the understanding that only part. Background materials must be produced and
the person holding the object can speak. distributed, and fees may have to be covered for the
facilitator and recorder unless qualified personnel can
The facilitator gradually guides participants through be found in-house.
the process, with the understanding that the group
need not discuss all the questions or consider them in Expectation for Feedback or Follow-Up
the order in which they are presented. A silent observ- Participants may ask for a final report on the process
er should be asked to record the flow of the discussion and for follow-up information on the sponsoring
to help track the group’s thinking as it evolves over organization’s response to their findings.
several meetings. At the end of the discussion, the

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 137

Timelines Potential Pitfalls

Study circles can be assembled quite quickly, particu- Continuing reliance on the same group of participants
larly if key participants have already been identified means that the fresh, original snapshot of public
and if the circle is convening locally. The duration of viewpoints may deteriorate. Evolving group dynamics
the process depends on its design. can direct or limit the development of individual
viewpoints and past discussions can unduly influence
participants’ perceptions of new issues as they are
introduced.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 138

The facilitator will likely introduce broad question

Level 5 Technique:
areas that decision makers are presently grappling
Study Groups with and make initial requests for recommendations
on direction setting. Time frames for print and/or
What Is It? electronic feedback will be discussed and agreed
A study group consists of a series of structured and upon.
non-structured discussions which take place over a
The schedule for future meetings will also be estab-
period of time. These discussions can take place
lished (e.g. a monthly basis). The facilitator may
through any/or all of the following means: face-to-
continue in these meetings as a resource person to
face meetings, teleconferences or the use of
move discussion along, or the group may nominate
electronic links. Participants are selected for their
one of its members to assume this role.
knowledge in a particular area. The process is used to
share ideas and opinions on issue areas and to provide When Is It Most Useful?
advice on direction setting to decision makers. Issue Study groups are used to:
areas include (but are not limited to) the social,
ethical, political, economic and scientific fields. ■ provide decision makers with a “heads-up” on
potential concerns in issue areas and to suggest
The study group differs from a study circle in that it early solutions or prevention strategies
does not seek to track participant views on an unfa- ■ provide long-term recommendations on direction
miliar issue as new information is introduced and setting and to point out windows of opportunity to
participant expertise increases. It is similar to a study set strategy options in motion
circle in that an important output is the generation of ■ convene for special meetings to provide advice on
quality suggestions or recommendations. urgent concerns.

How It Works Logistics and Limits

A study group can be made up of approximately five People selected for their expertise may experience
to 12 people. The group’s work will likely be initiated other conflicting demands on their time and decide to
with a face-to-face meeting. Future meetings may be withdraw from the group, thus taking away the rich-
primarily through conference calls or electronic ness of their perspectives.
means. Meetings will normally run from one to two
hours, with the exception of the first session which Cost Implications
may last longer. The location of the meetings may In most instances, study groups are quite affordable.
depend on whether the study group is composed of Apart from an initial face-to-face meeting, most meet-
local or national participants. ings will be via telephone or virtual in nature. If the
study group is local, the face-to-face meeting costs
The first meeting focusses on an introduction to the will be limited to meeting space, standard presentation
mandate of the group and the process which they will equipment and basic writing supplies. If the study
follow. The facilitator thus reaffirms that the group group is national, initial meeting costs will include
has been established to both “keep an eye” on the accommodation and travel expenses. Fees for the facili-
issue area over a particular period of time, and to tator (as appropriate) will also need to be covered.
alert decision makers on areas of concern and then
provide recommendations on potential courses of
action.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 139

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up Potential Pitfalls

The study group normally sets up ongoing feedback Evolving group dynamics or existing dissonances
loops with the sponsoring organization. among experts may stifle the development of
insightful options for action.
Timelines
Like study circles, study groups can be assembled quite
quickly. This is especially the case if key participants
have already been identified and if the circle is conven-
ing locally for an initial, face-to-face meeting. An
initial meeting of this nature for a national group may
require several months’ notice to the participants.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 140

beginning the process of discussing, analysing,

Level 5 Technique:
synthesizing and creating recommendations.
Think Tanks
When Is It Most Useful?
What Is It? A think tank is a useful technique when:
Think tanks bring together creative thinkers to devel- ■ innovative solutions are needed for public policy
op innovative solutions to current issues and problems
problems. Although most often used for public policy ■ issues are complex and interdependent
and planning, think tanks have become a common ■ current solutions no longer work and different
technique when creative solutions and out-of-the-box thinking is needed
thinking are needed in non-governmental organiza- ■ there are scholars and thinkers with both insight
tions and private-sector organizations. and expertise to assist government in improving
Think tanks can range in scope from: public policies and programs.

