Allegations against CSIS’s role in cancellation/denial of site access clearance

Background 

The Complainant filed a complaint against CSIS requesting an investigation of CSIS’s role or involvement in the cancellation and/or denial of site access screening requests for employment with a private company at a government building. 

Allegation 

The Complainant alleged CSIS improperly used information collected and made an improper inference of a security threat which led to the denial of a site access clearance. 

Investigation 

NSIRA considered the evidence given by summoned witnesses, the documentation submitted by the parties as well as other relevant material made available during the course of the investigation of the complaint, including classified documents disclosed to NSIRA by CSIS. NSIRA also heard evidence provided by the Complainant. 

Sections 13 and 15 of the CSIS Act give CSIS the authority to provide security assessments to departments of the Government of Canada and to conduct investigations as required. CSIS receives applications from government departments for persons seeking a security clearance or site access clearance and their role is defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act. CSIS presented evidence on the steps that are followed in CSIS’s process, the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Standard on Security Screening, and the fact that the client department decides whether to grant a clearance. As such, CSIS only provides background information and an assessment from a national security perspective so that government departments have the information it needs to make an informed decision. 

NSIRA also heard evidence from CSIS with respect to some information shared with the client department that requested the site access clearance and how it pertained to both reliability and loyalty. CSIS acknowledged that some information shared with the client department took place in an informal setting and that it should not have occurred in such way. It was noted that after open source information was shared, the client department cancelled its request and CSIS closed its file. 

The Complainant expressed a belief that CSIS was responsible for denying his application for a site access clearance. 

NSIRA acknowledged the Complainant’s perception that CSIS denied his request for a site access clearance, but the evidence demonstrated that CSIS did not make the decision. The decision was made by the government department and CSIS had no further involvement in the matter. 

Findings 

NSIRA found that: 

• CSIS did not improperly use the open source information that was shared; 

• CSIS acknowledges that the sharing of information would not have been approved by management; and 

• CSIS did not deny the Complainant’s request for a site access clearance, but rather it was the government department that made the decision to cancel the request. 

Conclusion 

NSIRA determined that the complaint is unsupported.