Comments on: New RCMP Commitment to Enforcement of Background Check Policies Squeezing Canadian Employers

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 16 May 2011 19:38:22 +0000

I'm more concerned with things like, "miscellaneous “occurrences.” What does this mean exactly? If someone doesn't like you and they report you for an illegal lane change? What sort of information would show up in a, "miscellaneous occurrence"?

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:30:51 +0000

I am all for protecting children but the RCMP is doing
is uncategorically wrong.

The only reason they are doing this is to protect the names of
pardoned sex offenders.

If your birthday matches the date of a pardoned sex offender you are
asked to submit fingerprints (at your expense).

What a completely irrational basis for providing fingerprints.

What happened to the presumption of innocence? You do not
treat law abiding citizens like criminals.

It is time for someone to challenge this RCMP policy in court.
It is my sincere belief it would be struck down immediately.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:18:12 +0000

Recently I have resigned from one position to take on another (I am a Registered Nurse). All that was outstanding was my criminal and vulnerable person records checks. My vulnerable persons check came back that my \information correlated\ with a person who was convicted and pardoned of a sexual offence. All they said is that it could be the same date of birth and initials (or even partials of each)that are the same. It's that simple apparently to get mixed up in this mess. They would give me no more information or explanation than this. My new job is now in limbo for obvious reasons and I have quit my old job. To get any new position would require the same checks. I am the primary wage earner and therefor am very concerened about (now) near future finances, mortgage etc. What would be my first steps to rectify this other than waiting for my package that is to be sent to my home and waiting the 2-6 monthe period that I was told it would take? Contact lawyer? MLA? Newspapers?

By: Dan Michaluk

Dan Michaluk — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:41:51 +0000

My apologies for not replying to the inquiries earlier, but frankly, there's not much to report. I published this post on January 27th. Just a week earlier, the "Criminal Record Information Policy Working Group" met in Ottawa. Shortly after, CPIC posted this document. The bottom line is that the Working Group issued proposals, the RCMP/CPIC committed to evaluating the proposals and the interim directive remains in effect. Like much about this issue, the document I've linked to is very difficult to understand. The Working Group seems to affirm the use of fingerprint verification for name based criminal record checks. It acknowledges that delays in conducting this type of verification are are causing "challenges," but does not propose any solutions to speed up the process. The Working Group does propose a third response option that will allow individuals to declare their criminal history which may then be confirmed without fingerprint verification. If adopted, this proposal won't help those without a criminal history who have tested positive based on a name and date of birth check. I hope this helps. It is not legal advice and is just my attempt at interpreting the attached. If anyone else knows more, please comment. Dan

By: becky

becky — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:56:15 +0000

I am a student a did a police reference check and i was ask for a fingerprint, i have done the fingerprint since 3 months ago and i am still waiting for the result. I have never committed any crime since i have been leaving in Canada. My school is starting september 7,2010 and i have still not receive my fingerprint result; i an going to loss a whole semster for no reason

By: Dan Michaluk

Dan Michaluk — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:15:48 +0000

Thank you for the comments Joanne and Vicky. I don't know the answer to your questions off the top of my head, but will do some research and do a follow-up post in the next couple of weeks. Dan.

By: Vicky Adamson

Vicky Adamson — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:58:20 +0000

Has there been any furth3r comment or permanent policy published by the working group mentioned in your article?

By: Joanne Russell-Haas

Joanne Russell-Haas — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:48:04 +0000

As of August 1st, 2010…has there been any further developments to make this situation more time efficient for employers?

By: Nick Fishman

Nick Fishman — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:40:28 +0000

This is the best, most informative article I have seen on this topic. I understand RCMP's desire to ensure accuracy, but think that this will encourage those performing criminal record searches to use other, less thorough sources at the local level.

By: s milton

s milton — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:49:53 +0000

What does it mean when a cpic check comes back positive and a jisnb check comes back unknown

By: Dan Michaluk

Dan Michaluk — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:10:01 +0000

Thanks for the comment Omar. As far as recourse to those affected goes, I view this as a policy rather than a rights issue, and I'm sure the RCMP would have a lot to say about the "necessity" of the delay. (It actually has a project to speed up the validation process, but the available details are sparse and rather vague.) A welcome dialogue that appears to have not not yet begun. Dan.

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:25:03 +0000

Interesting post, and I do have a number of people asking me about this and the related CSIS clearances.

What legal actions can an employer take if either agency unnecessarily prolong these checks?

Potential hires are often left hanging after already received an employment offer, sometimes having notified their workplace they are already leaving. Employers are stuck with having made an offer and the need for filling a position, but may have to wait months or even years (really) before having the position actually filled.

I currently know several individuals who are well beyond the 120 day period already, and are still waiting indefinitely.