CANADA MILITARY NEWS: Fed. Expense Claims/Quality Standards/Code of Ethics/Conflict of Interest- okay folks as a 26YR fed employee/prov/municipality- what the f**k happened since the 80s and 90s??? – shame on all of ya... what happened 2 SERVING THE PUBLIC.... regardless of your political crap... that’s all u have 2 do... and staff – honour your family your community and urself- sweet jesusmothermary and joseph/the lower ranks honour the rules - and all political greedy parties abuse them -u all kinda suck imho

Values, Ethics and Professional Public Service - Treasury ...

www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rp/scv-eng.pdf

by K Kernaghan - ‎Cited by 9 - ‎Related articles

In 2003, the Government of Canada adopted the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. The Code ... The Public Service and Responsible Government (1840–1867). The major .... decisions from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s. 14.

Table of Contents

1. The Public Service and Responsible Government (1840–1866)......................... 4

2 Seeking an Efficient Non-partisan Public Service (1867–1918)...................... 6

3. The Arrival of the Administrative State (1919–1964).............................................. 8

 4. From Ethics Rules to Values Statements (1965–1984).............................................. 12

 5. Values Take Centre Stage (1985–1996)... 15

6. Getting the Values Right (1997–2003)...... 21

7. Living the Values of Professional Public Service (2004– )............................. 28

 8. The Journey Continues............................. 33

Chronology of Events .................................... 35 

1.    [PDF] 

The impact of codes of conduct on corporate culture - Ethics ...

www.ethics.org/files/u5/LRNImpactofCodesofConduct.pdf - Cached - Similar

Worldwide interest in business ethics and codes of conduct took off in the 1980s.
among the first large corporations to adopt codes of conduct were General ...
ethics programs as a way to self-regulate rather than submitting themselves to
government regulation. in 1991, the u.s. sentencing commission issued the
federal.

---------------

1.    Voluntary Commitments and Codes of Conduct

www.cba.ca/.../78-voluntary-commitments-and-codes-of-conduct - Cached - Similar

14 Apr 2015 ... Voluntary Codes of Conduct are non-legislated commitments, ... des années
1980, les banques ont adopté un système de paiement fondé sur l'utilisation des
services. ... The banks' federal consumer regulator, the Financial Consumer ...
Banks in Canada have agreed individually with the Government of ...

-----------------

ARCHIVED - Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment - Archived version of 1991

  Previous Page

  Table of Contents

   

This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

Policy objective

To enhance public confidence in the integrity of the Public Service and its employees.

Policy statement

It is government policy to minimize the possibility of conflicts between the private interests and the Public Service duties of employees and to resolve any such conflicts in the public interest.

Application

This policy applies to all departments and other portions of the Public Service listed in Part I of Schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

Policy requirements

Employees must take measures to prevent real, potential, or apparent conflicts in accordance with the principles of conduct and measures in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service (Appendix - A).

The deputy head as designated official must:

- ensure that employees are informed of the requirements of the Code and that they comply with all its requirements;

- determine whether real or potential conflicts of interest exist and what action, if any, specific employees have to take;

- seek Treasury Board approval for any compliance measures that may be required, beyond those the Code specifies, to reflect the department's particular responsibilities or the statutes governing its operations;

- establish procedures for employees to report official dealings with former public office holders who are or may be governed by the Code's post-employment measures;

- conduct exit interviews with employees subject to the post-employment compliance measures before they leave the Public Service or review with employees their responsibility in this regard;

- ensure that bargaining agents are consulted at the departmental level about the administration of the Code including the implementation of any supplemental compliance measures and the extension of the post-employment requirements to positions other than those in the Management Category;

- request Treasury Board approval on the minister's recommendation to:

. designate any positions below the level of senior manager (SM) as subject to post-employment compliance measures; and

. exclude positions from the application of sections 41 and 42 of the post-employment compliance measures.

Responsibilities

The Treasury Board as the designated authority will:

- review and rule on:

. requests to supplement the compliance measures in the Code;

. recommendations to designate positions at a level below SM as subject to the post-employment compliance measures or to exclude positions from such measures; and

. applications from employees or former employees to reduce the post-employment limitation period specified in the Code; and

- convene panels, as necessary, to advise on the application of the post-employment compliance measures in particular cases.

The Assistant Deputy Registrar General will:

- provide advice on the most appropriate arrangements required for divestment of assets;

- serve as trustee of a frozen or retention trust, if requested; and

- assess whether proposals for departmental reimbursement of costs incurred by employees in establishing trusts are appropriate.

The Public Service Commission is responsible for:

- establishing procedures to ensure that before or upon any appointment, appointees sign a document certifying that they have read and understood the Code and that, as a condition of employment, they will observe it; and

- applying policies and establishing procedures and mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Code regarding Business/Government Executive Exchange and Interchange Canada assignments.

Monitoring

Treasury Board Secretariat will monitor and evaluate departmental performance by:

- periodically reviewing departmental application of the Code;

- reviewing audit and evaluation reports on the application of the Code; and

- reviewing information on the following performance indicators:

. the completion rate of the Employee Certification Document and Confidential Report as required;

. the results of direction to specific employees to divest themselves of interests or cease activities, etc.; and

. the rate of exit interviews and reviews of post-employment requirements to the number of employees subject to Part III of the Code who leave the Public Service.

Departments must advise the Treasury Board Secretariat should the completion rate for required reports and/or exit interviews for a given year fall below 95% in any occupational category.

References

Public Service Staff Relations Act;

Treasury Board Manual, Contracting volume;

Treasury Board Manual, Staff relations volume, chapter 6 entitled Discipline.

This chapter replaces chapter 3 of PMM volume 1.

Enquiries

Enquiries about this policy should be referred to the responsible officers in departmental headquarters who, in turn, may direct questions regarding policy interpretation to the following:

Public Service Ethics Section
Policies and Procedures Group
General Personnel Policy Development and Compensation Division
Personnel Policy Branch
Treasury Board Secretariat

Enquiries about the requirements governing personal service and other government contracts should be directed to:

Procurement Policy Group
Procurement Management
Administrative Policy Branch
Treasury Board Secretariat

Enquiries about the requirements covering Business/Government Executive Exchange assignments should be directed to:

Business/Government Executive Exchange Program
Public Service Commission

Enquiries about the requirements covering Interchange Canada assignments should be directed to:

Interchange Canada Program
Public Service Commission

Enquiries about the establishment, verification, and costs of trusts should be directed to:

The Assistant Deputy Registrar General
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada

---

Appendix A - Conflict of Interest and Post-employment Code for the Public Service

Introduction

1. This Code for the Public Service is designed to bring to the attention of all public servants for whom Treasury Board represents the government as the employer the provisions of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, which was tabled by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on September 9, 1985.

2. For the purposes of the Code for the Public Service, employee means:

(a) an employee of a department for whom the Treasury Board represents the government as employer; and

(b) a head of mission as defined in the Department of External Affairs Act.

3. For employees listed in (a) and (b) above,

designated authority means the Treasury Board; and,

designated official means the deputy head of the employee's department.

Part I - Principles and Administration

Objects

4. The objects of the Code are to enhance public confidence in the integrity of employees and the Public Service:

(a) while encouraging experienced and competent persons to seek and accept public office;

(b) while facilitating interchange between the private and the public sector;

(c) by establishing clear rules of conduct respecting conflict of interest for, and post-employment practices applicable to, all employees; and

(d) by minimizing the possibility of conflicts arising between the private interests and public service duties of employees and providing for the resolution of such conflicts in the public interest should they arise.

Application

5. In keeping with the principles described below, each employee is responsible for taking such action as is necessary to prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest. The employee is also required to observe any specific conduct requirements contained in the statutes governing his or her particular department and the relevant provisions of legislation of more general application such as the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Principles

6. Every employee shall conform to the following principles:

(a) employees shall perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced;

(b) employees have an obligation to act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law;

(c) employees shall not have private interests, other than those permitted pursuant to this Code, that would be affected particularly or significantly by government actions in which they participate;

(d) on appointment to office, and thereafter, employees shall arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising, but if such a conflict does arise between the private interests of an employee and the official duties and responsibilities of that employee, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest;

(e) employees shall not solicit or accept transfers of economic benefit, other than incidental gifts, customary hospitality, or other benefits of nominal value, unless the transfer is pursuant to an enforceable contract or property right of the employee;

(f) employees shall not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person;

(g) employees shall not knowingly take advantage of, or benefit from, information that is obtained in the course of their official duties and responsibilities and that is not generally available to the public;

(h) employees shall not directly or indirectly use, or allow the use of, government property of any kind, including property leased to the government, for anything other than officially approved activities; and

(i) employees shall not act, after they leave public office, in such a manner as to take improper advantage of their previous office.

Certification document

7. Before or upon appointment, employees must sign a document certifying that they have read and understood this Code and that, as a condition of employment, they will observe this Code. Employees appointed prior to the coming into force of this Code shall sign the document not later than January 1, 1986.

Annual review

8. All employees are required to review their obligations under the Code at least once a year.

Contracts

9. Every employee:

- negotiating a personal service contract must include in the contract appropriate provisions with respect to the Code in accordance with such directives as the Treasury Board may issue;

- negotiating a government contract must ensure that the contract includes safeguards, in accordance with such directives as the Treasury Board may issue, to prevent a former employee or other former public office holder who is not complying with the requisite post-employment measures, as set out in Part III of this Code, from receiving benefit from the contract.

Education and resource centre

10. The Assistant Deputy Registrar General (ADRG), Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury Board, will prepare informational and educational material about this Code for public office holders, including employees and the general public, and make appropriate arrangements for the preparation and implementation of training of public office holders on conflict of interest and post-employment behaviour.

The ADRG will also establish a resource centre of print, film, videotape and other material related to conflict of interest, post-employment behaviour and other ethical matters of concern to public office holders and to government.

Supplementary compliance measures

11. The deputy head of a department may augment the compliance measures set out in Parts II and III with supplementary procedures and guidance:

- respecting conflict of interest and post-employment situations peculiar to the unique and special responsibilities of the department; and

- reflecting any special requirements relating to employee conduct or interests contained in statutes governing the operations of the department.

These measures require Treasury Board approval before coming into force.

Dealing with former public office holders

12. Employees who have official dealings, other than those that consist of routine provision of service to an individual, with former employees or other former public office holders who are or may be governed by the post-employment measures set out in Part III must report this fact to the designated official in accordance with departmental procedure. The designated official shall determine immediately whether the former public office holder is complying with the prescribed measures.

13. Employees shall not have official dealings with former employees or other former public office holders deemed, pursuant to Section 12, to be acting in violation of the compliance measures in the specific transaction involved.

Part II - Conflict of interest compliance measures

Objects

14. The compliance measures set out the procedural and administrative requirements to be observed by public servants in order to minimize the risk of conflict of interest and to permit the resolution of such conflicts of interest in favour of the public interest, should any arise.

Confidentiality

15. Information concerning the private interests of employees provided to the designated official is treated in complete confidence. The designated official is required to ensure that this information is placed in special personal files (i.e. distinct from regular personnel files) and in secure safekeeping. Departments shall establish a central repository for such information and place it under the responsibility of the Senior Personnel Officer, who shall ensure that the privacy of the individual is fully respected.

Methods of compliance

16. An employee complies with the Code in the following ways:

(a) avoidance: by avoiding or withdrawing from activities or situations that would place the employee in a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest relative to his or her official duties and responsibilities;

(b) confidential report: by providing a written statement to the designated official indicating ownership of an asset, receipt of a gift, hospitality, or other benefit, or participation in any outside employment or activity; and

(c) divestment: where continued ownership by an employee would constitute a real or potential conflict of interest with the employee's official duties and responsibilities, the employee may elect to sell the asset "at arm's length" or place that asset in trust.

17. Employees must not sell or transfer assets to family members or others for purposes of circumventing the compliance measures.

18. A confidential report will usually be considered as compliance with the conflict of interest measures. However, there will be instances where "withdrawal from the activity" or "divestment" will be necessary. The designated official will make this decision and communicate it to the employee. Where there is doubt as to which method is appropriate in order that an employee may comply with the code, the designated official will determine the appropriate method and, in doing so, will try to achieve mutual agreement with the employee taking into account:

(a) the employee's specific responsibilities;

(b) the value and type of the assets and interests involved; and

(c) the actual costs to be incurred by divesting the assets and interests, as opposed to the potential that the assets and interests represent for a conflict of interest.

19. Employees are required to make a confidential report to the designated official of all assets prescribed by the code other than those assets and interests which are for their private use or that of their families and assets that are not of a commercial character. Examples of such "exempt assets" are described in the following section.

Exempt assets

20. Assets and interests intended for the private use of employees and assets that are not of a commercial character are not subject to the compliance measures. Such assets include:

(a) residences, recreational property and farms used or intended for use by employees or their families;

(b) household goods and personal effects;

(c) works of art, antiques and collectibles;

(d) automobiles and other personal means of transportation;

(e) cash and deposits;

(f) Canada Savings Bonds and other similar investments in securities of fixed value issued or guaranteed by any level of government in Canada or agencies of those governments;

(g) registered retirement savings plans that are not self-administered;

(h) registered home ownership savings plans;

(i) investments in open-ended mutual funds;

(j) guaranteed investment certificates and similar financial instruments;

(k) annuities and life insurance policies;

(l) pension rights;

(m) money owed by a previous employer, client or partnership; and

(n) personal loans receivable from members of the employee's immediate family and small personal loans receivable from other persons where the employee has loaned the moneys receivable.

Confidential report

21. Employees must, within 60 days after appointment, make a confidential report to the designated official of all assets other than exempt assets as described in Section 20 and of all direct and contingent liabilities, where such assets and liabilities might give rise to a conflict of interest in respect of the employee's official duties and responsibilities.

Assets and liabilities subject to a confidential report

22. Assets and liabilities which may be subject to a confidential report include:

(a) publicly traded securities of corporations and foreign governments and self-administered registered retirement savings plans composed of such securities;

(b) interests in partnerships, proprietorships, joint ventures, private companies and family businesses, in particular those that own or control shares of public companies or that do business with the government;

(c) farms under commercial operation;

(d) real property that is not an exempt asset;

(e) commodities, futures and foreign currencies held or traded for speculative purposes;

(f) assets that are beneficially owned, that are not exempt assets and that are administered at arm's length;

(g) secured or unsecured loans granted to persons other than to members of the employee's immediate family;

(h) any other assets or liabilities that could give rise to a real or potential conflict of interest due to the particular nature of the employee's duties and responsibilities; and

(i) direct and contingent liabilities in respect of any of the assets described in this section.

Divestment of assets

23. Employees must divest assets where it is determined by the designated official that such assets constitute a real or potential conflict of interest in relation to the duties and responsibilities of the employee. Divestment, where required, must take place within 120 days after appointment. Divestment of assets is usually achieved by selling them in an arm's length transaction or by making them subject to a trust arrangement. The schedule attached to this code contains information on the more common trust arrangements.

24. The trust arrangements established must not leave in the hands of the employee any power of management or decision over the assets placed in trust. The Assistant Deputy Registrar General (ADRG) has the responsibility for determining that a trust meets the requirements of the code. Before a trust is executed or when a change from one trust option to another is contemplated, a determination that the trust meets the requirements must be obtained from the ADRG. The ADRG may serve as trustee of a frozen or retention trust, but not of a blind trust.

25. On the recommendation of the ADRG, the department may reimburse the employee for trust costs incurred in an amount set out in the schedule.

Outside activities

26. (Revised) Involvement in outside employment and other activities by employees is not prohibited unless the employment or other activity is such that it is likely to result in a conflict of interest. It is the responsibility of the employee to make a confidential report to the designated official of involvement in an outside activity that could place on the employee demands inconsistent with his or her official duties and responsibilities, or call into question the employee's capacity to perform his or her official duties and responsibilities objectively. The designated official may require that such activity be curtailed, modified, or ceased, when it has been determined that a real or potential conflict of interest exists.

Gifts, hospitality and other benefits

27. Gifts, hospitality or other benefits that could influence employees in their judgement and performance of official duties and responsibilities must be declined. Employees must not accept, directly or indirectly, any gifts, hospitality or other benefits that are offered by persons, groups or organizations having dealings with the government.

28. Notwithstanding, acceptance of offers of incidental gifts, hospitality or other benefits arising out of activities associated with the performance of their official duties and responsibilities is not prohibited if such gifts, hospitality or other benefits:

(a) are within the bounds of propriety, a normal expression of courtesy or within the normal standards of hospitality;

(b) are not such as to bring suspicion on the employee's objectivity and impartiality; and

(c) would not compromise the integrity of the government.

29. Where it is impossible to decline unauthorized gifts, hospitality or other benefits, employees must immediately report the matter to the designated official. The designated official may require that a gift of this nature be retained by the department or be disposed of for charitable purposes.

Avoidance of preferential treatment

30. Employees must not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to family members or friends, or to organizations in which the employee, family members or friends have an interest. Care must be taken to avoid being placed, or appearing to be placed, under obligation to any person or organization that might profit from special consideration by the employee.

31. Employees must not, without the prior permission of their supervisor, offer assistance in dealing with the government to any individual or entity where such assistance is outside the official role of the employee.

Failure to agree

32. Where an employee and the designated official disagree with respect to the appropriate arrangements necessary to achieve compliance with the code, the disagreement shall be resolved through the established grievance procedures.

Failure to comply

33. An employee who does not comply with the measures described in Parts I and II is subject to appropriate disciplinary action up to and including discharge.

Subsequent changes

34. Employees must forthwith inform the designated official of any changes in their assets, liabilities and outside activities that would be subject to a confidential report.

Transitional provision

35. Where an employee was, immediately prior to the coming into force of the Code, subject to any conflict of interest or post-employment guidelines of the government, the employee shall continue to be subject to those guidelines, in lieu of the Code, until a review of his or her compliance measures is completed by the designated official. The designated official must complete the review within one year after the date the employee signs the Certification document.

Part III - Post-employment compliance measures

Objects

36. Post-employment compliance measures are designed to minimize, without unduly restricting former employees in seeking employment, the possibilities of (a) allowing prospects of outside employment to create a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest for employees while in public office; (b) obtaining preferential treatment or privileged access to government after leaving public office; (c) taking personal advantage of information obtained in the course of official duties and responsibilities until it has become generally available to the public; and (d) using public office to unfair advantage in obtaining opportunities for outside employment.

Application

37. The post-employment compliance measures apply to all positions at or above the level of senior manager (SM). Treasury Board may, on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for a department, designate positions at a level below senior manager as being subject to these measures, where the position involves duties and responsibilities that raise post-employment concerns.

38. In special circumstances, Treasury Board may, on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for a department, exclude positions from the application of sections 41 and 42 of the post-employment provisions. Such circumstances would include those where certain knowledge and skills in the public interest should be transferred rapidly from the government to private and other governmental sectors.

Before leaving office

39. Employees should not allow themselves to be influenced in the pursuit of their official duties and responsibilities by plans for, or offers of, outside employment. Employees must: disclose, in writing to the designated official, all firm offers of employment that could place the employee in a conflict of interest situation; and disclose immediately the acceptance of any offer.

40. Where the designated official determines that the employee is engaged in significant official dealings with the future employer, the employee shall be assigned to other duties and responsibilities as soon as possible. The period of time spent in public office following such an assignment shall be counted toward the limitation period on employment as described below.

After leaving office

Prohibited activities

41. At no time shall a former employee act for or on behalf of any person, commercial entity, association, or union in connection with any specific ongoing proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case to which the government is a party:

(a) in respect of which the former employee acted for or advised a department; and

(b) which would result in the conferring of a benefit not for general application or of a purely commercial or private nature.

Limitation period

42. Former employees shall not, within a period of one year after leaving office:

(a) accept appointment to a board of directors of, or employment with, an entity with which they had significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately prior to the termination of their service;

(b) make representations for or on behalf of any other person or entity to any department with which they had significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately prior to the termination of their service; or

(c) give counsel, for the commercial purposes of the recipient of the counsel, concerning the programs or policies of the department with which they were employed, or with which they had a direct and substantial relationship during the period of one year immediately prior to the termination of their service.

Reduction of limitation period

43. On application from an employee or former employee, the designated authority may reduce the limitation period on employment. Decisions to reduce the limitation period will be made taking into consideration:

(a) the circumstances under which the termination of their service occurred;

(b) the general employment prospects of the employee or former employee making the application;

(c) the significance to the government of information possessed by the employee or former employee by virtue of that employee's position in the Public Service;

(d) the desirability of a rapid transfer from the government to private or other governmental sectors of the employee's or former employee's knowledge and skills;

(e) the degree to which the new employer might gain unfair commercial advantage by hiring the employee or former employee;

(f) the authority and influence possessed while in the Public Service; and

(g) the disposition of other cases.

44. Decisions made by the designated authority will be in writing to the applicant and to all departments affected by the decision.

Advisory panels

45. The Treasury Board may convene advisory panels to advise on the application of the compliance measures in particular cases, and to help employees or former employees understand how the compliance measures apply in their particular case.

Exit arrangements

46. Prior to an employee's official separation from public office, the designated official will communicate with the employee to review the post-employment requirements in order to facilitate their observance.

Reconsideration

47. An employee or former employee may apply to the Treasury Board for reconsideration of any determination respecting his or her compliance with the post-employment measures.

Failure to comply

48. An employee who does not comply with the measures set out in this Part is subject to appropriate disciplinary action up to and including discharge.

Part IV - Compliance measures for public office holders who are not subject to Parts II and III compliance measures

Interchange Canada

49. Before entering into an Interchange Canada agreement to accept a person on assignment, the parties to the agreement shall satisfy themselves that there is no risk of conflict of interest or that the risk of conflict of interest is not significant. If the parties determine that the risk of conflict of interest is significant, the parties shall make such provisions as are necessary to prevent the conflict of interest from arising.

50. Persons entering the Public Service on an Interchange Canada assignment shall not act, after they leave such office, in such a manner as to take improper advantage of that office.

Schedule - Trusts

1. The following trusts are examples of the most common trusts that may be established by employees for the purpose of divestment under the Code.

(a) Blind trust

A blind trust is one in which the trustee makes all investment decisions concerning the management of the trust assets with no direction from or control by the employee placing the assets in trust.

No information is provided to the employee (settlor) except information that is required by law to be filed. An employee who establishes a blind trust may receive any income earned by the trust, add or withdraw capital funds, and be informed of the aggregate value of the entrusted assets.

(b) Frozen trust

A frozen trust is one in which the trustee maintains the holdings essentially as they were when the trust was established. Employees who establish a frozen trust are entitled to any income earned by the trust.

Assets requiring active decision-making by the trustee (such as convertible securities and real estate) or assets easily affected by government action are not considered suitable for a frozen trust.

(c) Retention trust

A retention trust is one in which the trustee maintains rights in holding companies, established for estate planning purposes, essentially as they were when the trust was established. The settlor makes arrangements to have third parties exercise his or her voting rights in relation to the shares in the holding company as long as such arrangements will not result in a conflict of interest. Retention trusts usually do not generate income for the settlor.

This form of divestment is useful for an employee who has assets to be held under special proper management through a holding company for estate planning purposes.

Provisions common to all trusts

2. Provisions common to all trusts are:

(a) Custody of the assets:

The assets to be placed in trust must vest in the trustee.

(b) Power of management or control:

The employee (settlor) may not have any power of management or control over trust assets. The trustee, likewise, may not seek or accept any instruction or advice from the employee concerning the management or the administration of the assets.

(c) Schedule of assets:

The assets placed in trust shall be listed on a schedule attached to the trust agreement.

(d) Duration of trust:

The term of any trust is to be for as long as the employee who establishes the trust continues to hold an office that makes that method of divestment appropriate. A trust may be dismantled once the trust assets have been depleted.

(e) Return of trust assets:

Whenever a trust agreement is dismantled, the trustee shall deliver the trust assets to the employee.

Trustees

3. Care must be exercised in selecting trustees for each type of trust arrangement. If a single trustee, other than the ADRG, is appointed, the trustee should be:

(a) a public trustee;

(b) a company, such as a trust company or investment company, that is public and known to be qualified in performing the duties of a trustee; or

(c) an individual who performs trustee duties in the normal course of his or her work.

4. If a single trustee is appointed he or she shall clearly be at arm's length from the employee.

5. If more than one trustee is selected, at least one of them shall be a public trustee or a company at arm's length from the employee.

Trust indenture

6. Acceptable blind, frozen and retention trust indentures are available from the ADRG. Any amendments to such trust indentures shall be submitted to the ADRG before being executed.

Filing of trust documents

7. Under the trust options available, employees are required to file with the ADRG a copy of any trust instrument. Except for the fact that a trust exists, detailed trust information will be kept in the employee's confidential file and will not be made available to anyone for any purpose.

Reimbursement for costs incurred

8. On the recommendation of the ADRG, the following reimbursements for costs of trusts established to comply with the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this Code may be permitted:

(a) reasonable legal, accounting and transfer costs to establish the trust;

(b) reasonable legal, accounting and transfer costs to dismantle the trust; and

(c) annual, actual and reasonable costs to maintain and administer the trust, as follows:

(i) up to a maximum of $500 for a portfolio with a market value of $100,000 or less, or

(ii) up to a maximum of $5,000 for a portfolio with a market value over $100,000, 1/2 of 1% on the first $400,000 and 1/4 of 1% on the remaining value.

The employee is responsible for any income tax adjustment that may result from the reimbursement of trust costs.

---

Appendix B - Relevant Forms

Title of form	No. of form	Issued by	Available from	Phone no. Fax. No.
Employee Certification Document	7540-21-900-0060 TBS/SCT 330-39 (Rev. 87/11)	TBS	SSC	746-4005 779-2833
Confidential Report	7540-21-900-0061 TBS/SCT 330-409 Rev. 87/11)	TBS	SSC	746-4005 779-2833

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/archives/hrpubs/TB_851/cip01-eng.asp

Staff of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service (PIRS) of the Library of Parliament work exclusively for Parliament conducting research and providing analysis and policy advice to Members of the Senate and House of Commons and to parliamentary committees on a non-partisan and confidential basis.  The documents on this site were originally prepared for general distribution to Canadian Parliamentarians to provide background and analysis of issues that may arise in the course of their Parliamentary duties. They are made available here as a service to the public. These studies are not official Parliamentary or Canadian government documents. No legal or other professional advice is offered by the authors or the Parliamentary Information and Research Service in presenting its publications or in maintaining links to other Internet sites.

PRB 05-76E
Print version (PDF)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES
FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS: A LONG ROAD

Prepared by:
Margaret Young
Law and Government Division
10 March 2006

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

§  INTRODUCTION

§  WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

§  TECHNIQUES OF DEALING WITH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

§  LONG-STANDING LAWS ALSO GOVERN CONFLICTS

§  THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND POST-EMPLOYMENT CODE
FOR PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS

§  THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE SENATE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES

§   A.  The House of Commons Code

§   B.  The Senate Code

§  CHRONOLOGY

§  SELECTED REFERENCES

§  APPENDIX

---

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES
FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS: A LONG ROAD

INTRODUCTION

Conflict of interest is one aspect of public-sector ethics, and Canadian legislatures and governments have developed legislation and codes of conduct that illustrate a variety of approaches to the issue.  Modern society accepts that individuals should be as free as possible to pursue their economic goals, but also expects that those in positions of public trust should not act in their public capacity on matters in which they have a personal economic interest.  Even an appearance of a conflict affects the public’s confidence in the political process and public office holders generally.
This paper will focus on the developments at the federal level.  Although the emphasis here is on federal legislators, it should be remembered that other federal public officials – such as government appointees, public service workers and judges, as well as members of administrative agencies, tribunals and Crown corporations – are also affected by conflict of interest rules.
For many years, there were suggestions that Parliament should adopt more comprehensive rules covering conflict of interest.  Arguments against the various proposals centred on privacy concerns and whether or not there was a real need to subject MPs and Senators who were not Ministers to detailed requirements.
The differing views explain why all four bills on this issue presented in the 33rd and 34th Parliaments died on the Order Paper, and why a parliamentary committee report in the subsequent Parliament was not acted upon at the time.  In the fall of 2002, however, the matter became a government priority, and by mid-May 2005, the Senate and the House of Commons had each adopted a conflict of interest code.(1) 
This paper will describe the concepts that underlie conflict of interest, provide some history of developments at the federal level, and briefly outline the parliamentary codes.  A full chronology of events is provided at the end of the paper.  For those interested in the lengthy history of reports and parliamentary action in this area, a full account may be found in the Appendix.

WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

There are a number of possible definitions of conflict of interest.  Mr. Justice W. D. Parker, who presided at the inquiry into conflict of interest allegations against the Honourable Sinclair Stevens some 20 years ago, canvassed the issue thoroughly.  Although he reported in late 1987, his work remains of interest as the only public commission of inquiry ever to have been held concerning the interpretation of the federal Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.  Since 2004, Canada has had an Ethics Commissioner with a mandate to hold inquiries; but the inquiries are held in private, even though they result in public reports.
Justice Parker defined a real conflict of interest as a situation in which a person has knowledge of a private economic interest that is sufficient to influence the exercise of his or her public duties and responsibilities.(2)  An apparent conflict of interest exists when there is a reasonable apprehension, which reasonably well-informed persons could properly have, that a conflict of interest exists.  One might add that the preceding definition applies even when no conflict is found to actually exist.  Some definitions concentrate on “decision-making” rather than “situations,” while some regimes prefer to leave the term undefined.
The principles underlying conflict of interest rules are impartiality and integrity:  a decision‑maker cannot be perceived by the public as being impartial and acting with integrity if he or she could derive a personal benefit from a decision.  The importance of public confidence as the fundamental motivation for both of the parliamentary codes is clear from a number of key concepts found in the purposes and principles sections of each code.  These include:  “public confidence and trust”; the “integrity of members/Senators”; “the highest standards”; and “the public interest.”
Today, governments intervene in virtually all sectors of the economy, either through direct control or through regulatory agencies, safety and health legislation, tariff and tax policies, federal subsidies, and so on.  Thus, it is not unusual for legislation introduced in Parliament to affect the general economic interests of Members of Parliament as citizens in some way.
Some conflicts are thus unavoidable.  An inherent conflict arises out of a parliamentarian’s position as an individual in society, e.g., as a homeowner, parent or consumer.  Parliament continually deals with legislation affecting these interests and, as parliamentarians are affected like other citizens, there is a low risk of an adverse consequence.  Also unavoidable is the representative interest conflict which arises when legislators share broad personal interests, for example in farming, fishing and resource development, with the constituency they represent.  Other interests, however, may in some cases substantially affect the independence of a legislator, particularly when he or she enters Cabinet.  Family businesses pose problems, but so do a wide range of assets, liabilities and financial interests.  Conflict of interest rules generally deal with these latter kinds of interests.

TECHNIQUES OF DEALING WITH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

A number of methods are available to control conflicts of interest.

• Disclosure requires that legislators reveal their assets, typically, in Canada, first confidentially to a designated official, and then in a more limited way publicly, so that a relevant personal interest becomes public knowledge and parliamentarians are inhibited from acting for their personal benefit.  Public disclosure also informs the legislator’s constituents and colleagues of the situation so that they can consider its implications.
• Avoidance requires legislators to divest themselves of interests that might impair their judgment, either by a sale at arm’s length or by use of a trust administered by a trustee independently of the legislator; in the latter case, it must be ensured that the trust is beyond the parliamentarian’s control.
• Withdrawal (also called recusal) requires parliamentarians to refrain from acting on matters in which they have personal financial interests.

Typically, conflict of interest regimes incorporate a combination of the above controls.

LONG-STANDING LAWS ALSO GOVERN CONFLICTS

In addition to the Senate and House of Commons conflict of interest codes, there are other statutes that affect parliamentarians’ conduct.  These are the Criminal Code, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.  (The Prime Minister’s Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders will be discussed below.)
Bribery, the most extreme form of conflict of interest, is a criminal offence.  The Criminal Code provides for 14 years’ imprisonment for a parliamentarian who accepts or attempts to obtain any form of valuable consideration for doing or omitting to do anything in his or her official capacity.(3)  The Parliament of Canada Act also covers bribery, prohibiting a parliamentarian from receiving outside compensation for services rendered on any matter before the House, the Senate or their committees.  The Act excludes persons with remunerated employment in the federal government and certain officials at the provincial level from being eligible to become Members of the House of Commons, although there are exceptions.  It also makes a Member of a provincial legislative assembly ineligible to be a Member of the House of Commons.  The Canada Elections Act also disqualifies from candidacy Members of the Council of the Northwest Territories or the Legislative Assembly of Yukon or Nunavut, and certain others (for example, those who have been convicted of a corrupt election practice).
Before the House of Commons and the Senate adopted their conflict of interest codes, the Parliament of Canada Act contained rules for each chamber on contracting with the Government of Canada.  These rules, which were generally agreed to be confusing and antiquated, were replaced by contracting provisions in each Code. 
THE  CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND POST-EMPLOYMENT CODE
FOR PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS
The Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, on the order of the Prime Minister, applies to Cabinet Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and other senior public office holders.(4)  It requires that, on appointment to the included offices, the office holders are to arrange their private affairs so as to prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts from arising.  With limited exceptions, they are not to solicit or accept money or gifts; not to assist individuals in their dealings with government in such a way as to compromise their own professional status; not to take advantage of information obtained because of their positions as insiders; and, after they leave public office, not to act so as to take improper advantage of having held that office.  Beginning in 1994, information relating to the spouses and dependent children of Ministers, Secretaries of State and Parliamentary Secretaries became relevant, although such information is not made public.
The Code suggests that public office holders, in order to reduce the risk of conflict of interest, should, depending on the asset or interest in question, use avoidance, a confidential report, a public declaration, divestment, or recusal.  Divestment can include making an asset subject to a trust or management agreement.  In relation to outside activities, the public office holder is not to engage in the practice of a profession, actively manage or operate a business or commercial venture, retain or accept directorships or offices in a financial or commercial corporation, hold office in a union or professional association, or serve as a paid consultant.  The Code also deals with public office holders after they leave office, proscribing Ministers for two years and others for one year from certain activities in order to ensure impartiality while in office and to avoid preferential treatment upon leaving office.  There are, however, no penalties for breaking the post-employment rules.
Prior to May 2004, the Code was administered by the Office of the Ethics Counsellor, an office often criticized because it was not independent from the government.  With the passage of An Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) (Bill C-4),(5) the Prime Minister’s Code is administered by the Ethics Commissioner (who also administers the House of Commons Code).  The Commissioner’s statutory base, secure tenure and new powers of inquiry make the office significantly different from that of the former Ethics Counsellor.
The Conservative government elected in January 2006 made some revisions to the Code, although they were not extensive.  In the past, the final authority for approving the compliance arrangements of Ministers was the Prime Minister; this changed to the Ethics Commissioner.  The post-employment provisions were extended to preclude former Ministers, senior public servants, and specified ministerial staff from lobbying activities for five years, a period that the Ethics Commissioner may not abridge.  Other changes include making it clear that no public office holder may initiate contact with the manager of a trust, and vice versa.