■ a small gathering for a few hours, during which day- Logistics and Limits
to-day issues are set aside so participants can focus An independent facilitator is preferred as the process
on bigger, often more future-oriented discussions, to guide, leaving everyone else the opportunity to
■ a large professional organization operating year- participate in the content of the think tank.
round with a number of policy-oriented staff,
Cost Implications
associates and consultants who contribute innova-
Cost depends on the length and location of the think
tive solutions and recommendations to societal
tank and number of participants. Costs include travel,
problems and issues (e.g. C.D. Howe Institute and
accommodation, per diem, facilitator expenses, and
Institute for Research on Public Policy).
hosting expenses, such as meeting room costs, hospi-
How It Works tality, audio-video rental and ground transportation.
Participants are selected for their knowledge and Some experts may require a fee for service for prepar-
expertise, creativity, ability to synthesize and analyse ing pre-meeting information or presentations at the
information, and prepare cogent recommendations. think tank and other participants may require
Success of any think tank is dependent on the selec- compensation for forgone wages.
tion of participants, ensuring a balance between
Timelines
expertise and creativity. Considerations include what
Think tanks usually run for a relatively short period of
is and what is not possible and a willingness to move
time (e.g. half a day to three days), depending on the
beyond current thinking and boundaries as necessary.
topic and desired outcome.
Most think tanks provide some background reading or
questionnaire to ensure that participants have a com- Potential Pitfalls
mon base of knowledge and have done some thinking ■ Lack of preparation
about the content of the think tank. Pre-meeting ■ Not establishing a knowledge base on the subject
preparation is usually essential if complex issues are to before commencing
be presented, discussed, analysed and synthesized into ■ Clear statement of purpose is not defined
recommendations within a reasonable time frame. ■ Expert opinion cannot be relied upon to represent
the broader public’s views
Beginning with a clear statement of purpose and ■ Outcomes may be influenced by expert biases.
desired outcomes is critical so that all participants
know what is expected of them. Often, a review or
update of information is presented, prior to participants

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 141

Level 5 Technique:
References

Citizens’ Juries:
■ Coote, A. and Lenaghan, J. Citizens’ Juries: theory into practice. London, Institute for Public Policy Research,
1997.
■ Coote, A. and Mattinson, D. Twelve Good Neighbours: the citizen as juror. The Fabian Society: Discussion Paper
31. 1997.
■ Global Ideas Bank - http://www.worldtrans.org/GIB/
■ Institute for Public Policy Research - http://www.pip.org.uk

Citizens’ Panels
■ National Forum on Climate Change - http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/climatechange/
■ Citizens’ Panel on Local Governance in Ottawa-Carleton - http://www.citizenspanel.ottawa.on.ca
■ Analysis of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens’ Panel - http://www.city.nepean.on.ca/reform/citpt1.htm
■ Citizens’ Conference on Food Biotechnology: A Public Discussion on the Future of Food -
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~pubconf/
■ The Loka Institute - http://www.loka.org
■ Town Meetings on Technology, Richard E. Sclove - http://www.loka.org/pubs/techrev.htm
■ Report on Danish Citizens’ Panel on Gene-Modified Food - http://www.loka.org/pages/DanishGeneFood.html
■ Evaluating the Impact of the First U.S. Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunication and the Future of Democracy -
http://policy.rutgers.edu/papers/5.pdf (98 KB Adobe Acrobat file)
■ Danish Board of Technology - http://www.tekno.dk/eng/
■ International links - http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~pubconf/Citizen/intercit.html

