The Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces (DND AND CAF) ethics strategy

References

A. Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Forces (CF) Code of Values and Ethics (including the Statement of Defence Ethics)

B. Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

C. Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada (2009 ed.)

D. DAOD 7023-0, Defence Ethics

E. DAOD 7023-1, Defence Ethics Programme

F. DAOD 7021 series, Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment

G. Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) Terms of Reference

H. Defence Enterprise Risk Management Guidelines (2018)

I. Defence Enterprise Risk Management Policy (2018)

Background

Context

1. Canadian society and the Government of Canada justifiably expect the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to set high standards for ethical behaviour and decision-making. Important breaches of ethical behaviour damage the morale and the public image of DND, CAF and the Government of Canada. Fulfilling these expectations and addressing potential ethical risks requires individual and organizational accountability, appropriate training and ongoing attention to ethics considerations.

2. The Defence Ethics Programme (DEP) is a values-based program that considers the unique circumstances and requirements of DND and CAF, and fosters the internalization of ethical principles through positive culture change. The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics at reference A expresses ethical principles, values, and related expected behaviours. These are consistent with those in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector at reference B and the Canadian Military Ethos contained in Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada at reference C.

Aim

3. The aim of this Ethics Strategy is to establish the strategic priorities for the next one year to fully realize DEP’s broader mission as mandated by the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 7023 and 7021 series, as detailed at references D to F. This Strategy will serve as a guideline for the DEP and affiliated personnel to effectively achieve their duties and activities.

4. This Ethics Strategy is separated into six Lines of Effort (LoE) with objectives that are synchronized with the DEP Logic Model as detailed at Annex E, a schematic representation of program objectives and how the Programme intends to achieve them:

Overview of Structure and Strategic Goals

Line of Effort	Objectives
Education and Awareness	Provide education and training to increase understanding of ethical foundations and their application to ethical issues in DND and CAF Enhance the effectiveness and customization of DEP ethics education Inform the key stakeholders about ethics, DEP, and its significance Enhanced awareness of conflict of interest and postemployment policies, orders and directives
Organizational Ethics Assessment	Promote sound ethical risk assessments and offer guidance on culture risks and wrongdoing risks Prioritize continuous assessments of DND and CAF’s ethical strengths and weaknesses
Policy Development	Elevate Defence Ethics as an integral foundation in DND/CAF
Ethics and Conflict of Interest (COI) Advice	Provide specific ethical guidance and assistance to DND and CAF personnel and offices Provide advice on all conflict of interest and post-employment matters upon request from L1 organizations and personnel
Ethics and Conflict of Interest (COI) Advice	Provide specific ethical guidance and assistance to DND and CAF personnel and offices Provide advice on all conflict of interest and post-employment
Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement	Promote active communication and partnerships between DEP Revitalize the Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) as an ethics dialogue forum
Outreach	Increase DEP’s presence in DND and CAF, particularly with group beyond the National Capital Region (NCR). Sustain the DEP as an innovative and leading voice for Defence Ethics Ethics Champion outreach Improve DEP’s online presence and engagement

The objectives are purposely broad to allow individual organizations to formulate plans and programming that fulfill this Strategy’s aim, considering respective needs and constraints.

LoE 1: Education and awareness

Provide education and training to increase understanding of ethical foundations and their application to ethical issues in DND and CAF

5. Ethics education is at the core of DEP’s mission, and it is within an open-learning environment where ethical values, issues, and actions can be discussed among civilian and military staff. Ultimately, the DEP aims to disseminate more than just the codes of ethical conduct, but also to institutionalize the importance of ethical foundations in decision-making. As the primary educational body for Defence Ethics within DND and CAF, DEP must guide and help administer high-quality ethics training to as many DND and CAF personnel as possible. While the (ADM(RS)), through DEP, functions as the centralized body for Defence Ethics and (COI) expertise, training conducted by L1s and below must reflect similar quality and messaging, adapting to their organization’s specific needs but not compromising DEP’s overall mission, "to provide the focus, framework and processes to guide, assess and improve ethical practices in the workplace and during operations" as described in reference D.

Enhance the effectiveness and customization of DEP ethics education

6. The main educational challenge is determining and implementing effective training practices that reach the entire Defence Team given each organization’s particular circumstances. Striking this balance requires regular assessments of the effectiveness and relevance of training methods. Ethics training must continuously adapt to reflect the changing values and face of Canadian society, particularly as DND and CAF seek to recruit a more diverse demographic. The significance of ethical behaviour and the First Principle to "Respect the Dignity of All Persons" is the foundation of organizational goals of diversity, inclusiveness, gender based analysis, etc. as well as, most broadly, military training, socialization, interpretation of rank differences, and a host of other aspects of military culture.

Inform the key stakeholders about Ethics, the DEP, and its significance

7. As the expert body on Defence Ethics matters, DEP requires a range of outreach and educational tools that appeal to various interests, backgrounds and understandings of Defence Ethics. Work remains to be done to ensure that relevant DND and CAF stakeholders, from the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and the Deputy Minister (DM) to the Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) and CAF training institutions, understand the role of DEP and endorse its exercise. This is an asymmetrical task between the military and civilian client organizations, given the wide culture difference between the two, the distinctive nature of military ethics in comparison to Public Service ethics, and the unique and complex military structures in place relating to professionalism, tradition, discipline, etc., that lack civilian parallel. Access to information is crucial to educating stakeholders and promoting transparent governance. DEP should improve the accessibility of ethics documents, including those pertaining to conflict of interest, making them easy to understand and underscoring their importance.

