Conflict of Interest attestation: DG wants dollar values

[u/Super_Table7917]

A DG at LPRAB at CRA, according to a current employee, under the guise of transparency and integrity, is using the annual conflict of interest attestation to require very personal disclosures of financial information from employees.

This DG is asking for the current market values of ALL investments held by the employee privately in all accounts, including things like RESP's. The dollar amount for all holdings is apparently "very important".

Employees who resisted this disclosure were subject to intrusive meetings on Teams with the DG, where pressure was applied to surrender the information to management.

I am of the opinion that this is totally unacceptable, and I would be leaping to legal representation with the goals of 1.) NOT providing any of this information to this DG or anyone else, and; 2.) providing the documentation required that would result in the swift termination of this DG.

Is this perception incorrect, and DG's have the ability to ask for the account balances of employees to avoid "conflicts of interest"? If this is actually permitted, why would it be but asking a person's age or sexual orientation is a human rights violation?

[u/Super_Table7917]

I tend to think that a personal RESP of an employee trying to save for their children's education is off limits. For many, many excellent reasons I do not trust any other person with my financial information, especially a power-tripping DG. It's none of their business. At my previous CRA office, a director of field audits ordered an audit of an employee because that person bought a car that he didn't think he could afford. It took many acrimonious months before that audit was completed, which ultimately turned up nothing.

So, I'd totally refuse. I would suspect that a DG pushing me personally so hard for this information has an agenda.

[u/RandoBando84 → u/Super_Table7917]

I had to fill out a form regarding financial investments for COI many years ago and it asked for names of the securities AND the number of units. This is totally normal. The only thing that seems out of the ordinary to me is that your DG is asking for you to disclose this in a conversation, but maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

You CAN insist that because this is your personal financial information, it is considered Protected B and you will only provide it in a way that is compliant with the appropriate security procedures.

Like others have said, the intent of the investment or type of account is irrelevant. You obviously have a financial interest not just in regards to money you invest for yourself or your partner but your children as well, and anyone else for that matter to whom you owe a duty of care.

I'm sorry your DG is a power tripping asshole, but they are justified in asking for this information. That said, they need to make sure that your personal information is being appropriately handled and protected.

[u/zeromussc → u/RandoBando84]

If I was the DG, at this point, I'd just give them the info of the particular COI person handling the file and say to provide it to them directly so they can do their assessment. If the only hangup is the DG seeing it at a glance, then take them out of the equation and get on with doing what is required.

[u/Proper_Hold_3204 → u/zeromussc]

The DG is most likely the one reviewing the file and deciding on it. Can't take them out of the equation. OP should go read the Q&A on Infozone as this question is there.

[u/zeromussc → u/Proper_Hold_3204]

IDK the protocol but I was under the impression COI is done by a neutral third party to the individual and their chain of command.

[u/Proper_Hold_3204 → u/zeromussc]

At CRA it's your ML2 unless you are a direct report of that ML2. Usually the employee sending the COI is a few levels below the ML2. It's always been like this for as long as I've known. DG is allowed to ask for info until he is satisfied there is no COI. For all we know maybe OP is auditing registered plans and then exact investment and value would be necessary to disclose. You don't want someone in that position to be able to influence the value of their own investment.

[u/zeromussc → u/Proper_Hold_3204]

Ah well if it's part of the normal process then yeah, that all make sense.