Sunday, 15 September 2013

History Quiz Does Stevey Boy Harper or his liberal Mayor or his evil Zionist pal Ezzy Baby Levant recall who the Neo Nazi was that spoke and pissed off many Canadian veterans before the Liberals ordained the sneaky socialist Trudeau the Elder as PM in 1968?

From: Nick Moore <Nick.Moore@bellmedia.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:45:50 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: History Quiz Does Stevey Boy Harper or his
liberal Mayor or his evil Zionist pal Ezzy Baby Levant recall who the
Neo Nazi was that spoke and pissed off many Canadian veterans before
the Liberals ordained the sneaky socialist Trudeau th...
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Hello, I will be away from the CTV Fredericton newsroom until Monday
September 30.

If you have a general inquiry or news tip, please contact colleague
Andy Campbell at 506.459.1010 or by e-mail at
andy.campbell@bellmedia.ca

All other inquiries can be made directly to the CTV Atlantic News
Centre at 902.454.4000.

Thanks,
Nick



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 01:45:36 -0300
Subject: History Quiz Does Stevey Boy Harper or his liberal Mayor or
his evil Zionist pal Ezzy Baby Levant recall who the Neo Nazi was that
spoke and pissed off many Canadian veterans before the Liberals
ordained the sneaky socialist Trudeau the Elder as PM in 1968?
To: pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "justin.trudeau.a1"
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, dfildebrandt@taxpayer.com,
ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca, themayor <themayor@calgary.ca>,
"jason.kenney.c1" <jason.kenney.c1@parl.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson"
<John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, scoop <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>,
warren@daisygroup.ca, Lemphersn@pembina.org, "joe.oliver.c1"
<joe.oliver.c1@parl.gc.ca>, MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, leader
<leader@greenparty.ca>, "david.akin" <david.akin@sunmedia.ca>,
jmc@mcbd.ca, pol7163 <pol7163@calgarypolice.ca>, "Dale.McGowan"
<Dale.McGowan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bob.paulson"
<bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, mclellana <mclellana@bennettjones.com>
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, radical <radical@radicalpress.com>,
merv <merv@northwebpress.com>, "terry.seguin" <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>,
"steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "nick.moore"
<nick.moore@bellmedia.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre
<andre@jafaust.com>, "peter.dauphinee" <peter.dauphinee@gmail.com>,
"t.wilson" <t.wilson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, abromberg
<abromberg@bnaibrith.ca>, rmarceau <rmarceau@cija.ca>, "steven.blaney"
<steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca>, Mackap <Mackap@parl.gc.ca>

For those who don't like my attachments I made a couple of YouTubes
for you to enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nW7oNLo2f0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tseou9fKrkM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election,_1968

Ezzy Baby Levant had a lot of fun on Friday the 13th and Chucky Adler
was getting shitcanned by his pals. Ezzy Baby quoting his hero Harry
Potter because his old buddy did not say his name on a Talkshow as if
doing so would breach National Security made me laugh. Perhaps the
wacko debating partners should Google the words "Nobody Will Say My
Name"

http://ezralevant.com/2013/09/ezra-responds-to-nenshis-radio.html

http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/

Speaking of National Security Ya think that now Chucky Boy Strahl and
Debby Baby Grey oversee the SIRC they could now answer Preston
Manning's and Val Meredith's questions thet the evil old lawyer Ward
Elcock and Stevey Boy Harper never will EH Ezzy Baby Levant?

Harper and MacKay and all their lawyers know I have been telling the
truth about the RCMP and Yankee DHS etc for years and in return all I
get is constant police harrassment. Nobody dares to call mea liar and
put it writing except some perverts the RCMP are protecting who are
free to threaten to kill my kids etc on the Internet. CORRECT?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2619608/upper-canadians

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf


http://baconfat53.blogspot.ca/2013/09/are-our-freedoms-being-removed-from-us.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW76Mgj5wQA

http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/view.asp?id=627

OTTAWA.CBC.CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arar inquiry told Canada may deal with nations that use torture
Last Updated: Jun 22 2004 08:12 AM EDT

OTTAWA - The former director of Canada's intelligence agency admitted
Monday that Canada might have information-sharing relationships with
other agencies in countries that engage in torture.

Ward Elcock was testifying on the first day of a federal public
inquiry into the Maher Arar case.

Arar responded to Elcock's revelation by wondering, "As a human being,
how can you sleep when you know that this information might be used to
torture people?"

The inquiry is examining the involvement of Canadian officials in
Arar's arrest, detention and deportation to his birthplace of Syria by
U.S. officials in 2002.

Arar spent over 10 months in a Syrian prison, where he says he was
repeatedly tortured in order to make false confessions about suspected
al-Qaeda links. Arar was eventually released without charge and
returned to Canada last fall.

Elcock was in charge of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
(CSIS) when Arar was detained in the U.S.

While Elcock said that CSIS may share information with other
countries, he said the spy agency can't confirm absolutely that those
countries engage in torture.

Elcock said CSIS can't prove a country like Syria practices torture,
despite reports from the U.S. State Department and Amnesty
International saying it does.