Consensus Conference
■ Consensus Conference on Biotech, 5–7 March 1999. For more information, contact: Professor Edna Einsiedel,
University of Calgary (403)220-6357 - einsiedel@ucalgary.ca
■ Loka - www.loka.org/pages/panel.htm
■ UK Ceed - www.ukceed.org

Deliberative Polling
■ Center for Deliberative Polling - http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/cdpindex.html
■ TAN+N News About Projects - http://www.auburn.edu.tann/tann2/project2.htm@CITIZEN
■ Institute for Public Policy Research - http://www.pip.org.uk

Search Conference
■ Public Policy Forum. Search Conferences – A Participative Policy Tool. March 1999.
■ Public Meetings (PEI Literacy Alliance) - http://www.nald.ca/PROVINCE/PEI/LITALL/holdmeet/meeting1.htm
■ Future Search Network - http://www.searchnet.org

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 142

Study Circles
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development - http://ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/mainpage.html
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development. Public Consultation Guide, Changing the Relationship
Between Government and Canadians. May 1997.
■ Study Circles - http://www.nald.ca/clr/study/study.htm
■ Study Circles resource page - http://meena.cc.uregina.ca/~icsgd2/index.html

Study Groups
■ Research on Internet Use and Study Groups (Bob Stephens). December 1997 -
http://www.aom.pace.edu/lists/bps/0065.html
■ University of Victoria Counselling Services Learning Skills Program: Study Groups, 1996 -
http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/studygp.html
■ Canadian Federation of University Women (CFUW) Interest and Study Groups -
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/cfuw/studygroups.html
■ Harvard University, Institute of Politics, Study Groups, November 1998 -
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~iop/studygroups.html

Think Tanks
■ Kassirer, Jay and Mckenzie-Mohr, Doug. Tools of Change: Proven Methods for Promoting Environmental
Citizenship, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 143

Consultations with
Health Canada Employees
This section includes:

Consultation with Health Canada Employees: Case Study

■ Occupational Health and Safety Agency

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 144

with government employees rather than the Canadian

Case Study:
public at large. However, the principles and mecha-
Occupational Health and Safety nisms of this particular exercise clearly have many
Agency features which could be applied to a public consulta-
tion strategy.
Background
The Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OHSA) is Managers of federal departments are legally responsi-
a government agency responsible for the provision of ble for OHS programs for their employees. There were
advice, consultation and service delivery to managers still many misconceptions about what is included in
of public service departments on all aspects of occu- the health and safety programs and where responsi-
pational health and safety. OHSA became an agency bility lies. There was a need to involve the customers
in 1996; prior to this it was a directorate under so that they could become aware of their responsibili-
Health Canada’s Medical Services Branch (MSB) and ties and the systems and programs needed to fulfil
included elements of the Indian health program. these responsibilities.
OHSA reports to the Deputy Minister of Health
Who Was Involved?
through MSB’s Assistant Deputy Minister. OHSA is
OHSA brought together 10 employees who formed a
building partnerships through service agreements with
working committee which was responsible for deter-
government departments.
mining the service standards. Through a series of
In response to the Agency’s desire to increase its surveys and focus groups with staff and customers,
accountability and visibility of its services to its cus- the committee was able to create the occupational
tomers, OHSA initiated a process to develop service health standards.
standards in December 1994. This came at a time
Description of the Process
when Treasury Board was requesting service standards
A set of service standards relating to various issues on
from all departments that had provided some infor-
OHS was created. The OHSA recognized that it did not
mation on “Quality Service” and service standards.
have the expertise in service standard development
This case study will focus on the consultations sur-
in-house, although the working group members were
rounding the development of service standards for the
all experts in their program or work areas. Therefore,
occupational health and safety (OHS) programs of the
the commitment was made to train OHSA staff to be
Agency.
able to create and consult on the service standards.
Over a two-year period, December 1994 to December Also, the decision was made to obtain information
1996, OHSA developed a working committee of staff from various levels of government employees, solicit-
which steered the development of customer-based ing information from those working in the affected
OHS standards for federal departments and agencies. departments. When consultants are used, they are
This working committee consulted widely with OHSA used to facilitate and train OHSA employees, rather
staff, customer focus groups and existing consultation than to do the work directly.
structures such as the National and Regional Advisory
Committees supporting the OHS program.