Awareness and Education of COI Matters

8. As the centre of expertise for conflict of interest, DEP provides outreach and education, including during on-boarding of new personnel, yearly messaging as to personnel obligations to report, liaison with outside agencies and information on matters related to the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act.

LoE 2: Organizational ethical assessment

Promote consistent ethical risk assessments and offer guidance on culture and wrongdoing risks

9. Continuous ethical risk assessments are essential for evaluating the progression of the DEP’s mission and positive culture change. By identifying key cultural and wrongdoing risks in relation to our Principles and Values, and their balanced exercise, DND/CAF can mitigate unintended consequences that would compromise the ethical integrity and reputation of the institution. As outlined in Annex B, (L1)s are responsible for conducting regular ethical risk assessments of their respective organizations, while DEP is responsible for integrating L1 information and the use of DND/CAF-wide tools such as the Defence Ethics Survey (DES). These methodologies and outcomes must be described in L1 annual reports, which will be inputted by DEP in its departmental wide ethical risk assessments. The L1 ethical risk assessments must include an assessment of conflict of interest and post-employment risks based on the lines of business of the L1 organization.

Prioritize continuous assessments of DND/CAF’s ethical strengths and weaknesses

10. Despite the breadth of ethical issues and the difficulty of assessing actual actions and attitudes in their totality across the organization, DEP must sustain global assessments of DND/CAF practices, using both quantitative measures such as DES and diverse sources of evidence and analysis from both L1 ethics reporting and other relevant sources. DEP must continue to refine DES while taking full advantage of its stability over time to allow for identification of time trends. It must also draw upon other research tools and initiatives, and seek relevant evidence from a variety of sources, such as trends in inquiries/requests for assistance, qualitative feedback provided through consultation exercises (including those led by other offices of related interest) and so forth. Furthermore, DEP requires a strategy to perform periodic program evaluation, both via continuous collection of program output data and through nuanced research on program impacts.

LoE 3: Policy development

Elevate Defence Ethics as an integral foundation in DND/CAF policy and operations

11. Ethical principles espoused by DND and CAF form the theoretical foundation of Canadian defence and military policies. For CAF members, ethical behaviour incorporates the obligation to adhere to the law and obey orders issued by lawful authorities, expressed as the Third Principle of the DND/CAF Code, Respect and Obey Lawful Authority, as cited in the Queen’s Regulations and Orders 19.015.

12. In practice, ethical considerations are too often deprioritized, being revisited with more care when major ethical failures are publicized. Given the unique circumstances under which the Defence Team operates, it is vital for all personnel in the Defence Team to sustain the effort to apply ethical judgment and reflection while also seeking to respect lawful authority. The Defence Team operates in unique circumstances in which there is tension between ethical respect for the dignity of all persons and the legitimate use of force with which CAF is entrusted. Thus, the highest standards of ethical judgment and conduct must inform decisions and practical operations.

13. L1s are responsible for submitting the Joint L1 Ethics Report and Plan at Annex D, which will launch in reporting upon activities done in the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year. The document will outline L1 organizations’ three-year vision, outreach, resource and personnel allocation, ethical risk management, and Activity-Based Output, as detailed at Annexes B and C, for the past and current fiscal years. The document is intended to streamline reporting and planning, ensure that national-level DEP requirements are incorporated, and hold leaders accountable for instituting positive culture change. L1 coordinators are responsible for submitting a Report and Plan, which DEP will use to provide feedback and assistance that maximizes programme effectiveness and improvement.

14. L1 Coordinators are strongly encouraged to establish an (L2) Ethics Coordinator Network to assist with implementation of DEP. A supportive ethics structure within L1 organizations allows for greater dissemination of programming and discussion among the entire Defence Team.

LoE 4: Ethics and COI advice

Provide specific ethical guidance and assistance to DND and CAF personnel and offices

15. DEP is responsible for providing guidance and assistance to civilian and military personnel regarding the interpretation and application of the ethics principles, the values and expected behaviours in the Code and the DAODs, which are in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment. The Programme acts in an advisory role to promote uniform interpretation, understanding and application of the ethics principles espoused by the organization.

16. ADM(RS) is designated by the DM and the CDS as the sole administrator of DAOD 7021 series within DND and CAF, which includes policies and measures on COI, outside activities including Political Activities, Post-Employment, Solicitation and Acceptance of Gifts, Hospitality and Other Benefits described at reference G. The publication of an updated DAOD 7021 series is presently in a primary consultation with the L1 Ethics Working Group. Additionally, COI will develop an on-line course that will be offered for supervisors, managers and commanding officers. ADM(RS) has also been designated by the DM as the point of contact for matters concerning the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act within the DND and CAF and acts as a conduit in these matters for policy purposes and for publicising these matters for personnel subject to these laws.

17. When giving interpretive guidance regarding Defence Ethics and/or COI matters, DEP should be clear, precise, and transparent in its communications to avoid confusion.

LoE 5: Collaboration and stakeholder engagement

Promote active communication and partnership between DEP and offices/initiatives of related interest

18. DEP’s success requires strong coordination and initiative from the Programme and L1 organizations. DEP relies on L1 outreach capabilities and L1s require DEP for cross-organizational coordination, uniform interpretations of the Codes and institutional direction. This relationship requires effective lines of communication and strong partnerships to maximize collaboration, outreach and efficiencies. Regarding COI and Post-Employment policies, directives and orders, such inquiries should be directly addressed to DEP. However, for general ethical issues and DEP implementation, communication between DEP and L1s should be reciprocal, constant and constructive.

