Blacklock's Reporter

Government spokespeople who talk to reporters must speak slowly, as if addressing small children, and avoid facial expressions that look bad on TV. The tips are contained in a fisheries department manual obtained through Access To Information.

“An audience can tell if you’re bored, upset or uncomfortable,” says the department manual Meeting The Media: A Guide For DFO Spokespersons. “Try to remain as neutral as possible in your demeanour no matter how aggressive the questioning may become.”

“Slow down, as if you are addressing a classroom full of students,” the manual says. “This deliberate pacing will help make the delivery clear and allow you time to think in complete and quotable sentences.”

Officials were also instructed to remain stone-faced and keep their hands by the sides, especially on TV: “Crossing your arms can appear defensive; clenched jaws and darting eyes are a sign of nervousness; exaggerated hand movements are a visual distraction; loss of eye contact with the reporter shows discomfort”; “Uncomfortable body language comes through loud and clear to a television viewer,” the manual says.

The federal government spends $229 million a year on “communication services”, according to the Department of Public Works, including money spent on polling; focus group research; advertising; and staffing communications departments with spokespeople.

Guide describes media as puzzling and dangerous: “The world of newspapers, radio and television is a mystery to many people,” the manual explains. “It’s even more confusing today with the addition of web news services, blogs and growing international media focus on department activities.”

“Only a few gifted communicators can meet the media with little or no preparation,” Guide continues. “Department spokespersons cannot afford to take that chance”; “Spokespersons are always on their toes.”

Other tips included making frequent use of the word “again” to “add emphasis”; “never run”; never use the pronoun “I”; never speculate; “keep your cool”; “Make clear you have time to take only a few questions”; never use jargon in emails; and never trust reporters who claim a confidence.

“Remember, you are always on the record even before a so-called formal interview has taken place!” the manual warns. “Carefully compose your answers as though every word could end up in a news story, and avoid adding any unnecessary shorthand or chit-chat”.

“‘Off the record’ at one time meant that information could be conveyed to a reporter anonymously,” it says. “Today this practice doesn’t really exist. Assume you are always on the record.”

By Staff

The fisheries department cut funding for scientific research by as much as 18 percent in the past decade, new accounts show.  Cuts included reductions in programs on fisheries protection and management.

“That’s serious, and it reduced their capacity,” said MP Kennedy Stewart, New Democrat science critic. “There really are no better teams of scientists anywhere in the world than people who work in fisheries, yet the department is not funding these people to do basic research.”

“It is really strange,” said Stewart, MP for Burnaby South, B.C. “I think this deserves clarification from the Minister.”

Financial records tabled in Parliament at Stewart’s request indicate the department’s funding for “fundamental research” fell from $317 million a year in 2007 to as little as $259 million by 2013. Funding last year was $272 million. Major cuts included the 2014 closure of Nova Scotia’s Mersey Biodiversity Facility, and New Brunswick’s St. Andrews Biological Station, the nation’s first federal marine research centre dating from 1899.

Other reductions included a $7.6 million cut to research on integrated fisheries management; $4.7 million to oceans management; $4.1 million to hydrographic products and services; $3.9 million to fisheries protection; and $3 million to the department’s sustainable aquaculture program.

“The cuts to science have been huge,” said Dr. Susanna Fuller of the Ecology Action Centre. “One of the impacts we have seen in the Atlantic region is the move to multi-year assessments.”

“Instead of a stock assessment every year there is a stock assessment every five years,” Fuller said. “That means you can’t do adaptive management, and you can’t look at stock on a year-to-year basis. There is no way to make science-based decisions on that basis.”

Other cuts included $373,000 to research on aquatic animal health; $275,000 in reduced funding for biotechnology; and $245,000 less for management of species at risk.

“I think a big piece is the complete lack of inclusion of climate change science into fisheries stock assessments,” Fuller said. “In Canada, we have no integration of impacts of climate change or ocean acidification on our fish stocks – whereas south of the border, in New England and Washington State, they have had commissions on ocean acidification and the impact on fisheries. They have a plan.”

The fisheries department, asked in Parliament whether it would restore all funding to previous levels, replied in an Inquiry Of Ministry: “Not yet determined.”

By Kaven Baker-Voakes