Reference Number: SIID-2019-047
Organization: Public Services and Procurement Canada
File Identification Number: SIID-2019/2020-047 (PSDPA)
File Identification Date: 2022-11-25
Findings and Conclusions: a serious breach of a code of conduct established under section 5 or 6
Case Description: A protected disclosure was received under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, alleging wrongdoing relating to a conflict of interest situation regarding the hiring of a “relative” and other “associates” as defined under the Code of Conduct of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC). “Relatives” are defined in the PSPC Code of Conduct as persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption, as well as persons whose relationship is otherwise legally recognized and of an immediate nature. Such relationships include, but are not limited to, an employee's parent, step-parent, foster parent, sibling, spouse, common-law partner, child, stepchild, ward, foster child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece and cousin. “Associates” are defined in the PSPC Code of Conduct as non-relatives with whom the employee has a personal relationship resulting from circumstances or affinities beyond the normal day-to-day work and social interactions of colleagues and professional associates, such that the connection of a public servant with the associate in the course of his or her official duties or in a staffing process could reasonably be seen to present a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest. Such relationships include, but are not limited to, business relationships of mutual personal benefit, common interest acquaintances, social relationships, friendships, or any other relationship that could be seen to result in a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest. A “conflict of interest” refers to a situation, whether real, apparent or potential, in which an employee has private interests that could influence or appear to influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities or in which the person employed uses their office for personal gain. A “Staffing Sub-Delegated Manager” is an employee sub-delegated by PSPC’s Deputy Minister to make staffing appointments/decisions within PSPC and which must be in accordance with the Core Values of Merit and Non-Partisanship, as well as Guiding Values of Fairness, Transparency, Accessibility and Representativeness. Under PSPC’s Code of Conduct, employees are required to observe and foster the highest standards of conduct, consistent with PSPC’s Statement of Values in support of our Mission and Vision. As stated under the standards of conduct, employees are to adhere to the principle of merit, non-partisanship, fairness, transparency, accessibility and representativeness in PSPC’s staffing processes, including departmental requirements on family and personal relationships. Additionally, PSPC’ Policy on Staffing and Recruitment, requires that employees, sub-delegated for staffing decision, identify and disclose any potential, apparent or real conflict of interest that may be at play in these activities. In addition, any given PSPC employee may not assist or be involved directly or indirectly in any business decision affecting or benefiting their “relatives” or their “associates”. In these situations, PSPC employees must immediately recuse themselves from the situation and seek direction from PSPC’s Centre of Expertise for Values, Ethics and the Prevention of Harassment and Violence. In addition, any given PSPC employee may not use PSPC information technology for personal business or personal profit. In addition, it is mandatory for any PSPC employee who holds an outside job or who plans to hold one to disclose these employments by completing a conflict of interest form. In addition, PSPC employees must cooperate with investigators from the Departmental Oversight Branch (DOB) and any persons authorized by the DOB to conduct investigations. The investigation found that an employee of PSPC to whom appointment and related powers had been sub-delegated: •placed himself/herself in a conflict of interest by promoting, participating, influencing and/or exercising staffing sub-delegation in processes leading to the hire of “relatives” as casual and indeterminate employees; •failed to take steps to disclose, avoid and recuse himself/herself from the conflict of interest; •used PSPC information technology for personal business or personal profit; •failed to disclose outside employment by not completing a conflict of interest form; and •failed to cooperate with Departmental Oversight Branch investigators. Conclusion and Corrective Actions Taken The departmental investigation process found that the allegations of wrongdoing were founded, and did constitute serious breaches of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, the PSPC Code of Conduct , the Policy on Departmental Oversight Branch Investigations, the Policy on the Allocation and Usage of Information Technology and the PSPC’s Guideline on conflict of interest arising from family and personal relationships and that they are inconsistent with the Core Values of Merit and Non-Partisanship, as well as Guiding Values of Fairness, Transparency, Access and Representativeness. The importance of avoiding conflict of interest situation, including any potential or apparent conflict of interest, is a fundamental aspect of PSPC’s standard of conduct and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. PSPC recognizes that avoiding and preventing situations that could give rise to a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, is one of the primary means by which a public servant demonstrates integrity and maintains public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the federal public sector. Adhering to these requirements in staffing activities is also essential to achieve PSPC’s objectives in objectivity, fairness, transparency, accessibility and representativeness in resourcing activities.
Recommendations and Corrective Measures: The employee breached these basic requirements as part of their terms of employment and senior management accepted their resignation.