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE SENATE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES

A.  The House of Commons Code

With the introduction of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons(6) at the beginning of the 38th Parliament, MPs were, for the first time, required to disclose publicly certain financial and other interests, as well as those of their spouses and dependent children.  (In the latter case, the onus is on the Member to make reasonable efforts to provide the required information.)  In cases of possible conflict, Members are precluded from participating in House and committee proceedings, and from voting.  There are rules about the acceptance of gifts and sponsored travel.  In the case of sponsored travel, the new rules replace the former, more limited, provisions in the Standing Orders.  There are also rules precluding the furthering of Members’ private interests, or the improper furthering of the private interests of others.  The Code is administered and enforced(7) by the Ethics Commissioner established by the Parliament of Canada Act pursuant to the amendments introduced by Bill C-4.
The first Ethics Commissioner to be appointed was Dr. Bernard J. Shapiro, a noted academic with provincial government experience who was the former Principal and Vice‑Chancellor Emeritus of McGill University.  His first year was not an easy one.  Appointed just before the 2004 federal election was called for June, he had to draft forms and ready his office for the return of Members of the House of Commons and the coming into force of the Code that October.  In addition, he was responsible to two parliamentary committees.(8)
The first request for an inquiry came early, in November 2004.  It concerned the conduct of a Minister, the Honourable Judy Sgro, involved a significant degree of fact finding, and raised some difficult issues that caused the report to be delayed.  In the end, the Minister was by and large personally exonerated, although her staff was criticized for placing her in a conflict of interest by their actions.
By early 2006, Dr. Shapiro had also completed three inquiries relating to private Members.  In one case, that of Mr. Gurmant Grewal, the Commissioner found that the Member’s actions had placed him in an apparent conflict of interest, although he declined to recommend a sanction on the basis that the errors had been the result of inadvertence or an error in judgment made in good faith.  In the second case, that of Mr. David Smith, the Member was exonerated.  In the third case, one that involved Mr. Grewal tape-recording a conversation with Mr. Dosanjh without the latter’s knowledge, the Commissioner found that all the parties were presented in an especially unattractive light and, in particular, found Mr. Grewal’s actions entirely inappropriate and deserving of reproach.(9)
The handling of another complaint concerning a Member of the House of Commons, Mr. Deepak Obhrai, resulted in Mr. Obhrai raising a question of privilege in the House.  The Speaker found there to be a prima facie case of breach of privilege and referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.  Following testimony and consideration, the Committee found the Commissioner to be in contempt of the House, but declined to recommend sanctions or a penalty.(10)
In addition to publishing two annual reports in June 2005, in October Dr. Shapiro issued a supplementary document entitled Issues and Challenges 2005.  The document discussed issues that had arisen in the first year of operation, concentrating in particular on recusal in relation to Cabinet Ministers, but including as well some recommendations for changes to the Act and the two codes.

B.  The Senate Code

The Senate Code(11) is similar to that for the House of Commons, with a number of key differences.  Senators also have to publicly disclose certain private interests and positions.  Family members, however, need to disclose only contracts with the Government of Canada.  In the case of a possible conflict in the Senate or in committee, Senators are required to make a declaration but, in contrast to the rules for MPs, they may participate in the proceedings (although they may not vote).  Senators, too, have rules regarding gifts, sponsored travel, furthering their private interests and contracting with the government.
The Senate Code is administered by the Senate Ethics Officer, with a much more significant role played by a five-person Senate committee than in the House.(12)  Mr. Jean Fournier was appointed the Senate’s first Ethics Officer, following a distinguished career in senior positions in the federal public service, including an appointment as High Commissioner to Australia.  As of the end of 2005, Mr. Fournier had publicly released one document relating to an individual Senator.  It dealt with certain holdings and positions of Senator Paul Massicotte in a real estate investment trust that does business with the government.  Although finding that the Senator was not in a real or apparent conflict of interest, Mr. Fournier did recommend certain steps that the Senator should take in order to comply with his obligations under the Senate Code.(13)

CHRONOLOGY

17 July 1973 –  The Green Paper entitled “Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest” was tabled in the House of Commons.
18 July 1973 –  Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau revealed guidelines for Cabinet Ministers in a statement in the House of Commons.  Ministers would be required to resign certain corporate positions, sever business associations, and dispose of certain financial interests while placing others in a trust.
18 December 1973 –   Conflict of interest guidelines for public service workers were outlined in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Trudeau.
10 June 1975 –  The House of Commons Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections tabled its report on the Green Paper, generally endorsing the provisions but recommending some changes.
29 June 1976 –  The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs tabled its report recommending amendments to the Green Paper proposals.
26 June 1978 –  Bill C‑62, the Independence of Parliament Act, was introduced in the House of Commons along with Proposed Standing Orders of the House and Rules of the Senate.  The bill died on the Order Paper.
16 October 1978 –  The Independence of Parliament Act was reintroduced with minor amendments, as Bill C‑6.  The Proposed Standing Orders of the House and Rules of the Senate were tabled in the Commons on 30 October 1978.  The bill was referred to committee on 8 March 1979 but died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on 26 March 1979.
1 August 1979 –   New conflict of interest guidelines applicable to Cabinet Ministers, their spouses and dependent children were issued by Prime Minister Joe Clark.  Personal assets and those of a non‑commercial nature (e.g., residences, savings bonds, works of art) were exempt; assets considered to be non‑conflicting (e.g., family businesses, farms, corporate securities not publicly traded) were to be publicly disclosed.  Other assets had to be sold or placed in a blind trust, and certain professional, corporate and commercial activities were prohibited altogether.
1 May 1980 –  Conflict of interest guidelines for Cabinet Ministers were tabled by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Trudeau (Sessional Paper No. 321‑7/3).  The guidelines were similar to those of August 1979 but did not specifically apply to spouses and dependent children; however, Ministers were not to transfer their assets to their spouses or dependent children to avoid the guidelines.
7 July 1983 –  Appointment of a Task Force on Conflict of Interest by the federal government, chaired by the Honourable Michael Starr and the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, to undertake a major review of the policies and procedures on conflict of interest, their evolution, and whether new approaches to this problem should be devised.
May 1984 –   Release of the Report of the Task Force on Conflict of Interest entitled Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector (the Starr‑Sharp Report).
9 September 1985 –  Establishment by the government of the Conflict of Interest and Post‑Employment Code for Public Office Holders.
26 March 1986 –  Report to the House of Commons of the Standing Committee on Management and Members’ Services on the Register of Members’ Interests.
7 May 1986 –  Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on the Register of Senators’ Interests.
15 May 1986 –   Appointment of the Honourable William Parker as a Commissioner to inquire into and report on the allegations of conflict of interest relating to the Honourable Sinclair Stevens.
3 December 1987 –  Release of the report of the Parker Commission of Inquiry on Conflict of Interest.
24 February 1988 –  First reading of Bill C‑114, the Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interests Act, introduced by the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
21-22 September 1988 – The Legislative Committee on Bill C‑114 held three meetings but was unable to complete deliberation on the bill prior to dissolution of Parliament on 1 October 1988.
9 November 1989 –  First reading of Bill C‑46, the Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interests Act.  (This bill was essentially the same as Bill C‑114, with a few minor changes.)  The bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on 12 May 1991.
22 November 1991 –   First reading of Bill C‑43, the Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interests Act.  (This bill was virtually the same as Bill C‑114 and Bill C‑46.)  On the same date, the subject matter of the bill was referred to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
10 June 1992 –   Report of the Special Joint Committee on Conflict of Interests.
11 March 1993 –   First reading of Bill C-116, the Conflict of Interests of Public Office Holders Act, which included amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act.
30 March 1993 –   Second reading of Bill C-116 in the House and its referral to a Special Joint Committee similar to the committee that had reported in June 1992.
3 June 1993 –   Report of the Special Joint Committee to the House of Commons recommended that Bill C-116 not be proceeded with.  A similar report was made to the Senate on the same day.  Both Bill C-43 and Bill C‑116 died on the Order Paper when the 34th Parliament was dissolved on 8 September 1993.
18 January 1994 – The Throne Speech announced that an ethics counsellor (to replace the former Assistant Deputy Registrar General) would be appointed to advise Ministers and public office holders and to examine the need for legislation.
16 June 1994 –  Howard Wilson was appointed Ethics Counsellor, in charge of registration of lobbyists and conflict of interest.  A new code, little changed from its predecessor, was also released.
June-July 1995 –  The House and Senate passed motions to establish a Special Joint Committee to develop a code of conduct.
20 March 1997 –   The Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct tabled its proposed Code of Official Conduct, the Oliver-Milliken Report.
17 October 2000 –  The Auditor General of Canada recommended that parliamentarians revisit the issue of conflict of interest/code of conduct.
23 May 2002 –   Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that the Oliver‑Milliken Report would form the basis of a code of conduct for Members of Parliament and Senators, to be developed that fall.
23 October 2002 –   A draft bill to establish the position of Ethics Commissioner and a proposed Code of Conduct for parliamentarians were tabled in Parliament.
10 April 2003 –  The House of Commons and Senate committees to which the draft bill had been referred reported to their chambers.
30 April 2003 –   Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence, received first reading in the House of Commons.
1 October 2003 –   Bill C-34 passed the House of Commons.
2 October 2003 –  Bill C-34 was given first reading in the Senate.
30 October 2003 –   The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its 51st Report to the House; it contained a proposed Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
7 November 2003 –   Bill C-34 was amended by the Senate at third reading and a message sent to the House to that effect.
12 November 2003 –  Parliament was prorogued and Bill C-34 died on the Order Paper.
11 February 2004 –  Bill C-34 was reintroduced in the House of Commons as Bill C-4, deemed passed and referred to the Senate.
30 March 2004 –  Bill C-4 was passed by the Senate and given Royal Assent the following day (S.C. 2004, c. 7).  Because the Senate had not finalized its Code, the provisions dealing directly with the appointment and mandate of the Senate Ethics Officer were delayed.  (They came into force on 17 May 2004.)
26 April 2004 –   The House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted the 51st Report of the 2nd session of the 37th Parliament – the Conflict of Interest Code – as the Committee’s report in the 3rd session and presented it in the House the following day.
26 April 2004 –  The House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended that the House ratify the appointment of Bernard Shapiro to the position of Ethics Commissioner.  The House of Commons approved his appointment three days later, and he began his duties on 17 May 2004.
29 April 2004 –    The House of Commons concurred in the 25th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, thus ensuring that the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons would be appended to the Standing Orders of the House, to come into force at the beginning of the 38th Parliament, on 4 October 2004.
December 2004 –   Sinclair Stevens was successful in having Mr. Justice Parker’s 1987 Report set aside.
24 February 2005 – The Senate, following consideration of the matter in Committee of the Whole, approved the appointment of Mr. Jean T. Fournier as the first Senate Ethics Officer.
1 April 2005 –    Mr. Fournier began his duties as the Senate Ethics Officer.
11 May 2005 –  The Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament tabled its Third Report, containing as appendices a proposed Code and consequential changes to the Rules of the Senate.
18 May 2005 –   The Senate adopted the Third Report, bringing the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators into effect immediately.
18 November 2005 –   The House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its 51st Report to the House, finding Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro in contempt of the House of Commons.
February 2006 –   The new government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper released a slightly revised Code for public office holders.
SELECTED REFERENCES(14)
Commission of Inquiry into the Facts of Allegations of Conflict of Interest Concerning the Honourable Sinclair M. Stevens.  Commissioner the Honourable W. D. Parker.  Ottawa, 1987.
Greene, Ian.  “Conflict of Interest and the Canadian Constitution:  An Analysis of Conflict of Interest Rules for Canadian Cabinet Ministers.”  Canadian Journal of Political Science, June 1990, Vol. 23, pp. 233‑256.
House of Commons, Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.  Reports 40, 51 and 52 on a Conflict of Interest Code, and Report 27 on Bill C-34, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session.
————.  25th Report on a Conflict of Interest Code, 37th Parliament, 3rd Session.
House of Commons.  Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix I, Standing Orders.
Office of the Prime Minister.  Conflict of Interest and Post‑Employment Code for Public Office Holders.  Ottawa, rev. February 2006.
Parliament.  Report of the Special Joint Committee on Conflict of Interests.  Ottawa, 1992.
————.  The Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct of the Senate and the House of Commons.  Second Report (the Oliver-Milliken Report).  Ottawa, March 1997.
Senate.  Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, 8th Report, on Bill C-34, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session.
————.  3rd Report, Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, 38th Parliament, 1st Session.
Senate.  Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, as adopted by the Senate on 18 May 2005.
Task Force on Conflict of Interest.  Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector.  Report.  Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp, Co‑Chairmen.  Ottawa, 1984.
Young, Margaret.  Bill C-4:  An Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and Other Acts in Consequence.  LS 464E.  Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, Ottawa, February 2004.

---

(1)     It should be noted that most jurisdictions in Canada, and many foreign jurisdictions with parliamentary systems comparable to Canada’s, have such codes, and have had for some time.  Parliament followed, not led, in this matter.

(2)     Mr. Stevens never accepted Justice Parker’s 1987 findings that he had been in a conflict of interest, and challenged the report in court.  Finally, in a decision rendered in December 2004, O’Keefe J. of the Federal Court set aside the Parker Report on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction and a failure to act in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.  The central difficulty, in Justice O’Keefe’s view, was that the original order of reference had referred to the definition of conflict of interest contained in the relevant documents.  Those documents, however, failed to contain any definitions.  (There is still no direct definition.)  Justice Parker had therefore used the ordinary understandings of the words in applying the facts to the obligations in the documents; moreover, Justice O’Keefe felt that fairness had been compromised because Justice Parker had failed to provide Mr. Stevens with a chance to respond to the definitions and conclusions before the report was released.
(3)    In addition, Standing Order 23(1) of the House of Commons states that it a “high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to subvert the Constitution” to offer a Member money or other advantage for promoting any matter in Parliament.  Note that only an offer, not an acceptance, is covered.  There are no instances where the House of Commons has found this rule to have been breached, although there have been several allegations to that effect.
(4)    These include some 2,900 Order-in-Council appointees, and some 600 ministerial exempt staff.
(5)     S.C. 2004, c. 7.
(6)    The House of Commons Code is an Appendix to the Standing Orders.
(7)   In the case of enforcement, although the Ethics Commissioner conducts inquiries in specified cases, and may recommend sanctions to the House, it is the House of Commons that retains the final decision.
(8)       The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in relation to the House Code, and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in relation to the Prime Minister’s Code.
(9)      All four reports, The Sgro Inquiry:  Many Shades of Grey; The Grewal Inquiry; The Smith Inquiry; and The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry, may be found on the Commissioner’s Web site.
(10)    Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Report 51, November 2005.
(11)    The Senate Code is a stand-alone document.
(12)    The House of Commons oversight committee is the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has numerous other responsibilities.  The Senate committee, the Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators, has oversight as its sole responsibility.  Moreover, the Senate Code mandates a closer working relationship between the Officer and the Committee.
(13)    The opinion may be found on the Senate Ethics Officer’s Web site.
(14)   For reports by the Ethics Commissioner and the Senate Ethics Officer resulting from specific complaints, please see their Web sites.

---

APPENDIX

A LONG HISTORY OF REPORTS

THE TASK FORCE ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST, 1984

The Task Force on Conflict of Interest, chaired by the Honourable Michael Starr and the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, was appointed by the federal government and charged with devising a regime dealing with conflict of interest whereby public confidence would be ensured and the integrity of the political process protected; at the same time, the Task Force had to recognize the need to attract candidates of high calibre to public office.  The Task Force’s report identified nine activities as involving conflicts of interest and recommended that these forms of conduct be dealt with, depending on the severity of the conflict, by:  the use of a code of conduct; legal or quasi‑legal procedures; or the implementation of additional codes of procedure, general or specific to the agency in question.  The Task Force recommendations would have applied only to Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, not to private Members or Senators.
The procedures to minimize conflicts of interest would have been in the form of regulations made by the Governor in Council.  A major recommendation was the creation of the Office of Public Sector Ethics, which would have had an advisory, administrative, investigative and educational role.  Although the Task Force also made recommendations governing the post‑employment period, it acknowledged the difficulty of enforcing such rules after a parliamentarian’s departure from office.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PARKER COMMISSION

In his 1987 report regarding the allegations of conflict of interest involving the Honourable Sinclair Stevens, Mr. Justice William Parker suggested discontinuation of the use of blind trusts to satisfy conflict of interest guidelines.  He declared that in some instances the “blindness” of such trusts was a fiction and that their use could be subject to abuse.  He recommended that conflict of interest guidelines require public disclosure.  Assets, interests and activities should be clearly set out, as should the assets of spouses.  He also suggested that, in the interest of protecting privacy, certain personal assets would not have to be disclosed.  These could include a residence, automobiles, cash and savings.
The disclosure statement would have been placed in a public registry and made available to the general public.  Judge Parker also favoured divestment by a Minister of his or her private assets where these could lead to obvious conflicts of interest, and recusal in situations where, despite preventive measures, a conflict arose.

PARLIAMENTARY ACTION:  1973-1993

For over 30 years, various attempts were made in the parliamentary context to deal with conflict of interest issues at the federal level.  In 1973, the government issued a Green Paper entitled “Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest,” which proposed to consolidate and extend the existing rules.  The Green Paper was studied by committees in both the House of Commons and the Senate, each of which made numerous recommendations.  In 1978, the government tabled the Independence of Parliament Act, which would have extended the provisions in the Green Paper and incorporated some of the recommendations of the two committee reports.  The bill received second reading but died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved in 1979.

A.  Register of Members’ Interests

On 25 November 1985, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Management and Members’ Services was asked to consider matters related to the establishment of a Register of Members’ Interests.  The Committee was to look at whether Members should disclose their remunerated directorships of public and private companies and other remunerated positions, offices, trades and professions.  This matter was also referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.
After consultation with Members of all parties, the House Committee concluded that a Register of Members’ Interests was not warranted and that the current law relating to conflict of interest for Members was adequate.  Furthermore, the Committee concluded that such a Register would accomplish little more than intrude into Members’ privacy.  In contrast, the Senate Committee recommended a complete review of conflict of interest as it applied to parliamentarians.

B.  Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interests Act

Four bills to regulate conflict of interest for federal legislators were introduced in the 33rd and 34th Parliaments; all of them died on the Order Paper.  (See the earlier chronology for the legislative history of the bills.)  The proposed legislation, which was similar to that being pioneered in a number of provinces, would have provided for an annual declaration of the private interests of Senators, Members of the House of Commons, and their spouses and dependent children(1) to an independent three-member Conflict of Interests Commission.(2)  The Commission would have had extensive discretionary power to advise parliamentarians on their financial holdings, require public declarations of assets, provide opinions on appropriate conduct, and hold inquiries in response to allegations that the rules had been breached.  Proposed penalties for non-compliance ranged from fines to loss of the Member’s or Senator’s seat, but their imposition would have remained in the hands of the parliamentarian’s chamber. 

C.  The Special Joint Committee on Conflict of Interests
         (the Blenkarn-Stanbury Report)

In late November 1991, the government introduced the third of the bills, Bill C‑43.  Without proceeding to second reading, the subject matter of the bill was immediately referred to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for a comprehensive review.
The Special Joint Committee tabled its report on 10 June 1992.  The Committee’s views differed in a number of respects from the policy choices reflected in Bill C-43.  Instead of a three-member Commission, the report recommended the appointment of a “Jurisconsult” to serve as advisor and investigator.  As in Bill C-43, public disclosure of financial interests would have been required, although disclosure of monetary values would not.  Spousal disclosure would have been potentially greater under the Committee’s proposed regime than under that proposed in Bill C-43, and there were a number of other matters on which the Committee and the government differed.  Since no solution could be agreed on, the bill(3) died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on 8 September 1993.

PARLIAMENTARY ACTION:  1993-2005

The election of October 1993 brought a change of government.  The Throne Speech in January 1994 stressed that integrity and public trust were essential to the government and that an independent ethics counsellor would be appointed, as had been promised during the election campaign.  The counsellor would advise Ministers and public office holders on their ethical responsibilities and would examine the need for legislation.
On 16 June 1994, the government announced that the new Ethics Counsellor would be Howard Wilson, then Assistant Deputy Registrar of Canada and as such responsible for the administration of the previous Code.  His mandate was expanded to cover lobbying.  At the same time, a revised Code for public office holders was released.  It differed little from the previous Code, although spouses and dependants were now included explicitly, rather than by additional directives as had formerly been the case.(4)  In relation to conflict of interest, the Ethics Counsellor continued to report to the Prime Minister, continued to be under the general direction of the Clerk of the Privy Council, and had no independent investigatory powers.
In June 1995, the House passed a motion to establish a Special Joint Committee of the House and Senate to develop a Code of Conduct.  The following month, the Senate passed a similar motion.  In March 1997, the Committee presented to Parliament its proposed Code of Official Conduct, which came to be known as the Oliver-Milliken Report.  The Committee emphasized the following as important goals for the Code:  the maintenance of public trust and confidence in Parliament, and the provision of guidance for parliamentarians in how to reconcile their private interests with their public duties.  Specific rules were proposed for parliamentarians that would have prohibited them from furthering their own private interests or those of their families, and from using insider information; the rules would also have regulated the receipt of gifts and personal benefits, sponsored travel and contracting with the government.
As with all of the previous proposals in this area, the heart of the Committee’s report was its proposal that all parliamentarians should disclose their financial assets, liabilities, sources of income, and positions.  The interests of spouses and dependants would also be included.  Disclosure would be made confidentially, after which a summary would be prepared and made public.  The summary would not include small interests, purely personal interests, or interests unlikely to result in any conflict of interest.
Similar to its predecessor committee in 1992, the Committee recommended the creation of the position of Jurisconsult, a parliamentary officer who would be appointed jointly by the Senate and the House of Commons upon the recommendation of the Speakers, following consultation with the leaders of all recognized parties.  The Jurisconsult would receive parliamentarians’ confidential disclosures, prepare the public disclosure statements, and advise parliamentarians on the interpretation of the Code.  Upon receiving a complaint, the Jurisconsult would investigate; matters requiring a full inquiry would be referred to a new joint committee of the Senate and House, which would also have general oversight of the Jurisconsult and the Code.  Foreshadowing later developments, the Committee recommended against a legislated approach. 
In the 36th Parliament, the government took no action on the report.  In that Parliament, and in the 37th, several private Members’ bills were introduced to provide for a Code of Conduct for all parliamentarians, or for Ministers alone.  None were proceeded with.
In the Auditor General of Canada’s October 2000 Report, one chapter was entitled “Values and Ethics in the Federal Public Sector.”  After summarizing the history of unsuccessful attempts to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians, the Auditor General recommended that parliamentarians try again, arguing that it was important to show ethical leadership for the public sector as a whole.
In May 2002, in the course of a debate in the House of Commons on ethics in government, Prime Minister Chrétien announced that the government would introduce an ethics initiative in the fall that would include a Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.  That initiative was tabled in draft form in both chambers of Parliament in October 2002 and consisted of two parts.  The first part was a draft bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to establish an Ethics Commissioner, whose jurisdiction would encompass members of Cabinet and Parliamentary Secretaries, Members of Parliament, and Senators.  The second part of the initiative was a proposed Code of Conduct, modelled closely on that recommended in the Oliver-Milliken Report of 1997.
Committees of each chamber reviewed the draft bill and proposed changes to it in early April 2003.  Most of their recommendations were accepted, one of the most important of which from the Senate’s perspective was that it have its own oversight official.  Later in that month the government tabled Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer).  The House passed the bill at the beginning of October 2003.  Although the bill was dealt with expeditiously by the Senate committee to which it was referred (the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament), during third reading debate in the Senate it became clear that there was considerable opposition to the bill.  Senators from both sides passed an amendment, thus sending the bill back to the House.  Parliament was prorogued a few days later and the bill died on the Order Paper.
The bill was reintroduced in identical form as Bill C-4 at the beginning of the 3rd session and referred immediately to the Senate.  This time, proposed amendments failed and the Senate passed the bill.
As for the proposed Code of Conduct based on the Oliver-Milliken Report, at an early point it was clear that each chamber was to have its own Code, just as each was to have its own officer to enforce it:  the Ethics Commissioner for the House, and the Senate Ethics Officer for the Senate.  The House of Commons Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studied the proposed Code, and in October 2003 it tabled its final report on the Code in the House.  It recommended that it be adopted as a Conflict of Interest Code, although because of the demise of Bill C-34 and prorogation, this did not happen.  The report was, however, readopted, tabled and concurred in as the 25th Report in the 3rd session.  The Code came into force at the beginning of the 38th Parliament, in October 2004.
In the Senate, the proposed bill was extensively debated in the chamber before referral to the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, and so the Committee study of the proposed Code was not far advanced when the 2nd session ended.  Work resumed in the 3rd session but was not completed when the 37th Parliament ended.
Work on the Senate Code continued on an informal basis between Parliaments and was taken up as a priority by the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament in the 38th Parliament.  Following much deliberation and study, the Committee presented its Code to the Senate in mid-May 2005; the Senate adopted it on 18 May and it came into force immediately, 32 years after the first efforts by Parliament to regulate conflict of interest in a systematic way.

---

(1)     Although common in the provinces, the requirement for spouses and dependent children to disclose their interests to the Commission proved controversial.

(2)   The full public disclosure that had been recommended by the Parker Commission was not included in the bills; instead, an official called the Registrar of Interests would have prepared a summary of the confidential information disclosed to the Commission.  This format resembled the provincial model, and foreshadowed the Codes ultimately adopted by the House and the Senate.
(3)    The Committee had included a draft bill in its report; the government then countered with yet another bill in response.
(4)     Their assets were of relevance only to the situation of the public office holder and did not become public.  That remains the case to the present, although there is a conflict between that and the Members’ Code, which does make those assets public.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0576-e.htm

----    

2000 October Report of the Auditor General of Canada

• October 2000 Report
• PDF (136 KB)
•  

Chapter 12—Values and Ethics in the Federal Public Sector

Main Points

Introduction

Observations

Values and Ethics Assessments

Most Initiatives Promoting Values and Ethics Are in Their Early Stages

Major Values and Ethics Challenges

Developing Shared Values and Ethics

Voicing Values and Ethics Concerns

Using Best Practices

Conclusion

About the Study

Bibliography

Appendix A—Possible Elements of an Ethical Framework Proposed in Our May 1995 Report

Appendix B—Major Values and Ethics Initiatives Since Our May 1995 Report

Appendix C—Purposes and Principles of the Code of Official Conduct Recommended by the 1997 Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons

Appendix D—The United Kingdom's Seven Principles of Public Life

Appendix E—The United Kingdom's Civil Service Code

Exhibits:

12.1—Elements of Controls and Values and Ethics Approaches to Maintain Probity in Government

12.2—Major Values and Ethics Initiatives Recommended in the Tait Report

12.3—Results on Values and Ethics in the Treasury Board's 1999 Survey of Public Servants

12.4—Ethics Components of Major Departmental Initiatives

12.5—Responsibilities of Political Leaders

12.6—Responsibilities of Managers

12.7—Key Attributes of Ethical Leadership in the Public Sector

12.8—Hypothetical Case Studies of Values and Ethics Dilemmas in the Workplace

12.9—Categories of Values

12.10—Possible Set of Principles for Interaction Between the Public and Private Sectors

12.11—Best Practices and Benchmarks

12.12—Framework for Action

Main Points

12.1 Canadians expect that the federal public sector will be a world leader in promoting sound values and ethics in government. Ensuring sound values and ethics is a vital part of good governance that supports and respects fundamental democratic values.
12.2 A comprehensive and sustained dialogue with Canadians and throughout the federal public sector is required. We propose a framework for action that includes eight priorities. We suggest that action start with the following two priorities.

• Reinforce leadership for promoting ethical conduct by, for example,
• clarifying the principle of ministerial responsibility and the responsibilities of officials; and
• identifying the responsibilities of senior and line managers for promoting sound values and ethics.
• Re-invigorate an extensive dialogue on values and ethics that emphasizes the primacy of the principles of respect for the law, the public interest, and public service as a public trust.

12.3 Sound values and ethics are needed to maintain probity. There is a strong foundation of values and ethics in the federal public sector. This foundation should not be taken for granted. The government is taking steps to maintain sound values and ethics. Most of these measures are limited or in their preliminary stages. To increase the likelihood of success, values and ethics initiatives have to be carefully developed, implemented, and monitored by using the best available practices. A prerequisite for success is the leadership of parliamentarians, ministers and senior officials.
12.4 The federal government needs to develop an implementation plan with deadlines to address values and ethics priorities across the public sector and in federal entities. We will continue to monitor and report to Parliament on values and ethics initiatives in the public sector.

Background and other observations

12.5 We focussed on values and ethics initiatives that promote ethical decision making that is in the public interest. These initiatives would form part of a comprehensive approach to good governance in federal entities.
12.6 In May 1995 we reported to Parliament on ethics and fraud awareness in government. In 1996 the government completed A Strong Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics (Tait Report). These reports contributed to forging a consensus on the values and ethics issues that need to be addressed in the federal public service.
12.7 Ensuring ethical decision making is the responsibility of all members of the federal public sector and private sector companies as well as organizations and individuals who receive funds from or do business with the public sector.
12.8 Major changes are occurring in the way government organizes and delivers its programs. These changes include deregulation, downsizing, increasing delegation of decision making to officials in the field, contracting out and entering into partnerships with the private sector. As well, the government is using new technologies, and its work force is becoming more mobile and diverse. As a result, the government is increasingly relying on a strong foundation of values and ethics to make decisions in the public interest.
12.9 As part of good governance efforts, several departments are implementing major values and ethics initiatives. Others do not assign a high priority to developing comprehensive values and ethics initiatives. We believe that all entities should objectively assess and report on values and ethics.
The responses of the Privy Council Office, the deputy minister co-champions for values and ethics in the public service, the Secretary of the Treasury Board and the Ethics Counsellor are included at the end of this chapter. They agree with our assessment of the initiatives under way and acknowledge that there is an important need for further work.

Introduction

12.10 Probity (or honesty) in government is a traditional concern of auditors general in parliamentary democracies. It is maintained through cost-effective financial and management controls and approaches based on sound values and ethics. This study focusses on values and ethics approaches. Other chapters in this Report look at financial and management controls.
12.11 Sound values and ethics are needed to maintain probity. The federal government is taking steps to maintain sound values and ethics in the public sector. To increase the likelihood of success, values and ethics initiatives have to be carefully developed, implemented, and monitored by using the best available practices.
12.12 There is a growing body of experience on how best to promote values and ethics in government. For example, major companies and certain government departments have initiated significant ethics programs. These programs recognize that it is unrealistic to expect that, by themselves, values and ethics initiatives will ensure probity. A considered balance of reliance on financial and management controls and on values and ethics approaches is required. Exhibit 12.1 illustrates the main elements of these controls and approaches.
12.13 Over time, changes in government have made it clear that ensuring probity will increasingly rest on a strong foundation of values and ethics. The 1984 report by Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp, Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector (Starr-Sharp Report), was one of the first major studies of values and ethics in Canada.
12.14 The increased emphasis on values and ethics reflects changes in government structure and approach - in particular, the focus on deregulation and the reduction of management supervision and the corresponding emphasis on the empowerment of employees, changes in public service values, the growing number of alternative service delivery agencies, the increasing partnerships with the private sector, the privatization of certain government services, and greater public scrutiny of government programs. The situation will become more complex in the near future as new employees from diverse backgrounds are hired to replace many retiring public servants, as employees enter and leave the public service more frequently, and as government organizations adopt new technologies.
12.15 Increasing discretion and the complexity of program objectives also mean that public servants are being asked more frequently to balance several justifiable or equally valued courses of action. In Chapter 1 of our May 1995 Report, we presented to Parliament a study, Ethics and Fraud Awareness in Government. We reported the results of a survey of a random sample of public servants on ethical issues. We suggested a framework for ethics in government, consisting of a statement of principles, leadership, empowerment of public servants, transparent decision making, ethics-related training, a mechanism for discussing and reporting ethical concerns, and a continuous process that makes ethics a conscious and visible part of day-to-day decision making (see Appendix A). Subsequent reports have recommended frameworks similar to our own.
12.16 Since our Report, there have been significant values and ethics initiatives in the federal government. The first major event was the publication in December 1996 of A Strong Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics (Tait Report). As chair of the task force, John Tait, a distinguished senior public servant, emphasized the need for an ongoing robust dialogue on values and ethics - an encouraging development.
12.17 The Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD) reissued the Tait Report in January 2000 to help reinvigorate the dialogue. Since its publication, the report has become the key instrument for promoting values and ethics in the federal government. Mr. Tait supported our Office's undertaking a second study, and many of the conclusions of his report were the starting points for our study.
12.18 A second major event was when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published in April 1998 its set of Principles for managing ethics in the Public Service. Canada, along with the other member countries of the OECD, has subscribed to these principles. We interpret the phrase "managing ethics" to mean managing ethically by promoting respect for and discussion of values and ethics that are inherent in democratic institutions and society. Because the principles represent a wide consensus, we used them as benchmarks for our study.
12.19 The major works on values and ethics have a common theme: The promotion of values and ethics is an essential part of a good governance framework that needs to be continually and systematically addressed to help ensure probity and the long-term viability of federal entities.

Focus of the study

12.20 Our objective is to stimulate sustained and transparent discussion and action on values and ethics by Canadians and members of the federal public sector. In this study, we focus on values and ethics initiatives that promote ethical decision making as part of a comprehensive approach to good governance in federal entities. Our observations integrate the OECD principles, the recommendations of major federal public sector reports, and the better values and ethics practices in government and the private sector.
12.21 Values and ethics initiatives are not sustainable without leadership at the highest levels and a commitment to act. Thus, one of our primary concerns was the leadership responsibilities of parliamentarians, ministers, and heads and managers of federal entities.
12.22 Because most of the federal public sector initiatives were in their early stages of development, we did not conduct an in-depth assessment of their implementation or their effectiveness in changing attitudes and behaviour.
12.23 More details about our study's objective, scope, approach and criteria are at the end of this chapter.