19. DEP participates in several collaborative initiatives. The aim of maximum collaboration within limited resource capacity is to promote development of DND/CAF culture in a way that is fully congruent with the Principles and Values of the Code and the spirit of Defence Ethics more broadly, while ensuring DEP’s own adequate understanding of related initiatives led by other offices. Current collaborations include:

1. Operation HONOUR. This operation impacts all elements of DND and CAF. DEP will continue to be the key focal point of ethic advice and contact with the CAF Strategic Response Team – Sexual Misconduct (CSRT-SM). DEP previously served as a partner with the fact-finding phase of Operation HONOUR when it participated in a national consultation with the training stakeholder community of CAF on attitudes and resources related to workplace respect. DEP expects to continue to leverage personnel consultations and other exploratory exercises that touch closely upon organizational culture, norms and risks;
2. Research. DEP has agreed to work with ADM(S&T) beginning in 2018-19 on the development and, potentially, the implementation of an education and awareness strategy with respect to scientific integrity at DND/CAF. This is in response to the anticipated implementation of a new Scientific Integrity Policy for DND/CAF that responds to the expectations of stakeholders for a spirit of openness in government science public sector-wide. This strategy will address issues such as communications, integration of science advice and trust in due process in decision making at the science/policy interface. DEP’s role will be, at a minimum, to provide guidance on effectiveness in learning strategies based on DEP’s own experience of ethics education. DEP will also support the aim of congruence between existing conflict of interest risk management practices in Defence and conflict of interest risks with respect to research;
3. Total Health and Wellness Strategy (THWS). The governance lead on THWS is the Vice Chief of Defence Staff with co-leadership between CMP and ADM(HR-Civ). During 2017-18, DEP joined the Chaplains as part of the Working Group developing objectives and indicators for Ethical and Spiritual wellbeing within the Total Health and Wellness Strategic Framework recently launched. DEP continues to guest teach at the Chaplains’ invitation on various ethical topics as part of their required annual Intermediate Ethics course;
4. Speaker Engagements. One more mode of education and awareness raising is the presentation of ethics related topics through guest speaker events for DND/CAF audiences. Following the success of the June 2017 and February 2018 DEP anniversary Speaker Series events, DEP has continued its efforts to further the dialogue on ethical issues beyond the NCR in aiming to co-host speaker events with bases across the country. Recent regional events included a collaboration with the Royal Canadian Air Force at CFB/17 Wing Winnipeg on October 17, 2018, and with the Canadian Army at CFB Valcartier on February 20, 2019. The large military L1s (RCAF, CA, RCN, CMP) who reach across the country are requested to support and develop additional speaker series opportunities on a semi-annual or more frequent period; and
5. Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada. The CDS issued a Directive 31 May 2018 "To renew Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada" at reference C. The Directive acknowledges that there have been important developments and new challenges in CAF since the last update in 2009, and indicates the need to ensure that a review of Duty with Honour responds to recent needs and developments, including changes in DEP. As part of a Working Group tasked with the review DEP will work with CDA to complete a new edition of the document by November 2020.)

Involvement in collaborative projects will continue to ensure that these initiatives and others contain a strong ethical component in line with our values and principles.

Revitalize EAB as an ethics dialogue forum

20. EAB is chaired by the ADM(RS) and is comprised of L1 EAB members. Currently, it functions to communicate DEP status and issues as well as to identify the need for specialized ethics tools, documents and standards. However, as a joint forum for ADM(RS), DEP and L1 organizations, EAB should use its platform to more deeply deliberate on major ethical issues that can or have arisen. DEP’s improvement and future direction requires members to grapple with these concerns and their impact on culture change.

21. EAB must convene at least once a year or at the call of the chairperson. However, it is strongly recommended that EAB meet bi- or tri-annually to maintain consistent communication. While ADM(RS) informally serves as the main agenda setter for EAB meetings, other members are strongly encouraged to contribute topics for discussion, in accordance with the broad intent of EAB in the EAB Terms of Reference at reference G (under review).

LoE 6: Outreach

22. Outreach has been added as a sixth LoE. Even though it is not a distinct service line in DEP’s Logic Model, being implicated in various logic model activities such as education, advice and stakeholder engagement and collaboration, an overarching but focused communication and outreach strategy is vital to the successful implementation of the other service lines.

Increase DEP’s presence in DND and CAF, particularly with remote groups

23. DEP must direct more outreach and initiatives to groups that the Programme has previously struggled to reach, such as CAF members outside of the NCR. Events such as the FY 2018-2019 DEP Speaker Series, which aims to host speaking engagements in other regions of Canada, demonstrate progress, but more must be done to foster equal ethical awareness and engagement among widely distributed personnel. Additionally, DEP seeks means to support the L1 coordinators by offering approaches that can resonate well with lower-rank CAF members, particularly Junior Non-Commissioned Members (NCMs). Due to DEP’s decentralized nature and CAF’s hierarchical structure, ethics training is currently conducted from the top down, passing through several rank levels. DEP, in conjunction with L1 organizations, will launch initiatives to better communicate with lower ranks and build strong partnerships with their superiors to inspire interest and active engagement. Some of these activities will include establishing a social media presence, developing innovative ways to present engaging scenarios and designing a new line of DEP promotional and marketing products that appeal to a wider audience range.

Transform DEP to be an innovative and leading voice for Defence Ethics

24. DEP should continuously engage with current news and trends to illustrate the importance of Defence Ethics and how to address situations of ethical risk in everyday operations. This involves close monitoring of external media outlets and a dynamic communications team that can quickly respond and create new content for a wider audience. Achieving this objective will spark greater success in the other areas of focus.

