EI

Li'i tlt

t
I
I
I
I

r
I
I
I
I

r
I
I
I
I

hotected
Registered Mail and E-mair to Susan.Mairer@psrrb+rtfp.gc.ca

Novembcr 15,2006

Susan J. Mailer

pi11to1, Registry Opcrations and policy

Public Service Labour Relations Board
P.O. Box 1525, Station..B"
Ottawq Ontario
KIP 5V2
Dear Ms. Mailer:

Reference No: I 66-20-34057

ln rcference to your letter dated Novcmber E, 2006, requesting

my position on Mr.
-rLrssy,s
Roussy's lettcrdated Novembcr 7,2h6,is as follows
rtar.
requcst for a closed
hearing is premature, for in rny retler to Mr. Roussy
aatea Norember l,
proviaea
na{ reccntly collufted a lawyer, who may
b, d;senting me for the next
lnat I
hearing darc. He would thcn also ncea a sccurii ctearance
to at least the Secrct levcl,
not Top secret. Given the time involved in obtaining.**ity
clcaranccs, i 1J
ur.
Rgussy q
provide an answer as to whcthrr rriv iop dtret
clcarancc will be
rcinstatcd or if they had made a decision on the Amicus
curie. As you know,
secret clearancc woufd have required a polygraph, *r,irr,
"
trr. nrnpty",
insistcd that it did not want to piovide me oni, in order
avoid it ui,ioi
cvidence to the Board

iofi,i

"lil

pllf

*"0

if

rip

h^;r*;rl
pr"*"il;

Given Mr. Roussy's-lryr ofNovember 76, tlre lawyer whom

I consulted, Mr. James
Duggan, would nccd a Top Socret clearancc to rcprscnt
me at a closed hcaring regarding
this matter. Givcn his credentials and expcriencc,'srctr as
ffiscnting membcrs of the
RCMP for morc than 20 years (wwwjdugganavocat.ca), there
shoulibe ,o piluL.
approving a Top Secrct sccurity clearance-for him.

i,

I have also concerns ov-l the process of information bcing collectcd,

for it was clear
the hearing that Mr. Roussy was directed that t wo-uH
fonvara him a list of
9q'g
information rcquirements, which i aia. n his.November
iiioo letter, he makcs onty
referpnce to spocific t:qyttt during the hearing. t
,rniili.a
in ;y friil-"pietters
that I wanrcd to consult the information on an ongoing
"tto basis, due to the yolumc,
and time
available at QR officqs.. This diligent scarch, ru rlti"o-uy
nt . nourry, would mcan that
this information could.have been provided within aaysaneiilr"
r,r"iing, wrrictrls stitt
not' I would then provjde by-hand, vcry specific inficrmation
requiremJnts that *ouia u.

at the Secret and Top Secret levels.

Page

I of

I
I

t
I
I

I
r
r
r
r

t
I

tEl

P,"otccted
Re g i ste

red Ma i I and E-ma i I ro Susan.Mailer@pslrb-crt$. gc.ca

I also still have other important concerns. One concern is that a prcrequisite for
employment with CSIS is a Top Secret security clearance, meaning if the Employer is
scrious about denying the reinststement of my Top Secret clearance, then re employmcnt
*'ith CSIS would not be possible, even if the PSLRB sides that my dismissalwis
wrongful and was actually camouflaged discipline for my voicing conccrn over criminal
activity that was condone by QR management.
These concrns over illegal tactics, was even provided by Mr. Roussy in his evidcnce,
he can no choice that it was so widely documented that he could only exclude primarl,
sourcs to date. The questions that necd to be answered by ttre Employer and possibly

for

the Security Intelligence Rcvicw committce (SIRC) arc: can the Employer prcvcnt
someone from obtaining a security clearance for no specific rcason ottrcr than wanting to
supprEss evidencc and prcscnting ttre casc? Should the Employer considercd any of x;1g
criminal allcgations to be untue without even investigating them, would this be cause to
deny a clearance? Sincc when someone in the history of Canadian sccurity clearance
program be considered only marginally reliablc/discrect and toyat to only have a Sccret
cleamnce rather then a Top Secrct clearance . Eitlrer you are reliable and loyal or you are
not.
The granting of sccurity clcarance levels is bascd on the necd to know principle, which
the Employer isclf conccdes that I would normally have access and a necd to know for
this case. These questions should help answcr how credible is the Employer's assertion
that I do not need or should not be givcn a Top Secrct clearance.

