Public Safety Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[Richard Bilodeau]

Just understanding what happened, we decided when we took a look at our processes that it would be appropriate for us to include Internet inquiries for secret clearances. That's a decision that our deputy head made as a delegated authority on security clearances.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I guess, then, it's safe that.... You're implying that change isn't made unless somebody identifies something that needs to change. It seems clear that there was a gap identified in this case.

I'll ask the RCMP this again. Was the information—specifically, the information about the court finding that Ms. Zhang had committed an act of fraud by using two different names and emails to do a Government of Canada test—passed along through this process?

[A/Commr Don Halina]

Thank you.

As mentioned before, I can't speak specifically to this case. What we do share is the information from a biometric fingerprint check, outstanding charges, conviction information, criminal fingerprints and biographic data. That's shared with the requesting agency.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Speaking more generally, not in relation to this case, if somebody were found to have committed said fraud when trying to obtain employment with the Government of Canada, would that information come to the attention of the RCMP as part of this process?

[A/Commr Josianne Phénix]

Let's say that through a law enforcement record check, if a department requires one, depending on the level of security status or clearance, it goes to the Canadian Police Information Centre verification—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

It seems to me that Ms. Zhang was probably not listed in CPIC because she wasn't found guilty of the criminal act of fraud. However, is unethical behaviour included in the RCMP's report that's provided?

Clearly, it's unethical to try to use multiple names in order to get a success on a test. Is unethical behaviour something that the RCMP looks for and provides for when doing security clearances?

[A/Commr Josianne Phénix]

In law enforcement record checks, besides your criminal conviction and charges, we're also going to be looking into association with criminality, with organized crime and with trends or high-risk behaviour with respect to police—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Yes, but let's say that somebody hasn't committed crime per se but has been found to have conducted unethical behaviour in their job or in order to obtain a job. Ms. Zhang, in this case, was found to have broken ethics rules. Is that information in those cases provided by the RCMP? How would the information in a case like that be flagged in a security clearance? Are you looking for that information?

[Richard Bilodeau]

I think the more information the hiring department has on somebody, the better the decision they can make in terms of their behaviour.

That's why we added an Internet records check. When you Google somebody and look at social media, that can give you valuable information.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Do you think that would have helped in this case, this change that you've implemented? Was it on the Internet? Was it on social media that she had done this unethical act?

[Richard Bilodeau]

I'm speaking in a general manner. I'm not going to speak about this particular case.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Okay. Let's just speak about a general case where somebody was found guilty of unethical conduct. Is that something you're really going to find on Facebook and Google? Why aren't the government departments talking to each other? Why aren't they sharing information?

[Richard Bilodeau]

The more information one has—that's why we've added the Internet records check—the better we can make decisions, because that can point to issues of judgment. It can point to associations and ideologies that might present a risk. That can inform the decision by the granting department. If the information is not available publicly, then obviously an Internet records check is not going to yield that, but it also—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Is there a problem with government departments not sharing pertinent information about their employees when they're seeking security clearances?

[Richard Bilodeau]

I think my colleague from the Treasury Board Secretariat explained some of the modernization that's happening.

I don't know, Adam, if you want to add anything to that.

[Adam Hatfield]

The directive on security screening is crystal clear that part of even the lowest level of security screening is the verification of the person's identity; the verification of five years of background information, including their employment history, address history and where they've been; and the verification of their education and their professional credentials. If somebody presents themselves as a person who played a role at an organization, that professional credential must be verified. Personal and professional reference checks must be done, plus the financial inquiry and plus a criminal records check. That is the minimum that a department is required to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry to interrupt. Thank you, Mr. Hatfield.

Ms. Sodhi, you have five minutes, please.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for you, Assistant Deputy Minister Bilodeau. For Canadians who are watching this meeting right now who might not be familiar with the security screening process, can you walk us through the different organizations that are involved?

[Richard Bilodeau]

I might ask my colleague Mr. Hatfield to answer that. Maybe my colleagues from the RCMP and CSIS can outline the supporting or enabling role they play in the process.

[Adam Hatfield]

Security screening is defined as being three levels—reliability, secret and top secret—with an enhanced variant at each of those levels, for a total of six categories. Depending on the level of screening, different organizations get involved. Every single Government of Canada employee, co-op student, contractor and partner is screened to at least reliability status. I just listed off the requirements for what reliability screening entails. The one check that is done within the Government of Canada is to the RCMP criminal record database. Higher levels of screening would involve the RCMP again for a law enforcement record check. My RCMP colleagues can explain the difference, but a LERC, as it is known, is a much more exhaustive check. At the level of secret or higher, CSIS is also engaged to provide a security risk assessment.

Beyond that, as checks get higher and higher, it is largely the department that's making the decision and that's aggregating information together.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Just as a follow-up, when federal employees or other individuals require a security clearance, what is the very first step that happens? Who ultimately makes the decision?

[Adam Hatfield]

Once security screening actually begins, it's not looking at the person. It begins by looking at the position and asking what level of screening is required for this position. It's then a question of gathering information about that person with their consent. As part of the security screening process, the individual is made fully aware of what information will be sought. Much of it comes from the individual. Some of it comes from other departments or external sources. The security screening official in the department who's hiring them then puts all of that information on the table and does a collective assessment, taking into account all the information available—its accuracy, its completeness and the particulars of the circumstances of that individual. They then make a call.

The individual is informed of that call. If it is a negative decision, then they are informed in writing as to why and exactly what their rights of recourse are. Post the granting of a clearance or a status, as security screening is not a one-and-done process, there's a continuous maintenance process to make sure that as the person goes through their career, regular recurring checks are done, depending on the level. That clearance is updated when necessary.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Once an individual has been granted a security clearance, what mechanisms are in place to identify changes in their circumstances that could affect their security status? What would trigger an updated security assessment or a review of an existing clearance?

[Adam Hatfield]

The directive on security screening defines a strict timeline for when certain checks need to be redone. It is more frequent at higher levels.

Managers, employees and all public servants are also required under the directive both to self-report any changes in their own personal circumstances and, to be quite frank, to report changes in circumstances that they see in other employees and incidents where an individual might be seeking to access information they don't have the right to access, or anything that might be security related, to their chief security officer so they can be considered.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

This next question is directed to our witnesses from the RCMP.

Are there any areas where greater information sharing among CSIS, the RCMP and departments could strengthen the security screening process? If so, what does that look like for you in practice?