Called to account

Just to be abundantly clear: beware governments that trumpet their transparency and accountability.

Not because the idea is a bad one, but because the delivery is flawed. It’s flawed because governments have a completely different idea of what the concepts actually mean.

A transparent and accountable government, in theory, is one that releases all sorts of information, whether that information supports the direction the government is taking or not. It’s also one where that same government is fully accountable and answerable for the choices it makes, even in the face of contrary information that the government held.

In practice, though, accountable and transparent has been taken to mean governments where the only voice that can be heard is a political one — where, for the sake of the continuity of “the message,” a government has only one legitimate and permitted voice.

Accountable means only the minister can grant an interview, even if he or she knows so little about the topic that they can only crib answers from prepared briefing notes.

It’s an interesting interpretation: it’s along the lines of “since I approved the message, I am accountable.” There’s no real problem with the minister being responsible — the problem is that it has come to mean that the final word on anything has to be seen through the minister’s eyes.

Sadly, that’s a bastardization of what the concept actually means — because the minister will always have a vested interest.

This week, the Postmedia News Service obtained a series of federal media interview guidelines through an Access to Information request. The guidelines, which were tightened up in March, require scientists to obtain permission from federal cabinet ministers before being allowed to talk about any research the government might consider sensitive. In some instances, the rules require scientists to obtain a reporter’s written questions, and provide an explanation of what their answers will be, to the minister before a decision is made on whether they can talk or not.

How silly does the information control get?

Earlier this year, a Natural Resources Canada scientist was told he needed permission before talking to reporters about a study he co-authored — a study already published in Nature magazine, and that was about a flood that followed the failure of ice dams in Northwest Canada. The flood, by the way, occurred 13,000 years ago.

Asked for an explanation for why the minister had to be involved, a department official told Postmedia, “The minister is the primary spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada. As such, he needs to be made aware of issues in the media which involve the department so that he can effectively fulfill his role.”

And there’s the exact split: is a minister’s role to allow the free flow of information to the public that paid for the research, or does the minister report first to the political ends of his or her party?

There’s no doubt that the minister — and, by command, federal officials below them — are being accountable.

The real question is: “Accountable to whom?”