Why Seek Public Involvement?

OHSA’s mission statement is to work in partnership
with customers and stakeholders to provide responsive,
cost-effective occupational and public health protec-
tion and promotion programs. Most of OSHA’s clients
are public service departments and consultations occur

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 145

First, the 10 representatives to the working committee Resources

were chosen from a range of occupations, professions The process was funded through the appropriation of
and regions. No senior officers were chosen. The rep- the Agency.
resentatives were chosen by the executive group for
their interest in the project. Once chosen, they were Summary of the Outcomes
sent to the Canadian Centre for Management The first set of service standards was developed and
Development (CCMD) for a two-week training session. released to the customers in December 1996. The ini-
A consultant was contracted to help facilitate the tiative is now firmly into its implementation phase,
committee later in the process when it encountered which consists of delivering the services and making
obstacles in developing service standards. routine measurements of its performance against the
benchmarks outlined in the Standards for Excellence
The committee examined other examples of service publication. Evaluation of the standards is done
standards, attended conferences on alternative service through a series of performance indicators, such as
delivery and compared international models of service questionnaires and reports. Tools are used to deter-
standards and the British citizen charter. Next, they mine which services continue to be valuable to the
developed a survey tool to obtain information from clients and replace ones that are no longer useful.
departmental managers and OHSA’s staff on the nec-
essary indicators and service standards to include. The OHSA offers similar cost-recovery services to both the
working committee and departmental managers iden- federally regulated and private sectors. It is likely that
tified key informants in the regions to participate in their role in the future will be more advisory, while
focus groups, which continued throughout the entire partners in the government department or the private
process. Also, those responsible for the project kept sector will provide the actual services to their own
their colleagues informed of the process. Finally, the organizations.
developed standards were passed around to the vari-
Analysis
ous committee members, clients and agency staff
Factors for Success
until agreement was reached.
■ The committee were chosen for the members’
In the second phase of the project relating to the per- interest in the process rather than on a skills-
formance indicators, the committee brought together based criteria. They were very dedicated to this
the customer departments in a working group meet- process and all were very results oriented. They
ing to provide input, which was beneficial and also also understood the importance of standards to the
expedited the turn-around time. The customers found organization.
it very rewarding and informative. ■ This was an extremely valuable learning experience
for the committee members. Because they were
This was an example of a situation where clients were
chosen from all levels and occupations, it was a
able to provide direct input to the process. Agency
new experience for some of them, providing chal-
staff were brought in to review the service standards
lenges and the possibility for professional growth.
and customers were involved throughout the entire
■ The timing on this project was right. The commit-
process. Although this was not a process that involved
tee was able to get the government departments
public consultation, many of the methods used could
involved because there had been interest generat-
be applied to a public consultation strategy.
ed surrounding these issues.
Furthermore, many of the issues dealt with by the
OHSA have a direct impact on most Canadians.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 146

Barriers to Success A detailed synopsis of the OHSA is located on

■ Resourcing is always a problem. The committee the Health Canada website at
members were asked to participate in addition to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ohsa.
their usual job-related duties. OHSA was unable to
bring them on-board full time, and this may have Public involvement techniques used
prolonged the timing of the process. ■ Citizens’ Juries
■ The changes from directorate to Agency made it ■ Consensus Conference
difficult to create the standards when they were ■ Focus Group
not sure what the service lines were going to be. ■ Public Surveys and Polls
■ It is hard to be accountable with the kind of serv-
Contact information
ices offered by OHSA because many of the process
Gillian Lynch
steps move slowly.
Chief Executive Officer
■ Some resistance was experienced in the govern-
Occupational Health and Safety Agency
mental agencies related to misunderstandings
(613) 957-7669
about what was to be accomplished. Because
Gillian_Lynch@hc-sc.gc.ca
OHSA’s business is knowledge-based, there is often
no agreement between those in the affected pro-
fessions and the OHSA’s staff on how much time is
required to achieve a particular standard.

