Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:43:43.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Problem of Communicating Public Policy Effectively: Bill C-256 and Winnipeg Businessmen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

M. Dale Beckman
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba

Abstract

How much effort by politicians and public administrators is needed to create awareness of proposed new policies or policy changes? Is broad newspaper coverage of proposed legislation and the high visibility of a minister enough to spread a significant amount of information? This note reports a study of the effectiveness of communication by one federal department, especially of a significant bill proposed by it.

The establishment of well-accepted and useful public policy depends on an adequate flow of information. A careful assessment of the wants and needs of society is required. The best policies are established when interested parties exchange opinions and ideas. If adequate communication about proposed plans does not occur, this exchange cannot take place. Perhaps policy-makers too readily assume that communication with other significant persons is occurring.

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the degree of knowledge evinced by a group which would be significantly affected by an apparently widely publicized piece of proposed federal legislation relating to business activity. The amount of knowledge demonstrated by the group is one indication of the effectiveness of the communication efforts of the minister and the department.

In autumn 1971 and early January 1972, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was perhaps more visible than at any other time in its history. The minister, Ronald Basford, had spent several years building and strengthening the department, as well as actively informing the public of a highly intensified orientation towards consumer protection and scrutiny of business activities.

Type
Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Five categories of level of knowledge were established: expert knowledge, much knowledge, some knowledge, little knowledge, and no knowledge. The requirements of the categories were defined in the following manner. Expert knowledge: would have had to look at the bill or study a summary in detail. Much knowledge: would have had to absorb a good part of the bill. Some knowledge: would have had to read newspapers, accounts of bill thoroughly, and have recollection of same. Little knowledge: would have had to read newspaper headlines, or have hear-say knowledge. No knowledge: would have no meaningful information.

2 “Notes for an Address to the Annual Meeting of the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada,” Toronto, 25 March 1969, in Marketing: A Canadian Perspective, ed. Beckman, M.D. and Evans, R. H. (Toronto 1972), 143Google Scholar