“Let Us Put Our Minds Together”
Comparison of International Experience with Public Involvement

Technical Resource Materials
	List of Participants and Program
	Biography of Canadian Participants
Background Papers
	“The Politics of Consultations: A Case Study of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada ” Michel Amar, Principal of the Strategic Associates
	“Gender and Public Consultations: Canadian Experiences” Pauline Rankin, Gender Advisor for the CCLCP Director, School of Canadian Studies, Carleton University
Presentations
	“Use of Hearings to Strengthen Committee Oversight on Policies and Programs” (available soon) Paul Steckle, Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, House of Commons
	“Public Participation in the Legislative Process: Bill 210” (available soon) Linda Jeffrey, Chair of the Committee on General Government Committee, Ontario Legislative Assembly
	“Engaging Canadians in Health System Renewal” by Michel Amar

The Project saw the launch of an international seminar on 11-13 July in Beijing that brought together People’s Congresses of various provinces and international consultation experts in Beijing to share experience and lessons learned from a comparative study on the cases of consultation. The CEA invited leading consultation practitioners in Canada, include Chair of Parliamentary Committees as well as government consultation advisors, to contribute their insights on the guiding principles, methods and best practices for effective consultation that are extracted from various consultation exercises in Canada. Experts from other countries, such as Australia, Germany, the US and Switzerland, were also invited to provide some comparative perspectives on how to adapt consultation practices to different political context while adhering to some basic guiding principles.

These comparative study on various consultation cases in China, Canada and other countries have contributed to a broad consensus on how important governance concepts and principles, i.e. accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and information accessibility, should be manifested in different practical aspects related to the planning and facilitation of the consultation process. Participants recognized the necessity of setting down realistic objectives for any consultation initiatives and reconciling the design of the process with the objectives for consultation activities, which, at different stage of the Chinese legislative process, could include gathering evidence, fact-finding, validating proposed directions, ensuring social stability, promoting growth, educating the public to ensure compliance, etc.

Participants from China and other countries agreed that a unified set of guiding principles should be set up to inform the consultation practitioners of some common factors to consider in planning any consultation. However, there is a debate regarding to which extent the rules of procedures for consultation events should be codified and “formalized”. Representatives from a few Chinese provincial congresses requested to see a set of standardized norms established for administering every aspect of the consultation process, such as witness selection, time allocation for presentations, reconciliation of dissenting opinions and reporting and feedback on the consultation results. Western participants, however, alluded to the merit of leaving specific details of the technical procedure not regulated because each case of consultation varies in its purpose and hence requires a different set of methods and procedures. The western participants emphasized the concept of political accountability, which is at the fundament of the public involvement experience in Western democratic context, and noted that many of these details need to be determined at the political level.

The Chinese participants have shown a keen interest in incorporating evaluation mechanism at the front-end of consultation cycle. They were particularly attentive when distinctions were drawn between methodologies for evaluation the public participation “process” (e.g. adequacy of notification; awareness; level and quality of participation; posting of results; surveying participants and legislators as to the relevance and integrity of the process; etc.) versus “outcomes” (e.g. was the proposed legislation changed as a result of the inputs; if the intent was improving visibility or compliance, were benchmarks established before and after the hearings to allow progress to be measured.) Participants were convinced that future exchanges could focus specifically on evaluation.