“We were waiting to learn what might be available to us from a podium instead of public engagement”
With 2020 drawing to a close, we reached out to some of our first FPR contributors to ask them to look back on what they wrote in the early days of the pandemic and reflect on what’s happened since then.
Vass Bednar’s original piece about inclusive policy-making ran on April 10, 2020. You can see the rest of our Q&A series here.
Q: Why did you think inclusivity in policy-making was a policy priority at the beginning of the pandemic? Do you still feel that way? Why or why not?
A: For whatever reason, I didn’t feel confident that decision-makers could appreciate the pain and fear that everyday Canadians were experiencing as the country shut down. It felt presumptuous for policy to be designed without vehicles to converse directly with people to understand what they needed, and it felt like a “miss” in terms of policy design. Maybe that was partially informed by a recent employment change that I experienced, where I went from full-time work on salary to being an independent contractor. My relationship with work and time totally changed. I resented that the relationship between the public and policy-makers seemed so distinct, and that we were waiting to learn what might be available to us from a podium instead of public engagement (and I don’t count polling or social media sentiment analysis as public engagement).
Q: You called for the federal government to invite more Canadians without scientific expertise or existing government networks to submit pandemic policy proposals, in part by creating a crowdsourcing platform. What actually happened?
A: My observation is that the policy development process continued to be dominated by business interests. Look at the design of the mortgage deferral option — is that a good public policy? Does it not benefit banks to let them charge interest during the deferral? Were banks able to clearly project the implications of a deferral before inviting applicants for a form of “relief”?
What actually happened is that government quickly designed policy interventions and then released them to the public, and when there were gaps they (mostly) iterated and responded. That is a good thing. It’s been scrappy and messy, but responsive. Wonderful!
Q: What expectations about the pandemic did you have that contributed to your recommendations? Did they come to pass?
A: I suppose that I assumed we’d all be mobilizing around the same issues, but there were a lot of frustrations — like with schools, and conflicting public health information. I didn’t have any expectations around the pandemic: it was jarring and unsettling, truly scary at the start, and started to become more normalized as we had more information. Now I wonder if the emergency response mode has tempered our ability to unveil a broader economic response.
Q: If the policy approach you recommended was pursued, how do you think it has worked out? If not, how do you think it would have compared to the approach that was eventually pursued?
A: It wasn’t pursued as directly as I suggested, but there were other examples in the same spirit that I noticed and came to admire, like Policing the Pandemic, Project Northern Lights, Community Make and The Help List.
I also had regret that I did not build the kind of digital engagement that I wanted to see. But it would have been an outside tool and wouldn’t have had the benefit of being an invitation from the government to share needs/wants/desires. Also, I was experiencing the freakiness of the pandemic like everyone else — it’s been such a demanding, unusual year. The worst kind of grind.
Q: What should policy-makers’ priorities be in this space in the coming months?
A: Clear communication about why certain decisions have been made (explainability) and clear, consistent messaging.
Q: What policy position or assumption did you hold heading into 2020 that has been most challenged by the pandemic?
A: I’ve wondered why our benefits are geographically insensitive — i.e. the CERB [Canada Emergency Response Benefit] goes so much farther in Cape Breton than in Toronto, but it is the same amount. I suppose it would be an implementation nightmare, but it seems silly that our programs ignore that variance. Maybe it would be too expensive or insulting to differentiate. Maybe it would spur micro-migrations. It may be fair, but it’s not equitable, you know?
I also cling to a position that we are creative as a public and as policy-makers. But I felt disappointed this summer when we didn’t find meaningful alternatives to summer camp or workout opportunities. Could we not have free programs in parks for people to socialize in a safe way and move their bodies? Everything was isolating and independent. People with back yards and patios coped while we shamed and punished people for congregating in parks and maybe enjoying a beverage.
Q: Finally, it’s time to share a plug: What’s a new information source, advocacy campaign or group, book, etc., that you discovered this year that you think more people in the policy community should know about?
A: Ha — my newsletter on startups and public policy in Canada, regs to riches.
Vass Bednar is Executive Director of McMaster University’s Master of Public Policy in Digital Society. She writes the weekly newsletter “regs to riches,” about startups and regulatory realities.
