Public Safety Committee on June 18th, 2008

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you for that clarification.

When you do that background check, are there any circumstances in which someone's spouse or significant partner or companion falls within the realm that there might be a security risk? Or is a spouse or partner or companion or significant other--whatever you want to call this person--outside the scope of the background check you do?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

The only one who's subject to the background check is the individual who is subject to the pre-appointment checks. So if it's a minister, it would be just the minister; it wouldn't be a wife, a husband, children, parents. No neighbourhood checks would be done. A full-blown security clearance would include spouses, children, neighbourhood, and so on.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

Can I add something? It may be helpful, and I think it goes to the spirit of your question.

In instances where, when Individual X is checked, a nexus--a criminal nexus or some sort of clear criminal association with someone else--comes up in the course of checking him or her, if that person happens to be a spouse or happens to be a brother-in-law or happens to be a lover or happens to be who knows what, then that is reflected in that person's background check.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

So someone's spouse, a husband or wife or significant other, is not outside the scope necessarily of the background check. In other words, if Mr. Bernier, for example, or any minister were married to or had a significant spouse who was a known criminal--just hypothetically--would that be flagged in the background report?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

The check is conducted on the individual only. If, in the process of conducting the check on that individual, an association comes up that is criminal in nature or that causes us concern, but it would come out as a result of the check on the individual, we would not do a separate check on their spouse. If it comes out as a result of the check on the individual, then it would become part of the checks that are conducted.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

Let's say I'm out in the park here and I'm injecting heroin; my wife is with me, and she's injecting heroin; and we get arrested by the police for injecting heroin in the park. That clear association would be reflected in that joint criminality, if I can use that example--a very poor one, perhaps.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It sounds as though the background check process is quite prescribed now. It doesn't seem to have a lot of flexibility.

I'm wondering also about the portfolio aspect. I mean, there are some portfolios within the government where national security risks could be more of an issue. So let's say you're looking at the Minister of National Defence, and the minister's spouse or significant other had known connections to the underworld or to terrorist groups; and when I say “known”, I mean they may not have been arrested but they were persons of interest that you were tracking. You didn't have enough evidence, let's say, but you were pretty sure they were terrorists or criminal people.

So the fact that it was a Minister of National Defence would have no bearing on that. If it were the Minister of Veterans Affairs, there'd be no differentiation made. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

There would be no differentiation made with respect to the pre-appointment background check. But the department for which the minister or the individual works would then be responsible for doing the security clearance check. That is very different from the pre-appointment check. The pre-appointment check is only on the individual. With the security clearance, depending on what that individual's role is within the department, they may have a different level of security clearance. Different levels of security clearance require different checks to be conducted.

So the security clearance checks are much more robust, if you will, than the pre-appointment background checks to the extent that they include checks on family members, spouses, children, brothers, sisters, neighbourhood checks, and so on. It's a much more complete background check. But that's the responsibility of the department itself.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Unfortunately, time is up.

Go ahead, Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Talking about the background checks and the policy, I've already indicated that my knowledge from what we've heard from witnesses is that the same process has been in place and that the checks done with Mr. Bernier would have been the same for all cabinet ministers appointed in 2006. Even if I use my good colleague across the floor, when Mr. Dosanjh was appointed to cabinet in the previous government, the same checks were done at that time and the same reports that would have been submitted to PCO were done at that time. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That would be correct.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Nothing has changed.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Nothing has changed, no.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It's fair to say--and I'm the first to tell you--that Mr. Dosanjh is an honourable man. I didn't want to cast any aspersions. My point is that there's nothing different today from what there was two years ago or ten years ago, as a matter of fact.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I think the only change that may have taken place since 2006, if I'm not mistaken--and I stand to be corrected, because these are the PCO's guidelines--is that prior to 2006, I believe that when a minister changed portfolios, he or she would be subject to another pre-appointment background check, whereas today it's every two years.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think Mrs. Bloodworth told us that in her evidence.

What we have been looking for is that the background check is on the individual who is being appointed and not a large body of people. In this case that large body of people, which some would like, includes friends. Some might be closer than others or whatever. But the difficulty is.... Again, it's almost that you can't answer the question; I understand that, but there are people who now think that we should have checked the backgrounds of people who would have become associated with a minister after they're appointed. Those are other than the two-year checks that are now done by PCO, but they don't involve others.

Is that what I am to understand? That's a long way around, but....

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I think I understand your question. If your question is whether it includes anybody other than the person subject to the pre-appointment check, the answer is no. That's the process that is currently in place.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It wouldn't matter whether it's a friend or a spouse. It would not initially, nor would it later.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That's correct. It's only the person subject to the appointment.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay. I think that's perfectly clear, and I would hope that anybody who is watching understands that's exactly what happened. It was done and it was appropriate. If somebody wants or thinks there should be something different, then they have to change the rules.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That's correct. Thank you.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Brown, you are next on the list.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was going to ask you what a candidate for the ministry would have to do for a red flag to go up, taking out of the equation anything about bankruptcy or questionable financial dealings or anything like that, but Mr. Paulson did answer that question. He used the example of injecting heroin in the park and being accosted by the police, who then would be witnesses to the fact.

Something you said also disturbed me, in that you said nothing has changed for ten years. You'll follow my point when I tell you what I am concerned about with the case before us or any similar case.

Less than ten years ago we had 9/11, and we're into this global problem that involves what some people call the war on terror. I don't call it that, but that's what some people call it. We happen to know that state information, particularly in the Middle East, is one of the most expensive commodities to be traded. Now, I think to myself that I define organized crime as a group of people who make their money, and make piles of money, by operating outside the law. They are essentially against the law. They make lots of money doing that. This whole thing about the exchange of secret information is a very lucrative business in the Middle East and other places in the world, and I don't think it would be something organized crime would refuse to participate in, if they had access to some of that state information. That's why I'm dismayed when you use shooting heroin in the park as the example of what a ministerial candidate would have to do. It would seem to me that since 9/11 you should be very carefully looking at people from the perspective of their ability to keep the state secrets that they swear to keep, and how they might be compromised.