It is an interesting question. If you'll pardon me, I'll respond in English.
I've struggled with the fact that my title says “Conflict of Interest and Ethics” since I came into the job. I think I'm gradually getting used to the issue, and I'm dealing with it in the way that I think is appropriate.
I talk about the fact that I'm primarily dealing with conflict of interest and that ethics is in my title but doesn't occur in the act. The reason why I refer to that from time to time is to try to make people understand what my true responsibility is under that act. But I've concluded that since ethics is sitting there in the title, why not make some observations when I feel like it.
Basically, in my last few investigation reports, you will see that I find whether there's a contravention and then when appropriate I go on to make observations about whether I think some of the activities were appropriate or whether there are some additional changes that could be made, either through informal rules or changes to the act. That's the way I'm now coping with this term “ethics” in the title of my job.
The other observation is that I don't think you can define ethics. An ethical scheme for one person is not the same as one for another person. It's a very loose concept, and I'm not sure that broad ethical considerations ought to be legislated.
I hope that goes some way to answer your question.