25. DEP will also work to increase its outreach materials to suit a variety of functions and audiences. Existing or tentative initiatives include but are not limited to:

1. Events: Speaker Series, ethics briefs, L1 Ethics Coordinator Certification Course, etc.;
2. Informational products: brochures, posters, military ethics playing cards, etc.;
3. social media presence to reach various target groups, including the internal DND/CAF audience, ethics partners and stakeholders and the global ethics community, among others; and
4. Updating DEP’s online tools and resources, including GCDOCS, SharePoint and internet/intranet pages, to better suit the needs of Ethics Coordinators

Creation of Ethics Champion

26. In addition to his role as the Functional Authority (FA) for Values and Ethics, the ADM(RS) has now been endorsed as the first Defence Team Values and Ethics Champion. An outreach programme has been developed to support and assist the Champion in promotion of the DND/CAF Code as well as the Defence Ethics Programme. In the future, a CAF co-champion may be established in recognition of the distinctive organizations within the Defence Team.

27. Examples of upcoming planned activities include participation in departmentally led events including Women’s Day and Black History Month and also internationally recognized awareness days such as World Ethics Day and Zero Discrimination Day. The Champion will use a variety of communications products including tweets, messages and speaking engagements, among others.

Improve DEP’s online presence and engagement

28. Given the current nature of information access, DEP should better integrate online platforms and tools into its communications strategy to reach the Defence Team in a timely manner. Existing or tentative electronic platforms used by DEP include: the official DEP website, The Maple Leaf, the Introduction to Defence Ethics online course, SharePoint, a possible Twitter account, GCDOCS, etc. These resources should be regularly updated and advertised to gain attention and link DEP with the rest of DND/CAF.

Conclusion

29. The successful ethical performance of DND/CAF and the realization of this Ethics Strategy depends on the commitment and active participation of all levels of management, and, ultimately, of all the Defence Team. All personnel are charged with a personal responsibility to promote and uphold high standards of ethical behaviour and decision-making in their public roles. The support and active participation of every person, including senior leadership, L1 EAB members and Ethics Coordinators, are essential.

30. Questions regarding the DND and CAF Ethics Strategy may be directed to the Director, Defence Ethics Programme in ADM(RS) at 613-901-5423.

Annexes

• Annex A—Overview of Roles and Responsibilities
• Annex B—Ethical Risk Assessment Guidelines
• Annex C—Activity-Based Output: Guidelines and Matrix
• Annex D—Joint L1 Ethics Report and Plan: Guidelines and Template
• Annex E—DEP Logic Model

Annex A—Overview of roles and responsibilities

Objectives of the Defence Ethics Programme

1. The DEP provides a foundation to assist DND employees and CAF members in fostering the practice of ethics in the workplace and in operations so that they consistently perform their duties to the highest ethical standards. Consequently, DEP will:

1. Establish and maintain a program framework that articulates a clear set of goals, defines the desired ethics culture and provides a program management structure;
2. Define, establish and maintain, within the program framework, an effective DEP role that is relevant to the cultures of DND and CAF;
3. Provide a context and a tailored framework for the ongoing administration and application of policies on conflict of interest; post-employment; gifts, hospitality and other benefits; and sponsorships and donations; and
4. Establish and maintain mechanisms to help DND employees and CAF members raise, discuss, and resolve ethical issues.

Commitment

2. All DND and CAF personnel, particularly Level 1 Principals (Assistant Deputy Ministers and Military Commanders), have a responsibility to demonstrate their commitment to and promote the values, ethics, and expected behaviours in the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics (Ref A), in their organizations. The following statements express key messages that must be communicated by leaders at all levels to DND and CAF members at least once annually:

1. “We do not condone unethical behaviour in any form”;
2. “We strongly encourage the legitimate moral voice of every DND employee and CAF member”; and
3. “We fully expect and support a reprisal-free work environment.”

With respect to 2 (c), this ethical expectation is applicable to all civilian employees of DND as well as for all members of CAF, for whom it is also a legal requirement to be upheld in accordance with Queen’s Regulations and Orders 19.15(2).

Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services)

3. Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services), or ADM(RS), has been designated by the DM and the CDS as the FA for the Defence Ethics Programme. The FA serves to develop, implement and administer DEP. L1 Principals (ADMs and Commanders) are accountable to implement suitable activities in line with DEP’s requirements in their organizations. Each does so in part by delegation of one EAB member to represents the Principal. ADM(RS) will maintain a centre of expertise in ethics and conflict of interest. ADM(RS) will provide guidance and advice on ethics to EAB members and assist them with the resolution of ethical issues. In addition, ADM(RS) will provide guidance and assistance to L1 members in the implementation of the DEP within L1 organizations, which includes providing development expertise and support in ethics training and ethics awareness.

4. ADM(RS) is also responsible for reviewing L1 Ethics Reports and Plans to ensure that the national-level DEP requirements have been incorporated, and that appropriate performance indicators have been established. Each year, ADM(RS) will request from each L1 Advisor a performance report on the various ethics activities, briefings, leadership messages, and training that have been carried out by their organization. ADM(RS) will use the completed L1 Reports and Plans as a basis for an annual report to the DM and the CDS on the state of DEP within DND and CAF. These documents will also be used to support of other reporting activities, such as the Government’s Management Accountability Framework, as applicable.

