[All] Natural Resources Staff Censored from speaking of Glacial Deposits etc.

[Louisette Lanteigne]

PM's office needs to take off the muzzle Ottawa Citizen
September 18, 2010

 
		
			
		
	What
 is the Harper government afraid of? Scientists at  Natural Resources 
Canada have been told they need "pre-approval"  from the minister's 
office before speaking to journalists, according  to 
access-to-information documents obtained by Postmedia News. These
 new rules, imposed in March, affect not only scientists  speaking on 
controversial topics such as climate change and  Alberta's oilsands, but
 also those researchers studying pre-historic  glacial melting. 

These
 rules are apparently being applied so broadly that a Natural  Resources
 scientist, Scott Dallimore, co-author of a study published  in the 
journal Nature on flooding in northern Canada at the end of  the last 
ice age 13,000 years ago, was told he needed the approval  of the 
minister's political staff before discussing his work  publicly. 

This
 is asinine. Granted, democratically elected governments have  every 
right to set their policy agendas, and it is not unreasonable  of them 
to expect public servants to deliver programs reflecting  that agenda. 
But there is a big difference between toeing the line  on policy 
delivery and being forbidden from openly discussing  scientific 
information that is of significant public interest -- the  levels of 
fish stocks or polar bear populations, for example. Trying to 
control the policy agenda -- and its attendant message --  is prudent 
politics. But trying to control information Canadians  have paid for and
 that they need to stay informed is, well, bad  policy. That the Harper 
government no longer seems to perceive the  difference is troublesome, 
particularly given that Prime Minister  Stephen Harper once made 
openness and accountability -- does anybody  in the Conservative caucus 
remember the Accountability Act? --  signature policies of his 
government. 

Not so long ago, it was the practice that public 
servants could  answer media questions on informational matters (what 
does the  latest research on bird populations show?) while 
policy-related  questions (is the government's plan to protect bird 
populations  sufficient?) were left to the politicians. This 
arrangement, largely  informal and unregulated, served the public well. 
Unfortunately, and  paradoxically, the practice has gone by the boards 
in the era of  access-to-information legislation. It's as if the more 
government  regulated information in the name of openness, the less 
information  was made readily available. 

Admittedly, information 
can be used to attack government policy. In  this regard, the government
 has a legitimate concern if scientific  research is being politicized, 
either by scientists themselves or  through the misuse of their research
 by interest groups. 

Nevertheless, it is naive to think 
scientific research can be value  free. Science is always at risk of 
being influenced by competing  values. But that does not justify the 
government's engaging in the  de facto censorship of publicly funded 
information. A government  worth its salt accepts the risk of criticism 
in recognition that its  interests are secondary to ensuring the free 
flow of information  necessary to maintaining a vigorous democracy. 

The
 Harper government, in its effort to control the message (and  the 
media), reveals its mistrust of citizens' ability to inform  themselves 
and make responsible choices based on the best  information available. 
Such mistrust suggests a creeping and  worrisome authoritarianism. 

This editorial originally appeared in the Ottawa Citizen.© Copyright (c) Postmedia News 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100918/24db1ecd/attachment.html>