Observations

Values and Ethics Assessments

The Tait Report

12.24 The Tait Report was a major step forward in forging a consensus on the values and ethics issues that need to be addressed in the federal public service. It is the most recent comprehensive assessment of the state of values and ethics in the public service. The report focussed on values and ethics that are fundamental to the sound functioning of the public service. It reaffirmed the primacy of law and the public interest as essential pillars of public administration. It proposed the adoption of an "ethics regime" similar to the framework we presented in our May 1995 Report.
12.25 The Tait Report recommended major initiatives to promote values and ethics (see Exhibit 12.2). Among its key recommendations were initiating a wide-ranging and honest dialogue on values and ethics within and outside the government, adopting a statement of principles for the public service, establishing recourse mechanisms for expressing ethical concerns, and developing comprehensive ethics regimes government-wide and in individual public service organizations.
12.26 The Treasury Board and The Leadership Network have recently assessed the work undertaken to address these recommendations. (The Leadership Network's role is to promote, develop and support networks of leaders in the public service.) The assessments indicate that most of the work is in its preliminary stages. In January 2000 the Treasury Board Secretariat informed deputy ministers that most public servants have not heard of the Tait Report and have not participated in or are not aware of discussions related to the report. Furthermore, public servants continue to believe that senior managers do not lead by example.
12.27 In its spring 2000 review of the dialogue initiative, The Leadership Network reported that values and ethics are recognized as challenging subjects, but that departments may not have the capacity to lead and sustain the dialogue. As well, there is an absence of a formal accountability process and a lack of follow-up to gauge the success of values and ethics initiatives. The review also concluded that there is strong support in departments for the following:

• evaluating ethical performance as a basis for appointments and promotions;
• encouraging ethics education and training; and
• deliberately raising ethical considerations at meetings.

Consultations with middle managers

12.28 There are about 30,000 middle managers in the public service. From March to June 1998 the Learning Advisory Panel for Middle Managers consulted them on the major challenges and opportunities facing the public service. The panel's 1998 publication, The View From Here, contains the results of the consultations. On values and ethics, it reports that there is "continuing cynicism, embitterment and lack of trust." It recommends the following:

• a professional code of conduct for middle managers within an accountability framework;
• a regional ethics counsellor; and
• a clear and concise statement of federal public service values and ethics or code of conduct.

Treasury Board's survey of public servants

12.29 The Treasury Board's 1999 survey of public servants also indicates that there are vulnerabilities in the area of values and ethics. Exhibit 12.3 presents some results that are relevant to our study.
12.30 According to the results, most public servants are treated by their colleagues with respect, and the work units operate in an open and honest manner. However, we are concerned that a significant number of public servants strongly or mostly agree that they cannot explain to others the vision, values or mission of their department or agency, that they do not have a fair chance of getting promoted, that they cannot disagree with their immediate supervisor without reprisal or that senior management will not try to resolve concerns raised in the survey.

Assessment of comptrollership capacity

12.31 As part of a pilot program, the Treasury Board's April 2000 assessment of comptrollership capacity in five departments indicates that overall they had ethics statements and communicated written policies across their organizations. However, departments applied their policies inconsistently.

Most Initiatives Promoting Values and Ethics Are in Their Early Stages

12.32 Clearly, the ambitious initiatives recommended by the Tait Report have yet to be realized. As well, the most recent assessments of the values and ethics challenges in the public service show that there is much work to do. There also is significant concern for ensuring a strong foundation of values and ethics at the federal level. Measures have already been taken and, although they are in their preliminary stages of development and implementation, additional initiatives are under way. Moreover, key public service leaders such as the Clerk of the Privy Council and the deputy minister co-champions for values and ethics are aware of the need for action. They have initiated significant efforts to re-invigorate discussion and action across government.
12.33 Prior to our May 1995 Report, the federal government had taken several significant initiatives to promote sound values and ethics. Post-employment and conflict-of-interest guidelines for ministers and those appointed by the Governor in Council (GIC) had been put in place; similar guidelines had been established for public servants. The role of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General had been expanded into the position of Ethics Counsellor, who reports to the Prime Minister. The Ethics Counsellor provides advice to ministers and GIC appointees and receives disclosure-of-asset statements from them. He does not provide advice to staff in departments and agencies. The Ethics Counsellor is also responsible for a registry of lobbyists.
12.34 Since our May 1995 Report, there have been further major values and ethics initiatives (see Appendix B).

Interdepartmental initiatives

12.35 The government has created independent panels and deputy minister committees to address wide-ranging concerns in specific functional areas and sectors: comptrollership across government and the effective use of science and technology in government. The Public Service Commission of Canada also leads a staffing reform initiative. The reports of the panels, the committees, and the Commission cover a broad range of issues. Most of the efforts to address the values and ethics issues raised in the reports are in their preliminary stages.
12.36 Comptrollership. The Independent Review Panel on Modernization of Comptrollership in the Government of Canada presented a report in October 1997. It concluded that among the prerequisites for sound management was a common base of accepted, understood and practised values and ethics to guide and permit more independent decision making. Using the panel's criteria, the Treasury Board Secretariat asked five departments to initiate, as a pilot program, a self-assessment of capabilities, including the extent to which ethical practices and values are in place.
12.37 Science and technology. The public's confidence in government use of science and technology to protect the economy and health and safety of citizens has been shaken by recent crises, such as the diminishing Atlantic and Pacific fish stocks and the threatened safety of our blood supply.
12.38 In response, the federal government has sought to establish mechanisms to ensure that it considers sound scientific advice in forming policy and regulations. To achieve this end requires the resolution of conflicts between the values of the science and technology community, the policy formulation process and the responsibilities of the political level.
12.39 In 1996 the government published Science and Technology for the New Century: A Federal Strategy, in which it called for science-based departments and agencies to establish external advisory bodies. In March 1999 the major science departments issued a statement of best practices for the conduct and use of science and technology in government. The statement included scientific and public service values such as integrity, objectivity, transparency, professionalism, respect for people, excellence and accountability.
12.40 The government broadened the initiative to include consultation across the country. In May 1999 the Council of Science and Technology Advisors presented a report, Science Advice for Government Effectiveness. In June 2000 the government published A Framework for Science and Technology Advice. Among the key values that motivate the reports are the following:

• inclusiveness to ensure that advice is drawn from a variety of scientific sources and from experts in many disciplines; and
• openness to ensure that governments employ science in decision-making processes that are transparent and open to stakeholders.

12.41 Values-Based Merit Framework. In 1990 the federal government assessed public service staffing in Public Service 2000: Report of the Task Force on Staffing. The Public Service Commission looked at this issue in its 1996 Consultative Review of Staffing. These reports recommended that the staffing system focus more on judgment, values and ethics and less on prescriptive controls and rules. To implement this recommendation, the Public Service Commission has launched a Staffing Reform initiative. According to the Commission, most staffing responsibilities have now been delegated to managers, and departments are expected to create customized approaches to staffing and accountability. The Commission told us that the potential results of delegation have not been fully realized because there has been no values-based framework to guide managers in the exercise of their new powers.
12.42 The Commission is implementing a Values-Based Merit Framework to support managers. The focus of the framework is the achievement of an ethical balance of key merit values and management principles. The Commission is providing training to managers. It is also establishing new accountability agreements with departments that include values-based performance indicators, such as surveys of client satisfaction, for hiring competent staff in a fair, equitable and transparent manner.
12.43 Clerk of the Privy Council and the appointment of co-champions. In response to this chapter, the Clerk of the Privy Council stated that he has "embraced quite vigorously" the "responsibility for ensuring [that] the values and ethics agenda moves forward." In May 1999 he appointed two deputy minister co-champions to lead the values and ethics agenda. The Privy Council Office (PCO) told us that the appointments do "not preclude the Clerk/PCO from playing a role; however, the responsibility is envisaged as one of support and challenge." The co-champions have focussed on re-activating the values and ethics dialogue and encouraging all deputy ministers to develop ethics initiatives.
12.44 Office of Values and Ethics. In April 1999 the Treasury Board Secretariat established the Office of Values and Ethics. The primary role of the Office is to support the deputy minister co-champions for values and ethics. It is sponsoring the development of training materials, organizing workshops to share best practices, developing case studies, and providing guidance on ethics programs to departments. The Office is also reviewing the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service. Most of this work is in its preliminary stages.
12.45 The Office does not have a mandate to act as an ethics counsellor to public servants or receive or investigate complaints. However, on occasion it is hearing from them and providing advice or taking informal action.
12.46 Secretary of the Treasury Board. In August 1999 the Secretary of the Treasury Board wrote to deputy ministers to clarify the policy and legal framework for public servants regarding the acceptance of gifts, hospitality and other benefits. The Secretary noted that as the government's way of doing business is changing, public servants are increasingly being offered benefits of considerable value. They have indicated that existing codes and guidelines relating to questions of ethical behaviour are vague, and it is not clear to whom they should turn for guidance.
12.47 The Secretary emphasized that public servants must understand the legal and policy framework for conflict of interest and its profound legal and professional consequences. He stressed that procedures need to be established to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Code and the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service.
12.48 The Canadian Centre for Management Development. The CCMD contributes to the promotion of values and ethics through its learning activities for public service managers. In February 2000 it established a series of "armchair discussions" on values and ethics, chaired by the co-champions. Values and ethics are also key elements of the CCMD's leadership and management courses, which are not mandatory.

Major departmental values and ethics initiatives

12.49 Departments and their branches are the key organizations for promoting and maintaining sound values and ethics. The growing experience with values and ethics initiatives indicates that in a general framework for the public sector, federal entities need to develop initiatives that meet their specific needs.
12.50 For example, National Defence, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have undertaken major initiatives to promote sound values. These initiatives respond to particular circumstances, and they illustrate the variety of challenges and approaches. The values and ethics initiatives in these organizations are sophisticated programs with high expectations, which incorporate and even develop best practices of formal ethics programs. Exhibit 12.4 lists the key elements of these programs.
12.51 National Defence. The Department's values and ethics initiative began from a need to protect resources and later to respond to crises with significant ethical dimensions. The effort has become more comprehensive as the Department and the Canadian Forces have recognized that they are dealing with evermore complex, difficult, and increasingly conflicting and ambiguous operational tasks. In particular, small contingents are being assigned to missions in remote, relatively isolated areas containing populations with a long history of hostilities. In these areas, they are expected to carry out simultaneously military, quasi-police, and peacekeeping functions. These assignments represent a major shift from placing large battle units in the field to fight wars with relatively clear moral rationales and goals.
12.52 Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP's initiative stems from the major change to community policing in 1989. Community policing requires consideration of community expectations, the development of partnerships with community groups, and the provision of tailored services, where possible, to meet the unique needs of each community.
12.53 It also requires a change from a traditional "command and control" organizational and management structure with only one way to do things, "the RCMP way," to one where officers are expected to approach problems by taking into account key problem-solving factors and corporate values and ethics. To implement the approach, the RCMP has appointed an Ethics Advisor. It also has sought to provide a clear rationale, guidance and training, supplemented with a clear statement of departmental commitments to its employees and to the communities it serves. In addition, the RCMP has undertaken a major initiative to align all its policies and procedures with its mission, vision, and values statement.
12.54 Public Works and Government Services Canada. In the fall of 1997 at a meeting of 250 senior departmental executives, the Deputy Minister stated that ethics were part of good governance in the Department. PWGSC has since appointed an ethics counsellor, established a director of an ethics development office, and developed an ethics program framework; the Deputy Minister has distributed terms of reference for the program to each senior manager. Currently, PWGSC is pursuing a major initiative to raise awareness of values and ethics issues through discussion and to support senior management in fulfilling its responsibilities for sustaining values and ethics.
12.55 Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The Department has adopted a step-by-step initiative led by the deputy minister that focusses on the day-to-day promotion of values and ethics. In 1997 it undertook a major consultation initiative with its staff on workplace values and ethics dilemmas and ways of resolving them. The consultations resulted in a resource document, The Ethical Compass: Values and Ethics Dilemmas at CIC.
12.56 The Department has recently approved a framework for middle management training that identifies values as a key area. It has also appointed an ombudsman and a new values and ethics champion. The CIC Ombudsman counsels employees on how to resolve problems, and as a member of the management board, acts as the "conscience of the Department." The Ombudsman reports on general issues to the Deputy Minister, who has made a commitment to act on systemic issues.
12.57 Other departments. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) has recently begun an extensive dialogue with all staff on values and ethics. The Department has released the Handbook on Values and Ethics in HRDC. All the other departments we reviewed have taken some steps to address values and ethics concerns. For example, all the departments have a vision, mission or values statement. However, most departments have not assigned a high priority to developing comprehensive values and ethics initiatives.

Major Values and Ethics Challenges

12.58 In our view, a comprehensive effort is needed to ensure that the federal public sector meets emerging values and ethics challenges. To further discussion and action, we have identified specific areas that need to be considered as part of a comprehensive framework of priorities for action. These areas include reinforcing responsibility and leadership for ethical conduct, developing shared values and ethics, and establishing avenues for voicing concerns about values and ethics.

Reinforcing responsibility for ethical conduct

12.59 Sustaining and promoting values and ethics in the federal public sector is the responsibility of all its key institutions and members. It requires a comprehensive approach that involves the leadership and strong commitment of parliamentarians, ministers, and heads of federal entities. It also relies on the development of appropriate values and ethics initiatives in federal entities and in the interaction between the public and private sectors.

Leadership of parliamentarians

12.60 Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp published a report in 1984, Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector. In it they asked parliamentarians to set an example because they are prominently in the public eye, and their actions, values, and ethical conduct send a signal as to the norms of acceptable behaviour.
12.61 The OECD's Principles for Managing Ethics in the Public Service call for political and senior official commitment to ethics that reinforces ethical conduct (see Exhibit 12.5).
12.62 Provisions dealing with particular aspects of the conduct of parliamentarians are in various statutes and documents. Relevant sections of the Criminal Code cover bribery of officials, fraud against the government, and breach of trust. The Parliament of Canada Act contains provisions that govern contracts with the government, the financial interests of senators, and the ineligibility of members of the House of Commons to benefit from government contracts.
12.63 Various attempts have been made, without success, to establish a code of conduct for parliamentarians. In July 1973 the government issued a green paper, Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest, that proposed a code of conduct for parliamentarians as a first step in implementing a comprehensive policy for officials at all levels of government.
12.64 In June 1992 the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Conflict of Interests recommended the adoption of clear rules to guide members of Parliament. In March 1993 the Prime Minister introduced legislation on conflict of interest for parliamentarians. Another committee that reviewed the proposed legislation recommended that it not be pursued. In March 1997 a third special joint committee recommended ethical principles and a code of conduct (see Appendix C). This recommendation reflected the committee's concern about the erosion of the public's respect for Parliament as an institution; Parliament did not adopt it.
12.65 The legislatures of all provinces and territories have adopted conflict-of-interest legislation or codes of conduct that include a requirement for disclosure of assets to an independent commissioner or to the clerk of the legislature. Similarly, national legislatures of similar jurisdictions (such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia) have adopted legislation or standing orders that guide official conduct and require members to disclose assets.
12.66 Given the significance of the need for ethical leadership, we suggest that parliamentarians consider their role once again as part of a comprehensive initiative for the public sector.

Leadership of ministers

12.67 The Prime Minister, other ministers, and the heads of federal entities set the tone for the entire government. In our 1995 Report we indicated that the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, which applies to ministers and Governor-in-Council appointees, was satisfactory. However, explanatory guidelines and illustrative cases are still needed. This information would help parties covered by the Code as well as Canadians to fully understand its application.
12.68 Ministerial responsibility. One area that may require further attention is the clarification of the concept of ministerial responsibility. The Tait Report noted that the concept touches on the "deepest values of public service in a parliamentary democracy" and that if these values are shifting, then "much else is in doubt." It identified concerns among public servants that the concept is unclear, outdated or "just unreal," or "meaningless." The report concluded that because of the evolving nature of parliamentary government and the continuing confusion, it would be useful to develop a clear statement of ministerial responsibility for ministers, public servants and the public.
12.69 Previous government reviews of ministerial responsibility have reached contrary conclusions. For example, the 1962 Royal Commission on Government Organization (Glassco Commission) and the 1979 Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability (Lambert Commission) recommended that to reflect reality, deputy ministers should be accountable to Parliament for their administrative responsibilities.
12.70 The Lambert Commission made the recommendation because it had found that "a serious malaise pervading management of government stems fundamentally from a grave weakening, and in some cases an almost total breakdown, in the chain of accountability of government to Parliament and ultimately to the Canadian people."
12.71 In 1991 the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade reviewed the admission of a foreign government official to Canada. The committee concluded that ministerial responsibility should be clarified, and it recommended the immediate appointment of a high-level task force to define the concept.
12.72 Different conclusions can be found in reports from the Privy Council Office that discuss the concept of ministerial responsibility. These reports include the 1979 Privy Council Office submission to the Lambert Commission; the 1990 white paper, Public Service 2000: The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada; the 1992 report, Public Service 2000: A Report on Progress; and the 1993 publication, Responsibility in the Constitution. They argue that the concept is clear - accountability should not be divided because it governs the use of power; thus, "it requires that a minister be personally answerable to the House of Commons for the exercise of power."
12.73 Concerns about the clarity of the concept of ministerial responsibility and its consequences are recurrent, and they go to the fundamental nature of responsibility for actions in government. Therefore, we agree with the Tait Report that clarifying the responsibility of ministers is essential for promoting sound values and ethics in government. We would extend this clarification to the responsibility of officials who receive delegated authorities.
12.74 A starting point for discussion could be for the Privy Council Office to explain the concept of ministerial responsibility so that public servants and the public can better understand the responsibility that exists and how it is respected. Additional starting points for the discussion could be the United Kingdom's Ministerial Code: A Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers and Australia's Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibilities.

Leadership in federal entities

12.75 Maintaining sound values and ethics is part of good governance, and senior and middle officials as well as ministers bear the primary responsibility. The OECD's principles call for managers to demonstrate and promote ethical conduct and provide consistent leadership (see Exhibit 12.6). The results of ethical leadership include employees who are more satisfied and committed, organizations that can attract and retain better employees, and organizations that are trusted and more effective.
12.76 The Clerk of the Privy Council, heads of federal entities, and senior and line managers have a key role in promoting a public service based on values. The Tait Report focussed on the importance of the quality of leadership and the calibre of role models, especially at the most senior levels. The role of management is also emphasized in the Treasury Board's March 2000 publication, Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada. The Board's report states that management in the public service must be guided by a clear set of values. In particular, management must respect and reinforce Canadian institutions of democracy, and it must be guided by the highest professional and ethical standards.
12.77 The Clerk has emphasized that everything that senior managers do is judged by their employees. If senior managers want to lead them effectively, they have to start with promoting values.
12.78 We agree with the Clerk and suggest that his approach be taken one step further to clearly specify that the role and responsibilities of heads of entities and senior and line managers include ensuring sound values and ethics in government. This clarification would reinforce the principle that managers should not transfer their responsibilities for maintaining sound values and ethics to such parties as ethics counsellors or ombudsmen. However, managers will need guidance and training to provide this leadership. Exhibit 12.7 summarizes key attributes of ethical leadership.
12.79 There is another prerequisite for success of values and ethics initiatives. Employees in the federal public sector have a key role to play in pushing forward the values and ethics agenda and maintaining the highest standards of values and ethics. However, as the Tait Report stated, public servants and managers will need to be given the tools to assume this role.

Developing Shared Values and Ethics

Statement of public service principles

12.80 Statements of values and ethics are clearly important, but by themselves, they do not create honesty. Their main purpose is often perceived to be to hang on a wall and collect dust. However, as part of a comprehensive approach, we believe such statements can play an important role. They can express the core values of an organization and set standards for acceptable conduct. The core values and standards are those that would not be compromised.
12.81 The Tait Task Force envisioned the development, through extensive dialogue, of a set of clearly articulated and widely endorsed values and ethics principles for the public service one year after the release of its report in 1996. Using these principles, organizations would formulate values and ethics statements that address their specific circumstances.
12.82 The deputy minister co-champions for values and ethics and the Treasury Board Secretariat have concluded that without an extensive dialogue, the development and implementation of such principles would not be meaningful. This dialogue needs to be transparent and to include discussions with Canadians and specific stakeholders. Without extensive public dialogue, Canadians may be skeptical about the principles and the commitment of leaders to the principles.
12.83 We believe that the federal government needs to set a reasonable time frame for the development of a set of values and ethics principles for the public sector. The United Kingdom's Seven Principles of Public Life (see Appendix D) and Civil Service Code (see Appendix E) could be starting points for discussion. The seven principles apply to all members of the public sector in the United Kingdom. The Code identifies not only the duties and responsibilities of civil servants to ministers but also those of ministers to civil servants.
12.84 As part of a longer-term effort, we believe that the federal government needs to ensure that senior managers discuss, share, and promote a common set of values and ethics. To this end, the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Canadian Centre for Management Development need to design mandatory training on core values and ethics for all senior managers. This training could be expanded to include all public service managers. The Secretariat would need to ensure that this training is also given to all public servants.
12.85 As well, the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service still needs to be updated. We also recommended in our May 1995 Report that explanatory guidelines and illustrative cases be developed. In June 2000 the Treasury Board Secretariat published a guide on the application of the Code.

Assigning priority to key values and ethics

12.86 Managers and staff in federal entities may encounter a wide range of values and ethics dilemmas in the workplace. Major departmental values and ethics initiatives include developing hypothetical case studies to stimulate discussion. These cases often present situations that pose difficult personal and organizational choices. Exhibit 12.8 illustrates the scenarios that may be discussed. They are taken from the ethics courses of various departments. Participants in the discussion are expected to take a position after identifying the values and ethics at play in the scenario, the risks that exist, and the process that could be used to resolve the situation.
12.87 We are concerned that the discussion of the scenarios may not include clear guidance on the priority to be assigned to the wide range of values and ethics that may apply. The Tait Report identified 45 different values grouped into five overlapping categories of core public service values: democratic values, ethical values, "traditional" professional values, "new" professional values, and people values (see Exhibit 12.9). The report assigned primacy to the values of respect for law and the public interest. However, it did not provide guidance on how to resolve conflicts among competing and overlapping values.
12.88 One of the central concerns of the Tait Task Force was the emphasis being placed on such "new" values as service to clients and customers, as opposed to "traditional" values that focussed on respect for law and accountability. The task force was also concerned that the growing tendency to use the term "customers" or "clients" could have long-term consequences of establishing a new set of standards and a new universe of values. These values could be at odds with some of the fundamental requirements of democratic government.
12.89 The task force's report concluded that any approach that treats the public service, or appears to treat it, as if it were the same as private enterprise risks undermining not only the "structure of motivation for public service but, more important, its capacity to serve democratic government in an ethical and accountable manner."
12.90 The Tait Task Force had anticipated the problems encountered in the regulatory and inspection community. A committee of senior officials raised the issue of conflicting values in its November 1999 report, A Public Trust: Keeping Canadians Safe and Healthy, A Review of the Federal Government's Regulatory/Inspection Community: Recruitment, Retention and Management Issues. The committee noted that client-service values increasingly involve inspectors in educating, persuading, and monitoring industry as well as enforcing regulations. These responsibilities require inspectors to build a relationship of mutual trust with industry clients and to create a collaborative atmosphere of learning and development. The dual role is considerably more complex and introduces "tensions into the relationship, requiring the inspector to make appropriate choices between the `white' hat (service role) and the `black' hat (enforcer role)."
12.91 According to the committee's report, the regulatory and inspection community has found it difficult to interpret the meaning, in its operational context, of the "client service" vocabulary prevalent in the government over the past five years. The report concluded that "a key issue to be addressed is the need to shift the vocabulary for this group from the `client service' vocabulary, toward a discussion of `Protecting the Public Interest'."
12.92 The report noted that "the focus on Client Service has been driven by a wide range of government initiatives and directives, providing a persuasive message to all public servants." It suggested that "a renewed focus on the public interest could be initiated through the development of a `Code of Practice' applying specifically to the `regulatory/inspection function'."
12.93 The Regulatory Inspection Secretariat at Transport Canada told us that it is currently consulting inspectors from various departments on their role. The Secretariat is also asking them about the potential tools, such as a code of conduct, that would put more emphasis on protecting the public interest.
12.94 Although the emphasis on "new" values raises concerns, it also presents potential benefits. The Tait Task Force suggested that the right balance of "traditional" and "new" values could reduce bureaucratic preoccupation with territory and narrow perspectives and help to recognize citizens and their interests as real and concrete. This balance could create a strong culture of public service.
12.95 In practice, we believe that the "traditional" public service values have always included elements of the "new" values. These types of values do not represent a dichotomy. The crux of the concern is whether the "new" values are being interpreted as having a higher priority than such key "traditional" values as respect for law and the public interest.
12.96 The Tait Task Force recognized that there was confusion, tension, and conflict between "traditional" and "new" values. As a result, it recommended in its report that the dialogue on public service values and ethics be used to explain and provide guidance on finding the right balance of "new" values and "traditional" values. However, like the Tait Task Force, we believe that it should be made clear that the public service values of respect for law and the public interest are paramount.

Immediate steps to reinforce ethical decision making

12.97 Because a wide-ranging dialogue is required, the development of a set of core principles may take some time. Federal entities can take immediate steps to establish elements of the infrastructure needed to help staff manage and deliver programs ethically. The establishment of this infrastructure would indicate to staff that senior management is taking seriously current values and ethics initiatives.
12.98 The initial step is to acknowledge the difficult value and ethical judgments that may have to be made in delivering programs. Employees who have been told to make judgment calls need to have the necessary guidance and support. Judgment involves consciously asking if decisions and the reasons for the decisions are fair, honest, and reputable and would bear close public scrutiny if the media disclosed them.
12.99 To help make judgments, departments could adopt a decision-making model to help managers and staff manage ethically (such a model is already part of three departmental ethics initiatives that we reviewed). They also could establish program support centres, which would offer objective guidance to staff and complement the role of superiors. As well, they could use their risk management programs to assist staff in predicting and planning for difficult situations. For example, the management of the Real Property Service of PWGSC has focussed on developing a support centre and risk management techniques. Without them, it believes that asking staff to take risks and apply ethical values "will be seen cynically as an attempt by management to download its responsibilities on staff."

Guidance for interaction between the public and private sectors

12.100 A shared set of values is a necessary condition for a successful business relationship. In our May 1995 Report, we concluded that "the government needs to forthrightly communicate its core set of ethical standards to groups and individuals dealing with government with a clear indication that it expects these standards to be respected." As well, the OECD's principles call for "clear guidelines for interaction between the public and private sectors." A prerequisite for dealing with this issue is the development of a clear set of values and ethics government-wide and in relevant federal entities.
12.101 Major steps have been taken to address this issue for lobbyists. In September 1988 the Lobbyists Registration Act was promulgated. In March 1997 the Ethics Counsellor, by regulation, established the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct to provide greater assurance to Canadians of the integrity, objectivity, and impartiality of government decision making.
12.102 In the relationship between the public and private sectors, including voluntary agencies, billions of dollars are spent on contracts as well as grants and contributions in Canada and abroad. However, the relationship has become increasingly complex as the government establishes alternative service delivery entities, which operate in a manner similar to companies, and as it creates partnerships with the private sector to pursue the public interest. In addition, the government has privatized certain public functions that still serve public purposes.
12.103 While the public and private sectors share many values, they differ in key respects. For example, personal financial interests in the private sector are often tied to the interests of the corporation through benefits such as share options, and political neutrality is not required. Also, with consent, personal information about customers may be shared to reduce financial risks. In the public sector, employees are expected to act in the public interest and remain politically neutral. They are also obligated to protect the privacy of personal and corporate information provided to the government.
12.104 We found that the private sector is aware of the need to establish guidelines to govern the interaction between itself and the public sector. Some major companies have such guidelines.
12.105 The Australian Department of Defence has published a code of conduct setting out a framework for relationships between itself and industry. The code contains 17 principles, some of which require honesty and integrity, action with care and diligence, and accountability for decisions and actions. According to the Department, it "expects that its tenderers, contractors, suppliers and their employees and subcontractors will all be guided by this Code of Conduct." If departmental or industry employees believe that a breach of law or of ethical behaviour has occurred, they can report their concerns to the Department's Inspector-General, who will investigate in confidence.
12.106 In our view, there is a need to develop with appropriate stakeholders a set of principles that clarify values and ethics for public servants in alternative service delivery agencies and in partnerships with the private sector. Similarly, there is a need to clarify values and ethics that guide relationships with contractors and recipients of grants and contributions.
12.107 Core principles could be customized and built into contracts and grant and contribution agreements. They could also be made part of legislation that establishes alternative service delivery agencies and privatizes public functions. As well, proactive due diligence is needed prior to signing contracts and agreements. The "ripple" effect of such an effort on maintaining honesty could be considerable. Exhibit 12.10 presents possible elements for guiding interaction between the public and private sectors.

Objective assessment and reporting

12.108 One of the key areas that federal entities will need to examine is how best to report on values and ethics. Entities will need to objectively demonstrate and report to Parliament, as part of good governance, that they have an ethical culture and that their values and ethics initiatives are effective. Such an assessment will also have to present stakeholder and public concerns about program credibility.

Voicing Values and Ethics Concerns

Good-faith intervention

12.109 Good-faith intervention recognizes that it is important for the health of an organization to provide an effective range of options for expressing individual dissent and ethical concerns. A comprehensive approach to values and ethics comprises recourse options that allow employees to intervene in good faith.
12.110 Public servants have legislative and non-legislative avenues for raising specific concerns. These avenues include communicating matters to specialized agencies such as the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, appealing staffing decisions, and raising issues with supervisors.
12.111 However, public servants told the Tait Task Force that there was no point in asking them to uphold public service values or maintain high ethical standards if they were not given the tools to do so. The task force concluded that unless recourse mechanisms were created, many public servants would consider all the talk about values and ethics as "so much hot air." Thus, it recommended that a senior independent authority be established to receive reports confidentially and act in a fair and impartial manner.
12.112 The Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada have recommended the adoption of "whistle-blowing" legislation. The Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada has recommended the establishment of an ombudsman for senior executives.
12.113 Establishing recourse for good-faith intervention is a difficult challenge, but one that needs to be addressed. Our May 1995 Report called for a thorough discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches that allow individuals to intervene in good faith. The OECD reached similar conclusions.
12.114 There is a growing number of precedents that provide insight on how to implement the recommendation of the Tait Report. The ethics initiatives of National Defence, PWGSC and the RCMP seek to establish recourse mechanisms that protect both the person expressing ethical concerns and any parties against whom allegations may be made.
12.115 New Brunswick has included general protection in its 1988 amendments to the Employment Standards Act. In 1998 Nova Scotia adopted a Whistleblowers Act that allows employees to disclose information about government wrongdoing to the Province's ombudsman and protects those who do so. The March 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the August 1999 amendments to the federal Competition Act, and the April 2000 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act provide authority and protection for employees who report alleged violations of the Acts to designated officials. Since 1980, members of Parliament have introduced several private members' bills to provide similar authority to federal public servants. The most recent proposed legislation is Bill C-239 in the House of Commons and Bill S-13 in the Senate.
12.116 Other national jurisdictions have enacted "whistle-blowing" legislation. The United States passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989. Australia amended its public service regulations in 1998 to allow the reporting of breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct to its Public Service Commissioner, with appropriate protection. In the same year, the United Kingdom passed a detailed Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide for disclosures in good faith of a wide range of ethical concerns. These approaches vary in their requirements for raising concerns internally before they can be brought to the attention of an independent party. Thus, the relevance of experience in other jurisdictions needs to be assessed.
12.117 The Privy Council Office believes that "in fact, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that there is a large unaddressed problem, suggesting that it might be better to establish what, if any, problem may exist before moving forward with new recourse mechanisms."
12.118 However, in our view, there is a consensus that work has to be done in Canada's federal public sector to allow the voicing of ethical issues with appropriate protection for all concerned. We believe that this issue will not go away and it needs to be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach.

Ombudsmen

12.119 Seven federal departments have ombudsmen, but for the most part, their role is to impartially provide employees with informal, confidential support in dealing with difficult work situations. Only the National Defence Ombudsman and the Office of the Correctional Investigator have mandates to investigate complaints.
12.120 Eight provinces (including Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia) and one territory have ombudsmen, who are officers of the legislature. Their role is to promote fairness and administrative accountability through the investigation of complaints about abuses resulting from acts or omissions of government organizations. The United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand also have created offices of legislative ombudsmen to investigate complaints about administrative actions of government.
12.121 Canada does not have a federal ombudsman. However, a committee of deputy ministers recommended the establishment of this position to the Prime Minister in July 1997. In June 1999 the Canadian Ombudsman Association called for the creation of a federal ombudsman so that Canadians would "be able to exercise their democratic right to an independent review and investigation when they believe their right to fair treatment has been infringed by federal public agencies."

Using Best Practices

12.122 For this study we have identified the best practices and benchmarks for promoting values and ethics (see Exhibit 12.11). The practices are based on our review of activities in 10 government departments and practices in over 20 leading Canadian companies. These practices serve as benchmarks to help parliamentarians assess government values and ethics initiatives and to help ministers and federal entities develop and implement effective efforts to promote values and ethics in the public sector.

Conclusion

12.123 Canadians expect that the federal public sector will be a world leader in promoting sound values and ethics in government. Ensuring sound values and ethics is a vital part of good governance that supports and respects fundamental democratic values.
12.124 In this study, we focussed on values and ethics programs and initiatives that promote ethical decision making as part of a comprehensive approach to good governance in federal entities. We noted the following:

• values and ethics initiatives are being undertaken to maintain probity;
• to increase the likelihood of success, values and ethics initiatives have to be carefully developed, implemented, and monitored using the best available practices;
• the initiatives have to be part of a comprehensive effort involving Canadians and all members of the federal public sector; and
• leadership and action by parliamentarians, ministers and senior officials are a prerequisite for the success of these initiatives.

12.125 Changes in government have made it clear that ensuring probity will increasingly rest on a strong foundation of values and ethics. Our May 1995 Report and the Tait Report concluded that there is a sound base of ethical standards among federal public servants. This foundation should not be taken for granted. Measures are being taken to maintain it. Although mostly in their preliminary stages, major values and ethics initiatives are under way.

Priorities and a framework for action

12.126 A comprehensive and sustained dialogue with Canadians and throughout the federal public sector is required. To further discussion with Canadians and throughout the federal public sector and to encourage action, we propose priorities and a framework for action (see Exhibit 12.12). The priorities reflect the major values and ethics challenges that we discussed in this chapter.
12.127 We suggest the following eight priorities for action.

