Canadian Government Executive - Volume 21 - Issue 9

30 / 32

30 / Canadian Government Executive // November 2015
When “Harperman” first showed on YouTube ear-
lier this summer a lot of people laughed out-loud
and then sent the link to their friends so that they
could enjoy the humour and the amateur charm
of criticizing the prime minister. Few people realized at the time
that Tony Turner, an Environment Canada scientist, would be-
come a celebrity with more than 600,000 views on the popular
social media website. More important, he and the more than 30
colleagues who accompanied him have become a flashpoint for
a much-needed conversation about the political rights of public
servants.
The traditional view was that since public servants are non-
partisan and neutral in the way they carry out their duties they
should assiduously stay out of the political fray. However, in 1991
the Supreme Court of Canada held in the Osborne decision that
under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom public ser-
vants have the right to express their political views despite being
a government employee.
The decision has had important ramifications for the public
service and created a serious administrative challenge in bal-
ancing two competing principles. The first principle gives public
servants the right to participate fully in elections either by seek-
ing political office or working on behalf of a political party. The
second principle assures citizens that public servants, regardless
of rank, job location or function, provide impartial, non-partisan,
and fair-minded service when they carry out their duties.
In response to the court’s decision and attempting to balance
these two principles, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Pub-
lic Service Commission amended the Public Service Employee
Act (PSEA) and refashioned codes and policies that define the
rules of engagement for public servants who were interested in
being politically active.
For example, the Treasury Board Secretariat formulated a re-
vised version of its Code of Values and Ethics that emphasized
the principle that, “a non-partisan public sector is essential to our
democratic system.” In particular, it emphasized that public ser-
vants have an obligation to provide “decision makers with all the
information, analysis and advice they need, by always striving to
be open, candid and impartial.”
The code also pointed out that “public servants employed in our
institutions must be non-partisan in their work and serve each
successive and duly elected government loyally and impartially.
Although there has been a steady increase in the political rights
of public servants over several years, and particularly since the
inception of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the
significance of the duty of loyalty remains.”
The Public Service Commission was left to do the heavy lifting
in two ways. First, it set the terms and conditions under which a
public servant is allowed to seek elected office at all three levels of
government and second, in cases when a public servant wants to
be politically active other than by seeking elected office, the PSEA
now defines the limits of these activities. For example, public ser-
vants can volunteer or fundraise for a candidate or a political party,
support or oppose a candidate or a political party by displaying po-
litical material, attend rallies, or other political gatherings in sup-
port of, or in opposition to, a candidate or a political party, develop
promotional material, use blogs, social networking sites, a personal
website or video sharing to express personal views in support of,
or in opposition to, a candidate or a political party. The PSEA also
notes that political activities must not be conducted during work-
ing hours and employees should not draw attention to the fact that
they are government employees.
While the rules have worked well enough during past elections,
there appears to have been a significant increase in the political
activities of federal public servants during this current federal
election. At this point, more public servants have sought elected
office than ever before (35 cases) and anecdotal evidence suggests
that more public servants are working on behalf of candidates
for all parties. Whether public servants are reacting specifically to
the Harper government or to a broader desire to become engaged
in public discourse, the wider range of political activities, espe-
cially those that are so openly critical of the government of the
day, demonstrate that the current provisions for political activi-
ties are not sustainable.
Federal candidates know how many public servants are work-
ing for their own election (and possibly for their opponents) and
the successful ones arrive in the House of Commons aware that
non-partisanship in the public service is a nuanced and some-
times compromised concept. To date, this has not been a public or
electoral issue, but eventually a high-ranking public servant will
be identified publicly as politically active and then Parliament
will be a clamoring for a quick fix.
Tony Turner and his colleagues may have provided some levity
to an already too long federal election, but he has also demon-
strated the current system needs to be refreshed. Most important,
he has provided Parliament with a good reason to reaffirm the
importance of a non-partisan public service by finding a modern
way to balance these two competing principles.
David Zussman is a Senior Fellow in the Graduate School
of Public and International Affairs at the University of
Ottawa and is Research Advisor to the Public Sector
Practice of Deloitte.
The Last Word David Zussman
“Harperman” and the Political Rights
of Public Servants
web
user/12-davidzussman.html