ADM(RS) is designated by the DM and the CDS as responsible to issue orders and directives on their behalf for the administration of Conflict Of Interest and Post-Employment policies within DND and CAF. Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 7021 series include policies and measures on conflict of interest, outside activities including political activities, post-employment, solicitation and acceptance of gifts, hospitality and other benefits.

Level 1 EAB Members

5. L1 Principals and their delegates have extensive responsibilities within DND and CAF, and are correspondingly accountable. They have an obligation to inspire the practice of values and ethics in their area of responsibility—with particular emphasis on references A, B and C—and should start by demonstrating their personal commitment to values and ethics. L1 Principals must foster a climate of transparency, trust, and respect throughout their organization, striving to create a positive environment for all that stimulates open dialogue on ethics and ethical issues. They must set the example for ethical conduct within their organization.

6. L1 Principals must ensure that ethics awareness activities are held at least once per calendar year, as a minimum, with all DND employees and CAF members under their responsibility. Such activities must include discussion.

7. L1 Principals must ensure that DEP is implemented fully within their areas of responsibility. They must annually complete an L1 Ethics Report and Plan that establishes and monitors DEP elements. This document must also contain a three-year vision for DEP implementation in the L1 organization, which must be reviewed and updated every three years, corresponding with the three-year cycle of the Government’s Management Accountability Framework.

8. L1 Principals are responsible for appointing an EAB member within their respective organizations. This delegate is often supported by a junior representative who participates in working groups of EAB as an "ethics coordinator", or the coordinator and the EAB member may be one and the same person in small organizations.

9. The Principal’s delegate(s) should be of an appropriate senior rank, or civilian equivalent, to carry out their specific responsibilities.

10. All leaders within an L1 organization must strive to set clear expectations concerning the practice of ethics, evaluate and reward personnel relative to ethical expectations, and remain sensitive to their personnel’s needs and responsibilities concerning ethics. The goal of each leader must be to integrate sound values, ethics awareness and ethical decision-making into their day-to-day activities. Using established human resource processes for managing and developing personnel, managers and leaders at all levels must enforce ethical requirements and provide ethical feedback to their subordinates to further DEP goals.

11. L1s must apply ethical risk management practices that include identifying potential risk circumstances and unethical behaviours in a timely fashion, and taking appropriate mitigating and corrective action, as described in Annex B.

12. L1s must incorporate the implementation of DEP in their respective business plans. Dedicated time and resources for ethics awareness, direction, and training must be specifically allocated to their respective L1 ethics programmes to ensure that ethics is an important part of the decision-making processes within DND and CAF.

13. The incorporation of the requirements of DEP in L1 organizations will be measured annually in a Report on the State of the Defence Ethics Programme to DM and CDS. The performance indicators stated in Annex C of this Plan articulate these requirements.

14. L1 EAB members represent the L1 principals.

Level 1 Ethics Coordinators

15. Appointed Ethics Coordinators are responsible for providing their L1s with sound advice and counsel regarding ethics matters, and the direction and implementation of DEP within their organization. The L1 Ethics Coordinator should be of an appropriate senior rank or civilian equivalent, and have direct and regular access to their respective L1 Advisor.

16. L1 Ethics Coordinators or delegates must complete the most relevant training available to assist in fulfilling their responsibilities effectively. They should consult the Director, Defence Ethics Programme (DDEP) to identify and undertake training soon after assuming the role.

17. L1 Ethics Coordinators will provide advice to personnel within their organization on ethical issues. When necessary, L1 Ethics Coordinators will contact DEP to obtain guidance on the advice to be provided to personnel within their organization. As the L1 representative, he or she will also be responsible for monitoring and reporting to ADM(RS), through DEP, the status of the L1 implementation of DEP. DEP will use the L1 reports as a basis for an annual report to the DM and the CDS on the state of DEP within DND and CAF. ADM(RS) will also use these reports for an annual report to Treasury Board as part of the core of the Government’s Management Accountability Framework assessment.

18. The L1 reports will contain two parts:

1. The mandatory standing reporting requirements contained in Annex C; and
2. Additional mandatory requirements of the Management Accountability Framework of the Treasury Board, as applicable.

19. L1 Ethics Coordinators are encouraged to establish an Ethics Coordinator Network to assist with implementing DEP. They must also ensure their L1 Ethics Report and Plan is referenced and funded annually through their L1 business plan, including adequate time and resources for training, orientation and activities related to ethics.

Supervisors

20. All supervisors will communicate their ethical expectations in accordance with the Principles, Values, and Expected Behaviours of the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, and ensure discussion of ethical risks by and with their DND and CAF personnel. They must foster an open environment for discussion of ethical issues and present opportunities for personnel to raise concerns and questions on ethical issues.

21. Supervisors must take prompt action when ethical problems or issues are raised to them, respecting confidentiality and ensuring an environment free from any form of reprisal.

22. Supervisors must reinforce the importance of ethics and ethics development by making use of the observed ethical qualities on Military Performance Evaluation Reviews or Civilian Performance Management Agreements, as applicable.

DND Employees and CAF Members

23. All DND employees and CAF members are responsible for becoming familiar with DEP’s requirements, while observing their own L1 organization’s specific ethics guidance, and ensuring that their conduct reflects the highest ethical standards in accordance with The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics.

24. All DND employees and CAF members will conduct themselves in a manner that will fully respect the ethical principles and obligations articulated at reference A. DND employees will also ensure that they comply with references A and B as a condition of employment in the public service. CAF members will also review and uphold their obligations indicated at reference A and C.