• Reinforce leadership for promoting ethical conduct by, for example,
• clarifying the principle of ministerial responsibility and the responsibilities of officials; and
• identifying the responsibilities of senior and line managers for promoting sound values and ethics.
• Re-invigorate an extensive dialogue on values and ethics that emphasizes the primacy of the principles of respect for law, the public interest, and public service as a public trust.
• Develop a statement of values and ethics for the federal public sector and for each federal entity.
• Develop a set of values and ethics to guide the interaction between the public and private sectors.
• Establish comprehensive values and ethics initiatives in federal entities and interdepartmental communities.
• Provide guidance for ethical decision making and develop recourse mechanisms to allow the voicing of ethical concerns, with appropriate protection for all concerned.
• Explain to all members of the federal public sector the general and specific laws and policies relating to improper conduct.
• Provide objective assessments and reports to Parliament on values and ethics in federal entities.

12.128 The federal government needs to develop an implementation plan with deadlines to address values and ethics priorities across the public sector and in federal entities. We will continue to monitor and report to Parliament on values and ethics initiatives in the federal public sector.
Response of the Privy Council Office: The Auditor General is to be commended for choosing to study what most public servants acknowledge as some of the keys to the success of the federal public service, that is, its values and ethics.
As the study notes, the report of the task force led by John Tait, A Strong Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics, marked an important moment in our understanding of the role that values and ethics play in our organization. More important, as this report and others noted, the Public Service of Canada is known and respected for the values and integrity that public servants exhibit in the work they do. In effect, we are able to discuss values and ethics because of the common ground that public servants share in this regard. Many of the best practices highlighted in the Auditor General's study provide further evidence of this fact and the vigour that we display in advocating further work in this area.
Nevertheless, let us be clear - more work needs to be done and will be done. New policies that deal with values and ethics are being developed and shared. The dialogue that is so fundamental to these efforts is taking place and will do so increasingly. More than ever, departments are sharing their values and ethics best practices, and the values and ethics co-champions are providing leadership and direction that will ultimately ensure our success in these efforts.
This study makes significant strides in highlighting the important role to be played by elected and non-elected officials. However, it is important to underscore that true success in promoting values and ethics as key underpinnings of the culture of the federal public service can only occur with the involvement and commitment of all public servants. This study makes a strong contribution in this regard and will no doubt help serve to invigorate and counsel our efforts.
Response of the deputy minister co-champions for values and ethics in the public service: We are satisfied that the chapter corresponds with our own assessment of work under way to deepen understanding of values and ethics in the federal public service. There is growing awareness and interest in the links with modern comptrollership and human resource management frameworks, and the dialogue is expanding across the public service. Deputy ministers and other senior officials are fully engaged. Dialogue is important to build understanding, and the activities under way in departments and under the auspices of regional councils are supportive of our overall objectives.
Response of the Secretary of the Treasury Board: The chapter corresponds with my own assessment of work under way to further understanding of values and ethics in the public service and to underscore the linkages to modern comptrollership and human resource frameworks. I am pleased with the growing dialogue that is taking place on this important subject. It is a fine tribute to the work of John Tait and the report of his task force, A Strong Foundation.
Current efforts in support of the dialogue recognize the many benefits of engaging employees at all levels in discussions about the values of the organization and the ethical dilemmas one can encounter in the workplace. The deputy minister co-champions of values and ethics in the public service have described the dialogue as a journey. The experience of the journey will touch many public servants, and in many ways, the journey is as important as the destination.
This dialogue will provide us with a strong foundation for considering the merits of any formal statement on values and ethics. The dialogue will also help us to address related issues like the need to consult more broadly with Canadians and how best to provide guidance on ethical decision making.
In closing, I would congratulate the Auditor General's staff on the thoroughness of its research and the very professional manner in which it undertook this study.
Response of the Ethics Counsellor: Paragraph 12.67 of the chapter notes that the Auditor General's 1995 Report found the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders to be satisfactory but that "explanatory guidelines and illustrative cases are still needed. This information would help parties covered by the Code as well as Canadians to fully understand its application." I agree with this statement and have two principal comments to make.
First, let me recall that the Conflict of Interest Code, in its current version, was issued by the Prime Minister in June 1994. One of the more important changes was to give prominence to the principles by which public office holders are to be guided in carrying out their responsibilities. From these principles a number of rules have been developed, covering assets, outside activities, gifts, etc. But it is the principles that provide the broad context about what is expected of those in public life. This Code applies to the Cabinet, parliamentary secretaries, minister's political staff and all Governor- in-Council appointees, including deputy ministers, the heads of agencies and the members of tribunals such as the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.
There are ten principles, but I would highlight the first two. The first principle states that public office holders "shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced." The second principle takes this further by stating that public office holders have "an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law." It is my experience that the Code has worked well by stating so explicitly to public office holders what is expected of them.
My second comment is directed to the Auditor General's recommendation for explanatory guidelines and illustrative cases. I believe that the most effective way to disseminate information on the Code and its obligations is through the Internet. As a result, my office has been actively developing a Web site, which can be found at http://www.parl.gc.ca/ciec-ccie/en/default.asp. Currently, the site has the Code and supporting documents, the public registry as well as the text of parliamentary hearings, reports and speeches issued by my office. The Internet makes the Code more accessible to public office holders and, more important, to Canadians. It is my hope that our site will be greatly expanded over the next year.

About the Study

Objective

Our objective is to stimulate sustained discussion and action on values and ethics by Canadians and members of the federal public sector.
In this chapter we review major values and ethics initiatives undertaken since our May 1995 Report to Parliament, present information on best practices for promoting sound values and ethics and propose priorities and a framework for government action.

Scope and Approach

We focussed on values and ethics programs and initiatives that promote ethical decision making. Because maintaining probity is the responsibility of all members of the federal public sector, we included within the scope of the study parliamentarians, ministers, federal entities, and organizations and individuals that receive funds from or do business with the public sector.
We obtained information on the major values and ethics initiatives undertaken since our May 1995 Report in the Treasury Board Secretariat, National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Industry Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the federal science and technology sector.
We also obtained information on values and ethics initiatives in major Canadian companies.
We did not conduct an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of these initiatives in changing attitudes and behaviour because most of them are in their early stages of development. Also, to be meaningful, such assessments would have to be done for each department or branch. (For example, we assessed existing values and ethics initiatives of Revenue Canada in our September 1998 Report, Chapter 15, Promoting Integrity in Revenue Canada, and of National Defence in our November 1999 Report, Chapter 26, The Proper Conduct of Public Business.)
The topic of values and ethics is very broad. There are important subjects we did not cover, such as the values and ethics concerns regarding human rights, sexual harassment, diversity, and employment equity.

Criteria

As the primary criteria for this study, we used the OECD's Principles for Managing Ethics in the Public Service:

• Ethical standards for public service should be clear.
• Ethical standards should be reflected in the legal framework.
• Ethical guidance should be available to public servants.
• Public servants should know their rights and obligations when exposing wrongdoing.
• Political commitment to ethics should reinforce the ethical conduct of public servants.
• The decision-making process should be transparent and open to scrutiny.
• There should be clear guidelines for interaction between the public and private sectors.
• Managers should demonstrate and promote ethical conduct.
• Management policies, procedures and practices should promote ethical conduct.
• Public service conditions and management of human resources should promote ethical conduct.
• Adequate accountability mechanisms should be in place within the public service.
• Appropriate procedures and sanctions should exist to deal with misconduct.

We also used major government and private sector values and ethics initiatives as benchmarks to conduct this study.
Finally, we considered the observations and recommendations of major federal public sector reports, namely the following:

• the 1984 report by Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp, Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector;
• our May 1995 Report, Chapter 1, Ethics and Fraud Awareness in Government; and
• the 1996 report, A Strong Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics (Tait Report).

Study Team

Assistant Auditor General: Douglas Timmins
Principal: Alan Gilmore
Directors: Diane Charron and Frances Taylor
Sophie Chen
Charlene Cieslik
Janice Murray
Casey Thomas
For information, please contact Alan Gilmore.

Bibliography

International organizations

Organization of American States. Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. Venezuela, March 1996.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ethics in the Public Service: Current Issues and Practices. Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 14, France, 1996.
-----. Principles for Managing Ethics in the Public Service, April 1998.
-----. The Management of Ethics and Conduct in the Public Sector: Recent Developments in the United Kingdom. Paper from the Challenges and Opportunities for OECD Countries Symposium on Ethics in the Public Sector, November 1997.
-----. The Management of Ethics and Conduct in the Public Service: Case Study Australia, December 1995.
-----. The Management of Ethics and Conduct in the Public Service: Case Study New Zealand, State Service Commission, New Zealand, December 1995.
-----. The Management of Ethics and Conduct in the Public Service: Case Study United Kingdom, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom, 1995.
-----. The Management of Ethics and Conduct in the Public Service: The United States Federal Government, Office of Government Ethics, United States, December 1995.

Australia

Parliament of Australia.
House of Commons. Resolutions of the House, Registration of Members Interests. Requirements of the House of Representatives, 1994.
Senate. Senate Privilege Resolutions, 1988.
Public Service Commission. Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants, Part VI, Whistleblowing and Fraud . Canberra, 1995.
Public Service Merit Protection Commission. Whistleblowing Disclosures. 5 November 1998.

Canada

Cappe, Mel. Make the Investment - Make the Difference, Speech from the Clerk of the Privy Council. Association of Professional Executives, Ottawa, 9 June 1999.
----. Seventh Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada. Ottawa, 31 March 2000.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The Ethical Compass - Values and Ethics Dilemmas at CIC. December 1998.
Glassco, J. Grant. Chairman, The Royal Commission on Government Organization. Volumes 1 and 5, Ottawa, 1965.
Government of Canada. A Framework for Science and Technology Advice: Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Use of Science and Technology Advice in Government Decision Making. 2000.
-----. A Review of the Dialogue on Values and Ethics in the Public Service of Canada. Spring 2000.
-----. Public Service 2000: The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada. Ottawa, December 1990.
-----. Report of the Committee on the Concept of the Ombudsman. Ottawa, 1977.
-----. Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. Vols. 2 and 4, Reforming Electoral Democracy, Dundurn Press, Toronto, 1991.
-----. The View from Here, Middle Managers Matter; Results of Middle Manager Consultations 1998. La Relève, Ottawa, 1998.
Industry Canada. Building Excellence in Science and Technology (BEST), The Federal Roles in Performing Science and Technology. Council of Science and Technology Advisors. Ottawa, 16 December 1999.
-----. Science Advice for Government Effectiveness (SAGE). Council of Science and Technology Advisors. Ottawa, 5 May 1999.
-----. Scientific Advice in Government Decision Making. Ottawa, 20 August 1998.
Lambert , Allen T. Chairman. The Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability: Final Report. Hull, March 1979.
MacEachen, The Honourable Allan J. Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest. Information Canada, Ottawa, 1973.
National Defence. Defence Ethics Handbook. 6th edition, Ottawa, 9 February 2000.
New Brunswick. Employment Standards Act, Section 28. 17 June 1982.
Nova Scotia. The Whistleblowers Act. 1998.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons, Chapter 1, Ethics and Fraud Awareness in Government. Ottawa, May 1995.
-----. Chapter 15, Promoting Integrity in Revenue Canada. Ottawa, September 1998.
-----. Chapter 26, National Defence - The Proper Conduct of Public Business. Ottawa, November 1999.
Office of the Ethics Counsellor, Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders. Ottawa, June 1994.
-----. The Lobbyists Code of Conduct. March 1997.
Parliament of Canada.
House of Commons. Bill S-13: Public Service Whistleblowing Act. Johansen, David, Parliamentary Research Branch, Ottawa, 18 January 2000.
-----. Bill C-116: Conflict of Interests. Prime Minister, Ottawa, 11 March 1993.
-----. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Chapter 33. 1999.
-----. Competition Act, Chapter C-34, 1999.
-----. Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, Chapter 34. February 1999.
-----. Criminal Code of Canada, Parts IV, X, XIII, Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice, 1993.
-----. Evidence of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct, 1995.
-----. Lobbyists Registration Act, 1988.
-----. Parliament of Canada Act, Part II, Conflict of Interest, Chapter P-1. December 1989.
-----. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000.
-----. Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Conflict of Interests, June 1992.
-----. Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, Ottawa, May-June 1991.
-----. Second Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a Code of Conduct, March 1997.
Privy Council Office. Responsibility in the Constitution. Ottawa, June 1993.
-----. Submissions to the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. Ottawa, March 1979.
Public Service Commission of Canada. A New Framework for Resourcing the Workforce: The Report of Consultative Review of Staffing. Ottawa, July 1996.
-----. Public Service 2000: Report of the Task Force on Staffing. 8 August 1990.
Public Works and Government Services Canada. PWGSC Ethics Program: Terms of Reference. August 1999.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. RCMP Shared Leadership Vision. Office of the Ethics Advisor, October 1998.
-----. Terms of Reference. Office of the Ethics Advisor. Ottawa, December 1996.
Starr, Michael, and Sharp, Mitchell. Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector. Ottawa, May 1984.
Tait, John. A Strong Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Ethics and Values. A Discussion Paper. Ottawa, December 1996.
Tellier, Paul M. Public Service 2000: A Report on Progress. Ottawa, June 1992.
Treasury Board Secretariat. A Public Trust: Keeping Canadians Safe and Healthy, A Review of the Federal Government's Regulatory and Inspection Community: Recruitment, Retention and Management Issues. November 1999.
-----. Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service. Ottawa, September 1994.
-----. Guide on the Application of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service. Ottawa, June 2000.
-----. Public Service Employee Survey. Ottawa, November 1999.
-----. Report of the Independent Review Panel Modernizing Comptrollership in the Government of Canada. Ottawa, October 1997.
-----. Results for Canadians, A Management Framework for the Government of Canada. Ottawa, 2000.

New Zealand

Cabinet Office. Cabinet Office Manual, Section 6: Disclosure and Protection of Official Information - The Ombudsmen Act 1975. Wellington, 1996.
Parliament of New Zealand. Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, Sections 168 to 170, February 1996.

United Kingdom

Cabinet Office. Ministerial Code: A Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers. London, July 1997.
Committee on Standards in Public Life. First Report of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. London, 1996.
Parliament of the United Kingdom.
House of Commons. Code of Conduct Together With the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members, 1997.
-----. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, Chapter 23, 1998.
House of Lords. Registered Interest of the House of Lords, November 1995.

United States

House of Representatives. House Ethics Manual. 102nd Congress, April 1992.
-----. Whistleblowers Act, 1989.

Last updated:

2000-10-17

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200010_12_e_11199.html

---

Federal Government Employees and Employers

Labour Program introduces secure email for clients of the FWCS

The Labour Program Federal Workers' Compensation Service (FWCS) introduces myKEY, a secure encryption software that allows employers covered under the Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA), the various Workers Compensation Boards (WCB), and the Labour Program to exchange protected information such as Employer’s Report of Injury and supporting documentation to the FWCS, quickly and safely.
myKEY is a solution which enables the transfer of information securely using encrypted bi-directional e-mail. The myKEY system is available to anyone who has a working relationship with the Government of Canada to process GECA work related compensation claims.
If you are a federal government employee or employer, the Government Employees Compensation Act guarantees your rights and defines your responsibilities under the law.
The Labour Program relies on provincial workers' compensation boards and commissions to process federal government employee claims and provide compensation for expenses such as medical and rehabilitation costs and loss of earnings. The Labour Program then reimburses the provinces for related costs. Federal government employees therefore receive the same level of compensation and benefits as other employees in the province where they work.
If you live in Nunavut, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, the province of Alberta will handle your claim. If you're a Canadian working for the federal government abroad, in most cases Ontario will process your claim.
Ultimately, federal government employers cover the cost of these services.
If you are a federal government employee and are injured while on the job or become ill because of your work, you may be entitled to compensation for expenses such as lost earnings, medical care and rehabilitation costs. You may also be eligible for other benefits during your time of need. If your accident or illness leads to death, your dependants may be entitled to compensation and benefits.
If you are a federal government employer, the Act outlines your responsibilities to your employees. Learn more about handling compensation issues and procedures when one of your employees gets hurt.
Additional information can be found in these publications:

• Employers' Guide to the Government Employees Compensation Act
• If you have an accident – What to do and how to do it

Federal Government Employees

Regardless of rank or salary level, the Government Employees' Compensation Act covers:

• all federal government employees, whether working in Canada or overseas;
• most Crown agency staff; and
• employees of the Senate, House of Commons, Library of Parliament, Office of the Senate Ethics Officer and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Your Rights

As an employee covered by the Government Employees' Compensation Act, you have the right:

• to choose your own doctor;
• to compensation for employment-related injury and occupational disease in accordance with the rates and conditions provided under the law of the province where you work;
• to assistance to help you get back to work and overcome handicaps related to your injury or disease; and
• to request an impartial investigation by your provincial compensation board if you disagree with the description of the accident provided to the board.

In the case of an employee's work-related death, dependants may be entitled to receive appropriate benefits and compensation on the employee's behalf.

Your Responsibilities

If you are injured, report the accident to your employer. Your employer will submit a claim for compensation to the Labour Program Federal Workers' Compensation Service, Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).
A successful claim depends on you and your employer. You have a responsibility to work with your employer, ESDC's Federal Workers’ Compensation Service and the appropriate provincial workers' compensation authority as they submit and process your claim for compensation.

• Tell your supervisor immediately about any accident you have at work, even a minor one.
• Quickly seek first aid to minimize the effects of the injury.
• If you have to seek medical treatment outside of working hours, notify your employer immediately when you return to work, as soon as possible if you are unable to return to work.
• Provide your employer and authorities with as much detailed information about the accident or illness as you can; it all helps to support your claim.
• Work with your employer to file a compensation claim.
• Work closely with your claims officer and pay close attention to all instructions and guidelines. Make sure you attend and keep a record of all medical appointments and treatment programs recommended by your doctor and the officials responsible for managing your claim.

Appeals

If you disagree with the ruling made on a compensation claim, you can discuss the decision with claim officials. You also have the right to file an appeal. Either the employee or the employer can appeal a board decision. The appeal should introduce new or additional evidence, usually medical evidence.
Claims and appeals are handled by the province in which the employee usually works. This may not be the province where the accident took place or the employee's home province. Being familiar with the appropriate provincial workers' compensation legislation will help you decide the best steps to take.

Third-Party Claims

If your injury is caused by a third party—someone who is neither your employer nor a federal co-worker—you (or your dependants) can make one of two choices: you can claim compensation under the Government Employees' Compensation Act or sue the third party for damages. You cannot do both. You (or your dependants) have three months after the accident to make this decision. The decision made by you or your dependents is final.
If you choose to sue the third party and a court decision is rendered, or if you agree to an out-of-court settlement (with the Minister of Labour's approval) which is less than the compensation you would normally have received under the Act, then you may be entitled to receive the difference between the two amounts.
If you choose to claim compensation, the Government of Canada may take legal action in your name against the third party. By electing compensation, you have subrogated to the Government of Canada your right to make a claim against that third party. If the Government of Canada, in pursuing the action, recovers more than the costs of the claim (including the costs of pursuing the action) you may be entitled to an excess payment.

Prevention

Prevention is always the best strategy. Being aware of workplace hazards and proper safety procedures reduces the risk of accidents and injuries. Learn about your workplace occupational health and safety guidelines and processes, and find out more about federal health and safety programs.
The Canada Labour Code regulates the safety and health of every worker under federal jurisdiction and in the federal public service. Become familiar with these guidelines and what you can do to help prevent accidents and injuries.

Federal Government Employers

Enquiries regarding work related injury claims can be made by contacting the Federal Workers’ Compensation Office by telephone at 1-855-535-7299.
All claims and documents under the Government Employees Compensation Act, for employees engaged outside Canada and all claims under the Public Service Benefit Plan, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations should be submitted by secure email using myKey to:
NC-FWCS-SFIAT-CLAIMS-RECLAMATIONS-GD@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca.
or by mail at :
Federal Workers Compensation Services,
Claims Operations Unit,
165 Hotel-de-Ville
Phase II, 9th Floor (L911)
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0J2

Provincial employer’s report of injury forms

Disclaimer:

The forms provided on this page are delivered by a third party and are subject to ESDC’s Terms and Conditions.
For employees usually employed in the province of:

• Alberta, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon – Employer’s Report of Injury (C040)
• British Columbia – Employer’s Report of Injury or Occupational Disease (Form 7)
• Manitoba – Employer’s Incident Report
• Newfoundland and Labrador – Injury Report – Employers (Form 7)
• New Brunswick – Report of Accident or Occupational Disease (Form 67)
• Nova Scotia – WCB Injury Report
• Ontario – Employer’s Report of Injury/Disease (Form 7)
• Prince Edward Island – Employer’s Report (Form 7)
• Québec – Avis et demande de remboursement (1940/French only)
• Saskatchewan – Employer’s Initial Report of Injury (E1)

Compensation for occupational injuries and diseases is an employee's right, not a privilege. Employers are responsible for protecting and enforcing this right by working with federal and provincial authorities to make sure that claims are processed quickly and properly.
Once an employer reports a workplace injury involving medical attention or lost time, the Labour Program reviews the claim and determines whether the employer is covered under the Government Employees Compensation Act. The appropriate provincial workers' compensation authority then officially assesses the claim.
All costs related to workers' compensation claims made under the Government Employees Compensation Act are subject to a cost recovery program. This program applies to all federal departments and Crown corporations.
Employers can also refer to the Employers' Guide to the Government Employees Compensation Act for detailed instructions on how to process claims quickly and efficiently on behalf of employees.

Your Responsibilities

As a federal government employer, you must provide all of your employees with a safe work environment and deal with accidents in a timely and organized way. You should also be aware of your responsibilities before an accident happens.

• You must establish and communicate appropriate departmental procedures for addressing occupational injuries and diseases.
• You must guarantee that injured employees receive immediate medical attention.
• Within three days, you must report all occupational injuries or illnesses requiring medical care beyond first aid or resulting in lost time, sending the appropriate provincial workers’ compensation form to the Labour Program Federal Workers' Compensation Service. This federal unit checks the claim, determines and actions potential third-party involvement, and forwards it to the appropriate provincial workers' compensation authority.
• You must provide complete details about the accident and the nature of the injury on the compensation form, and attach any additional information relevant to the accident.
• You must submit the employee version of an accident (and your comments on the situation if you don't agree with this version of events).
• You must ensure that all compensation forms are signed by the foreperson, supervisor or other responsible person in charge who has first-hand knowledge of the incident.
• You must submit duplicate copies of the original signed compensation form and subsequent employer's reports to the Labour Program Federal Workers' Compensation Service.
• You must manage compensation claims by:
• keeping a record of all actions taken on the claims;
• maintaining contact with the injured employees and the claims adjudicators; and
• contributing to a safe and early return-to-work program, including accommodating the employee or modifying duties as appropriate.
• You must maintain an accurate record of all minor injuries requiring only first aid and keep these records in the workplace for two years. (You do not, however, need to send these to the Labour Program or provincial authorities.)

Appeals under Provincial Workers' Compensation Boards

If you disagree with the ruling made on a claim that you submitted on behalf of an employee, you have the right to appeal the decision to the appropriate provincial compensation board.
Either the employee or the employer can appeal a board decision. The appeal should introduce new or additional evidence, usually medical evidence.
Being familiar with the appropriate provincial workers' compensation legislation will help you decide the best steps to take. Claims are handled by the province in which the employee usually works and not necessarily the province where the accident took place or the employee's home province.

Prevention

Prevention is always the best strategy. Being aware of workplace hazards and proper safety procedures reduces the risk of accidents and injuries and helps keep everyone's costs down.
Employers have an obligation to develop, implement and monitor occupational safety and health in the workplace in accordance with the Canada Labour Code. The Code regulates the health and safety of every worker under federal jurisdiction and in the federal public service.
More information about accident prevention and federal safety programs can be found in the Labour Program's Health and Safety section.

Disability Management

A disability management or return-to-work program can help employees with injuries, illnesses or disabilities return to work in a safe and timely way. These programs can help minimize the effects of a disability and maintain the employee's self-esteem and dignity.
Employers should make every reasonable effort to modify duties or make other accommodations in the workplace for employees who are temporarily or permanently unable to return to their regular work.

iNICS Claims Data

The Labour Program offers Web-based software that lets federal employers track and analyze compensation claims data. The Internet National Injury Compensation System (iNICS) provides employers with information about their workers' compensation claims. This service is available to federal departments, Crown corporations and agencies covered under the Government Employees Compensation Act. Federal employers can analyze their own data (types of claims, injury dates and related costs, etc.) and use it to generate statistics and reports.
The iNICS software is available through the Federal Workers' Compensation Service. For more information about this service and how to register, you can contact the Federal Workers’ Compensation Service.
If you don't find what you're looking for in these pages, you can contact us directly.

Workers' Compensation Offices

Provincial and Territorial Workers' Compensation Boards

• Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC)
• Alberta: Workers' Compensation Board
• British Columbia: WorkSafe BC
• Manitoba: Workers Compensation Board
• New Brunswick: WorkSafe NB
• Newfoundland and Labrador: Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
• Northwest Territories and Nunavut: Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission
• Nova Scotia: Workers' Compensation Board
• Ontario: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
• Prince Edward Island: Workers Compensation Board
• Quebec: La commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail
• Saskatchewan: Workers' Compensation Board
• Yukon: Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board

Date modified:

2014-12-23

Secondary menu

Workers' Compensation

• Federal employees
• Locally engaged employees
• Survivor Benefits
• Inmates
• Merchant Seaman
• Publications

Footer

Site footer

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

About us

• Minister
• Deputy Minister
• Publications and Reports
• Acts & Regulations
• A to Z index
• ESDC
• Youth.gc.ca

News

• News releases
• Speeches
• Photo gallery
• Videos

Contact us

·         Regional offices

·         Employee Directory

·         1-800 numbers

Stay connected

• YouTube
• Twitter

http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/health_safety/compensation/federal.shtml

---

1. Home
2. Commuting Assistance, Foreign Service, Isolated Posts and Government Housing, Relocation and Travel
3. Travel Directive

Travel Directive

Help the Government of Canada organize its website! Complete an anonymous five-minute “find it” exercise. Start now.
The National Joint Council Travel Directive provides for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred while travelling on government business.
The directive is co-developed by participating bargaining agents and public service employers. It applies to public service employees, exempt staff and other persons travelling on government business, including training.
Learn more by consulting the Travel Directive on the National Joint Council website. Public Service employees with questions regarding travel claims and reimbursements should contact their Designated Departmental Travel Co-ordinator.

Quick Reference - Appendices

• Appendix A - Guide to Insurance Coverage for Employees on Government Travel
• Appendix B – Kilometric Rates – Modules 1, 2 and 3
• Appendix C - Allowances - Modules 1, 2 and 3 (Canada/USA Meal and Incidental Rates)
• Appendix D – Allowances – Module 4 (International Meal and Incidental Rates)
• Appendix E - Blanket travel authority templates - Module 1 - Travel within headquarters area

Read the latest National Joint Council communiqués from the Government Travel Committee for updates related to travel provisions.
Note: Travel for ministers, members of Parliament, heads of departments and agencies, and executives is governed through a separate Special Travel Authorities policy.

Other Government of Canada Travel Resources

• Shared Travel Services Portal
• 2015 Accommodation and Car Rental Directory – Acquisitions – PWGSC
• Directive on Travel, Hospitality, Conference and Event Expenditures
• Directive on Travel Cards and Travellers Cheques
• Public Service Travel Benefit and Emergency Travel Assistance Benefit

Consult the Other Travel Information and Links page for domestic and foreign travel references and publications, as well as travel reports and warnings, information on Canadian airports, maps, weather and more.

Date modified:

2015-06-01

Section menu

• Other Related Documents

About this site

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

Contact us

• Frequently Asked Questions
• General and Technical Enquiries

About us

• The Minister
• About the Treasury Board
• About the Secretariat
• Our Organization
• Reports and Publications
• Recruitment Initiatives

News

• News Releases
• Statements
• Speeches
• Media Advisories
• Photo Gallery

Stay connected

• Twitter
• RSS Feeds
• YouTube

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tbm_113/menu-travel-voyage-eng.asp

----------- 

FAQs on the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

Please note that the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector came into force on April 2, 2012, and all federal public sector employees are required to adhere to the Code as a term and condition of employment. Pursuant to section 107 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, there may be a delay in coverage of the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment for employees of some bargaining groups. As a transition measure, Chapters 2 and 3 of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service remain in effect for those employees until the collective bargaining process is completed and they are covered by the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment.

Questions

• Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector
• Q1 What is the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector?
• Q2 When did the Public Sector Code come into force?
• Q3 Which organizations are subject to the Public Sector Code?
• Q4 What covers the organizations that are not subject to the Public Sector Code?
• Q5 Is the Public Sector Code the code of conduct for all organizations?
• Q6 Which code is the condition of employment for employees?
• Q7 Does the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector apply to contractors?
• Q8 Does the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector apply to term and casual employees?
• Q9 What happens if someone breaches the Public Sector Code or the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment?
• Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment
• Q10 What is the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment?
• Q11 When did the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment come into effect?
• Q12 Which organizations are subject to the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment?
• Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest
• Q13 What is the Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest?
• Q14 When will the Directive come into effect?
• Q15 To whom will the Directive apply?
• Q16 What is the role of the Directive?
• Q17 Who will ensure that organizations are taking measures to ensure that employees are accurately reporting their assets and liabilities?
• Organizational Codes of Conduct
• Q18 What are organizational codes of conduct?
• Q19 What support is available to help organizational code development?
• Q20 Do organizational codes need to be approved by the Treasury Board Secretariat?
• Q21 Should organizations include conflict of interest requirements in their organizational code?
• Q22 If employees have concerns over values and ethics in their day-to-day work, what resources are available to them?

Answers

Q1 What is the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector?

A1 The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector (Public Sector Code) outlines the values and expected behaviours that guide public servants in all activities related to their professional duties. By committing to these values and adhering to the expected behaviours, public servants strengthen the ethical culture of the public sector and contribute to public confidence in all public institutions. Adherence to the Public Sector Code is a term and condition of employment.
The creation of the Public Sector Code stems from Subsection 5(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA), which requires the Treasury Board to establish a code of conduct applicable to the public sector. The previous Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service (2003) applied only to the core public administration. See footnote ^*
Given the broader application, it was necessary to revisit the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service to ensure that the values and guidelines contained within the document would be applicable to the broader public sector.
The Public Sector Code is an evolution of its predecessor but its foundation and core principles remain the same. The Public Sector Code enumerates five values: respect for democracy, respect for people, integrity, stewardship and excellence.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has also developed a new, separate Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment to complement the Public Sector Code. The Policy will apply only to the core public administration and came into effect at the same time as the Code.

Q2 When did the Public Sector Code come into force?

A2 The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector was tabled in Parliament on December 21, 2011, and came into force on April 2, 2012. As of that date, federal public sector employees are required to adhere to the Code as a term and condition of employment.

Q3 Which organizations are subject to the Public Sector Code?

A3 The Public Sector Code applies to the "public sector" as defined in the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). This includes parent Crown corporations, separate agencies and organizations of the core public administration, specifically:

1. the departments named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act and the other portions of the federal public administration named in Schedules I to V of that Act; and
2. the Crown corporations and the other public bodies set out in Schedule I of the PSDPA.

However, subject to sections 52 and 53, “public sector” does not include the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the Communications Security Establishment. These organizations are not covered by the Public Sector Code.

Q4 What covers the organizations that are not subject to the Public Sector Code?

A4 Each of the excluded organizations (Canadian Forces, Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Communications Security Establishment Canada) has its own legislated mandate, infrastructure, policies and procedures in place to promote an ethical workplace and to uphold the public trust.
A further obligation was to establish a disclosure mechanism that is similar to the one in the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, another key component of a values and ethics regime. These have now been established.

Q5 Is the Public Sector Code the only code of conduct for public sector employees?

A5 The Public Sector Code is the overarching code of conduct for the federal public sector but the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) requires each organization to implement its own organizational code of conduct that is consistent with (i.e. does not contradict or lower the minimum standard of behaviour set out in) the Public Sector Code.
Organizational codes allow each organization to outline behaviours specific to their unique mandate and work environment. For example, organizations that serve the public on a regular basis may wish to elaborate on the expected behaviours of their public-facing officers, such as postal workers, border services officers, employment counselors, etc.

Q6 Which code is the condition of employment for employees?

A6 Both the Public Sector Code and the organizational code are terms and conditions of employment.
In addition, for organizations of the core public administration, Appendix B of the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment is also a term and condition of employment. Appendix B contains detailed requirements on how public servants are to deal with conflicts of interest (e.g. what types of conflict of interest they might encounter, how to treat assets, gifts, solicitations) and post-employment situations (e.g. reporting and limitation periods).

Q7 Does the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector apply to contractors?

A7 As contractors are not public servants, they are not subject to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.
However, the contracting policies of both the Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Works and Government Services address conflicts of interest regarding contractors and consultants.

Q8 Does the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector apply to term and casual employees?

A8 Yes. Term and casual employees in the public sector are subject to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.

Q9 What happens if someone breaches the Public Sector Code or the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment?

A9 Acceptance of the new Public Sector Code is a condition of employment for all public servants in the federal public sector, regardless of their level or position. A breach of these values or the expected behaviours may result in disciplinary measures, up to and including termination of employment.
Appendix B of the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment is also a term and condition of employment in the core public administration. A breach of the Policy may result in disciplinary measures being taken, up to and including termination of employment.

Q10 What is the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment?

A10 The Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment complements the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and outlines the responsibilities of deputy heads for managing conflict of interest and post-employment situations within their organizations, while giving them the flexibility to tailor such measures to their organizations’ operational risks.
The Policy provides direction and measures to assist organizations and public servants in effectively dealing with real, potential and apparent conflict of interest situations that may arise during and after employment in the Public Service. Preventing, managing or resolving conflict of interest situations in favour of the public interest is one of the principal means of maintaining public trust and confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Public Service.
Organizations in the core public administration are expected to familiarize themselves with the detailed requirements under the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment to effectively manage conflicts of interest.
The Policy is to be read in conjunction with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.

Q11 When did the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment come into force?

A11 The new Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment came into effect at the same time as the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, on April 2, 2012.
The implementation of the Policy will be delayed for employees who are in a “statutory freeze” position, in other words, where the employer has been notified of an application for certification or where notice to bargain collectively has been given in accordance with the Public Service Labour Relations Act. In the meantime, Chapters 2 and 3 of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service will apply to those employees.