Policy Implications
Although OHSA does not directly develop policy, it
does advise Treasury Board on how the federal gov-
ernment should see itself in relation to occupational
health standards policy. One key area is whether or
not Treasury Board should be leading the way with
service standards, or following the lead of other
industries. Nevertheless, the process of creating serv-
ice standards for the federal government has allowed
discussions on many different levels and so far the
government has been on line with the standards
being developed by the private sector.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 147

Conclusions
raditional consultation processes such as In all phases of public involvement, an open process is

T elections, referenda, legislative hearings, royal

commissions, constituent surveys, town halls
and opinion polls are longstanding political mecha-
required from the beginning. In the consultation and
citizen engagement stages, ideally citizens and their
organizations are involved in helping to set agendas,
nisms for ascertaining the will of the public on key time frames and the nature of the engagement
public policy issues. These approaches will continue to process itself. In certain cases, governments will need
play an important part in governance and how to be prepared to step aside at times or to be the
government involves Canadians. However, the convenor of the process and primary carrier of results,
Canadian public is increasingly interested in securing but not to preside over and control the process. As
an ongoing, meaningful and deeper role in key policy Health Canada incorporates these kinds of collabora-
and program decisions which affect their lives. tive approaches increasingly into its planning and
operations, the department will be both working to
The shift from traditional consultation – usually a
meet the needs of Canadians and aligning itself with
snapshot of public opinion captured at a particular
a key strategic priority of the federal government.
moment in time – to genuinely deliberative and inter-
active citizen engagement will require fundamental
changes on the part of governments. These changes
will take time and resources for Health Canada to
implement. In the future, governments will be less
likely to act unilaterally in deciding when to involve,
on what and with whom. The public is demanding this
as a prerequisite for a new relationship of trust.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 149

Bibliography
Internet Sites - Selected Organizations Working on Public Involvement
■ The Canada West Foundation http://www.cwf.ca/citizen.cfm.
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development http://www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/home/index.html.
■ Canadian Policy Research Network, The Society We Want: Public Dialogue Project
http://www.cprn.com/corp/tsww/tswwcont_e.htm.
■ Global Ideas Bank http://www.globalideasbank.org/.
■ Institute on Governance http://www.iog.ca/ and http://www.policity.com/cp/.
■ Institutes Related to Civic Participation http://serve.indiana.edu/institut.htm.
■ International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) http://www.iap2.org.
■ The Leadership Network http://leadership.gc.ca/.
■ The Policy Research Initiative http://policyresearch.schoolnet.ca/.
■ The Privy Council Office’s Federal Consultation Database http://publiservice.pco-bcp.gc.ca/fcd-bdcf/.
■ Public Involvement Programme http://www.pip.org.uk/.
■ Public Participation Around the World http://www.islandnet.com/~connor/.
■ Tools of Change: Proven Methods for Promoting Health and Environmental Citizenship
http://www.toolsofchange.com/.

Public Involvement and Citizen Engagement Theory

■ Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35,
no. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224.
■ Barber, Benjamin. Strong Democracy, Participatory Politics for a New Age. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press, 1984.
■ Brown, Colin. “Greater Democracy Better Decisions.” Consumer Policy Review, vol. 7, no. 5, Sept/Oct. 1997,
pp.170-173.
■ Clarke, M and Talbot, J et al. Renewing Citizenship and Democracy. The Citizenship Research Group. 1997.
■ Ekos Research Associates Inc. Rethinking Citizen Engagement: A Syndicated Research Project. Ottawa: 1997.
■ Ekos Research Associates Inc and Public Policy Forum. Roundtable Discussion on Citizen Engagement. Draft
Outcomes Report. Ottawa: September 21-22, 1998.
■ Ellsworth, James P. Community-Driven Initiatives: A “New Deal” in Public Participation? Environment Canada.
Ottawa: February 1999.
■ Fischer, Frank. “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to
Practical Cases”. Policy Sciences: An International Journal Devoted to the Improvement of Policy Making, vol. 26,
no. 3, 1993, pp. 165-187.
■ Institute on Governance. A Voice for All: Engaging Canadians for Change. A Conference on Citizen Engagement.
Chateau Cartier, Hull, Quebec, October 27-28, 1998.
■ Gross Stein, Janice, D. Cameron, R. Simeon and A. Alexandroff. “Citizen Engagement in Conflict Resolution:
Lessons for Canada in International Experience”. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 94. June 1997.
■ Graham, Katherine A. and S.D. Phillips, (eds). Citizen Engagement: Lessons in Participation in Local Government.
Toronto: Institute of Public Administration of Canada. 1998.
■ Nevitte, Neil. The Decline of Deference: Canadian Value Change in Cross National Perspective. Peterborough,
Ontario: Broadview Press. 1996.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 150

