How CSIS's Own Survey Reveals Polygraph Tests Hit Indigenous and LGBTQ+ Employees Hardest

Government Files is The Canada Report’s public-records analysis series examining government documents obtained through Canada’s Access to Information (ATI) and provincial Freedom of Information (FOI) laws. These transparency laws allow members of the public to request internal government records from federal and provincial institutions. This article reviews documents released through those processes and summarizes what the records contain and what they show. While we strive for accuracy, this article represents an analysis and interpretation of the source material. For complete accuracy and full context, readers should review the original documents, which are available in full below.

Full Document

The complete document is available for download below:

Nearly half of Canadian Security Intelligence Service employees have questioned whether to continue their careers at Canada's spy agency because of the polygraph examination process, according to a classified internal review. For Indigenous employees, that figure rises to 69 per cent.

The documents, a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) report completed in May 2024, represent what CSIS describes as the first known intersectional analysis of polygraph examination practices at any intelligence organization. The findings paint a picture of a screening process that, while generally administered professionally, causes significant stress and disproportionately affects employees from marginalized communities.

What the Documents Reveal

The GBA+ analysis was conducted by CSIS's Strategic Business Integration and Culture branch at the request of Internal Security. Polygraph examinations are mandatory for Enhanced Top Secret clearance, which is required for CSIS employees every five years under Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat requirements.

The survey received responses from approximately one-third of CSIS employees, generating what the report describes as "hundreds of pages" of quantitative and qualitative data. The demographic breakdown of respondents included 50 per cent cisgender female, 44 per cent cisgender male, and smaller percentages identifying as other genders or preferring not to say.

The report examines the polygraph experience through an intersectional lens, looking at how factors such as gender identity, race, ethnicity, disability status, and sexual orientation affect employees' experiences with the examination.

Stress Emerges as the Dominant Theme

The most consistent finding across all demographic groups was the profound stress associated with the polygraph examination. When asked to provide three words describing their experience, 57 per cent of responses included stress-related terms such as "stressful," "anxiety," "nerve-wracking," "intrusive," "invasive," "intimidating," "intense," and "traumatic."

Overall, 63 per cent of respondents said that thoughts of taking the polygraph caused them distress before the day of the examination. For the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, this figure reached 74 per cent, with 38 per cent reporting stress significant enough to affect their sleep.

The qualitative data revealed specific sources of this distress. Approximately 42 per cent felt distress due to the obligation to discuss traumatic subjects during the examination. Another 34 per cent cited fear of not getting or keeping their job, while 27 per cent specifically mentioned fear of losing their job. About 11.5 per cent reported distress from having to speak about past events they wanted to forget, and 10 per cent mentioned feelings of shame.

The report cites the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency's concern that "this tool can have profound negative impacts on an employee's mental health if not used appropriately."

Disproportionate Impacts on Marginalized Groups

While the report found that most employees rated their polygraph examiners as respectful and professional, with 54 per cent giving the highest ratings for respect and 56 per cent for professionalism, the disaggregated data revealed significant disparities.

Indigenous respondents were among the hardest hit. When asked whether the polygraph examination made them question their career at the Service, 69 per cent of Indigenous employees answered yes, compared to 43 per cent overall. Indigenous respondents also reported the lowest levels of improvement in polygraph procedures since 2021, with all Indigenous employees who had a recent polygraph indicating "little to no improvement."

The 2SLGBTQIA+ community also reported elevated concerns. Some 44 per cent needed two or more polygraph examinations to achieve a favourable result, compared to the overall rate of 30 per cent. They also reported the highest levels of pre-examination stress at 74 per cent.

Persons with disabilities faced similar challenges, with 40 per cent needing multiple examinations, 68 per cent experiencing pre-exam distress, and 51 per cent questioning their careers. Respondents with disabilities indicated they believed anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorders, and mental health issues contributed to their difficulties with the examination.

Racialized employees and those who identified as Muslim generally reported experiences closer to the overall averages, though with some variations depending on the specific measure.

The Question of Validity

Beyond the stress and disparate impacts, the report reveals widespread scepticism about the polygraph's effectiveness. Only 23 per cent of respondents said they believe the polygraph examination is a valid tool to evaluate employees. Among Indigenous respondents, 62 per cent gave low validity ratings, and 42 per cent had very low belief in its necessity to evaluate current employees every five years.