Q12 Which organizations are subject to the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment?

A12 Organizations in the core public administration are subject to the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment. Appendix B of the Policy outlines conflict of interest and post-employment requirements that are a condition of employment for employees in the core public administration.
Public sector organizations outside of the core public administration are responsible for their own conflict of interest and post-employment provisions.
See the Application section of the Policy for more information.

Q13 What is the Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest?

A13 The anticipated Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest will provide organizations with direction, procedures and measures to effectively report and manage financial conflict of interest situations between a public servant's assets and liabilities and his or her related duties and responsibilities.
Under the Directive, deputy heads will determine which assets and liabilities must be reported by employees in their organization based on their specific organizational risks.
The Directive is being developed to support the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, the Treasury Board Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment, as well as organizational codes of conduct and conflict of interest policies. It will provide more options to help organizations manage financial conflicts of interest than were available in Appendix A of the former Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.

Q14 When will the Directive come into effect?

A14 The Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest is expected to come into effect in the winter of 2012.

Q15 Which organizations will be subject to the Directive?

A15 Organizations in the core public administration will be subject to the Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest. The core public administration consists of those departments and agencies listed in Schedules I and IV of the Financial Administration Act.

Q16 What is the role of the Directive?

A16 Public servants are responsible for reporting any real, apparent or potential conflict of interest that arises between their private activities and their official responsibilities as public servants so that any such conflicts may be resolved in the public interest. The Directive will provide the framework for departments to ensure effective management of identified financial conflicts of interest.

Q17 Who will ensure that organizations are taking measures to ensure that public servants are accurately reporting their assets and liabilities?

A17 Deputy heads will be responsible for enforcing the Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest and for ensuring that employees are aware of their obligations and can obtain appropriate advice within their organization on ethical issues, including possible financial conflicts of interest.

Q18 What are organizational codes of conduct?

A18 Organizational codes of conduct outline the values and expected behaviours within an organization. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act requires each chief executive to establish a code of conduct applicable to the portion of the public sector for which he or she is responsible.

Q19 What support is available to help organizational code development?

A19 To facilitate code development, the Treasury Board Secretariat developed the Guide for Developing Organizational Codes of Conduct, the Model Organizational Code for public sector organizations, as well as other materials.
In addition to using these tools, organizations are encouraged to collaborate with each other to share best practices.

Q20 Do organizational codes need to be approved by the Treasury Board Secretariat

A20 No. It is not the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat to approve organizational codes. However, since organizational codes have to be consistent with the Public Sector Code, the Secretariat has provided information and tools to enable organizations to create codes consistent with the Public Sector Code.

Q21 Should organizations include conflict of interest requirements in their organizational code?

A21 Organizations can choose to use their organizational codes of conduct to communicate this information or they can establish a separate conflict of interest policy instrument for this purpose. The new Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment requires organizations in the core public administration to identify and manage the operational risks around conflicts of interest and post-employment in relation to their organization's specific mandate. Organizations will need to communicate certain information to their employees, such as which positions are subject to a one-year period of post-employment restrictions.
Organizations outside of the core public administration may choose to use the Policy as a guide for drafting their internal conflict of interest measures.
Further guidance on areas that require organizational tailoring is contained in the Model Organizational Code.
Also, Annex B of the Guide for Developing Organizational Codes of Conduct offers a Guide for the Tailoring of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Requirements to assist in the treatment of conflict of interest in organizations.

Q22 If employees have concerns over values and ethics in their day-to-day work, what resources are available to them?

A22 For general information on Values and Ethics, employees can consult the TBS Values and Ethics website or their organizational code on Values and Ethics. Employees can always discuss their concerns with their supervisors, if they feel comfortable to do so. Alternatively, all organizations have senior officials who are responsible for Values and Ethics in their organization, and some organizations have confidential ombudsman services. Employees may also consult their respective bargaining agent for advice.
For more specific information and advice in cases of suspected wrongdoing, employees may consult their Senior Officer for disclosure or the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
Return to footnote reference * The core public administration consists of those departments and agencie s listed in Schedules I and IV of the Financial Administration Act.

Date modified:

2012-11-23

Section menu

• Tools
• Guides
• Policy
• Reports
• Fact sheets and FAQs
• Newsroom

About this site

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

Contact us

• Frequently Asked Questions
• General and Technical Enquiries

About us

• The Minister
• About the Treasury Board
• About the Secretariat
• Our Organization
• Reports and Publications
• Recruitment Initiatives

News

• News Releases
• Statements
• Speeches
• Media Advisories
• Photo Gallery

Stay connected

• Twitter
• RSS Feeds
• YouTube

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/faq/pdaf2-eng.asp

------------------

Travelling expenses

Travelling expenses include food, beverage, and lodging expenses but not motor vehicle expenses. You can deduct travelling expenses as long as you meet all of the following conditions:

• You were normally required to work away from your employer's place of business or in different places.
• Under your contract of employment, you had to pay your own travelling expenses.
• You did not receive a non-taxable allowance for travelling expenses. Generally, an allowance is non-taxable as long as it is a reasonable amount.
• You keep with your records a copy of Form T2200, Declaration of Conditions of Employment, which has been completed and signed by your employer.

You can deduct food and beverage expenses if your employer requires you to be away for at least 12 consecutive hours from the municipality and the metropolitan area (if there is one) of your employer's location where you normally reported for work.
The most you can deduct for food and beverage expenses is 50% of the lesser of:

• the amount you actually paid; and
• an amount that is reasonable in the circumstances.

The 50% limit also applies to the cost of food and beverages you paid for when you travelled on an airplane, train, or bus, as long as the ticket price did not include these amounts.

Note

If you are a transportation employee, you may be able to claim a deduction for meals and lodging (including showers). For more information, see Transportation employees.
For more information, see Interpretation Bulletin IT522, Vehicle, Travel and Sales Expenses of Employees, and Interpretation Bulletin IT518, Food, Beverages and Entertainment Expenses.

Completing your tax return

Include these expenses on the Food, beverages, and entertainment expenses line (8523) of Form T777, Statement of Employment Expenses, and attach it to your paper return.
Enter on line 229, the allowable amount of your employment expenses from the total expenses line of Form T777.

Forms and publications

• Form T777, Statement of Employment Expenses
• Form T2200, Declaration of Conditions of Employment
• IT518, Food, Beverages and Entertainment Expenses
• IT522, Vehicle, Travel and Sales Expenses

Need assistance?

If you are unable to find the information you were looking for about this specific topic, please select the Contact us button.

Date modified:

2015-01-08

Secondary menu

• Resources
• Online services
• Forms and publications
• A to Z index
• Enquiries

Site Information

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

About

• About the CRA
• Careers at the CRA
• Corporate reports
• Mission, vision, and values
• Compliance
• Site map

Contact information

• Enquiries
• Our offices
• Voluntary disclosures
• Informant leads
• Complaints and disputes

News

• Newsroom
• News releases
• Speeches
• Tax tips
• Convictions
• Video gallery

Stay connected

• Twitter
• YouTube
• Mobile apps
• Email lists
• RSS feeds

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns206-236/229/slry/trvllng-eng.html

ANNEX G -- CASUAL MEALS AND REPAYMENT MEALSSECTION 1 -- CASUAL MEALS
1.     For the purposes of Section 1 of this annex, "casual meal" means:
     a.   a meal provided to a living-out member from public rations under
          paragraph 4y of 36-14.

     b.   a meal provided to a living-out member from public rations under
          paragraph 4w of 36-14; or

     c.   a meal provided from public rations to a living-in member as a
          result of ship/shore duty as prescribed in paragraph 4 below.

2.     Except as indicated in paragraph 3 below, a Casual Meal Authorization
form (Appendix 1) shall be prepared to document and approve the entitlement
to a casual meal.  The form shall be prepared in single copy and, after use
by the individual, shall be forwarded daily by the DND food services
facility to the base or unit orderly room for incorporation in the ration
entitlement.

3.     Where a casual meal is provided in respect of a military duty that is
published in Routine Orders (eg, orderly officer), a Casual Meal
Authorization form is not required.

4.     When a person on ration strength proceeds on duty from a ship to a
shore establishment, or to another ship, over a meal period, the executive
officer may approve a casual meal authorization for the meal or meals
taken. Similarly, a living-in person of a shore establishment may be
authorized a casual meal or meals when on duty in a ship over a meal
period.  The ration entitlement of the parent ship or establishment shall
not be adjusted for such casual meals when the period of duty is for 24
hours or less.

=======================================================

ANNEX G, APPENDIX 1 -- CANADIAN FORCES CASUAL MEAL AUTHORIZATION
This image is in the process of being rescannedClick Image To Get Expanded View

INSTRUCTIONS (numbers correspond to circled numbers above)

1.     Insert SN, rank and name of person.  If a group is authorized meals,
insert "as per attached list".

2.     Insert date on which meal(s) is/are to be taken.

3.     Explain briefly the reason for the free casual meal(s).

4.     Insert person's base, unit, section, company, branch, etc.

5.     Signature and rank of authorizing officer.

===================================================

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

http://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=69716.0

---- 

---

1.   Travel

Table of Contents

• Traveling Away From Home
• Tax Home
• Tax Home Different From Family Home
• Temporary Assignment or Job
• What Travel Expenses Are Deductible?
• Employee.
• Business associate.
• Bona fide business purpose.
• Meals
• Travel in the United States
• Travel Outside the United States
• Luxury Water Travel
• Conventions

If you temporarily travel away from your tax home, you can use this chapter to determine if you have deductible travel expenses.

This chapter discusses:

·         Traveling away from home,

·         Temporary assignment or job, and

·         What travel expenses are deductible.

It also discusses the standard meal allowance, rules for travel inside and outside the United States, luxury water travel, and deductible convention expenses.

Travel expenses defined.   For tax purposes, travel expenses are the ordinary and necessary expenses of traveling away from home for your business, profession, or job.

  An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary.

  You will find examples of deductible travel expenses in Table 1-1 , later.

Traveling Away From Home

You are traveling away from home if:

·         Your duties require you to be away from the general area of your tax home (defined later) substantially longer than an ordinary day's work, and

·         You need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of your work while away from home.

This rest requirement is not satisfied by merely napping in your car. You do not have to be away from your tax home for a whole day or from dusk to dawn as long as your relief from duty is long enough to get necessary sleep or rest.

Example 1.

You are a railroad conductor. You leave your home terminal on a regularly scheduled round-trip run between two cities and return home 16 hours later. During the run, you have 6 hours off at your turnaround point where you eat two meals and rent a hotel room to get necessary sleep before starting the return trip. You are considered to be away from home.

Example 2.

You are a truck driver. You leave your terminal and return to it later the same day. You get an hour off at your turnaround point to eat. Because you are not off to get necessary sleep and the brief time off is not an adequate rest period, you are not traveling away from home.

Members of the Armed Forces.   If you are a member of the U.S. Armed Forces on a permanent duty assignment overseas, you are not traveling away from home. You cannot deduct your expenses for meals and lodging. You cannot deduct these expenses even if you have to maintain a home in the United States for your family members who are not allowed to accompany you overseas. If you are transferred from one permanent duty station to another, you may have deductible moving expenses, which are explained in Publication 521, Moving Expenses.

  A naval officer assigned to permanent duty aboard a ship that has regular eating and living facilities has a tax home (explained next) aboard the ship for travel expense purposes.

Tax Home

To determine whether you are traveling away from home, you must first determine the location of your tax home.

Generally, your tax home is your regular place of business or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. It includes the entire city or general area in which your business or work is located.

If you have more than one regular place of business, your tax home is your main place of business. See Main place of business or work , later.

If you do not have a regular or a main place of business because of the nature of your work, then your tax home may be the place where you regularly live. See No main place of business or work , later.

If you do not have a regular or main place of business or post of duty and there is no place where you regularly live, you are considered an itinerant (a transient) and your tax home is wherever you work. As an itinerant, you cannot claim a travel expense deduction because you are never considered to be traveling away from home.

Main place of business or work.   If you have more than one place of work, consider the following when determining which one is your main place of business or work.

·         The total time you ordinarily spend in each place.

·         The level of your business activity in each place.

·         Whether your income from each place is significant or insignificant.

Example.

You live in Cincinnati where you have a seasonal job for 8 months each year and earn $40,000. You work the other 4 months in Miami, also at a seasonal job, and earn $15,000. Cincinnati is your main place of work because you spend most of your time there and earn most of your income there.

No main place of business or work.    You may have a tax home even if you do not have a regular or main place of work. Your tax home may be the home where you regularly live.

Factors used to determine tax home.    If you do not have a regular or main place of business or work, use the following three factors to determine where your tax home is.

1.    You perform part of your business in the area of your main home and use that home for lodging while doing business in the area.

2.   You have living expenses at your main home that you duplicate because your business requires you to be away from that home.

3.   You have not abandoned the area in which both your historical place of lodging and your claimed main home are located; you have a member or members of your family living at your main home; or you often use that home for lodging.

  If you satisfy all three factors, your tax home is the home where you regularly live. If you satisfy only two factors, you may have a tax home depending on all the facts and circumstances. If you satisfy only one factor, you are an itinerant; your tax home is wherever you work and you cannot deduct travel expenses.

Example 1.

You are single and live in Boston in an apartment you rent. You have worked for your employer in Boston for a number of years. Your employer enrolls you in a 12-month executive training program. You do not expect to return to work in Boston after you complete your training.

During your training, you do not do any work in Boston. Instead, you receive classroom and on-the-job training throughout the United States. You keep your apartment in Boston and return to it frequently. You use your apartment to conduct your personal business. You also keep up your community contacts in Boston. When you complete your training, you are transferred to Los Angeles.

You do not satisfy factor (1) because you did not work in Boston. You satisfy factor (2) because you had duplicate living expenses. You also satisfy factor (3) because you did not abandon your apartment in Boston as your main home, you kept your community contacts, and you frequently returned to live in your apartment. Therefore, you have a tax home in Boston.

Example 2.

You are an outside salesperson with a sales territory covering several states. Your employer's main office is in Newark, but you do not conduct any business there. Your work assignments are temporary, and you have no way of knowing where your future assignments will be located. You have a room in your married sister's house in Dayton. You stay there for one or two weekends a year, but you do no work in the area. You do not pay your sister for the use of the room.

You do not satisfy any of the three factors listed earlier. You are an itinerant and have no tax home.

Tax Home Different From Family Home

If you (and your family) do not live at your tax home (defined earlier), you cannot deduct the cost of traveling between your tax home and your family home. You also cannot deduct the cost of meals and lodging while at your tax home. See Example 1 , later.

If you are working temporarily in the same city where you and your family live, you may be considered as traveling away from home. See Example 2 , later.

Example 1.

You are a truck driver and you and your family live in Tucson. You are employed by a trucking firm that has its terminal in Phoenix. At the end of your long runs, you return to your home terminal in Phoenix and spend one night there before returning home. You cannot deduct any expenses you have for meals and lodging in Phoenix or the cost of traveling from Phoenix to Tucson. This is because Phoenix is your tax home.

Example 2.

Your family home is in Pittsburgh, where you work 12 weeks a year. The rest of the year you work for the same employer in Baltimore. In Baltimore, you eat in restaurants and sleep in a rooming house. Your salary is the same whether you are in Pittsburgh or Baltimore.

Because you spend most of your working time and earn most of your salary in Baltimore, that city is your tax home. You cannot deduct any expenses you have for meals and lodging there. However, when you return to work in Pittsburgh, you are away from your tax home even though you stay at your family home. You can deduct the cost of your round trip between Baltimore and Pittsburgh. You can also deduct your part of your family's living expenses for meals and lodging while you are living and working in Pittsburgh.

Temporary Assignment or Job

You may regularly work at your tax home and also work at another location. It may not be practical to return to your tax home from this other location at the end of each work day.

Temporary assignment vs. indefinite assignment.   If your assignment or job away from your main place of work is temporary, your tax home does not change. You are considered to be away from home for the whole period you are away from your main place of work. You can deduct your travel expenses if they otherwise qualify for deduction. Generally, a temporary assignment in a single location is one that is realistically expected to last (and does in fact last) for 1 year or less.

   However, if your assignment or job is indefinite, the location of the assignment or job becomes your new tax home and you cannot deduct your travel expenses while there. An assignment or job in a single location is considered indefinite if it is realistically expected to last for more than 1 year, whether or not it actually lasts for more than 1 year.

  If your assignment is indefinite, you must include in your income any amounts you receive from your employer for living expenses, even if they are called travel allowances and you account to your employer for them. You may be able to deduct the cost of relocating to your new tax home as a moving expense. See Publication 521 for more information.

Exception for federal crime investigations or prosecutions.   If you are a federal employee participating in a federal crime investigation or prosecution, you are not subject to the 1-year rule. This means you may be able to deduct travel expenses even if you are away from your tax home for more than 1 year provided you meet the other requirements for deductibility.

  For you to qualify, the Attorney General (or his or her designee) must certify that you are traveling:

·         For the federal government,

·         In a temporary duty status, and

·         To investigate, prosecute, or provide support services for the investigation or prosecution of a federal crime.

Determining temporary or indefinite.   You must determine whether your assignment is temporary or indefinite when you start work. If you expect an assignment or job to last for 1 year or less, it is temporary unless there are facts and circumstances that indicate otherwise. An assignment or job that is initially temporary may become indefinite due to changed circumstances. A series of assignments to the same location, all for short periods but that together cover a long period, may be considered an indefinite assignment.

  The following examples illustrate whether an assignment or job is temporary or indefinite.

Example 1.

You are a construction worker. You live and regularly work in Los Angeles. You are a member of a trade union in Los Angeles that helps you get work in the Los Angeles area. Your tax home is Los Angeles. Because of a shortage of work, you took a job on a construction project in Fresno. Your job was scheduled to end in 8 months. The job actually lasted 10 months.

You realistically expected the job in Fresno to last 8 months. The job actually did last less than 1 year. The job is temporary and your tax home is still in Los Angeles.

Example 2.

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that you realistically expected the work in Fresno to last 18 months. The job actually was completed in 10 months.

Your job in Fresno is indefinite because you realistically expected the work to last longer than 1 year, even though it actually lasted less than 1 year. You cannot deduct any travel expenses you had in Fresno because Fresno became your tax home.

Example 3.

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that you realistically expected the work in Fresno to last 9 months. After 8 months, however, you were asked to remain for 7 more months (for a total actual stay of 15 months).

Initially, you realistically expected the job in Fresno to last for only 9 months. However, due to changed circumstances occurring after 8 months, it was no longer realistic for you to expect that the job in Fresno would last for 1 year or less. You can only deduct your travel expenses for the first 8 months. You cannot deduct any travel expenses you had after that time because Fresno became your tax home when the job became indefinite.

Going home on days off.   If you go back to your tax home from a temporary assignment on your days off, you are not considered away from home while you are in your hometown. You cannot deduct the cost of your meals and lodging there. However, you can deduct your travel expenses, including meals and lodging, while traveling between your temporary place of work and your tax home. You can claim these expenses up to the amount it would have cost you to stay at your temporary place of work.

  If you keep your hotel room during your visit home, you can deduct the cost of your hotel room. In addition, you can deduct your expenses of returning home up to the amount you would have spent for meals had you stayed at your temporary place of work.

Probationary work period.   If you take a job that requires you to move, with the understanding that you will keep the job if your work is satisfactory during a probationary period, the job is indefinite. You cannot deduct any of your expenses for meals and lodging during the probationary period.

What Travel Expenses Are Deductible?

Once you have determined that you are traveling away from your tax home, you can determine what travel expenses are deductible.

You can deduct ordinary and necessary expenses you have when you travel away from home on business. The type of expense you can deduct depends on the facts and your circumstances.

Table 1-1 summarizes travel expenses you may be able to deduct. You may have other deductible travel expenses that are not covered there, depending on the facts and your circumstances.

When you travel away from home on business, you must keep records of all the expenses you have and any advances you receive from your employer. You can use a log, diary, notebook, or any other written record to keep track of your expenses. The types of expenses you need to record, along with supporting documentation, are described in Table 5-1 (see chapter 5).

Separating costs.   If you have one expense that includes the costs of meals, entertainment, and other services (such as lodging or transportation), you must allocate that expense between the cost of meals and entertainment and the cost of other services. You must have a reasonable basis for making this allocation. For example, you must allocate your expenses if a hotel includes one or more meals in its room charge.

Travel expenses for another individual.    If a spouse, dependent, or other individual goes with you (or your employee) on a business trip or to a business convention, you generally cannot deduct his or her travel expenses.

Employee.   You can deduct the travel expenses of someone who goes with you if that person:

1.    Is your employee,

2.   Has a bona fide business purpose for the travel, and

3.   Would otherwise be allowed to deduct the travel expenses.

Business associate.   If a business associate travels with you and meets the conditions in (2) and (3), earlier, you can deduct the travel expenses you have for that person. A business associate is someone with whom you could reasonably expect to actively conduct business. A business associate can be a current or prospective (likely to become) customer, client, supplier, employee, agent, partner, or professional advisor.

Bona fide business purpose.   A bona fide business purpose exists if you can prove a real business purpose for the individual's presence. Incidental services, such as typing notes or assisting in entertaining customers, are not enough to make the expenses deductible.

Table 1-1. Travel Expenses You Can Deduct

	This chart summarizes expenses you can deduct when you travel away from home for business purposes.
IF you have expenses for...	THEN you can deduct the cost of...
transportation	travel by airplane, train, bus, or car between your home and your business destination. If you were provided with a free ticket or you are riding free as a result of a frequent traveler or similar program, your cost is zero. If you travel by ship, see Luxury Water Travel and Cruise Ships (under Conventions) for additional rules and limits.
taxi, commuter bus, and airport limousine	fares for these and other types of transportation that take you between: ·         The airport or station and your hotel, and ·         The hotel and the work location of your customers or clients, your business meeting place, or your temporary work location.
baggage and shipping	sending baggage and sample or display material between your regular and temporary work locations.
car	operating and maintaining your car when traveling away from home on business. You can deduct actual expenses or the standard mileage rate, as well as business-related tolls and parking. If you rent a car while away from home on business, you can deduct only the business-use portion of the expenses.
lodging and meals	your lodging and meals if your business trip is overnight or long enough that you need to stop for sleep or rest to properly perform your duties. Meals include amounts spent for food, beverages, taxes, and related tips. See Meals for additional rules and limits.
cleaning	dry cleaning and laundry.
telephone	business calls while on your business trip. This includes business communication by fax machine or other communication devices.
tips	tips you pay for any expenses in this chart.
other	other similar ordinary and necessary expenses related to your business travel. These expenses might include transportation to or from a business meal, public stenographer's fees, computer rental fees, and operating and maintaining a house trailer.

Example.

Jerry drives to Chicago on business and takes his wife, Linda, with him. Linda is not Jerry's employee. Linda occasionally types notes, performs similar services, and accompanies Jerry to luncheons and dinners. The performance of these services does not establish that her presence on the trip is necessary to the conduct of Jerry's business. Her expenses are not deductible.

Jerry pays $199 a day for a double room. A single room costs $149 a day. He can deduct the total cost of driving his car to and from Chicago, but only $149 a day for his hotel room. If he uses public transportation, he can deduct only his fare.

Meals

You can deduct the cost of meals in either of the following situations.

·         It is necessary for you to stop for substantial sleep or rest to properly perform your duties while traveling away from home on business.

·         The meal is business-related entertainment.

Business-related entertainment is discussed in chapter 2 . The following discussion deals only with meals that are not business-related entertainment.

Lavish or extravagant.   You cannot deduct expenses for meals that are lavish or extravagant. An expense is not considered lavish or extravagant if it is reasonable based on the facts and circumstances. Expenses will not be disallowed merely because they are more than a fixed dollar amount or take place at deluxe restaurants, hotels, nightclubs, or resorts.

50% limit on meals.   You can figure your meals expense using either of the following methods.

·         Actual cost.

·         The standard meal allowance.

Both of these methods are explained below. But, regardless of the method you use, you generally can deduct only 50% of the unreimbursed cost of your meals.

  If you are reimbursed for the cost of your meals, how you apply the 50% limit depends on whether your employer's reimbursement plan was accountable or nonaccountable. If you are not reimbursed, the 50% limit applies whether the unreimbursed meal expense is for business travel or business entertainment. Chapter 2 discusses the 50% Limit in more detail, and chapter 6 discusses accountable and nonaccountable plans.

Actual Cost

You can use the actual cost of your meals to figure the amount of your expense before reimbursement and application of the 50% deduction limit. If you use this method, you must keep records of your actual cost.

Standard Meal Allowance

Generally, you can use the “standard meal allowance” method as an alternative to the actual cost method. It allows you to use a set amount for your daily meals and incidental expenses (M&IE), instead of keeping records of your actual costs. The set amount varies depending on where and when you travel. In this publication, “standard meal allowance” refers to the federal rate for M&IE, discussed later under Amount of standard meal allowance . If you use the standard meal allowance, you still must keep records to prove the time, place, and business purpose of your travel. See the recordkeeping rules for travel in chapter 5 .

Incidental expenses.   The term “incidental expenses” means fees and tips given to porters, baggage carriers, hotel staff, and staff on ships.

  Incidental expenses do not include expenses for laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing, lodging taxes, costs of telegrams or telephone calls, transportation between places of lodging or business and places where meals are taken, or the mailing cost of filing travel vouchers and paying employer-sponsored charge card billings.

Incidental-expenses-only method.   You can use an optional method (instead of actual cost) for deducting incidental expenses only. The amount of the deduction is $5 a day. You can use this method only if you did not pay or incur any meal expenses. You cannot use this method on any day that you use the standard meal allowance. This method is subject to the proration rules for partial days. See Travel for days you depart and return , later in this chapter.

Note.

The incidental-expenses-only method is not subject to the 50% limit discussed below.

Federal employees should refer to the Federal Travel Regulations at www.gsa.gov. Find the “Most Requested Links” on the upper left and click on “Regulations: FAR, FMR, FTR” for Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) for changes affecting claims for reimbursement.

50% limit may apply.    If you use the standard meal allowance method for meal expenses and you are not reimbursed or you are reimbursed under a nonaccountable plan, you can generally deduct only 50% of the standard meal allowance. If you are reimbursed under an accountable plan and you are deducting amounts that are more than your reimbursements, you can deduct only 50% of the excess amount. The 50% limit is discussed in more detail in chapter 2, and accountable and nonaccountable plans are discussed in chapter 6.

There is no optional standard lodging amount similar to the standard meal allowance. Your allowable lodging expense deduction is your actual cost.

Who can use the standard meal allowance.   You can use the standard meal allowance whether you are an employee or self-employed, and whether or not you are reimbursed for your traveling expenses.

Use of the standard meal allowance for other travel.   You can use the standard meal allowance to figure your meal expenses when you travel in connection with investment and other income-producing property. You can also use it to figure your meal expenses when you travel for qualifying educational purposes. You cannot use the standard meal allowance to figure the cost of your meals when you travel for medical or charitable purposes.

Amount of standard meal allowance.   The standard meal allowance is the federal M&IE rate. For travel in 2014, the rate for most small localities in the United States is $46 a day.

   Most major cities and many other localities in the United States are designated as high-cost areas, qualifying for higher standard meal allowances.

  

You can find this information (organized by state) at www.gsa.gov/perdiem. Enter a zip code or select a city and state for the per diem rates for the current fiscal year. Per diem rates for prior fiscal years are available by using the drop down menu under “Search by State.”

  Per diem rates are listed by the Federal government's fiscal year which runs from October 1 to September 30. You can choose to use the rates from the 2014 fiscal year per diem tables or the rates from the 2015 fiscal year tables, but you must consistently use the same tables for all travel you are reporting on your income tax return for the year.

  If you travel to more than one location in one day, use the rate in effect for the area where you stop for sleep or rest. If you work in the transportation industry, however, see Special rate for transportation workers , later.

Standard meal allowance for areas outside the continental United States.   The standard meal allowance rates above do not apply to travel in Alaska, Hawaii, or any other location outside the continental United States. The Department of Defense establishes per diem rates for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Midway, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Wake Island, and other non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. The Department of State establishes per diem rates for all other foreign areas.

  

You can access per diem rates for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States at:
www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/perdiemCalc.cfm. You can access all other foreign per diem rates at: www.state.gov/travel/. Click on “Travel Per Diem Allowances for Foreign Areas,” under “Foreign Per Diem Rates” to obtain the latest foreign per diem rates.

Special rate for transportation workers.    You can use a special standard meal allowance if you work in the transportation industry. You are in the transportation industry if your work:

·         Directly involves moving people or goods by airplane, barge, bus, ship, train, or truck, and

·         Regularly requires you to travel away from home and, during any single trip, usually involves travel to areas eligible for different standard meal allowance rates.

If this applies, you can claim a standard meal allowance of $59 a day ($65 for travel outside the continental United States).

  Using the special rate for transportation workers eliminates the need for you to determine the standard meal allowance for every area where you stop for sleep or rest. If you choose to use the special rate for any trip, you must use the special rate (and not use the regular standard meal allowance rates) for all trips you take that year.

Travel for days you depart and return.   For both the day you depart for and the day you return from a business trip, you must prorate the standard meal allowance (figure a reduced amount for each day). You can do so by one of two methods.

·         Method 1: You can claim ³/₄ of the standard meal allowance.

·         Method 2: You can prorate using any method that you consistently apply and that is in accordance with reasonable business practice.

Example.

Jen is employed in New Orleans as a convention planner. In March, her employer sent her on a 3-day trip to Washington, DC, to attend a planning seminar. She left her home in New Orleans at 10 a.m. on Wednesday and arrived in Washington, DC, at 5:30 p.m. After spending two nights there, she flew back to New Orleans on Friday and arrived back home at 8:00 p.m. Jen's employer gave her a flat amount to cover her expenses and included it with her wages.

Under Method 1, Jen can claim 2½ days of the standard meal allowance for Washington, DC: ³/₄ of the daily rate for Wednesday and Friday (the days she departed and returned), and the full daily rate for Thursday.

Under Method 2, Jen could also use any method that she applies consistently and that is in accordance with reasonable business practice. For example, she could claim 3 days of the standard meal allowance even though a federal employee would have to use Method 1 and be limited to only 2½ days.

Travel in the United States

The following discussion applies to travel in the United States. For this purpose, the United States includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The treatment of your travel expenses depends on how much of your trip was business related and on how much of your trip occurred within the United States. See Part of Trip Outside the United States , later.

Trip Primarily for Business

You can deduct all of your travel expenses if your trip was entirely business related. If your trip was primarily for business and, while at your business destination, you extended your stay for a vacation, made a personal side trip, or had other personal activities, you can deduct only your business-related travel expenses. These expenses include the travel costs of getting to and from your business destination and any business-related expenses at your business destination.

Example.

You work in Atlanta and take a business trip to New Orleans in May. Your business travel totals 850 miles round trip. On your way, you stop in Mobile to visit your parents. You spend $2,165 for the 9 days you are away from home for travel, meals, lodging, and other travel expenses. If you had not stopped in Mobile, you would have been gone only 6 days, and your total cost would have been $1,860. You can deduct $1,860 for your trip, including the cost of round-trip transportation to and from New Orleans. The deduction for your meals is subject to the 50% limit on meals mentioned earlier.

Trip Primarily for Personal Reasons

If your trip was primarily for personal reasons, such as a vacation, the entire cost of the trip is a nondeductible personal expense. However, you can deduct any expenses you have while at your destination that are directly related to your business.

A trip to a resort or on a cruise ship may be a vacation even if the promoter advertises that it is primarily for business. The scheduling of incidental business activities during a trip, such as viewing videotapes or attending lectures dealing with general subjects, will not change what is really a vacation into a business trip.

Part of Trip Outside the United States

If part of your trip is outside the United States, use the rules described later in this chapter under Travel Outside the United States for that part of the trip. For the part of your trip that is inside the United States, use the rules for travel in the United States. Travel outside the United States does not include travel from one point in the United States to another point in the United States. The following discussion can help you determine whether your trip was entirely within the United States.

Public transportation.   If you travel by public transportation, any place in the United States where that vehicle makes a scheduled stop is a point in the United States. Once the vehicle leaves the last scheduled stop in the United States on its way to a point outside the United States, you apply the rules under Travel Outside the United States .

Example.

You fly from New York to Puerto Rico with a scheduled stop in Miami. You return to New York nonstop. The flight from New York to Miami is in the United States, so only the flight from Miami to Puerto Rico is outside the United States. Because there are no scheduled stops between Puerto Rico and New York, all of the return trip is outside the United States.

Private car.   Travel by private car in the United States is travel between points in the United States, even though you are on your way to a destination outside the United States.

Example.

You travel by car from Denver to Mexico City and return. Your travel from Denver to the border and from the border back to Denver is travel in the United States, and the rules in this section apply. The rules under Travel Outside the United States apply to your trip from the border to Mexico City and back to the border.

Travel Outside the United States

If any part of your business travel is outside the United States, some of your deductions for the cost of getting to and from your destination may be limited. For this purpose, the United States includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

How much of your travel expenses you can deduct depends in part upon how much of your trip outside the United States was business related.

Travel Entirely for Business or Considered Entirely for Business

You can deduct all your travel expenses of getting to and from your business destination if your trip is entirely for business or considered entirely for business.

Travel entirely for business.   If you travel outside the United States and you spend the entire time on business activities, you can deduct all of your travel expenses.

Travel considered entirely for business.   Even if you did not spend your entire time on business activities, your trip is considered entirely for business if you meet at least one of the following four exceptions.

Exception 1 – No substantial control.   Your trip is considered entirely for business if you did not have substantial control over arranging the trip. The fact that you control the timing of your trip does not, by itself, mean that you have substantial control over arranging your trip.

  You do not have substantial control over your trip if you:

·         Are an employee who was reimbursed or paid a travel expense allowance, and

·         Are not related to your employer, or

·         Are not a managing executive.

   “Related to your employer” is defined later in chapter 6 under Per Diem and Car Allowances .

  A “managing executive” is an employee who has the authority and responsibility, without being subject to the veto of another, to decide on the need for the business travel.

  A self-employed person generally has substantial control over arranging business trips.

Exception 2 – Outside United States no more than a week.   Your trip is considered entirely for business if you were outside the United States for a week or less, combining business and nonbusiness activities. One week means 7 consecutive days. In counting the days, do not count the day you leave the United States, but do count the day you return to the United States.

Example.