■ O'Hara, Kathy and Cox, S. “Citizen Engagement in the Social Union.” Chapter 6 in O’Hara, K and Cox, S.
Securing the Social Union. Ottawa: 1997.
■ O’Hara, Kathy and Cox, S. “Securing the Social Union: Next Steps,” Canadian Policy Research Networks
Reflection, no. 2, Ottawa: November 1997.
■ Policy and Major Projects Directorate, Health Promotion and Programs Branch, Health Canada. Citizen
Engagement - Preliminary Literature Review. Ottawa: January 1999.
■ Privy Council Office. A Voice for All: Engaging Canadians for Change. Notes for an Address by Jocelyne
Bourgon, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. Institute on Governance Conference. Aylmer,
Quebec, October 27, 1998. Available at: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/ClerkSP/polic_e.htm
■ Renn, Ortwin, T. Webler, H. Rakel, P. Dienel and B. Johnson. “Public Participation in Policy Making: A Three-
step Procedure.” Policy Sciences: An International Journal Devoted to the Improvement of Policy Making, vol. 26,
no. 3, 1993, pp. 189-214.
■ Schervish, Paul and J. Havens. “Social Participation and Charitable Giving: A Multivariate Analysis.” Voluntas:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. vol. 8, no. 3, 1997, pp. 235-260.
■ Seidle, F. Leslie. Rethinking the Delivery of Public Services to Citizens. Montreal: The Institute for Research on
Public Policy, 1995.
■ Yankelovich, Daniel. Eighteen Propositions for Citizen Engagement. Presentation to W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Devolution Initiative, June 1998. Available at:
http://www.wkkf.org/programminginterests/devolution/devol_yankelov.htm
■ Treasury Board Secretariat. Communications with the Public
http://www.tbs- sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol /hrpubs/OffLang/CHAP1_1_e.html

Practical Guides to Public Involvement: General

■ Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada. Consultations Tool Book: A Resource Guide for those Involved in Planning
and Carrying out Departmental Consultations. Ottawa: Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada. 1998.
■ Bleider, Hans. Citizen Participation Handbook for Public Officials and Other Professionals Serving the Public.
Institute of Participatory Management. March 1990.
■ Canadian Centre for Management Development. Consultation: When the Goal is Good Decisions. Ottawa:
CCMD. June, 1992.
■ Canadian Standards Association. A Guide to Public Involvement. Etobico, Ontario: CSA March 1996.
■ Greyling, Tisha. Guide to Designing an Effective Public Participation Process. Manyaka Greyling Meiring (Pty)
Ltd. South Africa: November 1999.
■ McMillan, Bill and S. Murgatroyd. Opening the Door: Improving Decisions Through Public Consultation.
Edmonton, Alberta: Dark Horse Books. 1994.
■ Privy Council Office. A Practical Guide to Public Consultation. Communications and Consultation Secretariat.
Ottawa: PCO. August 1993.
■ Privy Council Office. Consultation Guidelines for Managers in the Federal Public Service. Ottawa: PCO.
December 21, 1992.
■ Sergeant, J. and Steele, J. Consulting the Public: Guidelines and Good Practice. London: Policy Studies Institute,
1998.
■ Sterne, Peter and S. Zagon. Public Consultation Guide: Changing the Relationship Between Government and
Canadians. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development. May 1997.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 151

