The article by Elizabeth Thompson ran in iPolitics a few weeks ago under the headline “Twitter, Facebook and social media ‘critical’ to government, says Clement.” It was one of those stories that sail just under the mainstream media radar–an anodyne little item that didn’t make the grade in the newsrooms of the national outlets. 

Speaking after an appearance before the Senate Official Languages Committee, Treasury Board President Tony Clement told iPolitcs that he wants to launch a pilot project to use social media to consult and engage Canadians more on government policies. He added that he intends to push forward with Treasury Board’s open data initiative where government information is shared openly online.



This is one story with legs. Or at least, it’s a story that should have legs. While it may not be readily apparent, few initiatives now on the government’s drawing board have the potential to transform our democracy as much as this one.

And this is a story that anyone who believes in the concepts and merits of open government or government 2.0 needs to take stock of and react to-now. 

Senate reform, more MPs for rapidly growing provinces, amount to tinkering at the margins of our democratic system when compared to the transformative potential of genuine online engagement and its institutional implications.

Clement, who is one of the most active MPs on Twitter, is quoted in the article as saying that the opportunity “to use social media, to speak directly to people, to our constituents, to citizens…is a big occasion to promote the conversation between citizens and the Canadian government. It is very important for the future.”

He’s right. The problem is that there have been no conversations on what that conversation could or should look like.

The absence of a public debate on the merits and implications of using technology to open government up and engage more with citizens means that what has the potential to transform our institutions also runs the risk of being used to shore up the status quo.

The problem is that our system is built around incrementalism—small cautious steps that don’t rock the boat are what garner promotions in Ottawa, not proposals for sweeping institutional reform.

And citizen consultation is nothing new in government. There are well-staffed units in most federal departments that do nothing but consult and engage with citizens and interest groups. 

But using new online tools to make these consultations easier does not mean we’ve embraced Government 2.0. Giving outdated concepts and approaches a fresh coat of paint will only hide the rust and cover up the cracks.   

One of the challenges is that our current system of ministerial and bureaucratic accountability is not designed to easily integrate solutions that run counter to formal advice.  Alternatives or contrary opinions tend to be relegated to the public environment scans of memos to cabinet, not recommended action.

Designing new government online strategies to operate on the old institutional and accountability platforms would be like putting a Ferrari body on a ’72 Pinto drive train—it’ll look nice in the garage, but don’t take it for a spin.

If the core principles of open government (data as a public good, largely unfettered access to information, implementation of citizen solutions, and democratic engagement) were implemented, they would result in a fundamental shift in how government works and thinks. It would also amount to a dramatic re-think of our democracy.

But without a compelling main-street narrative to create political space and demand for real change and without any obvious external champions for this cause the prospects of a transformative open government agenda being implemented any time soon are dim.  

Open government is not a bureaucratic issue–open government is all about politics.  And political leadership and decisions will be what make it happen…or not.  

It’s not enough for techies and theorists to carry on amongst themselves about the virtues of new digital technologies in opening up government. It’s time for Canada’s open government evangelists step up to the plate and kick-start the debate, explain why open government matters and what the cost of half-hearted reforms would be.

A few weeks ago, Treasury Board President Tony Clement hinted at his vision: a connected more collaborative government, a bureaucracy empowered to engage directly with Canadians, the sharing of data to foster innovation. He also said Treasury Board officials were now busy developing “guidelines” that will frame this vision.

The first Treasury Board installment on that vision was released last month: a rule-bound straight jacket of a social media policy to govern public service online activities. Not an auspicious start.

Anyone that wants to see government open up better grab the perch offered by the minister now, before government’s blueprint is fully set and reputations become wed to it.

Tags: , , , , , ,


  1. I am behind you! I agree.

    What can we do to help?

    In the province of Quebec, the information about open government did not cross the barrier of languages. No Francophone main stream media picked on the news, when the federal government announced the launch of new open data portal, and the next day, on March 18, 2011, an extension of this project to open government.

    In October 2010, the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, asked the Deputy House Leader, Henri-François Gautrin, to analyse the potential of Web 2.0. The Gautrin group will deliver its final report on December 15, 2011. I am convinced that Mr. Gautrin does his best to raise awareness, and does all he can do to convince the government of Quebec to follow his recommendations.

    Since July, the Gautrin group has consulted with citizens in a public platform. A couple of hundreds of people collaborated to this platform. Thousands of citizens visited the platform. There is more awareness about these issues than there were, let’s say a year ago.

    Lately, two excellent articles were published about the work of the Gautrin group in Le Devoir. Many citizens must have read them, and probably discovered this type of governance at that time.

    What will happen after December 15? Advocates are holding their breath. Will the Gautrin group hand in the report on an iPad, in a press conference? Probably more citizens will find out about these possibilities in a couple of days.

    The absence of public debate could be attributed to a number of factors. In Quebec, the barrier of language is clearly one of them.

    Now that I have the privilege of being a member of the new Edgeryders team, an open government project on youth unemployment, run by Council of Europe and co-financed by the European Commission (, I meet with many advocates, activists, thinkers, philosophers, geeks, social alchemists, worldview hitchhikers, open scholars, thought leaders, change agents, communicators, independant writers, lobbyists, culture hackers, geeks, etc. And of course, we talk about open government issues. I receive many comments.

    More and more I realize that we live in a culture of silence. Many people, in Canada and in other countries as well, are very much afraid to speak about these issues, for fear losing their jobs.

  2. Serge Lavoie says:

    I agree with you that the initial Treasury Board ideas about social media policy create a straight jacket; more a command and control approach than true engagement. It’s telling that references to engagement are presented as “rules of engagement”, making every effort at public involvement sound more like a military mission than a true open government initiative.

    On the other hand — there’s always an “other hand” — how do we guard against social media being used by elected officials and public servants to create spin and alternative narratives? Surely we can’t overlook the irony that it’s Tony Clement spearheading this move to openness. He’s no slouch in the altnernative narrative style of governing.

    I would ask: can we really conceive an approach to open government, utilizing social media, that won’t lead to even more misinformation, misinterpretation, misrepresentation and open discord than we have today?

Leave a Reply