The Information Commissioner of Canada, Robert Marleau, provided his own personal reaction to a blog posting by Paul Wells, a columnist and blogger for Macleans magazine.

Commissioner Marleau followed up on his comments during a longer discussion with Wells, which Wells blogged this weekend.

The Information Commissioner, like my boss, is an independent Agent of the Parliament of Canada.

This is still sketchy, but fascinating. At what point must a government department (or political staffers sharing the government network) be aboveboard about the editing they perform on Wikipedia and other open online resources?

After all, a department will edit documents on its own network without leaving editing tracks.

But if a department feels it is making legitimate and independent changes to an erroneous Wikipedia entry, should it make the changes under an official identity?

Here in Canada, we’re undergoing a routine review of all our major government-wide administrative policies - and that includes the Government Communications Policy.

Earlier this week, the Auditor General of Canada was appearing before a Standing Committee of Parliament, speaking to MPs about her department’s spending plans for the upcoming year.

An opposition Member of Parliament, David Christopherson, asked the Auditor General about the rumoured revisions to the Communications Policy. As one news report characterized their exchange:

“… [The Auditor General] … revealed this week that the government is drafting a new policy that could require departments to vet their communications plans through the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister’s Office.

“There’s a draft communication policy going around that would have all communication strategies, all communications, everything, go through Privy Council Office,” Fraser told a Commons committee on Tuesday. “Well, I can tell you there is no way that my press releases about my report are going to go to Privy Council Office or our communications strategies are going to be vetted by Privy Council Office.”…” (Toronto Star)

You see, the Auditor General is an Officer of Parliament - her and five other Officers* are considered independent of the Government of the day.

The exchange got a little news coverage.

All thanks to the liveblogging of Macleans journalist Kady O’Malley.

I mean, who liveblogs parliamentary committee meetings? A lot of them?

Despite the attention paid to the exchange, it’s important to note a separate paragraph from the Toronto Star piece cited above:

“… Treasury Board President Vic Toews wrote the six officers of Parliament in March saying he wants to “preserve and strengthen” their independence. “I fully accept that due to the unique statutory mandates of agents of Parliament, not all Treasury Board instruments can be applied to these offices in exactly the same manner as they would to other government institutions,” he wrote…”

*and I happen to work at one of those Offices, in the interest of full disclosure. At the moment, our communications materials do not go to PCO for review or approval. And we don’t expect that to change in the future.

and I’m jealous of all the other Brits, heading off to their facilitation get-togethers, their community building projects and their semi-secretive social media initiatives for government.

Look at this recent twitter from Simon:

@Canuckflack Wait til you see next week. We’re going mashup crazy.

Meanwhile, he’s also pointing to experiments like the twittering of the next diplomatic mission to Washington. This from the official statement from 10 Downing Street:

“…Gordon Brown will visit the US next week, his second trip to the country as Prime Minister.

The Downing Street website will run a live microsite including images, rolling updates and a Twitter feed throughout the PM’s stay from 16 - 19 April. Log on from Wednesday to follow the PM’s activities.

Mr Brown is expected to visit Boston, the United Nations in New York and meet President Bush at the White House in Washington. His meetings will focus on the global economy and other areas of mutual bilateral interest.

Gordon Brown’s first trip to the US as PM saw him travel to Camp David in July last year.

Seeing as I AM a social media nerd, or a real politics nerd, I would ask:

• does this mean there’s a communications assistant responsible for the twitter feed?
• what sort of vetting process is there for twitter messages? On the fly?
• is the content going to concentrate on policy announcements? Any chance of side remarks about the entrees at the state dinner? Snide remarks about the little kids handing over flowers at events?
• what sort of twitter app are they going to use? Is it on a BlackBerry, Treo or other PDA?

Technorati Tags: government communications, United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, twitter, public diplomacy

Michael Bryant, Ontario’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, has posted a series of 5 videos on a new YouTube channel, all dealing with a contentious aboriginal land claim in Caledonia, Ontario.

Over the past twenty years (or so), there have been several dramatic and sometimes violent confrontations over aboriginal land claims in Quebec and Ontario.

These videos seem to be an attempt to demonstrate the Government of Ontario’s continuing engagement in the dispute in Caledonia - which has been ongoing for two years.

While the medium encourages unrehearsed and somewhat rough production values, these videos may just be too informal for such a serious subject.

They are shot in a casual and unscripted style, with WAY TOO MANY references to the Tim Horton’s donut chain. In fact, it has become trite for politicians to use the local Tim Horton’s as the universal “man on the street” interview booth.

That said, the opposition parties’ criticism of the tactic seems blind to the opportunities presented by new media channels like YouTube and other video sharing sites.

“… “It shows complete lack of leadership on the part of [Ontario’s] McGuinty government,” said [New Democratic Party leader] Mr. Hampton, adding Mr. Bryant’s video campaign just makes a joke out of a serious situation.