25. DND employees and CAF members are responsible for bringing ethical concerns to the attention of their supervisors, their L1 Ethics Coordinator, or if higher action is required, the Directorate – DEP staff or the senior officer responsible for Internal Disclosure.

Defence Ethics Advisory Board

26. EAB will be chaired by ADM(RS), and its members comprised of representatives from each L1 organization. EAB will communicate programme status and issues, discuss major and relevant ethical issues, and identify the need for specialized ethics tools, documents, and standards. EAB will also periodically review and provide input on DEP policy and guidance. EAB should meet bi-annually or at the call of the chairperson, but it is recommended for EAB to meet more often if possible.

Annex B—Ethical risk assessment guidelines

Overview

Ethical lapses or weaknesses are inevitable, and the distinctive types of risks or challenges to doing business in the most ethical fashion possible will vary from one organization (and one team or individual) to another. Organizations accordingly should not necessarily all carry out program activities in the same way, since needs and concerns can differ widely, as can available resources. Identification, assessment and management of ethical risks distinctive to an L1 organization (as for risks in general) should serve as both a means to better understand program needs and priorities for that specific organization and as a way of providing input to wider organizational strategy.

For these reasons, the annual reporting requirements include a component seeking information that has been developed via a more deliberative process (rather than simple intuition or assumptions alone) on ethical risk management related activities. Such risk management activities could include ways of running the programme but also more broadly implicate organizational practices or strategy.

Running programme activities in general is intended as a broad-brush ethical risk reduction activity of sorts, but the more considered the risk survey and analysis, the more effective and useful chosen risk response efforts (decisions about practices that will mitigate the risks) have the potential to be.

To this end, the expectation is that each organization will, from time to time, examine in some breadth and depth the range of known ethical risks more relevant to it, and second, based on this examination, judge to what extent current practices that attempt to limit those risks are the wisest (most resource-effective) overall.

The following guidelines describe key concepts, logical sequence of steps, and suggested rationale and methods for the different steps when attempting a deliberative process to identify, assess, and manage ethical risks. The terminology and methods described here are consistent with those outlined in DND’s newly established Defence Enterprise Risk Management Guidelines and Defence Enterprise Risk Management Policy, as detailed in references H and I respectively. However, this Annex is a substantially simplified version for greater ease of adoption.

Definitions

1. Ethical Risk is the chance that a team or organization’s values and standards, as expressed in the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, will not be properly achieved. This includes everything from regulation violations to widespread practices that hurt the respect for the dignity of all persons.

2. Risk Drivers are factors or circumstances which can increase or decrease the likelihood of unintended outcomes. Some drivers will increase some risks at the same time they decrease other risks, since risks are often interdependent. Drivers are sometimes called trends, parameters, or other similar terms.

3. It is useful to think in terms of two types of significant Ethical Risks:

1. Culture Risks – the hidden risks. Risks may relate to the behavior of a single individual (e.g. "acts of "wrongdoing") or to a large number of individuals (even most members of the organization). Widespread practices that represent a risk factor are sometimes overlooked in discussions of risk because prevalent practices become seen as "normal" and not problematic, even though they are at odds with the organization’s ethical aspirations, which are then seen as "unrealistic". Such risks are sometimes called culture risks. For example, pervasive careerism, in which pleasing one’s superiors for personal advancement is given precedence over doing the right thing when the two conflict, is a cultural ethical risk.
2. Violation of Standards or Wrongdoing – the obvious risks. The other kind of ethical risk is a risk of violation of standards, directives, orders or policies, including on conflict of interest and post-employment, or wrongdoing. For example, stealing CAF money or resources for personal use. These risks are often easier to observe in the breach, assuming the violation was not deliberately hidden. Such events are also exceptional rather than pervasive, which helps draw attention to them. For these reasons, wrongdoing risks are usually the first kind of ethical risks that come to mind.

Best practices for assessing risk

4. Aim for a holistic approach when examining how to handle risk to avoid unintended consequences. For example, just because we can reduce the risk of financial fraud from happening by rigorously controlling spending does not mean that there will not be other adverse results, such as hampering the ability to get work done in a timely fashion. The need for a holistic approach is why "risk profiles" are framed as a comprehensive set of all important risks, which allows us to assess interdependencies when judging the wisest approach, given different degrees of importance, mutual influences among some risks, and limited resources to deal with them.

5. It is important not to reduce risk assessment to wrongdoing risks only, as culture risks can have a greater ethical significance in terms of outcomes. In spite of how common such risks are, in a sense they are more hidden from view since it is easy to overlook or dismiss them.

6. We also assume that the realization of any risk is bad. However, risks and benefits are often interdependent, just as the results of trying to reduce a risk can be both good and bad. When organizations make a major error that has a high impact, it can sometimes lead to major reforms which strengthen the organization. Risk and opportunity are closely related.

7. People do informal isolated "risk assessments" all the time, (e.g. deciding whether or not to take a cumbersome umbrella when there is a chance of heavy rain). If you ask people to quickly identify risks, they often think of the most common ones first. Because these risks are obvious, it is likely that others are already trying to control them. A risk assessment exercise is likely to be more valuable if you can think less about the well-known risks, and focus more attention on ways of managing the less obvious ones, such as but not limited to:

1. Events that could but have not yet happened, but would have a major impact;
2. Culture risks; and
3. Risks for which there is a general lack of good awareness.

8. Before embarking upon the Risk Assessment process, it is useful to create a broad inventory of typical types of risks. You should reference a simple but lengthy template list of possible risks in order to facilitate the ‘kick off’ of the Ethical Risk Assessment exercise. This could include broad categories such as risks in operations, risks in peacetime, etc. It is important that you not prematurely assume you already know all the important risks nor their relative importance nor best way of being handled; the purpose of the exercise is to better illuminate these things.