To recap this issue from a two-yar perspcctive, in Mr. Roussy's lcttcr dated Septcmber
26,2004 and during the prc-confcrcncc hcaring on september 30, 2004, Mr. Roussy
provided during this moeting that bottr hc and the Employer were invcstigating my
"allcgations" from thc agrecment of facts and that they would be in a position-to soon
advise the Board on its findings. During the pre-conference meeting on September 30,
2004, Mr. Roussy, on behalf ofthe Employer, provided security clcarance forms for Top
Secrct clearances for both mysclf and my lawyer at the time. These wcre scnt dircctly to
thc Employer the following day as rcquested.
In a follow-up letter in October 2004, Mr. Roussy stated that the Employer now bclieved
that it was no longer neoessary for neither my lawyer nor I, to have a security ctearance
for the hearing. Since October 2004, Mr. Roussy and the Employer rcfused on scveral
occasions to providc their findings of their internal invcstigation to cither the Board or
myselfi, cven to undermine my credibility. At the hcaring on Timeliness in Novernber
2005, Mr. Roussy argued that Section 20 ofthe CSIS Act sufficed in dealing with
criminal matters within CSIS, and that the Employer did not need to provide any internal
investigative reports to the PSLRB, as it deerned this to be irrelevant to my case . As well,

Page2of

l'\

tt

r
T

I
T

I
;

}.aal-i
.

-.+!f

ep*cneU Maj I an d E-ma i

I to

usan.

Mailer@pslrb*rtfp.gc.ca

thc non rcin'st8lement of

my security clearancc,
made it impossible to provide
B@d an1, zuch rcport,
me or the
teast be classified
as secret.

il;;;il;t

2006, Mr. Roussy again

HlXrItJ#,,i",t3- hearing o.{May;]:n
argued against rrre
;r *'-n-i air,r, ; ilffi;r
an rcrna r, ;HH[T;if
F
know
ffi lt:',:
in

,,I,,#yg#X,[iTl,,r

j,3,}ff

ffi

fry{ing

up ro

sec;t.

to Mr. Roussy, since Octo

rtm[,m[rumm-:m*:+rse-ffii#frilti'
treiss,eoirjr"rinrrr,whcrcrd"",Tfl'jff ,",ffis,fi
Hru;.m"n:

A finding on Mr, r"rrct;rJg*;;;;;

or thc merirs ofthe
.a that rre issue on substance
qr";rr;;;;t"aqy.a ii.ilffi,j,rthe
crassified inrormation
rhis was
i'Hiiii#f;available'
" "rr*noil

rirrir"iiilrt

ffi;;'
;',T,:!,:d:,*ll'*i,*d:niru*:Htffi:'dr;ffi*"
it ttvinito.pri.ti

as possible

doro,; merits

rirh;;;#;Xffil

during the Dre_confer.,_-.--*__ ,_

tr,ir-fril'L ru"r,

f **iX#*'';;i?,,i,'*#.,?ffrT.[[ffi,IH,,ff
#;[?:,*
,;l?;[[Ttrrcr,r"ri_ne"rffiri
*f;ff
,1[#,tr611?,n",,qv;piru;12',r'f;#,$L#,lHii#]ed,]e
transmission"il_fl

t
!
;

Quote:
2) A person nay dtscla

,trtr#,nr#ffit#iii**#i,#ffi ,,ittw;',
rn any

of pagrapts

tg@(a)i

Unquorc:

!
I

,H,:#H,X:,,.d#;ff;:tfftiqffil,,
,fi
rcports *,, aJH},,T
j,tr Slilt,ff
ffi:tLdfu:dlfllfix:_*
confercnce meeting in
Mav 20oi tJp.riai.r-r"r{;;;;1*rments

'= 1: -.T*rtantpoint,

During the May 200!

gre-confercnce hearing, I pointcd
out that despirc Mr. Roussy,s
vague and unsupportcd
conccrr
counter to csls anJ nationar
screening poricies ana p,,rti.-r,
securitv

u;;;

;il#ij"" ;i ilffr;irr'1,,"** mc to-pr6vide

informarion for the purposes
any
of duties-anJ n rri.*iriliiir'o.t
of parriamenL such as
Page 3

of

I
I

I
I
I
r
I
r
r
r

t
T

I
I

I
I

Fnoox.cd
R

eg:"srred Ma il and E-mai I to Susan.Mailer@pslrb-crtfp.gc.ca

ttE PSSRB urd the PSLRB Acts. The Chairperson asked

Mr. Roussy if this interpretation
o1'*ris Scction was correct, to which he answered
that he did not know. As requested by
6c chairpcrson &t
Mr. Roussy-promisedto proria" the Board rris rerlois. ana
$:tq.,
intcrpraation of tris
scction; howevcr, he trever didio tle test of my knowredge.

It is clear ttrat the CSIS Act overrides any arbirary and

unsupported decision by the
Employer that violatcs national sccurity iueening
ct."mr*'p"ricy. This self-serving
arbiuary decision blocks my Top Secret securitf
cbarance in order to prevent meproviding evidence and evidence that my dismissal
*rongnrt, ana uasea on
camouflaged discipline and motivated in good part
by ry ron..- over illegal activity
ft8t had been well documentcd orer scrcral yrirc. n-r not
a trre Employer has refuscd to
cither confirm or dcny this.

**

Given the considcrable and wclldocumented cxamples

of Bad Faith, I do not believe that
my position would be defended in a closcd_hearing withouGther
I and/or;, h*ry.,
Prcscnt' I am opcn to.a yure hearing at sIRg ofr""r, whci I would rrro ti pr"J.rnt
to
providc balance and disclosure on spccinc points.
r *ri."r tr,"t a1 information that I had
requested up to sccru should be made avaiiable
for this
need for the Top Secret material.

iioia..; tufth;;l;i$;"

The sccret lcvel documents that have becn rcquested

woutd show that therc werc at lcast
examplcs of concem over condonation of the usc of
cxtortion ana deattr ttucag in ordcr
to recruit soutues. It will also show ttrat trvg otMr. noursys
witnesscs, rua proriJ"a to
say the inaccuratc and crror-filled tcstimonies

that;;td;nt rival cSIS,s Atwal Affair

''
of the 1980s. The erors made were only ones that werr
oanrming for my .rr..'.-'
At a minium for the

ryoposcd hearing, I rcquest that all rop secrct materiar be

decl?:sified,-through the common pri"ti.r oreaiting
to tr,.'sor"t level, in ordcr that I
y:uld be able ro provide context for fire Amicus cririac. otherwise, tr,.

Mr' Roussy would cr8te a double-blindsinration, wherc tt

r
no context or point of rcferencc to prcscnt the evidence.

nri.u,

Brp[i., Lo

Curiae, would have

Given that thc conduct and discipline mcasurcs against

me and my dismissal involved my
oonoern over the undermining ofoperations, violitions
ofpoliciei and thc actual criminal
ncgligence, such as allowing two ianadian rpsidents
to *Ggrrcd assassination in
by a Foreign Intelligence service and associated csiCtarget,
it is also imporrant
that 0re security Inrclligencc Review committee bc
ailowed
these same

9*qtt

*r,

Page 4

of

t"l

r8t

+-fi.Aa^-i&,r+

r'.sf,:lmu

rd

ffir
Hd

t
T

as the

Employcr,s ongoing

whi:,fi;8ffi;ili

Di'66'ordlirIiiJra.,

ortr tte

ffis

uv

that he ,"i
nrppression of evidcnce, ;]lrg.,

'i,*,
;,"q*r.".