“YouTube is not the place to communicate either policy or to communicate government messages. But this seems to be the kind of three-ring circus that Dalton McGuinty is running now.” (Canadian Press)

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has launched a blog*, but Jake McKee has wondered whether the TSA has picked the right tool for the job:

“… The first round of posts and the hundreds (1308 comments submitted on six entries as I write this) are largely focused on questions from confused travelers. The first entry jumps straight into answering the inevitable travel policy questions. Is the blog the right tool here? I’d argue that a social tool that allows questions to be submitted and voted up by site visitors is a far more interesting idea over a blog..”

Click through for other incisive observations about the blog - and how organizations should program for a blog.

*the blog is called “evolution of security” - which may be something of an overpromise in terms of depth and breadth of topic.

How do you balance the need to have a common set of messages and priorities across government - with the urge that frequently overwhelms scientists and researchers to speak frankly about their work and its implications?

From a manager’s point of view, you could lean towards imposing discipline in messaging and some limited form of central review and approval.

But then you’d be getting the same reactions facing managers in a Canadian government department:

“…Until now, Environment Canada has been one of the most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.

…  The reality, say insiders, is the policy is blocking communication and infuriating scientists. Researchers have been told to refer all media queries to the government. The media office then asks reporters to submit their questions in writing. Sources say researchers are then asked to respond in writing to the media office, which then sends the answers to senior management for approval. If a researcher is eventually cleared to do an interview, he or she is instructed to stick to the ‘approved lines.’

…”They can’t even now comment on why a storm hit the area without going through head office,” says {University of Victoria climatologist] Mr. Weaver, whose been fielding calls from frustrated media organizations who can no longer get through to federal expert scientists who once spoke freely about their fields of work, be it atmospheric winds affecting airliners or disease outbreaks at bird colonies.” (Ottawa Citizen)

A hopeful, but pragmatic, hope for increased experimentation in outreach and consultation by government institutions in the recent Democracy Journal:

“…By being explicitly experimental with new forms of digital institution-building, we have an opportunity to increase the legitimacy of governmental decisions. The tools–increasingly cheap, sometimes free–will not replace the professionals. Technology will not, by itself, make complex regulatory problems any more tractable, or eliminate partisan disputes about values. What this next generation of civic software can do, however, is introduce better information by enabling the expert public to contribute targeted information. In doing so, it can make possible practices of governance that are, at once, more expert and more democratic…”

I’ve a wholly uninformed opinion about the consultation process here in Ottawa - which frequently depends upon publication in the Canada Gazette and distribution to a specialized but limited group of experts and interested parties.

How do you widen the participation in a consultative process while ensuring a level of informed debate and positive contribution?

After all, the real hurdle to comprehensive and open consultation is the effort it demands from the responsible parties in government: a policy analyst has to open, read, and render a judgment on all the contributions.

Over the Christmas holiday, an online movement developed that is attempting to significantly affect copyright policy development in Canada. And it is blazing a new trail for how the public seeks to influence policy development in the federal government.

Michael Geist, the lightning rod for the latest opposition to a copyright regime with significant similarities to the U.S DMCA regime, has long argued for copyright and patent reform on his highly popular blog. Lately, he has been gaining a lot of traction for his Fair Copyright for Canada Principles. And by traction, I mean 38,000 members for his Fair Copyright Facebook group - in a month.

The Copyright Act has long been a bugbear of a handful of academic and legal specialists, with some interest from that part of the general public. Attempts to amend the Act have come and gone over the past four years, with proposed legislation dying on the order paper, or suddenly pulled back before actually being tabled in the House of Commons.

This latest effort by Professor Geist appears to have broken through the staid and static process that has dominated the discussion of copyright legislation in Canada. (Static, but for the histrionics and outrageous claims of the recording industry, and the posturing of a DMCA-obsessed United States)

We haven’t seen or heard of a change in direction on copyright policy, but the bare fact that 38,000 people signed their name to an effort to force change in the system must prompt policy makers (and politicians) to question whether their traditional tools for consultation are actually working.

After all, we’re talking about 38,000 USERS, not stakeholders.

Do you want an informative hour long discussion on the details of launching a government blog? Joe Thornley of ProPr and ThornleyFallis was kind enough to record the Third Tuesday session last month, where I was the A in a lengthy Q &A session on the steps and strategy needed to launch a social media campaign for a government organization. Ian Ketcheson was the moderator that led me down the garden path.

I find you always sound more important if someone else filters your words and extracts the soundbites, as Joe did:

“I’d been spending four years slamming my head against a wall bringing up social media and building some sort of conversation within a much larger department. And I think everyone who’s worked in a bureaucracy realizes at some point or another that there are institutional barriers to social media - fairly strong ones. But what I realized coming into a smaller organization like the Privacy Commissioner … if you enter an organization that has at least one or two people who recognize the benefits of social media, if you build a strong business case … something that drives along a business case model that identifies risk and how you will mitigate risk, you can convince … people to try something new…”

If you every had an urge to hear my voice, Joe has also posted an mp3  of a substantial part of the discussion.