The report notes that "a large amount of the qualitative data shows that respondents question its scientific validity and that this contributes to their frustration with the process."

When asked specifically whether they believe the polygraph is a necessary tool for potential employees, only 38 per cent said yes, while 29 per cent said no and 32 per cent were unsure. For evaluating current employees every five years, just 14 per cent agreed it was necessary, while 59 per cent disagreed.

Discrimination Concerns

The analysis examined perceptions of discrimination from two angles: the examination itself versus the polygraph examiner. A notable pattern emerged: 17 per cent felt the polygraph examination discriminates against them, but only 8 per cent felt bias or discrimination from the polygraph examiner personally.

This distinction suggests employees view the problem as systemic rather than interpersonal. Many respondents indicated their concerns related to what they described as a "one-size-fits-all approach" that fails to recognize their unique identities and circumstances.

Groups reporting higher feelings of discrimination from the examination included other-gendered employees at 44 per cent, persons with a disability at 33 per cent, and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community at 32 per cent.

Accommodations Rarely Known or Used

One area identified for improvement was awareness of available accommodations. Only 14 per cent of respondents knew they could request either a male or female examiner for their polygraph. The report found that while accommodations are permitted, "they are rarely offered proactively and there is little awareness that an employee can request one."

Available accommodations include the sex or gender of the examiner, the option to sit or stand, lighting adjustments, time limits per session, physical indication of yes or no, and auditory versus visual perception questions.

CSIS Response and Implementation

The documents include a detailed action plan showing CSIS's response to each of the report's 20 recommendations. According to the response matrix dated May 2025, CSIS accepted many recommendations and indicated that some practices were already in place or had been implemented.

For the polygraph examination process, CSIS now allows subjects to choose their preferred language, examiner gender, and time of day for testing. An invitation to identify accommodation requirements has been added to booking requests. The agency also notes that polygraph examiners can meet with employees prior to examination to address questions and concerns.

However, CSIS indicated it cannot implement recommendations requiring the collection and tracking of disaggregated data across intersectional identity factors. The response states that collection, use, and disclosure of personal information is "guided and limited by laws and directives, including the Privacy Act and the DSS" and that current systems "are not designed to collect or track disaggregated intersectional factors."

The agency also noted that wait times for retesting had improved following an efficiency exercise that restructured teams in early 2024, though it acknowledged that "resource constraints, operational priorities and regulatory requirements" can sometimes cause delays.

Context and Limitations

The report acknowledges several limitations. Employees working abroad during the survey period could not participate. A technical error during the first two days affected the branching of questions related to race, sexual orientation, citizenship, disability, and spirituality, though this did not affect the overall usefulness of the data.

The security screening interview and questionnaire that precede the polygraph examination were outside the scope of this analysis, though the report notes that "many of the pain points identified by the respondents originate in and/or only occur prior to the polygraph itself."

The report also emphasizes that GBA+ is not intended to examine the efficacy or validity of the polygraph examination itself, but rather to consider its impacts through an intersectional lens.

What the Documents Don't Show

Several elements remain unclear from the released records. Exact numbers of survey respondents and specific demographic breakdowns are redacted in many places. The detailed qualitative responses that generated "hundreds of pages" of data are not included, nor are the specific results for certain smaller demographic groups where identification might be possible.

The documents also do not address whether CSIS has considered alternative security screening methods or how Canada's approach compares to those of allied intelligence services, beyond a general statement that the polygraph provides a "comparative advantage" in mitigating insider threats.

Implications for Intelligence Community Workforce

The findings raise broader questions about security screening practices and workforce retention in Canada's intelligence community. With 43 per cent of employees overall questioning their careers due to the polygraph, and rates approaching 70 per cent among Indigenous employees, the examination process appears to pose challenges for efforts to build a diverse workforce.

The report explicitly connects to CSIS's "People First" strategy and notes that Internal Security's request for the analysis was "part of their continuing efforts to improve employee experience with the polygraph examination while remaining diligent in their role and responsibilities in the security screening process."

Whether the implemented changes will address the systemic concerns identified by employees from marginalized communities remains to be seen. The report recommends periodic reassessment through an intersectional lens, suggesting this GBA+ analysis represents an ongoing process rather than a final evaluation.

All information referenced is from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, request number 117-2025-17, obtained through Access to Information requests. The records contain a Gender-Based Analysis Plus report examining CSIS polygraph screening practices, dated May 2024, along with an associated recommendations action plan.