Public Involvement for Specific Issues

■ Abele, Francis, K. Graham, A. Ker, A. Maioni and S. Phillips. Talking with Canadians: Citizen Engagement and
the Social Union. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development. July 1998.
■ Bowie, Cameron, A. Richardson and W. Sykes, “Consulting the Public About Health Service Priorities,” British
Medical Journal, vol. 311, no. 7013, October 1995, pp. 1155-8.
■ Farrell, Christine and H. Gilbert. Health Care Partnerships: Debates and Strategies for Increasing Patient
Involvement in Health Care and Health Services. London: King’s Fund, 1996.
■ Ferderber, Rhonda, Marie Fortier and Janice Hopkins. Taking the Pulse of Canadian Health and Health Care.
Plan Canada, Ottawa. May 1997.
■ Health Protection Branch, Interdepartmental Working Group on Public Involvement, Health Canada. Public
Involvement, Framework and Guidelines. Ottawa: Health Canada. March 31, 1999. (Draft)
■ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Planners Workbook. Available at:
http://www.transact.org/Reports/Planner/INDEXPW.HTM October, 1994.
■ Jones, Earl. “Models for Public Participation in State Enterprise Zone Program.” Journal of Voluntary Action
Research, vol. 17, no. 2, April-June 1988, pp. 38-46.
■ Kassirer, Jay and D. McKenzie-Mohr. Tools of Change: Proven Methods for Promoting Environmental Citizenship -
Workbook. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd. 1997.
■ Land and Resource Management Planning Public Participation Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca
■ Treasury Board Secretariat. Official Languages: Full Sail Ahead. Available at:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tb_a3/ol_fsa_e.html
■ Treasury Board Secretariat. Official Languages within Crown Corporations and Other Institutions Subject to
Official Languages Act, Official Languages an Integral Part of Decision Making, Implementation Guide.
Available at: http://www.tbs- sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs /TB_A3/ ol_ccoi_e.html

Literature on Specific Methods

■ Delbecq, Andre, A. Van de Ven and D. Gustafson. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal
Group and Delphi Processes. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. 1975.
■ Dienel, Peter. Power to the People? Innovations in European Public Participation. London. 1998.
■ Policy and Major Projects Directorate, Health Promotion and Programs Branch, Health Canada. Citizen
Engagement: Selected International Models. Ottawa: Health Canada. January 1999.
■ Richardson, A. “Determining Priorities for Purchasers: the Public Response to Rationing within the NHS.”
Journal of Management in Medicine, vol. 11, no. 4, 1997.
■ White, Charles S. “Citizen Participation and the Internet: Prospects for Civic Deliberation in the Information
Age.” Social Studies vol. 88, no. 1. January/February 1997, pp. 23-28.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

 152

Evaluation of Methods
■ Canadian Petroleum Association. Planning, Implementing, Evaluating: Public Consultation Guidelines for the
Canadian Petroleum Industry. Ottawa: CPA. 1989.
■ Rosenbaum, Nelson (ed.). Citizen Participation: Models and Methods of Evaluation. Working Paper Series,
Washington, DC: Centre for Responsive Governance. 1981.
■ Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Canadian Quality Criteria for the Public Sector. Ottawa: The National
Quality Institute of Canada. 1997.

Documents for Citizens

■ Lawson, Philipa (Second Edition revised by Bill Jeffery). Consumer Advocacy Manual, A Guide for Citizen
Activists (Second Edition). Ottawa: Public Interest Advocacy Centre. October 1994.
■ Maynes, Clifford. Public Consultation: A Citizens, Handbook. 1989.
■ Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA). Compact Between Government and the Voluntary and
Community Sector in Northern Ireland http://www.nicva.org/compact.html
■ Schervish, Paul and J. Havens. “Why Do People Give?” The Not-For-Profit CEO Monthly Newsletter, vol. 5, no. 7,
May 1998, pp. 1-3.
■ Morino Institute, The Promise and Challenge of a New Communications Age, 1995.

HEALTH CANADA POLICY TOOLKIT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING