Government Message Control is Not in the Public Interest

And, it usually means they're trying to hide something

I’m still trying to get to the bottom of the changes made to the Wetland Conservation Policy. Nova Scotia Environment and Climate Change director of communications, Elizabeth MacDonald, still insists on calling the internal memo a “clarification” of the policy, as opposed to indicating a change, but according to documents I recently accessed through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, there is no question, these were changes made and the policy has been downgraded.

You can find some of my previous reporting on this story here and here.

The contents of the FOI package will be the subject of a future post, but in the meantime I wanted to give you a peek at what communicating with the NS government is like. I don’t mean to single out McDonald — she is no different than many of the other comms people I’ve communicated with over the years, at Environment, or the Department of Natural Resources and Renewables, or Fisheries and Aquaculture, or Health and Wellness.

They all know the drill. Stick to the official messaging. But for reporters, the odds are stacked against us when it comes to accessing truth through official means, which is alarming because we should all have confidence that the workings of government are transparent, and that there is a free flow of information.

In one of my emails to MacDonald I refer to the “Harper-era,” which is when public access to government scientists was essentially severed, and a journalist’s only hope of getting questions answered was through “media advisers.” Swat teams of information officers were hired and communications departments ballooned, which was ironic because there was a lot less information being communicated.

These communications staffers within federal departments also doubled as “media minders” and would actually attend the interviews that were authorized with scientists. These interviews were often recorded by the “minders” and scientists were instructed to follow talking points provided to them. I experienced this first hand at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, covering controversial fisheries science.

Essentially, federally employed scientists were muzzled in a campaign to control the message. Provinces followed suit. Even though Trudeau promised this would be reversed when he was elected, it remains pretty much the same today. The muzzling continues.

So, I am drawing the curtain here just to give you a sense of how this back and forth typically goes, for me anyway. I’m not a stenographer, and I don’t report on government press releases unless I’m drawing attention to something that I consider misinformation or disinformation. I have found that questions that demand something beyond scripted talking points are likely not to get answered. At some point, I always hit a brick wall.

The emails below with the NSECC communications director begin shortly after I received the FOI package that included internal emails, which indicated there was a “new” interpretation of the Wetland Conservation Policy. Since I began covering this story, MacDonald has maintained that there have been no changes to the interpretation of the policy — only a clarification. But this does not align with the facts.

LINDA PANNOZZ0:

Hello Elizabeth, 

I received a FOI package with regards to the changes in the interpretation of the Wetland Conservation Policy.

I have four follow up questions: 

1. In an email dated August 16, 2023 from ICE Regional Director, Lori Skaine, she lays out that discussions about wetland policy are already underway, and that “we have been asked to change an aspect of our process." 

Questions: 

a) What can you tell me about ICE’s role in these discussions about Wetland Conservation policy? 

b) Skaine says “we have been asked to change… our process.” Who made that request? 

2. On October 4^th, an email from Krysta Montreuil to five others (subject “Wetland Updates”) states: “As discussed previously, the team has reviewed existing guidance and identified areas for improving clarity. We have started proposing language to meet the intent of direction provided by our EC and have been identifying decision/ discussion points. The documents are attached and available on teams.”

Question: Who is “our EC” referring to? 

3. It appears that the “new interpretation” of the wetland policy was actually sent out by Elizabeth Kennedy on September 7th, about a week before it was sent to the team by Andrew Murphy and then by Adrian Fuller, of ICE.  

Question: Who provided guidance/ input to Elizabeth Kennedy to come up with this "new interpretation”? 

4. Does the “new interpretation" have anything to do with either the Goldsboro Gold Project Wetland Application OR the West Lake Estates development? 

Thanks very much,

Linda

ELIZABETH MACDONALD:

We have previously answered your questions about this matter; the documents you received in your FOIPOP request show one aspect of routine staff back-and-forth around the policy clarification. The answer to Q4 is "no". 

Also flagging this Dec. 20 news release where Government announced an additional 3000 hectares of wetlands (representing 528 WSS) are now protected for perpetuity.

New Island Lake Wilderness Area Among 14,000 More Hectares Now Protected - Government of Nova Scotia, Canada

LINDA PANNOZZO:

Hi Elizabeth…in sending me this release (which of course I saw) it is clear you are missing the entire point of why people are upset by the change/ new interpretation of the Wetland Conservation Policy. 

If the wetlands outside this protected area are not ALSO protected in perpetuity (they used to be, but the CHANGES to the interpretation of the Wetlands Conservation Policy mean they no longer are), then the wetlands within the protected area aren’t really protected either. They are all connected… an artificial boundary means nothing. 

Linda

ELIZABETH MACDONALD:

Hi Linda - the policy has absolutely not changed and neither has the interpretation of it.  That is factual.  

LINDA PANNOZZO:

That is not factual. The interpretation has changed… it says so in the FOI package of emails. 

It’s even called the “new interpretation” [in the emails] and all you have to do is look at the existing policy and the new wording to see it’s changed. 

Not exactly sure why you’re not acknowledging something so obviously true. 

I don’t usually engage with comms people this way, but this is such a flagrant misrepresentation, is the nice word for it. 

IMPORTANT ASIDE: Shortly after receiving the FOI package the week before Christmas, I sent an email to Marina Dulmage, one of the people with the NSECC that oversees the Wetland Conservation Policy interpretation. As the FOI documents indicated, she was privy to the discussions about the changes to the policy. I figured, if anyone knows what’s behind the push to downgrade the policy, she might know. I also figured that if she cares about wetlands, she might be willing to speak to me, off the record, or via another non-government email. I’ve certainly met with and spoken to government scientists off the record before. It happened a lot when when I was writing my first book about the government mismanagement of the fisheries. It also happened when I was writing 24/7 on forestry issues.

But I didn’t hear back from Delmage. Instead, she must have forwarded my request to MacDonald, who contacted me with the following friendly “reminder”:

ELIZABETH MACDONALD:

Hello and Happy New Year Linda.

Just a reminder that any requests or questions you have for staff at departments need to be sent to their respective Communications teams.

We never do anything "off-the-record", and we also use the Province's official channels and not "alternative contact information".

We have answered your questions about why the policy clarification (not a change) was done.  If further information is needed, please send your questions to me and we would be happy to answer.  

Thank you.

Elizabeth

LINDA PANNOZZO:

Thanks Elizabeth.

There was a time — pre-Harper-era — when journalists could contact government scientists directly. I wrote about it in my first book about the fisheries. Do you remember those days, when there seemed to be less the government was willing to hide? There was certainly more transparency from a reporting perspective.

In regards to what you keep calling a “clarification,” I guess there is a chance you might not be privy to the internal emails (which I currently have) but there was a change — make no mistake about it. Potentially thousands of wetlands that exist outside of protected area boundaries are now no longer protected. That is not a clarification, that is a functional delisting. It’s unfortunate that your position seems to require of you to misinform the public, rather than enlighten them. 

Happy New Year to you too!

Linda

[Stay tuned for more on this story]