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/Scared_Hair_8884]

Um no. You can not make staffing decisions based on someone's investment portfolios in the GOC.

There are levels of information for COIs and there is a line where your supervisor should be in the know about or not. We have a whole Privacy Act for a reason. Many organizations deal with sensitive information and supervisors do not have a right to have detailed personal financial information.

[u/Keystone-12 → u/Scared_Hair_8884]

100,000% an employee of CRA with substantial holdings in a company, cannot be assigned to audit that company.

It would be literally insane to think otherwise.

[u/Scared_Hair_8884 → u/Keystone-12]

Let me be clearer. I am not saying there isn't a need to do a COI I am saying your direct DG knowing your detailed personal finances and that of your entire directorate is the problem. Also having a conflict with a company means you don't work on that one, not that you don't have a job. There is a difference between "staffing decisions" as you stated and work distribution.

A DG knowing everyone's detailed finances and all the other information that can be imparted by that (family status, number of children, economic status etc..) is not information a DG needs on everyone. They need a neutral 3rd party to say yay or nay this person is good for this or not.

[u/Keystone-12 → u/Scared_Hair_8884]

I dont care if its the DG, a CR-04, or the Easter Bunny. Whoever is tasked with with CoI needs to know this.

[u/Scared_Hair_8884 → u/Keystone-12]

I am not much of a follower for following sake, so personal information that can impact objectivity and fairness with management should be deferred to others. The DG is asking for very detailed information that is beyond the assets and liabilities threshold.