Public consultation is in trouble—everywhere. It's supposed to give citizens a say on issues, but all too often the process is hijacked by interest groups, “managed” by government, or arrives at conclusions that baffle the participants. Can we fix it? Yes, we can make engagement better—a lot better, actually: fairer, more open, more transparent, more meaningful and more productive. Digital tools raise the possibilities even higher. But to succeed we need a far more systematic approach. This week I wrapped up a project with the Government of Ontario that was centred on a single idea: Engagement processes aren't just about getting a say. They're about getting the right kind of say—and that changes with the issue. When it comes to engagement, sometimes the most governments can offer citizens is a fair chance to be heard. Suppose a new bridge is planned and two towns along the river have suitable building sites. It might make sense to hold a public hearing to let residents from each location make the case for choosing their town; but trying to get them to engage one another in dialogue will serve no useful purpose. This is a situation without middle ground. One side is going to lose and trying to bring the two sides together through discussion will almost certainly fail. In the end, it is up to government to assess the arguments and make the final decision. At other times, however, dialogue is a better way to make decisions. The recent reform of Ontario's Condominium Act is a good example. Over the last decade, the sector has seen remarkable growth and change. As it expanded, so did the range and complexity of the issues around condo ownership and management. In response, the Ministry of Consumer Services conducted an 18-month public engagement process to renew the Condominium Act. Over two thousand people were involved. At first, the discussion was unruly and there was plenty of disagreement. But once people saw that the process was open, inclusive and fair; and that the government really wanted them to make some choices, they got down to work. In the end, there was very significant agreement on some 40 pages of recommendations, which became the basis of a new law last spring. Then in October 2013, Ontario took another step along this path. Premier Kathleen Wynne launched Open Government and appointed the Open Government Engagement Team to provide recommendations on how to make Ontario Canada's leader in the field of Open Government, especially on Open Dialogue. Our report highlighted a key lesson of the Condo project: Just as there are different kinds of issues, so too there are different kinds of engagement processes. The way to make engagement better, we told the government, is to develop a tool to match the right process with the issue. This idea is at the core of Ontario's Open Dialogue project. Over the last year, the Open Government Office in the Treasury Board Secretariat partnered with four different ministries to test different kinds of engagement approaches, both in-person and online. The projects range from using crowdsourcing tools to reduce red tape to a deliberative discussion with the business and disability communities on how they can work together to make Ontario businesses more accessible. We used these projects to help refine and test a “public engagement framework,” that is, a set of four basic templates for public engagement. If the Ontario Public Service rigorously applies this framework, I believe it will set a new standard for public engagement across the country. Of course, doubts persist. Some people worry that open dialogue is prone to dissention and easily degenerates into squabbles. Others worry that it will weaken government by shifting power to unelected individuals or organizations. Concerns like these are easily exaggerated. While bad dialogue processes exist, this is usually because they have been poorly designed or executed. Governments, stakeholders and citizens have lots to learn about how open dialogue works. The framework should be a big help. As for shifting decision-making power from government to citizens, while this is the goal of some advocates of “citizen engagement,” the framework is based on a very different view. It is simply a toolbox for policymaking. The goal is to bring a new level of clarity and professionalism to the use of the tools in the box. While some of these tools require much greater public involvement, this is not aimed at moving power from governments to citizens. It is aimed at better policymaking. Real progress on open dialogue will require a willingness to challenge some long-standing assumptions about the roles of the private sector, civil society organizations and citizens in the policy process. Ontario now has the tools it needs to play a leadership role in bringing about this change. The ball is in the government's court.   Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. He is currently the Government of Ontario's principal advisor on its Open Dialogue Initiative. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at:[email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan