CIDA employees are being warned to keep criticism of their department to themselves — or face disciplinary action. It is part of a newly written code of ethics for the Canadian International Development Agency that appears to interpret the concept of “duty of loyalty” — a foundation of the public service — with a hammer rather than in the nuanced way it has traditionally been viewed.
All federal government departments are required to update their values and ethics codes, but CIDA’s code stands out. Not only does it bluntly tells employees not to criticize the agency, which other codes do not, but it is not publicly available on CIDA’s website, as other are. It appears to be a heavy-handed and secretive way to remind employees of their ethical duties, especially for an agency which has undergone so much criticism and inner turmoil in recent years.
While public servants are generally required to be loyal to their employer and refrain from public criticism of the government — as are private sector workers of their employers — there are exceptions. Treasury Board spells out circumstances under which public criticism may be justified on its website, saying “the duty of loyalty is not absolute.” They include when an employee is concerned about illegal acts or dangerous government policies — the kinds of things whistleblowers tend to complain about and the very reason they need to be protected. And there is a third exception — when the public servant’s criticism has no impact on his ability to perform his duties effectively or on public perception of that ability.
“In determining whether any particular public criticism is justified and therefore not subject to disciplinary action the duty of loyalty must be balanced with other interests such as the public servant’s freedom of expression,” says the Treasury Board website.
CIDA’s new Code of Values and Ethics, a copy of which was obtained by the Citizen, spells out none of those exceptions, however, and simply requires employees to acknowledge a document that says, among other things: “We do not publicly criticize CIDA or its representatives,” something other departments don’t do.
A CIDA spokesperson noted that the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act outlines “circumstances where a public servant may be justified in public disclosure of an allegation of wrongdoing” and said specific behaviours expected from CIDA staff have been added to its code: “to guide our activities and be integrated into our decisions. They must be interpreted considering our laws, rights and obligations, for example, in respect to the right to disclosure of wrongdoing and recognized boundaries of the duties of loyalty.”
Which means that there are exceptions to the rule that employees do not “publicly criticize CIDA or its representatives” and those exceptions are spelled out elsewhere. It is easy to see how the CIDA code could, however, have a chilling effect, especially during times of government cuts. It also raises questions about why CIDA, which has been the subject of intense public scrutiny and criticism in recent years, felt it had to specifically ask employees to sign a pledge not to criticize the department — something other departments have not done.
Other departments, including Environment Canada, the Department of Finance and Fisheries and Oceans, have posted their updated ethics codes on their websites. None of those departments specifically instructs employees not to publicly criticize their department as CIDA’s code does.
Last summer, Parks Canada employees were warned not to publicly criticize the government, except under “exceptional circumstances,” in a letter. “The duty of loyalty includes the duty to refrain from public criticism of the Government of Canada when speaking as an employee of the agency. Breaching the duty of loyalty may lead to disciplinary action,” CBC quoted the letter as saying. Liberal Wayne Easter called the letter a “gag order” and said employees feared losing their jobs for speaking out against the government.
The duty of loyalty, according to Treasury Board “derives from the essential mission of the public service to help the duly elected government, under law, to serve the public interest.”
The concept has generally been interpreted by the courts to protect public servants with legitimate concerns about illegal or dangerous policies as well as to allow room for freedom of expression.
Message control has frequently been a point of conflict for the Conservative government. The government requires that interviews with scientists must first be cleared by officials and requests have often been turned down. The government has been accused of muzzling scientists and stonewalling journalists looking for interviews with scientists. And several media outlets, including the Citizen, have published the results of access to information requests detailing how many staff it took to respond to a question. Last year the Citizen’s Tom Spears wrote that it took 11 staffers at the National Research Council to answer a question on a study about snow. In response to an access to information request he got 50 pages of emails from those 11 staffers. When he called NASA, which worked jointly on the project, he had all the information he needed from a scientist in 15 minutes.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Elizabeth Payne
All federal government departments are required to update their values and ethics codes, but CIDA’s code stands out. Not only does it bluntly tells employees not to criticize the agency, which other codes do not, but it is not publicly available on CIDA’s website, as other are. It appears to be a heavy-handed and secretive way to remind employees of their ethical duties, especially for an agency which has undergone so much criticism and inner turmoil in recent years.
While public servants are generally required to be loyal to their employer and refrain from public criticism of the government — as are private sector workers of their employers — there are exceptions. Treasury Board spells out circumstances under which public criticism may be justified on its website, saying “the duty of loyalty is not absolute.” They include when an employee is concerned about illegal acts or dangerous government policies — the kinds of things whistleblowers tend to complain about and the very reason they need to be protected. And there is a third exception — when the public servant’s criticism has no impact on his ability to perform his duties effectively or on public perception of that ability.
“In determining whether any particular public criticism is justified and therefore not subject to disciplinary action the duty of loyalty must be balanced with other interests such as the public servant’s freedom of expression,” says the Treasury Board website.
CIDA’s new Code of Values and Ethics, a copy of which was obtained by the Citizen, spells out none of those exceptions, however, and simply requires employees to acknowledge a document that says, among other things: “We do not publicly criticize CIDA or its representatives,” something other departments don’t do.
A CIDA spokesperson noted that the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act outlines “circumstances where a public servant may be justified in public disclosure of an allegation of wrongdoing” and said specific behaviours expected from CIDA staff have been added to its code: “to guide our activities and be integrated into our decisions. They must be interpreted considering our laws, rights and obligations, for example, in respect to the right to disclosure of wrongdoing and recognized boundaries of the duties of loyalty.”
Which means that there are exceptions to the rule that employees do not “publicly criticize CIDA or its representatives” and those exceptions are spelled out elsewhere. It is easy to see how the CIDA code could, however, have a chilling effect, especially during times of government cuts. It also raises questions about why CIDA, which has been the subject of intense public scrutiny and criticism in recent years, felt it had to specifically ask employees to sign a pledge not to criticize the department — something other departments have not done.
Other departments, including Environment Canada, the Department of Finance and Fisheries and Oceans, have posted their updated ethics codes on their websites. None of those departments specifically instructs employees not to publicly criticize their department as CIDA’s code does.
Last summer, Parks Canada employees were warned not to publicly criticize the government, except under “exceptional circumstances,” in a letter. “The duty of loyalty includes the duty to refrain from public criticism of the Government of Canada when speaking as an employee of the agency. Breaching the duty of loyalty may lead to disciplinary action,” CBC quoted the letter as saying. Liberal Wayne Easter called the letter a “gag order” and said employees feared losing their jobs for speaking out against the government.
The duty of loyalty, according to Treasury Board “derives from the essential mission of the public service to help the duly elected government, under law, to serve the public interest.”
The concept has generally been interpreted by the courts to protect public servants with legitimate concerns about illegal or dangerous policies as well as to allow room for freedom of expression.
Message control has frequently been a point of conflict for the Conservative government. The government requires that interviews with scientists must first be cleared by officials and requests have often been turned down. The government has been accused of muzzling scientists and stonewalling journalists looking for interviews with scientists. And several media outlets, including the Citizen, have published the results of access to information requests detailing how many staff it took to respond to a question. Last year the Citizen’s Tom Spears wrote that it took 11 staffers at the National Research Council to answer a question on a study about snow. In response to an access to information request he got 50 pages of emails from those 11 staffers. When he called NASA, which worked jointly on the project, he had all the information he needed from a scientist in 15 minutes.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Elizabeth Payne
No comments:
Post a Comment