Personnel Security Violations
Under the Chief Security Officer, the Security Operations Unit:
- conducts investigations to establish and evaluate the facts surrounding security incidents or allegations relating to security policy compliance, misconduct, suspected criminal activity, or workplace violence.
- acts on and reports to the appropriate law enforcement authority or lead security agency.
- conducts reviews for cause of individual’s eligibility to hold a security status or clearance which may call into question employee’s reliability and/or loyalty to Canada and revokes the security status or clearance previously granted.
Security investigations relate to security of information (improper transmittal and transportation or unauthorized access of classified material), national security (questionable conduct related to loyalty to Canada), misconduct (mischief) insider threats (unauthorized information dissemination, espionage), reliability status reviews, and other matters which would not fall under the purview of any of the other departmental units that manage investigations, such as IT security, Labour Relations, the Values and Ethics Office for issues related to Wrongdoing or the Harassment and the Violence Prevention Program.
A review of an employee’s reliability status or security clearance is conducted based on information or behaviour that may call into question an employee’s reliability and/or loyalty to Canada.
During fiscal year 2024-25, two security investigations were conducted, and the findings are described below:
- An employee shared protected information belonging to the Department and a client department pertaining to an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requestor on social media. A fact-finding was completed, a security note was added to the employee’s file, and the employee is required to attend two yearly security briefings.
- An employee sent protected B material, including those of Canadian citizens, to their personal email account and to their union representative. The employee also contacted an ATIP requestor after being explicitly told not to do so and continuously undermined management’s direction and authority. This led to an investigation that resulted in a suspension without pay.
- Date modified: