Investigation Report Summary – Section 114 – Founded – Statistics Canada – Improper political activity – Failure to obtain permission - Nomination and candidacy – Federal election

Section 114 – Founded – Improper political activity – Failure to obtain permission - Nomination and candidacy – Federal election

Authority: This investigation was conducted under section 118 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the “Act”).

Issue: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether an employee engaged in improper political activity by campaigning as a prospective political candidate in a federal election, before obtaining permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to do so.

Facts: Note:  Any use of personal pronouns (e.g. “his”, “her”, “she”, “he”, etc.) should be considered gender neutral and not indicative of the gender of the individual described.

The individual under investigation works for a federal organization. On March 29, 2011, the employee’s candidacy with the political party was announced at his first public meeting, where signatures were collected from the membership to support the employee’s nomination in the electoral district. The next day, the employee signed the PSC form to request permission to seek nomination as a political candidate for the district and for a leave of absence without pay (LWOP) to be a candidate during the election period in the federal election held on May 2, 2011.

In a letter dated March 31, the PSC’s Political Activities and Non-partisanship Directorate acknowledged receipt of the employee’s application for permission on March 30 and informed the employee that he could not declare his candidacy or conduct related activities until he received the Commission’s permission to seek nomination as, or be, a candidate in a federal election. The letter also explained the concept of political activity. On April 6, the PSC sent a letter to the employee granting permission to seek nomination as a candidate and for a LWOP to be a candidate during the election period. The letter also indicated that the PSC had received information that the employee may have become a candidate before obtaining permission and, therefore, the case would be referred to the PSC’s Investigations Branch. Accordingly, the employee returned the signed acceptance by facsimile on April 7 and began the LWOP later that day.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that the employee understood the obligations and received information about political activities. Approximately a week before submitting the request for permission, the employee informed the Party Organizer that, until he received permission, the employee was unable to pursue the candidacy. However, on March 29, the employee informed the Party Organizer by telephone that the Commission had confirmed the request. On the same day, the employee sent an e-mail to his supervisor, requesting the urgent completion of the form, since the employee recognized that he could not seek nomination without the Commission’s approval. The following day, the department representative sent an e-mail to the employee about the request that clearly identified the 30-day time frame required by the PSC to process the request to avoid possible delays and a statement to conduct any candidacy-related activities only after receiving the Commission’s permission.

The evidence demonstrates that, contrary to subsection 114(1) of the Act, the employee did not receive the Commission’s permission before seeking nomination as a candidate in the district. The employee had drafted his candidate application to the Party on March 22, 2011, and completed it the next day, as evidenced in the e-mails and testimony provided by the Party Organizer. The Commission’s permission took effect on April 7.

Regarding subsection 114(3) of the Act, the evidence indicates that the employee was a candidate during the election period before obtaining permission for a LWOP from the Commission. Given the dates of certain events, the employee had to obtain the Commission’s permission before March 29; however, the LWOP only took effect on April 7. The Party Organizer testified that, on March 29, the employee was confirmed as their Party candidate. Their e-mail exchange of the same date confirmed that the employee was carrying out political activities by seeking signatures to support his candidacy. The mayor of the district listed the employee’s name as the Party candidate for the district in a letter dated April 5.

The employee’s testimony was vague, so it provided limited information in determining this case. However, witnesses’ testimony or physical evidence, such as letters and e-mails, demonstrated both the dates and names of individuals who communicated with the employee and the timing of certain events related to the employee’s candidacy.

Conclusions: The evidence demonstrates that the employee breached subsections 114(1) and (3) of the Act by seeking nomination as, and becoming, a candidate in the federal election for the district, before obtaining from the Commission permission and a LWOP to do so.

Corrective action: The Commission ordered that:

• Within one year of the signing of the Record of Decision, the department recover the equivalent salary from the employee for the period of time during which he was a candidate but had not yet obtained permission from the Commission to be so;
• A letter of reprimand from the Commission be sent to the deputy head of the department and that a copy of the letter also be placed on the employee’s personnel record for a period of two years; and
• The employee take the course Paving the way: Values and Ethics Foundations for Employees.

File number: 11-12-06