(Recommended for team or working group-based ethical risk assessments.) 

Step 1: Determine Risk Assessment Methodology

9. Use one of the following activities to facilitate risk identification, assessment and management:

1. Guided Group Discussion. A group of people work together to accomplish all the steps of the risk assessment process, with one person who is chosen to lead. This group could be made up of all the staff in a particular team, or a group could be created just for the purpose of the exercise. When creating a team you may want to bring in representatives from different teams of your organization or staff who focus on particular aspects of the work. Ensure that the Risk Assessment exercise (concepts, processes and intent) is clearly explained at the outset and along the way if necessary. You may use a facilitator (not necessarily a group leader but has good facilitation skills and method understanding) to set ground rules, ensure respectful conversation, and confront uncertainty and differences.
2. One-on-one Interactive Interviews. Someone who understands the process well will ask the right questions of selected individuals, such as representatives of different aspects of the work. The interviewee does not need to know the whole process, only to provide their best answers to the questions, which are then amalgamated to inform the risk assessment;
3. Questionnaires. In this process, there is no live interaction, thus many people can participate with little time investment. The results, however, may be less reliable because participants do not necessarily reflect or explain their thoughts in as much detail as they would through discussion. Questionnaires also pose privacy risks if people express sensitive opinions, so more planning is needed to manage these risks properly; and
4. Combination. A data gathering process could also use some combination of the above. Time availability is an important consideration. Because DEP favours interactive discussion over one-way communication for ethics learning and awareness activities, we recommend a process that more or less includes elements of ‘A Guided Group Discussion’. Furthermore, Public Opinion Research requirements currently established by Treasury Board and Defence potentially imply complex approval processes before new risk questionnaires or surveys can be used. Discussion based consultations (in which conclusions arise through dialogue between or among participants) are again preferable, unless one is accessing previously approved and implemented surveys and questionnaires containing relevant data.

Determining the scope of your exercise calls for judgment. More thorough consultations involving most team members in an immediate group, or involving a wide variety of specialists from different areas, can potentially provide better data than participants who are not a very representative sample of the larger organization, hence with key perspectives missing. However, time is often a scarce resource, and it is important to use a participant group that will be able to see through what has been started. Practice is important and these risk exercises should be considered iterative rather than exhaustive.

Step 2: Identify Risk Drivers and Possible Risk Outcomes

10. Identify existing and future possible ethical risk drivers that would threaten realization in practice of the values and standards as described in the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics. Using one of the risk assessment activities above identify:

1. Common risk drivers and outcomes (based on every day experiences); and
2. Possible risk outcomes of events that have not yet happened, including even those which seem unlikely as they could have a huge negative impact if they did.

11. The should be a list of risk outcomes and related drivers that makes sense to most, when there is some reflection on it. Aim for at least 4-5 risks overall, both wrongdoing and culture risks, and ensure that you have acknowledged interdependencies among risks.

Step 3: Prioritize Risk Outcomes by Probability and Impact

12. Try to estimate the relative magnitude or severity (overall importance) of each ethical risk identified, then rank their relative importance to plot the final estimated magnitudes of the risks relative to each other (see Figure 1). This will involve guesswork and can be controversial. Aim for consensus but average residual disagreements. Use the conventional formula that magnitude (severity) equals probability multiplied by ethical impact. Apply this formula to each risk separately. Using the matrix:

1. Discuss the impact that the risk would have, should it be realised, from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
2. Discuss the probability that the risk would occur, and rate it from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).

Ethical risk management matrix

13. The Matrix will allow you to assign the severity of each risk, according to their probability and impact combined, as either low (green), medium (yellow), or high (red) severity. This is how the relative importance of the various risks is identified, and makes it possible to see what the biggest concerns may be.

14. Best Practices:

1. Don’t ask participants "what is the most serious issue?" The reflection on likelihood and impact must be conducted to have a clear and objective judgement on importance. Sometimes people are unaware of important risks in everyday work.
2. Embrace the controversy in the event of a live discussion, since personal values will influence participants’ perception of the importance of a risk. This is not an exact science, especially when rating probability and impact on the organization’s ethical aims.

Step 4: Determine Effective Mitigation Strategies for Risks

15. Determine some mitigation strategies intended to either eliminate or reduce the risks. Be realistic. Some ethical drivers are not in fact capable of being eliminated or even of being further reduced. For example, a Minister’s Office is likely to be a high pressure workplace environment simply given the fast-paced nature of the work demands and assuming this pressure is an ethical risk, there is a limit to the degree the risk driver (pace of the workplace) can be reduced. Nevertheless, some feasible measures may not have been applied up to now which would help.

16. Determine the appropriateness of existing and possible mitigation strategies. Evaluate the feasibility of different methods to risk reduction approaches than what is currently used. Since risks are often interdependent, you need to take into account all the potential influences upon other risks of mitigation measures for one risk. Ask yourself, is another unintentional risk created or increased by the mitigation strategies that you have identified? Where current risk control strategies exist, consider:

1. Whether different ways to control these risks exist; and
2. Whether different methods would succeed in lowering risks overall without the unintended consequences being as bad as or worse than the intended benefits of a change.

17. If the view is still that changing the existing mitigation approach seems the best thing to do on balance, be sure to note your rationale for this recommendation. (e.g. Why we can handle it better given resource limitations and competing needs, without making things worse overall in the process.)