You traveled to Brussels primarily for business. You left Denver on Tuesday and flew to New York. On Wednesday, you flew from New York to Brussels, arriving the next morning. On Thursday and Friday, you had business discussions, and from Saturday until Tuesday, you were sightseeing. You flew back to New York, arriving Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday, you flew back to Denver.

Although you were away from your home in Denver for more than a week, you were not outside the United States for more than a week. This is because the day you depart does not count as a day outside the United States.

You can deduct your cost of the round-trip flight between Denver and Brussels. You can also deduct the cost of your stay in Brussels for Thursday and Friday while you conducted business. However, you cannot deduct the cost of your stay in Brussels from Saturday through Tuesday because those days were spent on nonbusiness activities.

Exception 3 – Less than 25% of time on personal activities.   Your trip is considered entirely for business if:

·         You were outside the United States for more than a week, and

·         You spent less than 25% of the total time you were outside the United States on nonbusiness activities.

For this purpose, count both the day your trip began and the day it ended.

Example.

You flew from Seattle to Tokyo, where you spent 14 days on business and 5 days on personal matters. You then flew back to Seattle. You spent 1 day flying in each direction.

Because only ⁵/₂₁ (less than 25%) of your total time abroad was for nonbusiness activities, you can deduct as travel expenses what it would have cost you to make the trip if you had not engaged in any nonbusiness activity. The amount you can deduct is the cost of the round-trip plane fare and 16 days of meals (subject to the 50% limit), lodging, and other related expenses.

Exception 4 – Vacation not a major consideration.   Your trip is considered entirely for business if you can establish that a personal vacation was not a major consideration, even if you have substantial control over arranging the trip.

Travel Primarily for Business

If you travel outside the United States primarily for business but spend some of your time on other activities, you generally cannot deduct all of your travel expenses. You can only deduct the business portion of your cost of getting to and from your destination. You must allocate the costs between your business and other activities to determine your deductible amount. See Travel allocation rules , later.

You do not have to allocate your travel expenses if you meet one of the four exceptions listed earlier under Travel considered entirely for business . In those cases, you can deduct the total cost of getting to and from your destination.

Travel allocation rules.   If your trip outside the United States was primarily for business, you must allocate your travel time on a day-to-day basis between business days and nonbusiness days. The days you depart from and return to the United States are both counted as days outside the United States.

  To figure the deductible amount of your round-trip travel expenses, use the following fraction. The numerator (top number) is the total number of business days outside the United States. The denominator (bottom number) is the total number of business and nonbusiness days of travel.

Counting business days.   Your business days include transportation days, days your presence was required, days you spent on business, and certain weekends and holidays.

Transportation day.   Count as a business day any day you spend traveling to or from a business destination. However, if because of a nonbusiness activity you do not travel by a direct route, your business days are the days it would take you to travel a reasonably direct route to your business destination. Extra days for side trips or nonbusiness activities cannot be counted as business days.

Presence required.   Count as a business day any day your presence is required at a particular place for a specific business purpose. Count it as a business day even if you spend most of the day on nonbusiness activities.

Day spent on business.   If your principal activity during working hours is the pursuit of your trade or business, count the day as a business day. Also, count as a business day any day you are prevented from working because of circumstances beyond your control.

Certain weekends and holidays.   Count weekends, holidays, and other necessary standby days as business days if they fall between business days. But if they follow your business meetings or activity and you remain at your business destination for nonbusiness or personal reasons, do not count them as business days.

Example 1.

Your tax home is New York City. You travel to Quebec, where you have a business appointment on Friday. You have another appointment on the following Monday. Because your presence was required on both Friday and Monday, they are business days. Because the weekend is between business days, Saturday and Sunday are counted as business days. This is true even though you use the weekend for sightseeing, visiting friends, or other nonbusiness activity.

Example 2.

If, in Example 1, you had no business in Quebec after Friday, but stayed until Monday before starting home, Saturday and Sunday would be nonbusiness days.

Nonbusiness activity on the way to or from your business destination.   If you stopped for a vacation or other nonbusiness activity either on the way from the United States to your business destination, or on the way back to the United States from your business destination, you must allocate part of your travel expenses to the nonbusiness activity.

  The part you must allocate is the amount it would have cost you to travel between the point where travel outside the United States begins and your nonbusiness destination and a return to the point where travel outside the United States ends.

  You determine the nonbusiness portion of that expense by multiplying it by a fraction. The numerator (top number) of the fraction is the number of nonbusiness days during your travel outside the United States and the denominator (bottom number) is the total number of days you spend outside the United States.

Example.

You live in New York. On May 4 you flew to Paris to attend a business conference that began on May 5. The conference ended at noon on May 14. That evening you flew to Dublin where you visited with friends until the afternoon of May 21, when you flew directly home to New York. The primary purpose for the trip was to attend the conference.

If you had not stopped in Dublin, you would have arrived home the evening of May 14. You do not meet any of the exceptions that would allow you to consider your travel entirely for business. May 4 through May 14 (11 days) are business days and May 15 through May 21 (7 days) are nonbusiness days.

You can deduct the cost of your meals (subject to the 50% limit), lodging, and other business-related travel expenses while in Paris.

You cannot deduct your expenses while in Dublin. You also cannot deduct ⁷/₁₈ of what it would have cost you to travel round-trip between New York and Dublin.

You paid $750 to fly from New York to Paris, $400 to fly from Paris to Dublin, and $700 to fly from Dublin back to New York. Round-trip airfare from New York to Dublin would have been $1,250.

You figure the deductible part of your air travel expenses by subtracting ⁷/₁₈ of the round-trip fare and other expenses you would have had in traveling directly between New York and Dublin ($1,250 × ⁷/₁₈ = $486) from your total expenses in traveling from New York to Paris to Dublin and back to New York ($750 + $400 + $700 = $1,850).

Your deductible air travel expense is $1,364 ($1,850 − $486).

Nonbusiness activity at, near, or beyond business destination.   If you had a vacation or other nonbusiness activity at, near, or beyond your business destination, you must allocate part of your travel expenses to the nonbusiness activity.

  The part you must allocate is the amount it would have cost you to travel between the point where travel outside the United States begins and your business destination and a return to the point where travel outside the United States ends.

  You determine the nonbusiness portion of that expense by multiplying it by a fraction. The numerator (top number) of the fraction is the number of nonbusiness days during your travel outside the United States and the denominator (bottom number) is the total number of days you spend outside the United States.

  None of your travel expenses for nonbusiness activities at, near, or beyond your business destination are deductible.

Example.

Assume that the dates are the same as in the previous example but that instead of going to Dublin for your vacation, you fly to Venice, Italy, for a vacation.

You cannot deduct any part of the cost of your trip from Paris to Venice and return to Paris. In addition, you cannot deduct ⁷/₁₈ of the airfare and other expenses from New York to Paris and back to New York.

You can deduct ¹¹/₁₈ of the round-trip plane fare and other travel expenses from New York to Paris, plus your meals (subject to the 50% limit), lodging, and any other business expenses you had in Paris. (Assume these expenses total $4,939.) If the round-trip plane fare and other travel-related expenses (such as food during the trip) are $1,750, you can deduct travel costs of $1,069 (¹¹/₁₈ × $1,750), plus the full $4,939 for the expenses you had in Paris.

Other methods.   You can use another method of counting business days if you establish that it more clearly reflects the time spent on other than business activities outside the United States.

Travel Primarily for Personal Reasons

If you travel outside the United States primarily for vacation or for investment purposes, the entire cost of the trip is a nondeductible personal expense. However, if you spend some time attending brief professional seminars or a continuing education program, you can deduct your registration fees and other expenses you have that are directly related to your business.

Example.

The university from which you graduated has a continuing education program for members of its alumni association. This program consists of trips to various foreign countries where academic exercises and conferences are set up to acquaint individuals in most occupations with selected facilities in several regions of the world. However, none of the conferences are directed toward specific occupations or professions. It is up to each participant to seek out specialists and organizational settings appropriate to his or her occupational interests.

Three-hour sessions are held each day over a 5-day period at each of the selected overseas facilities where participants can meet with individual practitioners. These sessions are composed of a variety of activities including workshops, mini-lectures, role playing, skill development, and exercises. Professional conference directors schedule and conduct the sessions. Participants can choose those sessions they wish to attend.

You can participate in this program since you are a member of the alumni association. You and your family take one of the trips. You spend about 2 hours at each of the planned sessions. The rest of the time you go touring and sightseeing with your family. The trip lasts less than 1 week.

Your travel expenses for the trip are not deductible since the trip was primarily a vacation. However, registration fees and any other incidental expenses you have for the five planned sessions you attended that are directly related and beneficial to your business are deductible business expenses. These expenses should be specifically stated in your records to ensure proper allocation of your deductible business expenses.

Luxury Water Travel

If you travel by ocean liner, cruise ship, or other form of luxury water transportation for business purposes, there is a daily limit on the amount you can deduct. The limit is twice the highest federal per diem rate allowable at the time of your travel. (Generally, the federal per diem is the amount paid to federal government employees for daily living expenses when they travel away from home, but in the United States, for business purposes.)

Daily limit on luxury water travel.   The highest federal per diem rate allowed and the daily limit for luxury water travel in 2014 is shown in the following table.

	2014 Dates	Highest Federal Per Diem	Daily Limit on Luxury Water Travel
	Jan. 1 – Feb. 28	$262	$524
	Mar. 1 – June 30	338	676
	July 1 – Aug. 31	335	670
	Sept. 1 – Sept. 30	374	748
	Oct. 1 – Dec. 31	374	748

Example.

Caroline, a travel agent, traveled by ocean liner from New York to London, England, on business in May. Her expense for the 6-day cruise was $5,200. Caroline's deduction for the cruise cannot exceed $4,056 (6 days × $676 daily limit).

Meals and entertainment.   If your expenses for luxury water travel include separately stated amounts for meals or entertainment, those amounts are subject to the 50% limit on meals and entertainment before you apply the daily limit. For a discussion of the 50% Limit , see chapter 2.

Example.

In the previous example, Caroline's luxury water travel had a total cost of $5,200. Of that amount, $3,700 was separately stated as meals and entertainment. Caroline, who is self-employed, is not reimbursed for any of her travel expenses. Caroline figures her deductible travel expenses as follows.

Meals and entertainment	$3,700
50% limit	× .50
Allowable meals &
entertainment	$1,850
Other travel expenses	+ 1,800
Allowable cost before the daily limit		$3,650
Daily limit for May 2014	$676
Times number of days	× 6
Maximum luxury water travel
deduction		$4,056
Amount of allowable deduction		$3,650

Caroline's deduction for her cruise is limited to $3,650, even though the limit on luxury water travel is higher.

Not separately stated.   If your meal or entertainment charges are not separately stated or are not clearly identifiable, you do not have to allocate any portion of the total charge to meals or entertainment.

Exceptions

The daily limit on luxury water travel (discussed earlier) does not apply to expenses you have to attend a convention, seminar, or meeting on board a cruise ship. See Cruise Ships under Conventions.

Conventions

You can deduct your travel expenses when you attend a convention if you can show that your attendance benefits your trade or business. You cannot deduct the travel expenses for your family.

If the convention is for investment, political, social, or other purposes unrelated to your trade or business, you cannot deduct the expenses.

Your appointment or election as a delegate does not, in itself, determine whether you can deduct travel expenses. You can deduct your travel expenses only if your attendance is connected to your own trade or business.

Convention agenda.   The convention agenda or program generally shows the purpose of the convention. You can show your attendance at the convention benefits your trade or business by comparing the agenda with the official duties and responsibilities of your position. The agenda does not have to deal specifically with your official duties and responsibilities; it will be enough if the agenda is so related to your position that it shows your attendance was for business purposes.

Conventions Held Outside the North American Area

You cannot deduct expenses for attending a convention, seminar, or similar meeting held outside the North American area unless:

·         The meeting is directly related to your trade or business, and

·         It is reasonable to hold the meeting outside the North American area. See Reasonableness test , later.

If the meeting meets these requirements, you also must satisfy the rules for deducting expenses for business trips in general, discussed earlier under Travel Outside the United States .

North American area.   The North American area includes the following locations.

American Samoa	Johnston Island
Antigua and Barbuda	Kingman Reef
Aruba	Marshall Islands
Bahamas	Mexico
Baker Island	Micronesia
Barbados	Midway Islands
Bermuda	Netherlands Antilles
Canada	Northern Mariana
Costa Rica	Islands
Dominica	Palau
Dominican Republic	Palmyra Atoll
Grenada	Panama
Guam	Puerto Rico
Guyana	Trinidad and Tobago
Honduras	USA
Howland Island	U.S. Virgin Islands
Jamaica	Wake Island
Jarvis Island

The North American area also includes U.S. islands, cays, and reefs that are possessions of the United States and not part of the fifty states or the District of Columbia.

Reasonableness test.   The following factors are taken into account to determine if it was reasonable to hold the meeting outside the North American area.

·         The purpose of the meeting and the activities taking place at the meeting.

·         The purposes and activities of the sponsoring organizations or groups.

·         The homes of the active members of the sponsoring organizations and the places at which other meetings of the sponsoring organizations or groups have been or will be held.

·         Other relevant factors you may present.

Cruise Ships

You can deduct up to $2,000 per year of your expenses of attending conventions, seminars, or similar meetings held on cruise ships. All ships that sail are considered cruise ships.

You can deduct these expenses only if all of the following requirements are met.

1.   The convention, seminar, or meeting is directly related to your trade or business.

2.   The cruise ship is a vessel registered in the United States.

3.   All of the cruise ship's ports of call are in the United States or in possessions of the United States.

4.   You attach to your return a written statement signed by you that includes information about:

a.   The total days of the trip (not including the days of transportation to and from the cruise ship port),

b.   The number of hours each day that you devoted to scheduled business activities, and

c.   A program of the scheduled business activities of the meeting.

5.   You attach to your return a written statement signed by an officer of the organization or group sponsoring the meeting that includes:

a.   A schedule of the business activities of each day of the meeting, and

b.   The number of hours you attended the scheduled business activities.

Prev	Up	Next
	Home

More Online Publications

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p463/ch01.html 

---- 

Travel allowance

Part-time employee

You may give a part-time employee a reasonable allowance or reimbursement for travelling expenses incurred by the employee going to and from a part-time job. If so, and you and the part-time employee are dealing at arm’s length, you do not have to include that amount in the employee’s income. This applies to:

• teachers and professors who work part-time in a designated educational institution in Canada, providing service to you as a professor or teacher, and the location is not less than 80 kilometres from the employee’s home; and
• a part-time employee who had other employment or carried on a business, and he or she did the duties at a location no less than 80 kilometres from both the place of the employee’s home and the place of the other employment or business.

Salesperson and clergy

You may pay a reasonable travel allowance for expenses other than for the use of an automobile (such as meals, lodging, per diem allowance) to a salesperson or member of the clergy. You do not have to include the allowance in the employee's income if it was for expenses related to the performance of duties of the office or employment and the employee is either:

• an agent selling property or negotiating contracts for the employer; or
• a member of the clergy.

Other employees

You have to include reasonable travel allowances in the income of employees, other than a salesperson or member of the clergy, who travel to perform the duties of the office or employment, unless the allowances are received by the employee for travelling away from the municipality and the metropolitan area where the employer's establishment is located and where the employee ordinarily works or reports.
In some situations, you may provide an allowance to your employee for travel (other than an allowance for the use of a motor vehicle) within a municipality or metropolitan area so your employee can complete his or her duties in a more efficient way during a work shift.
This allowance is not a taxable benefit and can be excluded from the employee's income if all of the following conditions are met:

• The employee travels away from the office.
• The allowance is reasonable. We generally consider a value of up to $17 for the meal portion of the travel allowance to be reasonable.
• You are the primary beneficiary of the allowance.
• The allowance is not an additional form of remuneration.

This means that you do not have to include this type of travel allowance if its main reason is so that your employee's duties are completed in a more efficient way during a work shift.

Reasonable travel allowances

Whether an allowance for travel expenses is reasonable is a question of fact. You should compare the reasonable costs for travel expenses that you would expect your employee to incur against the allowance you pay to the employee for the trip.
If the travel allowance is reasonable, you do not have to include it in your employee's income. If it is not reasonable, the allowance has to be included in your employee's income.
For more information, see paragraph 48 in Interpretation Bulletin IT522R, Vehicle, Travel and Sales Expenses of Employees.
Your employee may be able to claim certain employment expenses on his or her income tax and benefit return. For more information, see Employee's allowable employment expenses.

Payroll deductions

If the allowance is taxable, it is also pensionable and insurable. Deduct CPP contributions, EI premiums, and income tax.

Reporting the benefit

Report the taxable allowance in box 14 "Employment income" and in the "Other information" area under code 40 at the bottom of the T4 slip. For more information, see T4 - Information for employers.

Examples

To see how this policy works, see Examples.

Forms and publications

• Interpretation Bulletin IT470R, Employees' Fringe Benefits
• Interpretation Bulletin IT522R, Vehicle, Travel and Sales Expenses of Employees
• ITNEWS-40 Income Tax - Technical News No. 40

Date modified:

2014-12-17

Secondary menu

• Resources
• Online services
• Forms and publications
• A to Z index
• Enquiries

Site Information

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

About

• About the CRA
• Careers at the CRA
• Corporate reports
• Mission, vision, and values
• Compliance
• Site map

Contact information

• Enquiries
• Our offices
• Voluntary disclosures
• Informant leads
• Complaints and disputes

News

• Newsroom
• News releases
• Speeches
• Tax tips
• Convictions
• Video gallery

Stay connected

• Twitter
• YouTube
• Mobile apps
• Email lists
• RSS feeds

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/llwncs/trvl-eng.html 

---- 

menu

      

Family Law

o    Child Support

o    Divorce and Separation

o    Enforcing Support

o    Family Justice Services

o    Custody and Parenting

o    Spousal Support

o    Publications

o    Provincial and Territorial Contacts

o    Contact Us

Family Law - More

      

Criminal Justice

o    Youth Justice

o    Victims

o    Family Violence

o    Criminal Conviction Review

o    Human Trafficking

o    War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

o    National Security

o    Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance

Criminal Justice - More

      

Funding

o    Aboriginal Communities

o    Criminal Justice

o    Family Justice

o    Justice System and Policy

o    Funding for Other Levels of Government

o    Apply for Funding

Funding - More

      

Canada's System of Justice

o    About Canada's System of Justice

o    Bijuralism and Harmonization

o    Canada's Court System

o    Justice in Official Languages

o    Legal Dualism and Bilingual Bisystemism

Canada's System of Justice - More

      

Laws

o    Constitutional Documents

o    Acts

o    Regulations

o    Search for an Act or Regulation

Laws - More

Breadcrumb trail

1. Home
2. Laws Website Home

Justice Laws Website

Welcome to the online source of the consolidated Acts and regulations of Canada. The consolidations are generally updated every two weeks.

Site Features

The site provides several important features.

       As of 2009-06-01, all consolidated Acts and regulations are "official"

       A side-by-side bilingual PDF version of consolidated Acts and regulations

       Point-in-time access to consolidated Acts and regulations

       Links to "Amendments Not in force" and "Related Provisions"

       Shading of provisions in original enactments that are not yet in force

New PDF Page Layout

A new PDF page layout of some frequently accessed Acts and regulations has been added to the Justice Laws Website. This version illustrates modifications that have been made to modernize the page layout of the laws and to make them more readable and easier to consult. Click here to view.

Frequently Accessed Acts

       Access to Information Act PDF: 341 kB

       Canada Elections Act PDF: 3823 kB

       Canada Labour Code PDF: 1346 kB

       Competition Act PDF: 783 kB

       Contraventions Act PDF: 364 kB

       Controlled Drugs and Substances Act  PDF: 336 kB

       Copyright Act PDF: 919 kB

       Criminal Code PDF: 5791 kB

       Divorce Act PDF: 192 kB

       Financial Administration Act PDF: 789 kB

       Immigration and Refugee Protection Act PDF: 913 kB

       Income Tax Act PDF: 12033 kB

       Pension Act PDF: 424 kB

       Privacy Act PDF: 318 kB

       Youth Criminal Justice Act PDF: 744 kB

Frequently Accessed Regulations

       Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations PDF 1180 kB

       Federal Child Support Guidelines PDF 1200 kB

       Food and Drug Regulations PDF 4203 kB

       Income Tax Regulations PDF 5664 kB

       Migratory Birds Regulations PDF 416 kB



Supplemental content

Consolidation News

       Acts current to
2015-05-25

       Regulations current to
2015-05-25

What’s New

      

2015-02-11

2015 annual report

The Minister of Justice tabled the 2015 annual report under the Statutes Repeal Act in the House of Commons on January 29, 2015 and in the Senate on February 3, 2015. 2015 annual report
(PDF [170 KB])

      

2014-10-23

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program

The Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment (MSLA) Program is a periodic legislative exercise administered by the Legislation Section of the Department of Justice. It is used to correct anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology or errors in federal statutes. Click here for more details.

Date modified:

2015-06-04

Secondary menu

Laws

       Constitutional Documents

       Consolidated Acts

       Consolidated Regulations

       Annual Statutes

       Statutes Repeal Act: Reports and Repeals

       Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program

Search

       Basic Search

       Advanced Search

Resources

       Table of Public Statutes and Responsible Ministers

       Table of Private Acts

       Consolidated Index of Statutory Instruments

       Related Resources

Help

       Accessibility

       FAQ

       General

       Search Help

       PDF Help

       How to Create Stable Links

       Printing

       Glossary

       Important Note

Footer

Site footer

       Terms and conditions

       Transparency

Contact us

       Policy on Legal Assistance

       Service on the Crown

       Guide to Canadian Legal Information

       Help

       Helpful Links

About us

       The Minister and Attorney General

       Organization

       Acts and Regulations

       Careers and Articling

       Reports and Publications

       Sustainable Development

News

       News Releases

       Backgrounders

       Judicial Appointments

       Speeches

       Media Notices

       Photo Gallery

Stay connected

       Facebook

       RSS

       Twitter

       YouTube

       Public Consultations

Government of Canada footer

       Health

       Travel

       Service Canada

       Jobs

       Economy

       Canada.ca

http://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/index.html

--------------- 

Standards and Equity – Main page

Employment standards are essentially the foundation for creating productive workplaces. They help protect the rights of workers, foster cooperative relationships between employers and workers, and provide the necessary conditions for a productive economy. Equal opportunity for all of Canada's diverse population is essential to creating a motivated and innovative workforce in a 21st century economy.
To this extent, the Labour Program provides a variety of tools and resources on topics such as:

• Federal Labour Standards - Such standards protect the rights of workers, foster positive workplace environments and proactive relationships between managers and employees and, ultimately, benefit the bottom line of any business.
• Federal Construction Contracts - Whenever contractors bid on federal construction projects, they must agree to meet the conditions defined in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and pay the wages established by the Labour Program in support of the Act and its regulations.
• Wage earner protection program – A Government of Canada program that provides payment of eligible wages owing to workers whose employer has gone bankrupt or become subject to receivership.
• Minimum Wage Database - Every province and territory in Canada now provides for a minimum wage in its employment standards legislation. As for the federal jurisdiction, it has entrenched the applicable provincially legislated general adult minimum wage rate for workers covered by Part III of the Canada Labour Code. The Minimum Wage Database provides information on historical as well as current minimum wages.
• Equality and inclusion - Well-designed workplace employment equity and pay equity policies and programs have a positive impact on individual Canadians by creating an 'even playing field' for all. They also benefit the Canadian economy by taking full advantage of the abilities and talents of all citizens.

Date modified:

2014-01-30

Secondary menu

Standards and Equity

• Federal Labour Standards
• Federal Construction Contracts
• Wage Earner Protection Program
• Minimum Wage Database
• Equality and Inclusion

Footer

Site footer

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

About us

• Minister
• Deputy Minister
• Publications and Reports
• Acts & Regulations
• A to Z index
• ESDC
• Youth.gc.ca

News

• News releases
• Speeches
• Photo gallery
• Videos

Contact us

·         Regional offices

·         Employee Directory

·         1-800 numbers

Stay connected

• YouTube
• Twitter

http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/standards_equity/index.shtml

----------   

Health and Safety

Highlights

• Canada Gazette Notices
• Occupational health and safety - Priority industries
• Young workers: Protect yourselves at work!
• Successful prosecutions now online
• OHS Statistical Report 2012
• Changes to the Canada Labour Code, Part II effective October 31, 2014

Popular Pages

• Ergonomics Publications
• Guide to Violence Prevention in the Workplace
• H&S forms
• Preventing Musculoskeletal Injury E-Tool

Video Contest

"It's Your Job" Video Contest

We all spend a considerable portion of our day in the workplace. Ensuring that workplaces are safe is important to the well-being of everyone and to the performance of the country's economy.
The Government of Canada protects workplace safety through legislation, programs and services designed to prevent accidents and injuries on the job. The Labour Program works proactively with employers to reduce occupational injuries and illnesses in federally regulated workplaces by providing information on improving health and safety in their organizations, such as:

• Workplace Safety – roles and responsibilities of employers and employees;
• The role of workplace health and safety committees and representatives;
• Prevention – how to protect yourself, what to do in the event of an accident and hazardous substances;
• Workers' Compensation - assistance provided to federal government employees in dealing with the hardships associated with work-related injuries and occupational illnesses; and
• Compliance policy – measures to ensure that employers and employees fulfil their duties, the role of health and safety officers, the appeals process, and the interpretation of policies and Operations Program Directives.

Related Information

• Health and Safety Publications
• Workers' Compensation Publications
• Health and Safety-Interpretations, Policies and Guidelines (IPGs)

Date modified:

2015-05-26

Secondary menu

Health and Safety

• Workplace Safety
• H&S Committees
• Prevention
• Workers' Compensation
• Compliance Policy
• Mental Health in the Workplace
• It's Your Job!-Video Contest
• Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee-OHSAC

Footer

Site footer

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

About us

• Minister
• Deputy Minister
• Publications and Reports
• Acts & Regulations
• A to Z index
• ESDC
• Youth.gc.ca

News

• News releases
• Speeches
• Photo gallery
• Videos

Contact us

·         Regional offices

·         Employee Directory

·         1-800 numbers

Stay connected

• YouTube
• Twitter

---- 

Guide to Violence Prevention in the Workplace

PDF Download

Download the PDF version (517 KB) of this content.

Protecting employees from violence in the work place is of critical importance across Canada. Although we do not normally go to work expecting it to occur, violence can happen at any work place and it can have a serious impact on those affected, their families, and the way employers do business. For this reason, paragraph 125(1)(z.16) of the Canada Labour Code requires employers under federal jurisdiction to "take the prescribed steps to prevent and protect against violence in the work place". Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, "Violence Prevention in the Work Place", contains the prescribed steps that must be implemented.

Table of Contents

• Notice to the Reader

1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. Guide to the regulatory requirements
• Step 1: Consultation and Participation
• Step 2: Work Place Violence Prevention Policy
• Step 3: Identification of Factors that Contribute to Work Place Violence
• Step 4: Assessment
• Step 5a and 5b: Controls
• Step 6: Work Place Violence Prevention Measures Review
• Procedures in Response to Work Place Violence
• Notification and Investigation

Appendices

• Appendix A - Work Place Violence (WPV) Prevention Policy Checklist
• Appendix B - Employee Survey
• Appendix C - Examples of Work Place Violence Controls
• Appendix D - Violence Prevention Program Review
• Appendix E - Tips for Preventing and Managing Incidents of Violence

Notice to the Reader

Part II of the Canada Labour Code deals with occupational health and safety. Its purpose is to "prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment at federally regulated employers." One of the issues covered by Part II of the Code and by the related Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations is the matter of violence in the work place.
This guide is designed to assist employers, members of a policy or work place committee, or health and safety representatives in preventing work place violence as prescribed by the requirements in Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, also known as the "Violence Prevention in the Work Place Regulations" or "Violence Prevention Regulations." The Guide suggests a simple, practical procedure for you to follow in implementing the prescribed steps for the prevention of violence in the work place, including employee education and training.
Under Part XX of the Regulations entitled Violence Prevention in the Work Place, employers are responsible for:

• developing a policy;
• identifying contributing factors;
• assessing those factors;
• choosing controls and prevention measures;
• responding to occurrences; and
• ensuring employee education and training.

The following pages contain guidance and sample work sheets to help you better understand these regulatory requirements. The work sheets illustrate certain steps in the violence prevention process. The guide and the work sheets do not form part of the Regulations and therefore their use is not mandatory.

1. Introduction

Protecting employees from violence in the work place is of critical importance across Canada. Although we do not normally go to work expecting it to occur, violence can happen at any work place and it can have a serious impact on those affected, their families, and the way employers do business. For this reason, paragraph 125(1)(z.16) of the Canada Labour Code requires employers under federal jurisdiction to "take the prescribed steps to prevent and protect against violence in the work place." Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, "Violence Prevention in the Work Place," contains the prescribed steps that must be implemented.
The purpose of these Violence Prevention Regulations is to ensure that employers take measures to prevent or minimize the occurrence of violence in the work place and to protect employees against it, ensuring that they have access to assistance and a recourse if they happen to be exposed to it.

2. Definitions

The Violence Prevention Regulations only cover violence occurring in the course of employment over which the employer has control, whether this employment takes place within or outside the work place. Violence in the work place includes:

• acts between employees;
• acts between an employee and a non-employee.

WPV

"Work place violence" is "any action, conduct, threat or gesture of a person towards an employee in their work place that can reasonably be expected to cause harm, injury or illness to that employee."

2.2 Work place

"Work place" is defined in the Canada Labour Code, Part II to mean "any place where an employee is engaged in work for the employee's employer."
"Work place" includes any area where an employee is making a delivery for the employer, any location where an employee is providing a service under the employer's direction, and any mode of transportation (e.g., train, plane) where the employee is traveling in the course of business.
It does not include parking lots not controlled by the employer, modes of transportation for employees travelling outside working hours (e.g., going to or from work) or locations hosting non-mandatory recreational activities that may be sponsored by the employer such as a company picnic or golf tournament.
Specific circumstances relating to a particular incident must be carefully considered in determining work-relatedness. An example would be the situation where an employee chooses to conduct work on a BlackBerry during unpaid time and receives a threatening e-mail response back from another employee.

2.3 Person

The Code does not define the term "person." This term is meant to include those individuals who work in the work place (i.e., co-workers) as well as individuals with whom the employee may come into contact while working, such as the general public.

2.4 Reasonably practicable

The Code does not define the term reasonably practicable. The word practicable is normally interpreted as "that which is performable, feasible, and possible". Decisions on what measures to implement may only be taken if it is reasonably practicable. Please refer to the Interpretations, Policies and Guidelines (IPG) 920-IPG-055 "Criteria for Reasonably Practicable General" available on the Labour Program website, or contact your local Labour Program district office for more information.

3. Guide to the regulatory requirements

3.1 Prevention of work place violence

The flow chart on the following page outlines the steps in the prevention of violence in the work place and is followed by an explanation of each step.

Prevention of Work Place Violence

Step 1
Establish the framework for consultation with and the participation of the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative.
Step 2
Develop and post at a place accessible to all employees a work place violence prevention policy.
Step 3
Identify all factors that contribute to work place violence, taking into account 20.4(a) to (f) of Part XX of the Regulations entitled Violence Prevention in the Work Place.
Step 4
Assess the potential for work place violence using the factors in 20.4 and taking into account 20.5(1) of Part XX of the Regulations entitled Violence Prevention in the Work Place.
Step 5a
Implement systematic controls as soon as practicable, but not later than 90 days after assessment to eliminate or minimize the risk of work place violence.
Step 5b
Establish and implement procedures for follow-up maintenance of corrective measures, including measures to respond to unforeseen risk of work place violence.
Step 6
Review the effectiveness of the work place violence prevention measures and update them whenever there is a change that compromises the effectiveness of those measures, but at least every three years.

Step 1: Consultation and Participation

In a healthy and safe work place, the employer works in cooperation with employee representatives to effectively address work place hazards. This cooperation is the foundation of the internal responsibility system and is what Part II of the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations are based on.
This means that the employer must consult and involve the policy committee (or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative) at each stage of work place violence prevention.
In striving for a violence-free work place, the members of the policy committee or health and safety committee or the representative should know what constitutes work place violence as well as the factors that may contribute to it. With this knowledge they will be more effective in taking part in the different steps towards the prevention of violence in the work place such as the development of policy, procedures, and controls. They will also be able to provide meaningful assistance during work place inspections, from which the information gathered will be considered during the various stages of violence prevention.
To effectively manage the different steps towards prevention and protection against violence in the work place, it is necessary that the committee members who participate in the process be given the training that will enable them to carry out their responsibilities proficiently.
The committee members need to:

• understand what constitutes work place violence;
• be able to identify the factors that may contribute to violence in the work place in order to participate in work place inspections and similar tasks;
• understand the issues of privacy and confidentiality related to the prevention of violence in the work place.

Once members of the committee have been trained in prevention of work place violence, the employer may then choose, where practicable, to deliver the general employee training on work place violence prevention as required under section 20.10 of Part XX of the Regulations, in collaboration with the committee members.

Step 2: Work Place Violence Prevention Policy

Section 20.3 of the Regulations

The employer shall develop and post at a place accessible to all employees a work place violence prevention policy setting out, among other things, the following obligations of the employer:

1. to provide a safe, healthy and violence-free work place;
2. to dedicate sufficient attention, resources and time to address factors that contribute to work place violence including, but not limited to, bullying, teasing, and abusive and other aggressive behaviour and to prevent and protect against it;
3. to communicate to its employees information in its possession about factors contributing to work place violence; and
4. to assist employees who have been exposed to work place violence

Explanation

The purpose of the work place violence prevention policy is for the employer to demonstrate to employees that the employer is committed to providing a violence-free work place and that assistance will be made available in cases where an employee has been exposed to work place violence. The policy will outline the responsibilities and accountabilities of work place parties in achieving a violence-free work place. This demonstration of commitment by the employer is a crucial step in preventing work place violence and in making violence prevention part of the work place culture.
Paragraphs 20.3(a) to (d) provide you with a list of items that must be included in this policy.
The employer must include procedures to assist employees who have been exposed to work place violence. These procedures will describe the assistance to be provided to victims and will list emergency numbers to contact. The policy should also state that when employees experience or observe an act of violence they have a duty to report it to the employer.
The employee subjected to work place violence can be negatively impacted in a number of ways, resulting in injury, anger, depression, guilt, anxiety and post traumatic stress. The consequences of work place violence can be just as serious for other workers, as they may not feel safe or comfortable at work. This will likely lead to decreased productivity, poorer work performance, and increased absenteeism and employee turnover. An employee who has been affected by work place violence has a right to assistance, which could take various forms, such as an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) or counselling. The costs of such assistance should not be the responsibility of the employee.
Factors contributing to work place violence can include bullying, teasing, and abusive and aggressive behaviour. Progressive disciplinary action should be used to control intentional and unintentional conduct not suitable in the work place, even when it cannot be determined that the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause harm. It may be difficult to assess the anticipated harm, since a factor such as teasing is subjective and can be perceived as playful by some but harmful or malicious by others. This is where the reasonableness threshold included in the definition of work place violence comes into play.
Documents entitled "Work Place Violence (WPV) Prevention Policy Checklist" and "Generic Work Place Violence Prevention Policy" are provided in Appendix A to assist you in developing a WPV prevention policy.

