Public Safety Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Dandurand, but we must now move on to Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will never be the Minister of Public Safety, but given what we are seeing, if I were the minister, I would require that a dashboard and performance indicators be implemented for all reviews of secret and top secret clearances. This would prevent cases like Mr. Delisle's, but more importantly, it would create a paper trail to ensure that departments take this seriously—which does not seem to be the case for some of them. You are the ones taking the heat today, but when it comes to defence, we could name plenty of other cases. It's crazy, really.

I have little to no knowledge of national security, but the case we are examining today strikes me as the direct result of gross incompetence and a lack of rigour on the part of many people across many departments. I don't understand why this person—who used fake names, applied twice to the Canada Border Services Agency and had Facebook accounts under two different names—managed to obtain a security clearance to work at NATO.

I know you can't say anything about your investigation, but I'll tell you frankly that this is a demonstration of the weakness of your processes and the way they operate. If I were the Minister of Public Safety, I would be very unhappy to see that the group that is supposed to protect us is showing such a high degree of laxity.

I can't let you go without telling you that I'm very disappointed by the job cuts at La Macaza and Donnacona penitentiaries. This issue is weighing heavily on my mind. I have visited those two penitentiaries and, like you, I noted that there is a significant need for investment in the infrastructure and systems of federal penitentiaries in Quebec. The job cuts at La Macaza and Donnacona are so significant that correctional officers are staging sit-down strikes.

Honestly, I don't understand why you're cutting positions that aren't vacant—positions held by correctional officers—and why you're reducing the number of yard patrols at La Macaza. I don't understand that. I don't know why you agreed to that.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you. I've had the chance to visit a number of institutions over the summer.

The safety of our frontline officers is critical, as is the safety of those who are incarcerated. The comprehensive expenditure review that we undertook was quite surgical. We wanted to ensure that any impacts on the front line were minimized. I believe we have found the right balance, but of course we will continue to review.

If there are any specific concerns, I'm always willing to have that conversation, as is the commissioner of corrections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Kirkland, you have five minutes.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

My questions are for the minister.

Minister, 70 days ago you said you would get to the bottom of this. On August 17, we brought a motion to this committee to study this. You've had some time to take a look and to get to the bottom of this. We understand that Belgium has an investigation. I believe we need an investigation into our processes. I believe you're calling that an internal review. Then you've often said, “if we find major gaps.” In my opinion, clearly we have major gaps because this has happened. We have had a major security breach. It's not a matter of if.

You keep pointing to the department heads, but ultimately you're the public safety minister. You said in your opening that your “fundamental duty is to keep Canadians safe.” Without pointing to department heads, departments and what they're doing, what are you doing? What is your position? What's the point of the position of public safety minister if you're not going to get to the bottom of it and if you don't have the answers? Yes, Ms. Lloyd, Mr. Bilodeau and Mr. Hatfield may give us some specifics, and we'll get to that in the next hour. However, in this hour we have you, and so far you've said over and over again that you will get to the bottom of it, that you are trying to get to the bottom of it.

You've had some time. What are you doing to get to the bottom of it? I mean you, Minister. What are you doing?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, and I appreciate where this question is coming from. Let me just at the outset say that, as you indicated, the matter is being investigated by the Belgian police. That limits my ability to say things publicly—an attempt not to in any way jeopardize that investigation. That is pretty much standard protocol when there's an investigation taking place.

Having said that, there are a number of measures that are being undertaken by, first of all, Public Safety. Richard and his team and my deputy minister and her team are looking to see how we can improve our processes within our department.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Minister, with respect, we've heard that. Can you tell me something new?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Concurrently, with both the RCMP and CSIS, I have had conversations. They're, again, looking at processes. They have provided some specific recommendations. I am going through those recommendations, and I will be making a decision as appropriate.