18. Best Practices:

1. Take the time needed, do not rush – a good process requires this!
2. The higher the risk outcome magnitude (Impact and Probability), the more attention it deserves and the greater the likelihood there are existing risk mitigation approaches in place.

Step 5: Review

19. During 1^st Year. It is important that you continually monitor (keep an eye on) your organization until the next Risk Assessment activity. This will decrease the risk of your organization being negatively surprised by new risks or mitigation strategies which are less than successful.

20. At the End of 1^st Year. Typically where a comprehensive Risk Assessment approach was taken, only a more cursory review of the Risk Assessment results, with special attention to any known changes within your organization, is necessary after the first year. You will want to keep track of organizational changes, and how these may affect your original risks, or perhaps how they create new ones. In addition, you will want to monitor the risk mitigation strategies – their successes and failures. These findings should be reported up the Chain of Command (CoC).

21. At the End of 2^nd Year. You will continue to monitor your organization, as above, and at the end of the second year you will make minor amendments to the original Risk Assessment document, based on the organizational elements (risks and mitigation strategies) that you think have evolved. These amendments should be clearly captured as additions to the original Risk Assessment document. Should there be mitigation strategies which have proven unsuccessful, you should address this with your CoC.

22. At end of 3^rd or 4^th Year. You will need to fully redo the process from zero, in the 3rd or 4th year, unless otherwise mandated.

Ethical Risk Assessment

Complete an ethical risk assessment exercise, and summarise your steps and findings in each using the template below. Use as much space on the right hand side as needed, according to each heading on the left. (Fictitious Sample of Individual Team Exercise on the right)

Annex C—Activity-based output matrix

Introduction

1. A key element of DEP is the central use of dialogue as a means of teaching the principles and values of the Code. All L1s are encouraged to use their creativity in learning methods to maximize the desired end-state of a healthy ethical climate that is free from reprisal. However, DEP recommends that training activities chosen should involve, where possible, the use of dialogue and member engagement (transformational leadership) and not simply transactional messaging. The following Matrix is provided to assist ethics program representatives at all levels, including Unit Ethics Coordinators (UECs), in selecting and tracking of suitable Activity-Based Outputs (ABOs). These ABOs that can be codified as per the available descriptors and used to recognize L1 efforts and commitment to DEP via the reporting protocols below. There are ethics related training activities that apply to both corporate and an operational cultures, although some ABO may be better suited to one over the other.

2. The ABO descriptors provided reflect the general categories of DEP-relevant activities, which serve to identify both the level of leadership engagement and the nature of the target audience. The ABO Codes provide the UECs with a common medium through which they can enumerate and assess their ethics-learning-related unit efforts and report the associated level of unit activity. While the introduction of an online reporting platform is a work in progress, the following ABO codes and descriptors provide a common understanding of L1 intent with respect to metrics and analytics of the L1 Ethics Plan.

3. Ethics-related learning opportunities are reflected in everyday DND and CAF operational decision making and ethical risk assessments at the individual, small group and strategic planning levels. These activities constitute positive culture-shaping opportunities and are reflected in the ABO Matrix. A large number of activity types has been included to acknowledge that discussions of importance to ethics learning and awareness come in a variety of forms, and may reflect activities driven by other circumstances rather than having been undertaken specifically with DEP in mind. This range of activities has been broadly grouped under five headings:

1. Senior Leadership – Director/Commander Driven Activities. Activities may include predominantly one way messaging, but preferably includes a degree of open discussion through question/challenge and leader response, or a clear invitation at some point from the leader for other team members to carry the discussion while the leader observes;
2. Facilitator/Instructor Driven Activity. Ethics-related activities (including a substantive discussion component) that are not led or facilitated by a director/commander. The facilitator may be an ethics coordinator, a team supervisor or manager, trained facilitator, professional educator or a volunteer team member;
3. Remote/Online/Multimedia Activity. Include, or consist solely of, a digitally mediated form of communication such as tele/videoconferencing, online courseware, etc. This does not include sessions led remotely by supervisors and managers, which should be classified in Category A instead. These activities, like all other categories, should include a degree of interaction wherever feasible;
4. Professional Development/Professional Military Education/Operational Training Driven. Ethics-related modules or items within larger training/educational vehicles such as orientation sessions, ethics courses, other courses, (including trades training) and seminars. Sessions are typically led by a course instructor or trainer; and
5. Operational/Corporate Functional Discussions. Group discussions of risk assessment or management (i.e. including ethical risk), as well as strategic planning/environmental scanning type sessions that also include discussions of various challenges to mission objectives.

Annex D—Joint L1 ethics report and plan: Guidelines and template

1. The annual reporting template is linked in the following Excel spreadsheet icon. Please write your vision or long-term strategy for ethics and implementing DEP within your organization for the next three-years. Specific activities and funding are not required (unless you already have specifics in mind), but you should touch upon the direction that you see ethics heading within your organization and the major improvements you would like to make.

2. Ideally, your vision should be in line with the stated objectives in DEP's One-Year Ethics Strategy for FY 2019-2020. However, you are not required to write more than two or three paragraphs.

3. The spreadsheet, GCDOCS (Accessible only on the National Defence network.) linked below, should be submitted annually, no later than the first Wednesday in June.

Annex D_ Ethics Plan_Joint L1 Ethics Report and Plan - Guidelines and Template.xlsx (Annex D_Ethics Plan_Joint L1 Ethics Report and Plan - Guidelines and Template.xlsx) (Accessible only on the National Defence network.)