Top
brcnporcrtdtrtrit*"
upon-

;;ff;,

;:;;

il;S,

wnel
"rvrv Be,rallErs dr."

my compraints in rcgards to
and over the obstruction of

tt,

pssRA and the psLRA

Ae

t-M*
tt Q)tonson
r,"-yy,9r!!t!* utth ruspect to any rct orth*sdom
* w
@d tte ry*-:::yt^l!r
commirue
by
il'riii"i,
i,
*,tiiiti-rii,,;;;;;;," ilc comptainr il
"t
(d rt- wproimtt y: comflatm to
op otrccto, wttnjr**1, ) r*
ry
et orthtrs ottd rtn

Wtrf#y!;#N,;iiiii;;iJ'iiir'ffi ilfr'co,,tttnci,,rwilasonatre
tlc cannilae b saisfud tlut tlu conplalu

ts

OrlarruAzss avallable

(2) 7t* Review Commlfiee slnll nat taattt-t-

19E4, c. 2t, s.

hnial

rct

rrtvtar,

lrtvolotu, rwrus or

m&

tn

Mfarth.

f,!rffi{;y#f,ffi#if#i!:,

il.

of sccurltv cleararce

1T:ttr{ktr?ffi#ifmrwiffiffi":,r,r,:trtr;:tw;
ttdvldul lo&w

an

fuys

l&n

ri rqp-il* ctearance.

irvolvcmenr, by refcrring.to-scctions
4l urd 42 0f the csIS Act. As
sccrim 1r (a) rris iedei,
,o oar. Roussy is arso
6c

If cc

(b)

dlorEd b invstigative oris matter;

as well

lrcft$Rc's

r
r

trrrrltrry

I
I

I{.a:. and E -ma il ro Susan.Mailer@pslrb-crtft

.gc.ca

or

to an
fier tle d""lrlor'i.ot mde' a nofice itfonning trn hdtvldul,-iiiin
wuaiiifrE'iit,

Q/ Vlure,

Fonotion or ffan{er

by reason only of

tlc &ntat ola rccarl,

**

slnll nnd, vtthin un

of ttu sec:wrty cho@Ee.

yffiWflffi

i;,*i;.i;;e,"iii_"i,aa,a,;;;;i;;";1L,,!ffff
i,f,l*i?lfl
to pwt& gods or services
l,*
it" ci^iiuc.r"ai * i"priifii
corurnd srn, wd, vithin
"
hs rtu i
fi##il f,#":;:;
XHy;*
"at"#ii"'ffin"* ryttabte,,i, * ;;

W!;

Recetp and investtgarton of anplaius

Page 5

of

i%

I
I
I
I

I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

hc*d

Itd*ctld
A)

Mail and E-mail to Susan.Mai ler@pslrb-crtS.gc.ca

tb HGtt

Cntaitpe sMl

9 al ffil

nftrnd

rccelve

od

to ln wbsectton

lwesttgore a comphintlrom

(l)

wlrc has been &nled a secwlEt cleuarce:

-r,E
Girco

6r

the

Dirpctorwould normally be allowed up to 30 days to respond to these

oqlalnts for the rcqucsted evidence, the rpinstatement of my Top Secret'clearance and
& qroval for one for Mr. Duggan, Mr. Roussy's request for a closed hcaring on this

rdcr
uill

would bc prernature. Should my complaints be rejected by the Dircctor, then they

bc fuwardd to SIRC.

Ib

qpropiarc soursc of action would be best decided aftcr the Director's decision;
brra/cr rmtil thcn I rrquest fiat thc Employer be forthooming in at lcast providing all
rcgcsOa infornation up to thc Secret level. Furthennore, I rcquest that Mr- Duggan's

Eity

clcannce is expodited in the circumstances. This is my position on the mattcr.

liimcly,

IIn

Pelmer

(st1)72s-26t3
(5t1r421-70nExt.249

CC Mr. James Duggan

Page 6

of