However, what I don't want to do—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Minister, how long will it take for you to go through those recommendations?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Well, I don't want to pre-empt anything right now, Ms. Kirkland. I want to be able to collaborate with our officials and be able to give you a more comprehensive answer.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay, that's fair, except that in the meantime we have a process that's continuing as we speak, and folks may be getting access when they shouldn't be getting it because there are clear indicators that they shouldn't get it.

Minister, would you agree that a documented—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I can assure you, Ms. Kirkland—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I haven't asked the question yet.

Would you agree that a documented finding of fraud is relevant to assessing whether an individual can be trusted with sensitive government information?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

There are a number of factors that are taken into consideration by CSIS. Fraud or any type of criminal offence, I think, could preclude individuals from serving in government.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

If someone has committed fraud, it should be clear that they should not have access to sensitive government information. That is clear to every Canadian watching us today.

It has been reported that Ms. Zhang cleared both CSIS and RCMP background checks despite the 2023 finding that she had committed fraud. What screening checks can Canadian authorities actually conduct in connection with her NATO placement? Has your government—have you, Minister—established whether that finding was available to the officials responsible? Are you following the trail? How did this happen? We need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Ms. Kirkland, if I may, I'll just ask Ms. Lloyd to respond to that.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

No, I'm sorry. You're the minister. I understand that we have department heads, and I'll ask Ms. Lloyd questions in the next hour. However, I want to know what you know. People are trusting you for their public safety, for the national security of our country. What can you tell me?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

What I can tell you is that, by and large, our security apparatus does a comprehensive job with respect to security screening. It is across the board. I think there are over 200,000 screenings undertaken every year. That includes various departments with the support of both CSIS and the RCMP. By and large, it is an unimpeachable record. Of course, there are gaps there, and I recognize that there are gaps. That's what I think we need to improve on, and that is why we have officials here who can give you better responses with respect to that.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry to cut you off, Minister, but the time is over.

Let us, therefore, move to MP Housefather for five minutes, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here.

As my colleague Marianne said before, I think it's important for this committee to take its role seriously as to what this is about and where we can recommend improvements to the framework.

As such, Minister, I guess my first question is this. I've been, previously, parliamentary secretary of the Treasury Board. I understand Treasury Board's role in terms of overseeing government-wide policies, but it does seem slightly odd to me that the RCMP and CSIS could, theoretically, make recommendations to a department, and the deputy head in that department can overrule the recommendations of CSIS and the RCMP with regard to security clearance.

Do you believe, Minister, we should be looking at clarifying that so there is a process whereby, if a department deputy head is going to overrule a recommendation of either CSIS or the RCMP, they would have to justify that to somebody? They would have to go to the public safety minister and get a waiver the public safety minister has signed off on, for example, versus a civil servant doing that on their own.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

What I would say is the RCMP and CSIS offer the information that's available to them. It is ultimately the deputy, or delegated authority, who would make that decision.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand that is the case. What I'm asking you is whether we should we change that. Should it not be that, if the RCMP or CSIS is making a recommendation, a deputy head should not have the ability to overrule that recommendation without getting sign-off from the public safety minister or someone else who is not a civil servant but is, actually, accountable to the public? That's what I'm asking.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Right now there is no requirement for the public safety minister.... There's no actual role. What I will suggest is that if this is a recommendation this committee chooses to bring forward—and I look forward to the number of recommendations that will be coming from this study—for us to enhance and better our security screenings, we'll absolutely take it into consideration.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand the constraints you face and that you can't simply say “yes”, but I personally will be advocating for that as being one of the recommendations of the committee.

I, personally, would also note, as I haven't been in charge of Treasury Board since 2025, since the last election, that the changes that were made to the policies in 2025 have changed the evaluation to a more collective evaluation of information to deal with the DEI changes, which creates a greater amount of subjectivity now with respect to the evaluation.

I'll ask the representative for the Treasury Board.

Mr. Hatfield, do you agree that this creates, now, more subjectivity, when you're taking a holistic as opposed to a black and white approach to somebody's security clearance, based on information you're getting? Does it now leave more power in the hands of whoever is making that decision at the department level?