The secretive Commons Board of Internal Economy (BOIE), an all-party board which oversees House administration, sent a memo to all MPs’ offices explaining there would be a change to standardized confidentiality agreements in March, which would take effect starting April 1.
NDP staffer Anthony Salloum who heads the party’s staffer’s union (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers local 232), told Hill Climbers last week that the union’s executive was unaware of the change until recently.
The mandatory new agreement only takes effect if staffers are new to the Hill, or if their status changes; for example, if they get promoted, move offices, or receive a raise. NDP staffers receive scheduled raise increases, and Mr. Salloum said the raises for “several hundred” NDP staffers took effect on Dec. 1, 2013, bringing the policy change to their attention.
“So everyone started to talk, because that’s the first they noticed it,” he said. “It didn’t get noticed by the executive until dozens and dozens of emails all came flowing in at the same time.”
As a result of the “vague” and “worrisome” language in the agreement, Mr. Salloum said: “Some individual MPs’ [staffers] have made that decision to forgo the raise because they refuse to sign a confidentiality agreement.”
Mr. Salloum said his scheduled raise took effect last year, so he has not had to file new employment forms, meaning he hasn’t had to sign the agreement. Mr. Salloum said with this agreement, he’s “concerned” about the fact that Canadian labour laws don’t apply to MP staff as employees of the House of Commons.
Media were tipped off to this agreement when a disgruntled MP staffer sent out a scanned copy in mass email to media on the Hill, using the pseudonym Nanker Phelge. Nanker Phelge has worked for an MP on the Hill since 2011 and recently refused to sign the confidentiality agreement, thereby foregoing a raise.
“I will not be receiving a raise, and will bear the brunt of ever-increasing costs of living without the help of my employment. I am fearful that staff members of all parties could potentially lose their job over this, since refusing to sign may make the MP fear disloyalty,” wrote Nanker Phelge in an email to Hill Climbers.
“I’m not sure what proportion of staff have signed this, but I am aware that many staff members are quite concerned about the language, and duration of this agreement. I am aware of some staff that have refused to sign, or have written in their own additions to the agreement and sent it back…. I feel that this agreement only furthers the veil of secrecy around the business of Parliament and the Board of Internal Economy. It serves only to protect MPs’ reputations, and to further squeeze the rights of staff,” they said.
Mr. Salloum said the NDP staff union executive understands the need for a “formalized” confidentiality agreement, but said the language of this agreement “goes too far.”
“There are references to vague penalties, it doesn’t specify what the penalties are post-employment. And also the vague timeliness of it, there’s no finite time after which this agreement no longer applies, so the impression is it’s in perpetuity. It’s the choice of language and the vagueness of the language that’s very worrisome. In one of the articles it says, ‘in addition to other legal avenues.’ … It doesn’t tell you what those legal avenues are, so it leaves this hanging thread of something major,” he said. “It’s a very daunting threat, and that’s what has so many of our members so concerned.”
Mr. Salloum said the NDP staffers’ union executive has heard complaints from about 100 staff as a result of the agreement, out of the between 600 and 700 NDP staffers employed on the Hill. As a result, he said the executive sought a formal legal opinion on the agreement in late November and said he hopes to have a response “before the end of the year.” Mr. Salloum said a memo was also sent out to NDP staff letting them know their options, namely, that they can refuse to sign it and forego a raise.
The BOIE decided to make the signing of a written confidentiality agreement mandatory for all MP staff at a March 4, 2013 meeting.
To be clear, only MP staff, House officer staff and research bureau staff are now being required to sign this confidentiality agreement. Exempt staff who work in ministerial offices are subject to the Conflict of Interest Act and other confidentiality rules.
The agreement staff are being required to sign states that “information” staff are privy to through the course of their employment on the Hill related to an MP’s “activities and work” is “politically sensitive and confidential” and shouldn’t be divulged “except as may be required by law.”
“I will avoid any activity, business venture or interest that might reflect unfavourably upon the integrity or good name of my employer and the House of Commons,” reads the agreement.
Breaching this agreement is basis for termination “without notice or pay,” reads the agreement, which “survives the termination of employment.”
“In the event of a post-employment breach of this agreement, in addition to any other legal or administrative recourse available to my employer or the House of Commons, I will repay any amount equal to any termination pay received on termination of employment,” reads the agreement text.
Previously, confidentiality agreements existed on an ad hoc, office-by-office basis, often in the form of spoken understandings, but the House of Commons administration also provided a written, standardized agreement through the internal IntraParl web system, and it’s identical to the agreement all staff are now being required to sign—word-for-word.
Debra Eindiguer, longtime chief of staff to Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.), said staff in her office have been signing this exact same confidentiality agreement since Ms. May was first elected to the House of Commons in May 2011 and said “nobody really kicked up any fuss in our office” over it.
“Prior to April 1 they [the House pay and benefits office] suggested that you have this form signed, but they didn’t insist on a copy to prove that you did get it signed,” said Ms. Eindiguer.
Ms. Eindiguer said she thinks it’s “extremely important” to protect Members of Parliament and said part of being a “professional individual” is knowing that what you learn here [in MP offices on the Hill], “you keep to yourself.” That said, Ms. Eindiguer said she understands Mr. Salloum’s criticisms of the agreement.
“It’s a rather kind of sweeping confidentiality agreement. It rolls a lot into eight bullet points,” said Ms. Eindiguer. “I can’t argue with him that there are some concerns, but for us, for our office, we’re fine, our staff is okay with signing it.”
Mr. Salloum said if the legal opinion being sought comes out against the agreement, he’ll consult NDP staffers and “let them guide me in terms of do we want to pursue some sort of challenge,” and said at the end of the day, “the best path forward” to change this practice is through the board. In other words, MPs will need to go to bat for their staff in order for this new practice, or the wording of the agreement, to be changed. Mr. Salloum said that’s something NDP MPs do “all the time.”
Chief Government Whip John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, B.C.), one of two designated spokespeople for the BOIE who was not a member of the board when this decision was made, said he “can only presume that everyone agreed” and that something like this was not already in practice.
“I’m actually quite astounded that there was no requirement to do this prior to this calendar year,” said Mr. Duncan, noting he personally had a verbal understanding on confidentiality measures with the staff in his MP office.
Until last week he hadn’t heard of any issues with the agreement, and said as the caucus whip, he would be the “logical person” to have heard complaints from other offices. He said all of his staffers have already signed it.
Mr. Duncan said when it comes to agreements like this, “it’s difficult to specify” a variety of situations and as a result “the language is fairly broad.”
“But common sense would indicate that when there’s things that happen in an office that are process-oriented; that is, not private and confidential information, people are free to talk about process and I don’t read the document to mean that 100 per cent of everyone’s day is private and covered by this agreement, and I don’t think a reasonable person would,” said Mr. Duncan.
As to the question of timing, Mr. Duncan said as of late “there’s been a lot of focus on doing things in an appropriate way.”
“We’ve got new guidelines for all kinds of things to do with proactive disclosure, to do with discipline and ethics and other things,” said Mr. Duncan. “I think the public would say this is absolutely the right thing to have in place for employees that are put in a highly trusted position, paid for by the taxpayer, I think they would expect nothing less.”
On Dec. 12 a spokesperson for Mr. Duncan said he was willing to work with other parties to review the confidentiality agreement. Liberal Whip Judy Foote (Random-Burin-St.George’s, Nfld.), the Liberal member of the BOIE, also said concerns have been raised with her office, and agrees the agreement should be reviewed.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com/
Author: LAURA RYCKEWAERT
No comments:
Post a Comment