Other sources of information

There are many documents, occupational health and safety organizations, and online tools that can be consulted to obtain relevant information about violence in the work place. Documents can include a generic WPV prevention policy, statistics on violence, and possible control measures. You can also find and compare other WPV prevention policies from similar businesses. Publications produced by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, the various provincial and territorial health and safety authorities, and trade union organizations can also be referred to for general guidance on violence prevention in the work place.

Customization to the type of work place

The policy should be customized, as the factors that can contribute to WPV may vary depending on the type of work place. For example, an office setting that operates between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and does not deal directly with the public will have some different WPV factors than an office setting operating from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. that deals with the public face to face.

Step 3: Identification of Factors that Contribute to Work Place Violence

Section 20.4 of the Regulations

The employer shall identify all factors that contribute to work place violence, by taking into account, at a minimum, the following:

1. its experience in dealing with those factors and with work place violence;
2. the experience of employers in dealing with those factors and with violence in similar work places;
3. the location and circumstances in which the work activities take place;
4. the employees' reports of work place violence or the risk of work place violence;
5. the employer's investigation of work place violence or the risk of work place violence; and
6. the measures that are already in place to prevent and protect against work place violence.

Explanation

The purpose of the factor identification step is to look at all the factors that may contribute to work place violence in your work place. Once you have done this, you can assess the factors and implement controls before these factors actually generate violence. Employees also have a responsibility to report potential situations or occurrences of WPV that they become aware of, as required by paragraphs 126.(1)(g) and (j) in the Canada Labour Code, Part II.
You may already have information on factors that can contribute to WPV. Start the identification process by carefully examining the risks that are known. Paragraphs 20.4 (a) to (f) provide you with the minimum list of items for this purpose. They include current measures you might already have in place for WPV that need to be taken into account. By reviewing current measures, you can effect continuous improvement and ensure new hazards or risks are not created in the work place.
The employees who work there and the location and circumstances in which the work activities take place are what make each work place unique. Factors such as face-to-face interaction with clients, working alone, working in remote locations, dealing with valuables, and working at night will likely increase the risk of WPV.
Common factors that contribute to work place violence include:

• threatening behaviour towards others, including threats made verbally or in writing (e.g., in emails);
• bullying;
• intentional harmful teasing;
• aggressive behaviour in the work place;
• intentional damage of property belonging to others.

Employers can learn from past experiences, such as incidents that may have occurred in similar work places, as well as from employee reports. It is vital to take these experiences into account in implementing proper controls.

Step 4: Assessment

Section 20.5 of the Regulations

1. The employer shall assess the potential for work place violence, using the factors identified under section 20.4, by taking into account, at a minimum, the following:
1. the nature of the work activities;
2. the working conditions;
3. the design of the work activities and surrounding environment;
4. the frequency of situations that present a risk of work place violence;
5. the severity of the adverse consequences to the employee exposed to a risk of work place violence;
6. the observations and recommendations of the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, and of the employees; and
7. the measures that are already in place to prevent and protect against work place violence.
2. The employer, when consulting with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, shall not disclose information whose disclosure is prohibited by law or could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety of individuals.

Explanation

In the identification step you have made an inventory of all the factors that may contribute to the potential for WPV. These factors must be assessed to establish an order of priority. This way, employers can prioritize a work place's prevention measures without losing sight of the final objective, which is to control all hazards.
When assessing all the WPV factors, you must consider at least the following:

• The nature of the work activities, such as the type of work (handling valuables, including cash; dealing with clients face to face), the make-up of the staff, and the type of client group;
• Working conditions, such as working alone or in remote locations or locations/areas under the control of the client, and the neighbourhood or region, in which the work place is situated;
• The design of the work activities and surrounding environment, such as characteristics of the work area (noise, stuffiness, uncomfortable temperatures and other conditions that may make someone more irritable) and interpersonal dynamics (being part of the same group for a prolonged period of time; working in close proximity);
• The frequency of situations that present a risk of work place violence;
• The severity of the adverse consequences to the employee exposed to a risk of work place violence;
• Observations and recommendations of the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, and of the employees; and
• The measures that are already in place to prevent and protect against work place violence.

It is important to make sure that everyone involved with a WPV situation is aware of privacy issues and the implications of subsection 20.5(2) of Part XX of the Violence Prevention Regulations. Affected individuals' identities must not be revealed without their consent. There are also laws that prohibit companies from divulging sensitive information that may endanger the health, safety or security of employees or the public.

Steps 5a and 5b: Controls

Section 20.6 of the Regulations

1. Once an assessment of the potential for work place violence has been carried out under section 20.5, the employer shall develop and implement systematic controls to eliminate or minimize work place violence or a risk of work place violence to the extent reasonably practicable.
2. The controls shall be developed and implemented as soon as practicable, but not later than 90 days after the day on which the risk of work place violence has been assessed.
3. Once controls referred to in subsection (1) are implemented, the employer shall establish procedures for appropriate follow-up maintenance and corrective measures, including measures to promptly respond to unforeseen risks of work place violence.
4. Any controls established to eliminate or minimize work place violence shall not create or increase the risk of work place violence.

Explanation

Controls are all the practical measures you can take to prevent and protect against WPV. Once you have assessed the risk factors for violence in your work place, the next step is to develop and implement controls. Examples of controls are included in Appendix C.

First, try to eliminate the risk

Of all the possible prevention techniques, eliminating the risk altogether is the most effective. The goal is to remove the risk, condition or activity, and where necessary, replace it with another condition or activity that does not involve the risk.

If you cannot eliminate the risk, reduce it

If you cannot eliminate the risk, you can attempt to reduce it through control techniques that can help limit the severity if work place violence does occur. For example, having a security guard on the premises may decrease the risk of harm to an employee from a client acting aggressively or violently.

If this is not possible, protect yourself

Protection techniques make it possible to counter a WPV occurrence or diminish the scope of potential violence. There are two types of protection: group and individual. Group protection involves blocking potential aggressors or keeping them apart from the employees. For example, you can install access card readers on doors to prevent unauthorized access to employee areas. Individual protection may involve implementing safe work procedures to safeguard employees working alone.

Follow-up maintenance

Regardless of the controls proposed, follow-up maintenance is mandatory. It will help you to determine whether further corrective action is needed to improve the controls that are already in place. Its main purpose is to prevent failure in the long term of structures, equipment, machinery and tools through routine inspections and the repair of worn parts. For example, planned inspections and maintenance of a security system to prevent unauthorized access are indispensable prevention measures.
Employers should draw up a maintenance schedule, describe the maintenance procedures, record the work completed, verify the progress of work and assess the effectiveness of the items being maintained.

Controls that are risk free

In taking a measure to control a present risk, a current working condition or an existing activity, you will need to make sure that the measure itself is not a source of risk before implementing it. For example, if you install a locked security door to prevent unauthorized access, you need to ensure that it meets the applicable fire protection requirements in case of an emergency.
A prevention measure must not create a new hazard. If a new hazard arises, it must be dealt with as soon as possible. For example, if you close off a customer service area with protective glass, there should be proper ventilation for the employee working in the closed-off area.

Step 6: Work Place Violence Prevention Measures Review

Section 20.7 of the Regulations

1. The employer shall review the effectiveness of the work place violence prevention measures set out in section 20.3 to 20.6 and update them whenever there is a change that compromises the effectiveness of those measures, but at least every three years
2. The review shall include consideration of the following:
1. work place conditions and work locations and activities;
2. work place inspection reports;
3. the employees' reports and the employer's records of investigations into work place violence or the risk of work place violence;
4. work place health and safety evaluations;
5. data on work place violence or the risk of work place violence in the employees' work place or in similar work places;
6. the observations of the policy committee, or if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative; and
7. other relevant information
3. The employer shall keep, for a period of three years, a written or electronic record of findings following the review of the work place violence prevention measures, and make it readily available for examination by a health and safety officer.

Explanation

At least once every three years you must review the effectiveness of the work place violence prevention measures and update them when necessary. The review may take place more often if there is a change that compromises the effectiveness of the prevention measures. For example, if a client service counter was installed to act as a barrier but a WPV incident occurs when a client climbs over the counter, the prevention measures need to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly. A document entitled "Violence Prevention Program Review" is provided in Appendix D to assist you in reviewing your WPV prevention measures.
This review includes the study of reports in order to identify new hazards resulting from changes in the work place so that appropriate controls can be implemented to correct them.
Work place inspections can be used to regularly monitor the health and safety of your employees. For a work place inspection to be of value, the inspection should be conducted by those who are trained to recognize potential WPV situations. Inspection of prevention measures ensures they continue to be effective and current. Such inspections include checking that physical controls are in working order and that there are no signs of vandalism such as broken items or compromised barriers. These inspections should be part of routine work place inspection.

3.2 Incidents of Work Place Violence

Unfortunately, even after you have completed the identification and assessment steps and implemented controls, work place violence may still occur due to non-foreseeable factors and the nature of your industry. For example, given the unpredictability and increasing sophistication of criminals, a business dealing with valuables may continue to face risks. If you require assistance, Appendix E includes some "Tips for Preventing and Managing Incidents of Violence".
It is critical that procedures are in place so employees know what to do when an incident of work place violence occurs. Sections 20.7 and 20.8 of Part XX of the Violence Prevention Regulations outline the requirements. It is important to instruct each employee that they have an obligation under the Canada Labour Code, Part II, paragraphs 126(1)(g) and (j), to report any work place violence they are aware of, even though they may not be involved.
With the proper procedures in place, all the employees will have a way to report incidents and those adversely affected will have a method of accessing assistance provided by the employer. There will also be clear steps to take to attempt to resolve incidents with the employees involved, which may include an investigation.
The process followed subsequent to a work place violence incident will depend on a number of things, such as whether it was between two employees or between an employee and a member of the general public, the existing procedures and controls to address WPV, and whether engaging in the violent situation is a normal condition of employment.
The flow chart below outlines the steps for pre-planning and for investigating violence in the work place:

WPV

Pre-planning has been described in the sections prior to this illustration and the steps required for investigating violence in the work place will be described in detail in the coming sections.

Procedures in Response to Work Place Violence

Section 20.8 of the Regulations

1. The employer shall develop in writing and implement emergency notification procedures to summon assistance where immediate assistance is required, in response to work place violence.
2. The employer shall ensure that employees are made aware of the emergency notification procedures applicable to them and that the text of those procedures is posted at a location readily accessible to those employees.
3. In the development and implementation of emergency notification procedures, the employer's decision of whether or not to notify the police shall take into account the nature of the work place violence and the concerns of employees who experienced the work place violence.
4. If the police are investigating a violent occurrence, the work place committee or the health and safety representative shall be notified of their investigation, unless notification is prohibited by law.
5. The employer shall develop and implement measures to assist employees who have experienced work place violence.

Explanation

This section describes the response to the different types of violence that may occur, with a focus on incidents that may pose an imminent risk to the employee. Employees must be made aware of specific emergency notification procedures to summon assistance under such circumstances, and the procedures must be posted at a location where they can easily find and read them. The written procedures are important for information, for self-protection and to minimize the impact of incidents. They will be used to initiate action without delay for the protection of everyone at the work site.
In deciding whether to notify the police, the employer must consider the nature of the WPV and the concerns of employees who are involved. It is recommended that procedures include a statement that any physical assault in the work place is to be reported to the police. The employer should call the police in case of uncertainty and the police will then decide whether the incident is a matter for them to handle. It is important to note that even if the employees involved do not wish the police to be contacted, it remains the responsibility of the employer to make the final decision regarding police involvement to address the incident. However, if the employees involved request to have the police notified, the employer must do so.

Notification and Investigation

Section 20.9 of the Regulations

1. In this section, "competent person" means a person who:
1. is impartial and is seen by the parties to be impartial;
2. has knowledge, training and experience in issues relating to work place violence; and
3. has knowledge of relevant legislation.
2. If an employer becomes aware of work place violence or alleged work place violence, the employer shall try to resolve the matter with the employee as soon as possible.
3. If the matter is unresolved, the employer shall appoint a competent person to investigate the work place violence and provide that person with any relevant information whose disclosure is not prohibited by law and that would not reveal the identity of persons involved without their consent.
4. The competent person shall investigate the work place violence and at the completion of the investigation provide to the employer a written report with conclusions and recommendations.
5. The employer shall, on completion of the investigation into the work place violence:
1. keep a record of the report from the competent person;
2. provide the work place committee or the health and safety representative, as the case may be, with the report of the competent person, providing information whose disclosure is not prohibited by law and that would not reveal the identity of persons involved without their consent; and
3. adapt or implement, as the case may be, controls referred to in subsection 20.6(1) to prevent a recurrence of the work place violence.
6. Subsection (3) to (5) do not apply if:
1. the work place violence was caused by a person other than an employee;
2. it is reasonable to consider that engaging in the violent situation is a normal condition of employment; and
3. the employer has effective procedures and controls in place involving employees to address work place violence.

Explanation

Whenever the employer becomes aware of an incident of WPV, the employer must try and resolve the situation between the parties involved. However, a formal investigation by a "competent person" must take place if the employer cannot resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the employees involved. This person can be an employee of the same work place or can be from outside the work place. It is important the affected parties accept this person as an impartial investigator.
The competent person must have knowledge, training and experience in issues relating to work place violence, and must have knowledge of "relevant legislation," which means Part II of the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations made pursuant to the Code. They are not expected to have knowledge beyond the scope of the Code.
A work place may choose to have a list or pool of competent persons who are available to provide this service and are acceptable to the employer and employees of that work place as competent persons.
Violence in the work place can occur between employees or between an employee and a non-employee. The challenge is determining whether a person knows or should know that the behaviour would be considered undesirable or inappropriate by the employee against whom it is directed.
Once the employer is aware of an incident of work place violence, the employer must address and try to resolve the issue with the parties involved. This allows people who have a vested interest and are more knowledgeable about the business and its employees to resolve various issues internally.
If the incident cannot be resolved, then a competent person appointed by the employer will conduct an investigation. However, the employer can address the situation without a competent person if all three of the following criteria are met:

1. A non-employee, such as a client, caused the work place violence; and
2. It is reasonable to consider that the possibility of intervening in violent situations is a normal condition of employment; and
3. The employer has effective procedures and controls in place, involving employees to address work place violence.

An example of a situation where all three criteria may be met is the case of a police officer who is subjected to WPV while trying to apprehend a person who is drunk and disorderly. First, the person is a non-employee. Second, due to the nature of the occupation of the police officer, engaging in violent situations is a normal condition of employment. Third, the employer has effective controls in place that were developed in consultation with the employees. These controls include safe work procedures for arresting a disorderly person, equipment to subdue the person, and calling for assistance if the level of violence escalates beyond what the officer is capable of handling.
Failure to respect privacy and confidentiality could compromise an investigation, making it less effective. The individuals investigating the incident must not reveal any information whose disclosure is prohibited by law. The employer will provide the work place committee or the health and safety representative, as the case may be, with the report from the competent person revealing only the information whose disclosure is not prohibited by law. For example, if the violent occurrence involved a human rights violation such as sexual harassment, this would not be disclosed. The identity of the persons involved will be revealed to the committee or the health and safety representative only with the consent of those persons involved. Employees, too, should be encouraged to avoid gossiping as it can have a negative impact on the individuals involved and on the investigation.

3.3 Training

Section 20.10 of the Regulations

1. The employer shall provide information, instruction and training on the factors that contribute to work place violence that are appropriate to the work place of each employee exposed to work place violence or a risk of work place violence.
2. The employer shall provide information, instruction and training:
1. before assigning to an employee any new activity for which a risk of work place violence has been identified;
2. when new information on work place violence becomes available;and
3. at least every three years.
3. The information, instruction and training shall include the following:
1. the nature and extent of work place violence and how employees may be exposed to it;
2. the communication system established by the employer to inform employees about work place violence;
3. information on what constitutes work place violence and on the means of identifying the factors that contribute to work place violence;
4. the work place violence prevention measures that have been developed under sections 20.3 to 20.6; and
5. the employer's procedures for reporting on work place violence or the risk of work place violence.
4. At least once every three years and in either of the following circumstances, the employer shall review and update, if necessary, the information, instruction and training provided:
1. when there is a change in respect of the risk of work place violence; or
2. when new information on the risk of work place violence becomes available.
5. The employer shall maintain signed records, in paper or electronic form, on the information, instruction and training provided to each employee for a period of two years after the date on which an employee ceases to perform an activity that has a risk of work place violence associated with it.

Explanation

This section involves the transfer of knowledge and skills. The employer has to gather all the information on the factors that contribute to WPV that are appropriate to the work place and transfer that information to the employees through guidelines to enhance their knowledge on WPV. If there are any skills that employees must learn to prevent or avoid WPV, they must be trained in these skills.
The employer must provide the information, guidelines and training every three years, and it should include, at a minimum, the contents of the work place violence policy. The employer must monitor for new hazards and their impact on employees, and provide appropriate information, guidelines and training to employees as soon as new information becomes available. Identification of training needs is key in preventing violence in the work place.
Training is essential when striving for a violence-free work place as it raises awareness and educates employees. With increased awareness and knowledge, employees will know what to do if involved in violence in the work place and can contribute to preventing it from occurring. Prevention is especially important, as there are often warning signs leading up to incidents of WPV. If the employees cannot be trained all at once, the priority should go to training for employees who are considered to face a higher risk of work place violence.
A sample employee survey that may be used to obtain basic information on the employees' understanding of the violence prevention program in their work place is provided in Appendix B.

Confirmation of training

Whenever information, guidelines and training is provided, the employer must acknowledge in writing that it took place, and employees must also acknowledge in writing that they have received it. In many cases, a simple report such as the one presented on the next page is all that is required.

Training Report

Course title:
Conflict resolution
Brief course description:
Resolving client complaints and diffusing aggressive conflicts

Attendees
No	Name	Signature	PIN	Department/Section
1	Thomas Fisher		234	Warehouse
2	Kim Hasley		40	Administration
3	Paul Duchesneau		119	Shop
4
5
6
7
8
9

Signature of the person responsible for training:
William Brown
Date: 03/04/09
Date of training: 03/04/09
The Training Report contains the title of the course; a brief description of the course intent; dates of training that were given; the names of the attendees; their Personal Identification Number; their work unit; and their signature. The training officer dates and signs off the report.

---

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Appendix A

WPV

This checklist is not mandatory; however it may be used as a guide when creating or reviewing your work place violence prevention policy. It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that its WPV prevention policy meets the requirements of Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.

Work Place Violence Prevention Policy Checklist
Action Required	Completed	Completed by
The purpose of this policy . . . - 20.3(a)
Definitions: Work Place Violence - 20.3(a)
Statement of commitment and obligation to provide a safe, healthy and violence-free work place - 20.3(a)
Statement of commitment to provide resources and attention to the prevention of violence in the work place - 20.3(b)
Disciplinary action to be taken with those who commit or contribute to work place violence
Commitment to provide information, guidelines and training to employees on the identified factors that may contribute to work place violence, and on prevention measures - 20.3(b) and 20.3(c)
Procedure for employees during a work place violence incident - 20.3(d)
Procedures to investigate and follow up on any reported incidents if they cannot be resolved internally
Procedures to assist employees who have been exposed to work place violence - 20.3(d)
Policy is posted in a place accessible to all employees - 20.3
Policy is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it is relevant to the work place (date of review is noted) - 20.7

Generic Work Place Violence Prevention Policy

This sample may be used as a guide when creating your work place violence prevention policy and is derived from several sources including the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) and the Law Society of Alberta.
Please note that each employer has an obligation to assess its work place and develop its policy accordingly.

1. Introduction

ABC Company is committed to providing a violence-free work place where any act of violence is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This policy applies in the "work place" which is defined in the Canada Labour Code, Part II to mean "any place where an employee is engaged in work for the employee's employer."
Acts of violence may occur as a single incident such as a physical attack or as an event resulting from a series of exposures to factors such as teasing and bullying. All factors that may contribute to violence in the work place that we are made aware of or that are reported will be investigated and any deliberate acts of violence in the work place will be subject to discipline.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that:

• Employees and management understand that disciplinary action will be taken with those who commit or contribute to work place violence.
• Those who are subjected to violence in the work place understand there are procedures for recourse and that assistance/counselling is available.
• Employees and management understand that everyone has a responsibility to report any factors that may contribute to violence in the work place and that all incidents of work place violence must be reported.

3. Commitment

ABC Company is committed to:

• Resolving work place violence situations to the best of our ability and, if they cannot be resolved, having a competent person conduct an investigation to arrive at conclusions and recommendations for corrective action.
• Using the necessary amount of resources to prevent and to respond to incidents of work place violence.
• Providing support for employees affected by work place violence.
• Doing what is reasonably practicable to achieve a violence-free work place.

4. Prohibited conduct

No employee shall subject any other person to work place violence or intentionally use any of the known factors that contribute to violence in the work place.
Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Intentionally causing physical injury to another person.
• Intentionally causing damage to property of another.
• Threatening remarks directed at another person (written or oral).
• Possessing, during work, a dangerous weapon that is prohibited or not provided by the employer.
• Bullying or intentional harmful teasing (written or verbal).
• Displaying or exhibiting extreme anger or hostility.

An employee who subjects another to violence in the work place will be subject to disciplinary action appropriate to the severity of the incident, up to and including dismissal.

5. Management responsibilities

Under this policy managers and supervisors have the following responsibilities:

• To treat individuals at the work place with respect.
• To develop work place arrangements that minimize work place violence.
• Address and resolve incidents involving employees.
• To promote a violence-free work place.
• To ensure that all employees are aware of the policy and that the policy is posted and available.
• To report any incidents of violence in the work place to the employer and, if necessary, to the police.
  Note: All physical assaults are to be reported to the police.
• When applicable, to ensure the privacy and safety of all parties involved in a work place violence incident.

6. Employee responsibilities

Under this policy employees have the following responsibilities:

• To treat individuals at the work place with respect.
• To report any incidents of work place violence, experienced or observed, to the employer.
• To report any factor not yet identified that may contribute to work place violence.
• To co-operate in the investigation and resolution of matters involving work place violence.

7. Complaint procedure for persons who have experienced work place violence

• Inform the person inflicting the behaviour that it is an unwanted/ unwelcome behaviour.
  Note: A manager, supervisor or employee representative may be asked to assist with this.
• Document all events, including time, date, and names.
• Fill out a complaint form and report the incident to the manager or supervisor.
• Request support/assistance, if required.

Intentional false complaints will not be tolerated and will be subject to progressive discipline.

8. Confidentiality/privacy

Confidentiality/privacy is needed to properly investigate a work place violence incident and to offer proper support to those adversely affected. Any individual who becomes aware of a work place violence incident should not disclose any information to a third party without consulting the complainant/person directly involved. Those with questions or concerns regarding a work place violence incident should contact (name).

9. Non-retaliation

Employees will not be penalized or disciplined for making a complaint in good faith.
Disciplinary action will be taken against any person who takes any reprisal against a person who reports an incident of work place violence.

10. Investigation

Upon receiving a formal complaint, the employer will decide whether to contact the police or will contact the police if requested by the employee involved. The employer will then address and resolve the complaint between the parties involved. If the matter can be resolved, the employer will assess and implement controls to prevent the WPV from happening again.
The identities of the people involved will not be disclosed without their consent.
If the complaint cannot be resolved internally, the employer will appoint a competent person to investigate the complaint and submit a written report to the employer. The employer can conduct an investigation without using a competent person if these three criteria are met:

• The work place violence was caused by a person other than an employee.
• It is reasonable to consider that the possibility of intervening in violent situations is a normal condition of employment.
• The employer has effective procedures and controls in place to address work place violence, the development of which involved the employees.

Upon receipt of the report, the employer will provide a copy to the health and safety committee (or the health and safety representative) and will implement controls to prevent a recurrence of the work place violence.

11. Disciplinary action

The employer may consider the following factors when deciding on disciplinary action based on a WPV incident:

• The severity of the incident.
• Whether there was intent to injure or harm.
• Events leading up to the incident that indicated the WPV was likely going to occur.
• The prior history of the employee involved in causing the WPV.
• Whether the complaint was made in good faith.

The resulting disciplinary action may include:

• An apology.
• Progressive discipline such as written warning, suspension.
• Training.
• Referral to an assistance program.
• Dismissal.

12. Record keeping

The written or electronic documents related to the findings of the review of the work place violence prevention measures will be kept by the employer for three years and be readily available for examination by a health and safety officer.
The report from an investigation into a work place violence incident conducted by a competent person will be kept by the employer and be readily available for examination by a health and safety officer.
Signed records in paper or electronic form on the information, guidelines and training provided to each employee will be kept for two years after the date the employee ceases to perform an activity that has a risk of work place violence associated with it.

13. Assistance

If requested, the employer will provide assistance for an employee who was involved in a work place violence incident. This assistance may include:

• Employee Assistance Program.
• Counselling.

14. Policy review

To ensure this policy remains current and up to date it will be reviewed and updated at least once every three years. The date of the last review will be indicated in the policy.

---

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Appendix B

The employee survey may be used to obtain basic information on employees' understanding of the violence prevention program in their work place. The survey is optional, and the responses are to be considered in light of the information and requirements in Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.

Employee Survey

1. My employer has a written violence prevention policy.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
2. My work place has clearly established procedures and expectations for violence prevention.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
3. My work place has the violence prevention policy posted in a place accessible to all employees.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
4. I have received formal training in the area of work place violence.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
5. I know what constitutes work place violence.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
6. I know the factors that can contribute to violence in my work place.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
7. I know the disciplinary action that can be taken against me if I cause a work place violence incident.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
8. I know what to do when I witness or am involved in a work place violence incident.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
9. I am aware of the controls and safety procedures implemented in the work place to protect me from work place violence.
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
10. If I am involved in a work place violence incident and I request assistance, it will be provided to me by the employer
• Yes
• No
• Not applicable
• I don't know
11. Comments :

---

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Appendix C

Examples of Work Place Violence Controls

The following practical suggestions are from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) internet website titled "Violence in the Workplace".
Workplace design includes factors such as workplace lay-out, use of signs, locks or physical barriers, lighting, and electronic surveillance. Building security is one example where workplace design issues are very important. For example, you should consider:

• Positioning the reception area or sales or service counter so that it is visible to fellow employees or members of the public passing by.
• Positioning office furniture so that the employee is closer to a door or exit than the client and so that the employee cannot be cornered.
• Installing physical barriers, e.g. pass-through windows or bullet-proof enclosures.
• Minimizing the number of entrances to your workplace.
• Using coded cards or keys to control access to the building or certain areas within the building.
• Using adequate exterior lighting around the workplace and near entrances.
• Strategically placing fences to control access to the workplace.

Administrative practices are decisions you make about how you do business. For example, certain administrative practices can reduce the risks involved in handling cash. You should consider:

• Keeping cash register funds to a minimum.
• Using electronic payment systems to reduce the amount of cash available.
• Varying the time of day that you empty or reduce funds in the cash register.
• Installing and using a locked drop safe.
• Arranging for regular cash collection by a licensed security firm.

Work practices include all the things you do while you are doing the job. People who work away from a traditional office setting can adopt many different work practices that will reduce their risk. For example:

• Prepare a daily work plan, so that you and others know where and when you are expected somewhere.
• Identify a designated contact at the office and a back-up.
• Keep your designated contact informed of your location and consistently adhere to the call-in schedule.
• Check the credentials of clients.
• Use the "buddy system", especially when you feel your personal safety may be threatened.
• Do not enter any situation or location where you feel threatened or unsafe.

---

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Appendix D

Violence Prevention Program Review

Violence Prevention Policy and Standards

My work place has a written violence prevention policy developed by management in consultation with and with the participation of the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

My work place has clearly established procedures and expectations for violence prevention.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

My work place has posted the violence prevention policy in a place accessible to all employees.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

Risk Assessment

I have reviewed records and reports (e.g., employee incident reports, work place inspection reports, investigation reports or other related records).

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I have reviewed factors at my work place that may contribute to a risk of violence (e.g., contact with the public, exchange of money, working alone or at night).

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I have asked workers if they have concerns about work practices, public interactions or any other violence-related issues

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I have researched the history of violence in work places similar to mine.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I have reviewed my legal responsibilities pursuant to the Violence Prevention Regulations (e.g., privacy issues, when to call the police).

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

Controls

I have reviewed work place design to minimize the risk of violence (e.g., use of signs, locks, physical barriers, lighting and electronic surveillance).

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I have considered improvements such as placing the reception area in view of other workers, improving lighting in the parking lot or using fences to control access to the work place.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I have reviewed work practices such as keeping cash on hand to a minimum, varying the time of day that the cash register is emptied, checking the credentials of clients or using a "buddy system".

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

Training

Information, guidelines and training are provided to workers so they are aware of potential violence risks and procedures for controlling them.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

Signed records are kept on the information, guidelines and training provided to each employee.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

Work Place Inspection and Review of Work Place Violence Prevention Measures.

I regularly inspect my work place and look for signs of violence such as broken items or holes in walls.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I inspect my work place and check that controls (e.g., video surveillance, locks on doors) are functioning properly and do not require any changes.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

I conduct a review of the violence prevention program whenever there is a change in work procedures that compromises the effectiveness of the prevention measures or at least every three years and revise it where needed.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

The written or electronic findings of the review are kept for a period of three years.

• Yes
• Date to be completed
• Completed by

---

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Appendix E

Tips for Preventing and Managing Incidents of Violence

There are steps that you can take to reduce such incidents in your work place. The following practical suggestions are from a guide entitled "Violence in the Workplace" from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (1999).

Dealing with a potentially violent person

1. Tips for verbal communication
• Focus your attention on the other person to let them know you are interested in what they have to say.
• Do not glare or stare, which may be perceived as a challenge.
• Remain calm and try to calm the other person. Do not allow the other person's anger to become your anger.
• Remain conscious of how you are delivering your words.
• Speak slowly, quietly and confidently.
• Speak simply.
• Avoid communicating a lot of technical and complicated information when emotions are high.
• Listen carefully. Do not interrupt or offer unsolicited advice or criticism.
• Encourage the person to talk. Do not tell the person to relax or calm down.
• Remain open-minded and objective.
• Use silence as a calming tool.
• Acknowledge the person's feelings. Indicate that you can see he or she is upset.
2. Tips for non-verbal behaviour and communication:
• Use calm body language - relaxed posture with hands unclenched, attentive expression.
• Arrange yourself so that your exit is not blocked.
• Position yourself at a right angle rather than directly in front of the other person.
• Give the person enough physical space… this varies by culture, but normally 1-2 metres is considered an adequate distance.
• Get on the other person's physical level. If they are seated try kneeling or bending over, rather than standing over them. Do not pose a challenging stance.
  Such as:
• standing directly opposite someone;
• putting your hands on your hips;
• waving your arms;
• crossing your arms.
• Do not make sudden movements which can be seen as threatening.
• Do not fight. Walk or run away. Get assistance from security or police.

Responding to a physical attack

If you are attacked:

• Make a scene, yell or scream as loudly as possible. Try shouting words like Stop or Help.
• If you are being pulled along or dragged, fall to the ground and roll.
• Blow a whistle, activate your personal security alarm or push the security alarm.
• Give bystanders specific instructions to help you. Single someone out and send them for help. For example, "You in the yellow shirt, call the police."
• If someone grabs your purse, briefcase or other belongings, do not resist;
• throw the item on the ground several feet away from the thief and run in the opposite direction, yelling "Stop or help".
• Do not chase a thief.
• Run to the nearest safe place, a safe office or an open store.
• Inform your supervisors or the authorities at your work place.
• If agreed, call the police immediately after the incident.
• File an incident report.

When you are in unfamiliar premises

• Check for escape routes and position yourself near an escape route.
• Take control of the seating arrangements. If possible, seat yourself near the door.
• Be well prepared for an appointment. Review the available information about the individual(s) you are meeting.
• Terminate the appointment in a non-confrontational manner if the individual appears to be:
• intoxicated;
• under the influence of drugs;
• emotionally disturbed and threatening or out of control.

Do not allow yourself to be backed into a corner. Leave a clear path to the exit.
Do not venture too far into the premises e.g., remain near an exit.
Do not turn your back on the person or enter a room first.

Terminating a potentially violent interaction

• Interrupt the conversation firmly but politely.
• Tell the person that you:
• do not like the tone of the conversation;
• will not accept such treatment;
• will end the conversation if necessary.
• If the behaviour persists, end the conversation.
• Tell the person that you will ask them to leave the building, or that you will leave (if working off-site).
• If the person does not agree to leave, remove yourself from the scene and inform your manager or supervisor immediately.
• Advise other staff and have them leave the immediate area.
• Have the manager or supervisor call security or police.
• File an incident report.

---

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

You can order this pamphlet by contacting:
Publications Services
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
140 Promenade du Portage
Phase IV, 12^th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0J9
Fax: 819-953-7260
Online: Publicentre - Publication Search
This document is available on demand in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Cassette, Audio CD, e-Text Diskette, e-Text CD, or DAISY), by contacting 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). If you have a hearing or speech impairment and use a teletypewriter (TTY), call 1-800-926-9105.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010
Print
Cat. No.: HS24-85/2010
ISBN: 978-1-100-52197-8
PDF
Cat. No.: HS24-85/2010E-PDF
ISBN: 978-1-100-16569-1

Date modified:

2013-07-16

Footer

Site footer

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

About us

• Minister
• Deputy Minister
• Publications and Reports
• Acts & Regulations
• A to Z index
• ESDC
• Youth.gc.ca

News

• News releases
• Speeches
• Photo gallery
• Videos

Contact us

·         Regional offices

·         Employee Directory

·         1-800 numbers

Stay connected

• YouTube
• Twitter

http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/health_safety/pubs_hs/workplace.shtml

-----------------

USA-  CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
House Concurrent Resolution No. 175, July 11, 1958, 72 Stat. B12, provided for a Code of Ethics for all Government employees, including officeholders. See Public Law 96-303, set out below.
DISPLAY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS OF CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Public Law 96-303, July 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 855, provided: "That, under such regulations as the Administrator shall prescribe, each agency shall display in appropriate areas of Federal buildings copies of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
"Section 2 (a) The Administrator shall provide for the publication of copies of such Code of Ethics and for their distribution to agencies for use under the first section of this Act.
"(b) The Administrator may accept on behalf of the United States any unconditional gift made for the purposes of this Act.
"Section 3. For purposes of this Act -
"(1) the term 'agency' means an Executive agency (as defined by Section 105 of Title 5, United States Code), the United States Postal Service, and the Postal Rate Commission;
"(2) the term 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the General Services Administation;
"(3) the Code of Ethics for Government Service shall read as follows -
"CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
"Any person in Government service should:
"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.
"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.
"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.
"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.
"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
Your agency ethics official and the Office of Government Ethics are available to answer questions on conflicts of interest; and
"(4) the term 'Federal building' means any building in which at least 20 individuals are regularly employed by an agency as civilian employees.
"Section 4. The provisions of this Act shall take effect October 1, 1980. There shall be no costs imposed on the Federal Government for the printing, framing, or other preparation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service under this Act."

---

[Corpus Justice Index] [Houston Progressive Index]

http://www.isocracytx.net/hp-org/ethics.html

--- 

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Search

Search website  

Topics menu

• Departmental Activities
• Policy and Oversight
• Federal Public Service

You are here:

1. Home
2. Reports
3. Departmental Code of Conduct

Departmental Code of Conduct

Table of Contents

• Message From the Secretary of the Treasury Board
• How to Use This Document
• Introduction and Context
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
• Applying Public Sector Values at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
• Respect for Democracy
• Respect for People
• Integrity
• Stewardship
• Excellence
• Standards of Conduct
• Workplace Behaviour
• Confidentiality
• Public Comments
• Conflict of Interest
• Post-Employment
• Disclosure of Wrongdoing
• Application and Compliance
• Compliance Measures
• Avenues for Resolution
• Duties and Obligations
• TBS Employees
• Secretary
• Senior Officer for Disclosure
• References
• Acts and Legislation
• Policies and Related Publications
• Other Resources
• TBS InfoSite and External Resources
• Footnotes

Message From the Secretary of the Treasury Board

I am pleased to present the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's (TBS's) Departmental Code of Conduct, which provides guiding principles for ethical behaviour and decision making for all TBS employees. The Departmental Code of Conduct is an important component of our values and ethics culture at TBS, and it complements the broader Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. All employees are required to adhere to the Public Sector Code as well as the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct as a term and condition of employment, and the guidance offered by our Departmental Code will enable TBS employees to do this.
The TBS Departmental Code of Conduct was developed through extensive consultation with you. Thanks to your input, it reflects the specific environment and culture of TBS. It is accompanied by an application guide that includes scenarios intended to help us make ethical decisions, and it also provides additional information regarding the rights and obligations of public servants.
I encourage you all to read and familiarize yourselves with the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct and its guiding principles. It is by putting these guiding principles into action that we will achieve our vision of better government, with partners, for Canadians.
Michelle d'Auray

How to Use This Document

This document sets forth the values, policies and behavioural expectations that comprise the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Departmental Code of Conduct to guide the work of TBS employees. The TBS Departmental Code of Conduct does not provide an answer for every situation or ethical issue that arises. Some ethical situations are black and white, while other issues may not be as clear. TBS employees are entrusted to use good judgment in their day-to-day activities and seek further information or assistance when they need it.
When in doubt, consult.

Introduction and Context

In 2007, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) came into effect. As a result, the Treasury Board established the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector (the Public Sector Code). The Public Sector Code applies to the public sector as a whole and replaces the 2003 Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.
Federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations are required by the PSDPA to create their own values and ethics codes to reflect their organization and special requirements. For this purpose, the TBS has created its own Departmental Code of Conduct.
The TBS Departmental Code of Conduct reflects the culture and goals of the Department and provides a set of guidelines that are intended to support ethical behaviour and decision making for all TBS employees. The TBS Departmental Code of Conduct is based on and complements the Public Sector Code.
Promoting and integrating the values and behaviours articulated in these codes is the responsibility of all those who work at TBS. It is integral to who we are and what we do.
Adherence to the Public Sector Code and the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct is a condition of employment for public servants working at TBS, regardless of their level or position. A breach of these values or behaviours may result in disciplinary measures being taken, up to and including termination of employment.
Public servants employed by TBS include indeterminate and term employees, employees on leave without pay, students participating in student employment programs, as well as casual, seasonal and part-time workers.
Although they are not public servants, individuals on incoming Interchange Canada assignments are expected to comply with, and volunteers are expected to respect, the requirements of the TBS Departmental Code.See footnote¹

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

As the administrative arm of the Treasury Board, TBS has a dual mandate: to support the Treasury Board as a committee of ministers and to fulfill the statutory responsibilities of a central government agency.
The Treasury Board is responsible for management excellence, policy development and budget oversight. It is also the "general manager" and employer of the public service. Its three main roles are as follows:

• It is the government's management board;
• It is the government's budget office; and
• It is responsible for people management as the employer of the core public administration.

TBS makes recommendations and supports the Treasury Board in each of its roles by providing advice on policies, directives, regulations and program spending that promote sound management of government resources. It also provides leadership and guidance on management functions to departments and agencies while respecting the primary responsibility of deputy heads in managing their respective organizations and their role as accounting officers.
TBS plays three central roles in relation to federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations:

• An enabling role to help departments, agencies and Crown corporations improve management performance;
• An oversight and challenge role that includes setting policy and standards, assessing departmental performance, and reporting on the government's overall management and budgetary performance; and
• A leadership role in driving and modelling excellence in public sector management.

In exercising their responsibilities, TBS employees have access to privileged information; interact directly with ministers and exempt staff and are privy to political discussions; are involved in highly sensitive program functions, such as inspecting, regulating and monitoring standards; and confer benefits of high economic value to individuals and organizations.

Applying Public Sector Values at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

The TBS Departmental Code of Conduct complements, supports and integrates the fundamental values and commitments of the Public Sector Code. By committing to the Public Sector Code and adhering to the expected behaviours, TBS employees strengthen the ethical culture of the public sector and contribute to public confidence in the integrity of all public institutions. These values and behaviours take on a particular significance within the context of their roles and responsibilities.
As a policy maker for the federal government, TBS leads by example, and this is reflected in its departmental values. In this section, the values of the public sector and their expected behaviours are provided in italics, followed by the respective TBS context.

Respect for Democracy

The system of Canadian parliamentary democracy and its institutions are fundamental to serving the public interest. Public servants recognize that elected officials are accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the Canadian people, and that a non-partisan public sector is essential to our democratic system.
Public servants shall uphold the Canadian parliamentary democracy and its institutions by:

• Respecting the rule of law and carrying out their duties in accordance with legislation, policies and directives in a non-partisan and impartial manner.
• Loyally carrying out the lawful decisions of their leaders and supporting ministers in their accountability to Parliament and Canadians.
• Providing decision makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need, always striving to be open, candid and impartial.

The respect for democracy that all public servants must demonstrate takes on a special meaning for TBS in serving both the minister and a committee of ministers. TBS employees must provide complete and impartial advice to the President and to the Treasury Board. They must also accept that their advice may not be heeded for reasons they may or may not agree with. TBS officials are nonetheless required to fully and responsibly implement such decisions in accordance with the law when it is their responsibility to do so.

Respect for People

Treating all people with respect, dignity and fairness is fundamental to our relationship with the Canadian public and contributes to a safe and healthy work environment that promotes engagement, openness and transparency. The diversity of people and the ideas they generate are the source of our innovation.
Public servants shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:

• Treating every person with respect and fairness.
• Valuing diversity and the benefit of combining the unique qualities and strengths inherent in a diverse workforce.
• Helping to create and maintain safe and healthy workplaces that are free from harassment and discrimination.
• Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.

How employees fulfill their mandate is as important as the result itself. Diversity requires us to think and act carefully in challenging and probing ideas and proposals to maintain respectful relations with colleagues.See footnote² By taking the time to enable colleagues within the organization and from other departments to develop goals, execute plans and deliver results, TBS employees build professional respect and facilitate achieving shared objectives—better value for money in Treasury Board proposals and better management across the public sector.

Integrity

Integrity is the cornerstone of good governance and democracy. By upholding the highest ethical standards, public servants conserve and enhance public confidence in the honesty, fairness and impartiality of the federal public sector.
Public servants shall serve the public interest by:

• Acting at all times with integrity and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
• Never using their official roles to inappropriately obtain an advantage for themselves or to advantage or disadvantage others.
• Taking all possible steps to prevent and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and their private affairs in favour of the public interest.
• Acting in such a way as to maintain their employer's trust.

The integrity in personal and organizational practices of TBS employees is essential for the Department to fulfill its role as a central agency and as the direct advisor to the Treasury Board committee of ministers. In fulfilling their responsibility to provide complete and impartial advice to departments and ministers, in compliance with TBS guidelines, policies and directives, TBS employees demonstrate their integrity by, for example:

• Providing guidance to departments while carrying out their challenge function role;
• Acting as honest brokers of departmental proposals; and
• Seeking the sound advice and input of colleagues and central agency partners.

Similarly, when privy to confidential information, TBS officials demonstrate their integrity by treating this information carefully and respectfully to protect its sensitivity, to enable frank discussion among members of the committee of ministers, and to ensure it is not used for personal gain.

Stewardship

Federal public servants are entrusted to use and care for public resources responsibly, for both the short term and long term.
Public servants shall use resources responsibly by:

• Effectively and efficiently using the public money, property and resources managed by them.
• Considering the present and long-term effects that their actions have on people and the environment.
• Acquiring, preserving and sharing knowledge and information as appropriate.

Canadians rightfully expect to receive the best value for their tax dollars in the delivery of government programs and services. As the central agency responsible for the public purse, TBS is expected to be its guardian and ensure that proposals, programs and operations in departments and at TBS are the most cost-effective and sustainable. TBS employees must have a clear understanding of where this role begins and ends. As the central agency that establishes and implements policies and guidelines that apply to all departments, TBS is dedicated to implementing these tools effectively and charting a sustainable path for their appropriate use. For example, TBS employees are expected to thoroughly understand Treasury Board policies so that departments receive the sound and consistent guidance they need. As guardians of sensitive information, they must act as honest brokers in handling and sharing this information, and in providing complete and impartial advice to senior management and Treasury Board ministers for informed decision making; at the same time, they must ensure that all resources are effectively managed.

Excellence

Excellence in the design and delivery of public sector policy, programs and services is beneficial to every aspect of Canadian public life. Engagement, collaboration, effective teamwork and professional development are all essential to a high-performing organization.
Public servants shall demonstrate professional excellence by:

• Providing fair, timely, efficient and effective services that respect Canada's official languages.
• Continually improving the quality of policies, programs and services they provide.
• Fostering a work environment that promotes teamwork, learning and innovation.

TBS strives for management excellence across government and as a department. This presents an ongoing challenge for TBS employees, especially in the Department's leadership role of aspiring to the vision of the organization, identifying the gaps between excellence and reality, and acting to fill those gaps while being proactive in accepting calculated risks. This requires a motivated and committed workforce, dedicated to continuous improvement. How TBS employees fulfill these expectations plays a big role in their success as strategic advisors. They are expected to share knowledge, expertise and experience responsibly, building a collaborative, respectful, bilingual and diverse environment within and outside the Department.
The Public Sector Code and the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct are important sources of guidance for all TBS employees in choosing their course of action. Similarly, they can expect to be treated by the Department in accordance with these values.

Standards of Conduct

This section outlines specific standards of conduct and illustrates the Department's expectations for acceptable conduct and performance.

Workplace Behaviour

TBS employees will treat each other in the workplace with respect and dignity. The Department commits to providing a diverse work environment that is free from discrimination, harassment and violence.
For additional information on appropriate workplace behaviour, consult the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution and Informal Conflict Management Services for information on resolving workplace conflicts.

Confidentiality

1. General

Sensitive information that TBS employees receive through their employment must not be divulged to anyone other than persons who are authorized to receive the information. When in doubt as to whether certain information is confidential, employees should seek guidance from their supervisor or manager before disclosing it. Information should be consulted on a need-to-know basis. Caution and discretion in handling confidential information in public spaces extends to disclosure inside and outside government. Confidentiality continues to apply after the employment relationship ceases.
For more details, refer to the Security of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the TBS InfoSite Web page on the disposal and destruction of classified and protected information.

2. Procurement process

TBS employees shall adhere to the Government of Canada Code of Conduct for Procurement and exercise the strictest confidentiality regarding information pertaining to a procurement process. Examples include commercially useful information about government that is not publicly available, bids and proposals, plans to evaluate responses, and results of evaluations.

Public Comments

TBS employees are subject to the "Duty of Loyalty." They must exercise caution to ensure that, in serving the government loyally, they do not jeopardize the perception of public service impartiality, integrity and neutrality in the performance of their duties, regardless of form.
For this reason, care should be taken in making comments or entering into public debate regarding the Department and Government of Canada policies. TBS employees must not use their position in government to lend weight to the public expression of their personal opinions.

Conflict of Interest

TBS employees maintain public confidence in the objectivity of the Department by preventing and avoiding situations that could give the appearance of a conflict of interest, result in a potential for a conflict of interest, or result in an actual conflict of interest. Conflict of interest does not relate exclusively to matters concerning financial transactions and the transfer of economic benefit. Although financial activity is important, conflicts of interest in any area of activity can have a negative impact on the perceived objectivity of the Department. With the permanent and pervasive nature of information technology, TBS employees should be particularly sensitive to real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest that may arise from messages and information transmitted via the Internet and other media.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which the public servant has private interests that could improperly influence the performance of his or her official duties and responsibilities or in which the public servant uses his or her office for personal gain.
A real conflict of interest exists at the present time, an apparent conflict of interest could be perceived by a reasonable observer to exist, whether or not it is the case, and a potential conflict of interest could reasonably be foreseen to exist in the future.
Source: Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment
A conflict of duties is a conflict that arises, not because of a public servant's private interests, but as a result of one or more concurrent or competing official responsibilities. For example, these roles could include his or her primary public service employment and his or her responsibilities in an outside role that forms part of his or her official duties, such as an appointment to a board of directors or other outside function.
Source: Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment
TBS employees are responsible for taking all possible steps to recognize, prevent, report and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and any of their private affairs.
Guiding Principles to Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest

• Arrange private affairs to prevent any type of conflict of interest.
• Abstain from participating in decisions that would involve a conflict of interest.
• Avoid any action or intent to hide a conflict of interest situation.

1. Assets and liabilities

TBS employees are required to evaluate the nature of their official duties and the characteristics of their asset holdings and liabilities. If there is any real, apparent or potential conflict of interest between carrying out their official duties and their asset holdings and liabilities, they are to report this matter by submitting a Conflict of Interest Statement in a timely manner to the Values and Ethics Office.
TBS employees should be aware that investments in publicly traded securities, in particular, can give rise to a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest because of the nature of the Department's work and the market sensitivity of non-public information to which they have access.
The type of assets that should be reported and the procedures for reporting and managing such assets are set out in the Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest and the Application Guide for the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct.

2. Gifts, hospitality and other benefits

TBS employees are expected to use their best judgment to avoid situations of real, apparent or potential conflict of interest by considering the following criteria on gifts, hospitality and other benefits and in keeping with the Public Sector Code, the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct and the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment.
TBS employees are not to accept any gifts, hospitality or other benefits that may have a real, apparent or potential influence on their objectivity in carrying out their official duties and responsibilities or that may place them under obligation to the donor. This includes activities such as free or discounted admission to sporting and cultural events, travel or conferences.
It may be appropriate to accept gifts, hospitality or other benefits in situations where they:

• Are offered under circumstances that could not be deemed to compromise or influence, or be perceived as compromising or influencing, the performance of official duties and responsibilities;
• Are not perceived as being of a nature that personally benefits TBS employees as individuals in an inappropriate way and do not place, or cannot be perceived as placing, the individual in a position of obligation;
• Are infrequent and of minimal value; and
• Are within the normal standards of courtesy or protocol, arising out of activities or events related to the official duties of the public servant, and do not compromise or appear to compromise the integrity of the public servant or his or her organization.

TBS employees are required to seek written direction from the Secretary or delegate through a Conflict of Interest Statement to the Values and Ethics Office where it is impossible to decline gifts, hospitality or other benefits that do not meet the principles set out above, or where it is believed that there is sufficient benefit to the organization to warrant acceptance of certain types of hospitality.

3. Outside employment or activities

TBS employees may engage in employment outside the public service and take part in outside activities unless the employment or activities are likely to give rise to a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest or would undermine the impartiality of the public service or the objectivity of TBS employees.
TBS employees must consult their respective managers if they have concerns that their outside employment or activities might subject them to demands incompatible with their work, or cast doubt on their ability to perform their duties in a completely objective manner. They are to disclose the situation by submitting a Conflict of Interest Statement to the Values and Ethics Office, if required. Depending on the situation and the impact of the conflict of interest, the Secretary or delegate, in consultation with the manager, may require that the outside employment or activities be modified or terminated if it is determined that a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest exists.
TBS employees who receive a benefit or income either directly or indirectly from a contract with the Government of Canada are required to report on such contractual or other arrangements by submitting a Conflict of Interest Statement to the Values and Ethics Office and inform their manager. The Secretary or delegate will determine whether the arrangement presents any conflict and may require that the contract be modified or terminated.
TBS employees or incoming public servants who have intentions to engage in outside employment that provides a benefit or income either directly or indirectly from the Government of Canada are required to seek approval from the Secretary or delegate. The Secretary or delegate will determine whether the arrangement presents any conflict and may require that the contract be modified or declined.

3.1 Political activities

Any TBS employee considering involvement in political activities should seek the advice of:

• Their manager;
• The departmental Designated Political Activities Representative;
• The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC);
• Their human resources advisor; or
• The manager of the Values and Ethics Office.

"Political activities" are defined in Part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) as "any activity in support of, within or in opposition to a political party; carrying on any activity in support of or in opposition to a candidate before or during an election period; or seeking nomination as or being a candidate in an election before or during the election period."
Public servants working at TBS are required to obtain permission from the PSC to seek nomination or be a candidate in a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal election, in accordance with the PSEA, Part 7.
Any public servant working at TBS who wishes to engage in a political activity not covered by Part 7 of the PSEA that could constitute a conflict of interest is required to report the proposed activity to the Secretary or delegate.
Similarly, TBS employees who are not subject to Part 7 of the PSEA who wish to engage in any political activity should be aware that the activity could constitute a conflict of interest. The proposed activity should be reported to the Secretary or delegate through a Conflict of Interest Statement in order to determine whether the political activity could constitute a real or perceived conflict of interest.
If engaging in political activities, TBS employees must be able to retain impartiality in relation to their duties and responsibilities. They must not engage in political activities during working hours or use government facilities, equipment or resources in support of these activities.
For more information on political activities, please refer to the Guidance Document and Self-Assessment Tool published by the PSC.

4. Preferential treatment

TBS employees are responsible for demonstrating objectivity and impartiality in the exercise of their duties and in their decision making whether related to staffing, financial awards or penalties to internal and external parties, transfer payments, program operations, or any other exercise of responsibility.
This means that they are prohibited from granting preferential treatment or advantages to family, friends or any other person or entity. They also are not to disadvantage any entity or persons dealing with the government because of personal antagonism or bias.

4.1 Staffing decisions

TBS employees must recuse themselves from participating in staffing decisions when their objectivity could be compromised for any reason, or for a benefit or perceived benefit accrued to oneself.

4.2 Financial decisions

TBS employees cannot grant preferential treatment to anyone in making decisions that result in a financial award. They shall advise their supervisor when such a situation arises and recuse themselves from the decision-making process.

4.3 Extraordinary assistance

TBS employees cannot offer extraordinary assistance to any entity or persons already dealing with the government without the knowledge and support of their supervisor.

5. Solicitation

With the exception of fundraising for such officially supported activities as the Government of Canada Workplace Charitable Campaign, TBS employees may not solicit gifts, hospitality and other benefits or transfers of economic value from a person, group or organization in the private sector that has or could have dealings with the government. When fundraising for such official activities, TBS employees will ensure that they have prior authorization from the Secretary in order to solicit donations, prizes or in-kind contributions from external organizations or individuals.
Similarly, if an outside individual or entity, with whom TBS has past, present or potential official dealings, offers a benefit to TBS such as funding for an event or a donation of equipment, employees are to consider whether any real, apparent or potential conflict of interest exists, and obtain the consent in writing of the Secretary or delegate prior to accepting any such benefit.
The Secretary or delegate may require that the activities be modified or terminated where it is determined that there is a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest or an obligation to the donor.

Post-Employment

TBS employees have a responsibility to minimize the possibility of real, apparent or potential conflict of interest between their most recent duties within the federal public service and their subsequent employment outside the public service.

1. Before leaving employment

TBS employees are required to disclose to their supervisor and the Secretary or delegate their intentions regarding future outside employment or activities that may pose a risk of real, apparent or potential conflict of interest with their current responsibilities and discuss potential conflicts with their supervisor or the Secretary or delegate by filing a Conflict of Interest Statement to the Values and Ethics Office.

2. Limitation period

The post-employment one-year limitation period after leaving office applies to TBS employees in the EX, EX minus one and EX minus two categories and their equivalents (designated positions).
TBS employees occupying a designated position must submit a Conflict of Interest Statement to the Values and Ethics Office before leaving office and during the post-employment one-year limitation period, when accepting all firm offers of employment or proposed activities outside the public service that could place them in a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest with their public service employment. They are also to disclose immediately the acceptance of any such offer.
In addition, employees occupying a designated position may not, during the one-year limitation period, without the Secretary's authorization:

• Accept appointment to a board of directors of, or employment with, private entities with which they had significant official dealings during the one-year period immediately prior to the termination of their service. The official dealings in question may be either directly on the part of the public servant or through subordinates;
• Make representations to any government organization on behalf of persons or entities outside of the public service with which they had significant official dealings during the one-year period immediately prior to the termination of their service. See footnote ³ The official dealings in question may be either directly on the part of the public servant or through subordinates; or
• Give advice to their clients or employer using information that is not publicly available concerning the programs or policies of the departments or organizations with which they were employed or with which they had a direct and substantial relationship.

3. Waiver or reduction of limitation period

To request a waiver or to reduce the limitation period, employees occupying a designated position will submit a Conflict of Interest Statement to the Secretary or delegate through the Values and Ethics Office. Employees must provide sufficient information to assist the Secretary or delegate in making a determination as to whether to grant the waiver, taking into consideration the following criteria:

• The circumstances under which the termination of their service occurred;
• The general employment prospects of the public servant or former public servant;
• The significance to the government of information possessed by the public servant or former public servant by virtue of that individual's position in the public service;
• The desirability of a rapid transfer of the public servant's or former public servant's knowledge and skills from the government to private, other governmental or non-governmental sectors;
• The degree to which the new employer might gain unfair commercial or private advantage by hiring the public servant or former public servant;
• The authority and influence possessed by that individual while in the public service; and
• Any other consideration at the discretion of the Secretary.

Disclosure of Wrongdoing

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) gives employees of the federal public sector and Crown corporations a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoing in the workplace with protection from acts of reprisal. This is part of the Government of Canada's ongoing commitment to promoting ethical practices in the public sector.
Wrongdoing in or relating to the public sector includes the following:

• A contravention of any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or of any regulations made under any such act, other than a contravention of section 19 of the PSDPA;
• A misuse of public funds or a public asset;
• Gross mismanagement in the public sector;
• An act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment, other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the duties or functions of a public servant;
• A serious breach of the Public Sector Code or TBS Departmental Code of Conduct; or
• Knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing as set out in any of the paragraphs above.

If a TBS employee has information indicating a serious breach of the Public Sector Code or the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct or any other suspected wrongdoing, he or she may seek advice and guidance from, or make a disclosure under the PSDPA and in good faith, to the following:

• His or her supervisor or manager;
• The Department's Senior Officer for Disclosure; or
• The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.

Some of the protections afforded by the PSDPA may be limited if TBS employees choose to make a disclosure to anyone other than those listed. As well, it is important to respect the reputation of the Department and colleagues by not making false disclosures.
For more information on the PSDPA and the Department's internal disclosure mechanism, please refer to the Senior Officer for Disclosure's page page on the TBS InfoSite.

Application and Compliance

TBS employees are required to have read and agreed to comply with the Public Sector Code and the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct, and to be responsible for reflecting and living public sector values. TBS leaders are obliged to do the same. Adherence to both the Public Sector Code, the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct and Appendix B of the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment is a condition of employment regardless of employment status, level or position. A breach of these values or behaviours may result in disciplinary measures being taken, up to and including termination of employment.

Compliance Measures

1. Affirmation: General

TBS employees are required to review the Public Sector Code, the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct and Appendix B of the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment upon employment and upon changes in their official duties, and within 10 business days from the receipt of a letter of offer affirm that they have read and reviewed their personal circumstances in light of the requirement of both codes and the policy. Those who have conflict of interest situations to report must file a Conflict of Interest Statement within 30 days following the signed Affirmation.

2. Conflict of Interest Statement: Reporting procedures

Conflict of interest measures are adopted to both protect the impartiality and neutrality of the Department and maintain the public's trust in the public service. Conflict of interest does not relate exclusively to matters concerning financial transactions and transfers of economic benefit; conflicts can arise from gifts, hospitality and other benefits, outside activities, preferential treatment, solicitation, and post-employment situations. If there is a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest situation, TBS employees are to report the matter to the Values and Ethics Office as soon as they become aware of the situation and no later than 30 days.
TBS employees and any incoming public servants who receive or have intentions to engage in outside employment that provides a benefit or income either directly or indirectly from a contract with the Government of Canada are required to report on such contractual or other arrangements to the Values and Ethics Office and inform their manager.
TBS employees in the following circumstances must provide a Conflict of Interest Statement if, in their objective view, the circumstances give rise to real, potential or apparent conflict of interest with respect to their official duties:

• Review of security holdings initially and as needed: Those who directly or indirectly hold reportable publicly traded securities or who manage such securities on behalf of others;
• General disclosure initially and as needed: Those who have reportable direct or contingent assets and liabilities, conduct outside employment or activities, or have received reportable gifts, hospitality or other benefits; and
• Change-of-circumstance disclosure: When a major change occurs in their personal circumstances or official duties.

3. Review and determination

The review of the Conflict of Interest Statement will be conducted in a timely manner. The Values and Ethics Office, with direction from the Secretary or delegate, will inform the TBS employee in writing of the determination. The Values and Ethics Office will seek the advice of the Senior Values and Ethics Committee on any unusual conflict of interest.
Conflicts arising out of liabilities, outside activities or receipt of gifts or other benefits may be resolved by requiring TBS employees to settle the liability in question; avoid, curtail, modify or withdraw from the conflicting activity; or decline, return or otherwise dispose of the gift or other benefit received.
If it is determined that publicly traded securities or other securities and assets create a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest, TBS employees are required to divest these securities as set out in the Directive on Reporting and Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest.

Avenues for Resolution

Neither the Public Sector Code nor the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct will be able to anticipate every possible situation or ethical dilemma that might arise in the course of the work of TBS employees. When the situation arises, TBS employees are encouraged to discuss and resolve these matters with their immediate supervisor or the Secretary or delegate. They can also seek advice and support from other appropriate sources within TBS.
When a TBS employee and the Secretary or delegate disagree on appropriate arrangements to resolve a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest, the disagreement will be resolved through established dispute procedures.
TBS employees at all levels are expected to resolve issues in a fair and respectful manner and consider informal processes such as dialogue or mediation. They can speak to their supervisor or contact Informal Conflict Management Services or other appropriate sources within the Department.
If a public servant has information that could indicate a serious breach of the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct, he or she can bring this matter to the attention of his or her immediate supervisor, the Senior Officer for Disclosure or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, as provided by sections 12 and 13 of the PSDPA.
Members of the public who have reason to believe that a public servant has not acted in accordance with this Code can bring the matter to the Senior Officer for Disclosure or to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to disclose a serious breach of this Code.

Duties and Obligations

TBS Employees

TBS employees have a shared responsibility, namely, to serve the public interest and ensure public trust. TBS employees are required to become familiar with the provisions of the Public Sector Code and the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct and be able to apply these values in their work. They are encouraged to consult their supervisor or manager or the Values and Ethics Office when they are unsure as to the conduct to be adopted.
TBS expects its employees to exhibit attitudes and behaviours inspired by the five public sector values and to comply with conflict of interest and post-employment measures. A public servant's general responsibilities and duties include:

• Taking all possible steps to recognize, prevent, report and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and any of their private affairs;
• Unless otherwise permitted, refraining from having private interests that would be unduly affected by government actions in which they participate, or of which they have knowledge or information;
• Not knowingly taking advantage of, or benefiting from, information that is obtained in the course of their duties that is not available to the public;
• Refraining from the direct or indirect use of, or allowing the direct or indirect use of, government property of any kind, including property leased to the government, for anything other than officially approved activities;
• Not assisting private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment of the entities or persons;
• Not interfering in the dealings of private entities or persons with the government in order to inappropriately influence the outcome;
• Maintaining the impartiality of the public service and not engaging in any outside or political activities that impair or could be seen to impair their ability to perform their duties in an objective or impartial manner; and
• Ensuring that any real, apparent or potential conflict that arises between their private activities and their official responsibilities as a public servant is resolved in the public interest.

TBS employees are required to comply with the different policies and directives aimed at the public service in general, as well as those of the Department.
TBS employees who are supervisors and managersSee footnote⁴ are in a position of influence and authority. This gives them a particular responsibility to exemplify the values of the public sector. Supervisors are to review with direct reports the Public Sector Code and the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct.
Supervisors and managers are responsible for discussing and promoting the exchange of ideas, eliciting questions, and fostering the search for solutions in an atmosphere of openness and awareness. TBS employees play an equally important role by participating in the dialogue and contributing to creating a work environment that reflects values and ethics.

Secretary

The Secretary has specific responsibilities under the PSDPA, including establishing a code of conduct for the Department and an overall responsibility for fostering a positive culture of values and ethics in the Department.
The Secretary ensures that:

• Employees are aware of their obligations under this Code and the Public Sector Code;
• Employees can obtain appropriate advice within the Department on ethical issues, including possible conflicts of interest;
• The Public Sector Code, this Code, and internal disclosure procedures are implemented effectively in the Department, and that they are regularly monitored and evaluated; and
• The non-partisan provision of the Department's programs and services is upheld.

The Secretary is subject to this Code, the Public Sector Code and to the Conflict of Interest Act.

Senior Officer for Disclosure

The Senior Officer for Disclosure helps promote a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoing and deals with disclosures of wrongdoing made by TBS employees. The designated official is responsible for supporting the Secretary in meeting the requirements of the PSDPA.
The Senior Officer for Disclosure's duties and powers also include the following, in accordance with the internal disclosure procedures established under the PSDPA:

• Provide information, advice and guidance to TBS employees regarding the organization's internal disclosure procedures, including the making of disclosures, the conduct of investigations into disclosures, and the handling of disclosures made to supervisors.
• Receive and record disclosures and review them to establish whether there are sufficient grounds for further action under the PSDPA.
• Manage investigations into disclosures, including determining whether to deal with a disclosure under the PSDPA, initiate an investigation or cease an investigation.
• Coordinate handling of a disclosure with the senior officer of another federal public sector organization, if a disclosure or an investigation into a disclosure involves that other organization.
• Notify the person(s) who made a disclosure in writing of the outcome of any review and/or investigation into the disclosure and on the status of actions taken on the disclosure, as appropriate.
• Report the findings of investigations, as well as any systemic problems that may give rise to wrongdoing, directly to the Secretary, with recommendations for corrective action, if any.

Better government: with partners, for Canadians

References

Acts and Legislation

• Canadian Human Rights Act
• Conflict of Interest Act
• Criminal Code
• Financial Administration Act
• Lobbying Act
• Privacy Act
• Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act
• Public Service Employment Act
• Security of Information Act

Policies and Related Publications

• Code of Conduct for Procurement
• Contracting Policy
• Directive on Managing and Reporting Financial Conflicts of Interest
• Foundation Framework for Treasury Board Policies
• Framework for the Management of Compliance
• Management Accountability Framework
• Policy Framework for Information and Technology
• Policy Framework for People Management
• Policy on Access to Information
• Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment
• Policy on Government Security
• Policy on Information Management
• Policy on Interchange Canada
• Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution
• Policy on Privacy Protection
• Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks
• Procurement Review Policy
• Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

Other Resources

• Application Guide to the TBS Departmental Code of Conduct
• "Disposal and Destruction of Classified and Protected Information"
• "Duty of Loyalty"
• Enabler 2.0 – TBS Departmental Guideline on the Use of Web 2.0
• "Guideline for Determining and Marking Sensitive Information" (accessible from the TBS InfoSite page "Guidelines and Procedures")
• "Guideline for External Use of Web 2.0"
• "Information Management Exit Procedure" (accessible from the TBS InfoSite page "Guidelines and Procedures")
• Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
• Public Service Commission of Canada

TBS InfoSite and External Resources

• Human Resources
• Informal Conflict Management Services
• Internal Disclosure
• Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
• Political Candidacy and Political Activities of Employees During an Election Period
• Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace
• Values and Ethics
• Values and Ethics Network
• Values and Ethics Office

Footnotes

Return to footnote reference1. Throughout this Code, the term "employees" or "public servants" include all those noted above.
Return to footnote reference2. The TBS Departmental Code of Conduct is a shared responsibility; everyone is treated as a colleague, regardless of their employment status, level and position.
Return to footnote reference3. Deputy ministers, Governor in Council appointees and assistant deputy ministers and their equivalents are subject to the Lobbying Act. In the case of any conflict between this policy and the Act, the Act takes precedence.
Return to footnote reference4. Throughout this Code, the terms "supervisors" or "managers" are for all those occupying positions that have a supervisory mandate.

Date modified:

2013-08-07

About this site

• Terms and conditions
• Transparency

Contact us

• Frequently Asked Questions
• General and Technical Enquiries

About us

• The Minister
• About the Treasury Board
• About the Secretariat
• Our Organization
• Reports and Publications
• Recruitment Initiatives

News

• News Releases
• Statements
• Speeches
• Media Advisories
• Photo Gallery

Stay connected

• Twitter
• RSS Feeds
• YouTube

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/code/dcc-ccm-eng.asp

---