To this, Arar's lawyer, responded by asking Elcock, "Is your position
then that I'm going to close my eyes to torture until I see that
person putting the electric cattle prods on the Individual? Is that
your position, sir?" asked Lorne Waldman.

"I didn't say that was my position at all," said Elcock.

The former head of CSIS refused to answer more specific questions
about Arar's case, citing national security concerns – a frustration
for Arar.

But those answers will be heard in camera by Justice Dennis O'Connor,
who will then rule on what can be made public.

Elcock continues his testimony Tuesday.

http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/view.asp?id=633

Harper could be called before Arar inquiry

CTV.ca News Staff

Updated: Wed. Jun. 23 2004 2:34 PM ET

Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper could be called as a witness
at the inquiry into the deportation of Maher Arar to Syria.

Harper revealed Tuesday evening that he had received a secret briefing
on Arar's case. He said he had heard mixed messages, "not just in the
House of Commons, but to us privately, by authorities in this country,
that had suggested that the deportation of Mr. Arar was appropriate."

In Ottawa Wednesday, the commission's counsel Paul Cavalluzzo said
Harper's comments about are cause for concern. He said Harper would be
asked to testify if he can shed light on the case.

"We are going to thoroughly inquire into what happened. If we feel
that Mr. Harper is going to help us in our mandate, he will be
called.''

Cavalluzzo added that other party leaders including Liberal Paul
Martin might be called before the inquiry as well.

Lorne Waldman, Arar's lawyer, said he wants to know who briefed Harper
and how he arrived at his opinions, because "this is very, very
serious.''

Arar, 34, was detained at the airport in New York City in September
2002 during a stopover on his way back to Canada from a family trip in
Tunisia. Less than two weeks later, he was deported to Syria, where he
says he was beaten, tortured and forced to give a false confession
about alleged links to al Qaeda.

He was released 10 months later without explanation and returned to
Canada last fall.

He told Canada AM Wednesday that the inquiry underway into his
deportation will be difficult but necessary for his emotional recovery
from the ordeal.

"I do have my own questions that I need answers for," he told Canada
AM on Wednesday before the third day of hearing was set to get
underway.

"It's very emotional, especially when the word 'Syria' is mentioned
and 'prison' is mentioned. It just reminds me of what happened to me.
But it's important for me to be there ... because getting answers is
healing."

The public inquiry into the Arar case continued Wednesday with Jack
Hooper, the deputy director of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service testifying.

On Tuesday, CSIS's former chief, Ward Elcock, testified. He told the
inquiry that he knew about the controversial American practice of
sending suspected terrorists for questioning in foreign countries.

He testified he was aware as early as March of 2002 of rumours that
U.S. officials were transferring suspects to Egypt and Jordan and
bypassing extradition procedures.

But it was unclear whether he had independent knowledge, or got it
from newspaper reports.

He also cited national security to avoid saying whether CSIS trades
information with Syria.

© Copyright 2004 Bell Globemedia Inc.


http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=0fead9f8-aa91-4ee2-a63d-ad4754c49ee7

Harper dismisses calls to apologize to Arar

The Harper government refused calls on Tuesday to apologize to Maher
Arar and punish or even fire the head of the RCMP for leading a force
that sent false intelligence reports to the U.S. that were blamed for
the software engineer's deportation and torture in Syria.
» Global National reports:
» Arar removed from security watch list

By CanWest New Service September 20, 2006

OTTAWA/WASHINGTON — The Harper government refused calls on Tuesday to
apologize to Maher Arar and punish or even fire the head of the RCMP
for leading a force that sent false intelligence reports to the U.S.
that were blamed for the software engineer's deportation and torture
in Syria.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, under pressure from all three
opposition parties in the House of Commons, ignored repeated urgings
from the opposition and Arar's supporters to offer an apology, noting
that Arar's ordeal took place under the former Liberal government.

"I think it's clear that ... Mr. Arar has been done a tremendous
injustice," said Harper, adding that his government intends to "act
swiftly" in implementing the recommendations contained in the Justice
Dennis O'Connor's exhaustive public inquiry report, released Monday.

Arar is currently negotiating a settlement with the government and
apologies, if they can be obtained in advance, have in the past been
used as a key bargaining tool when seeking compensation.

In Washington, the Bush administration denied U.S. intelligence
officials deliberately sent Arar to Syria for interrogation as a
possible terrorist.

Speaking to reporters in the U.S. capital, Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales said the U.S. government would never knowingly ship a suspect
terrorist to another country if it believed that person would be
tortured. Further, Gonzales specifically refuted claims Arar was
removed from the U.S. in 2002 as part of the Bush administration's
controversial "extraordinary rendition" policy.

"Mr. Arar was deported under our immigration laws. He was initially
detained because his name appeared on terrorists lists," Gonzales told
reporters. "Some people have characterized his removal as a rendition.
That is not what happened here. It was a deportation."

Gonzales's comments marked the Bush administration's first reaction to
O'Connor's report about Canada's role in Arar's detention in New York
and his subsequent imprisonment and torture in Syria.

O'Connor's report singled out U.S. officials for criticism, saying
"they removed (Arar) to Syria against his wishes and in the face of
statements that he would be tortured if sent there."

O'Connor recommended Ottawa register a formal objection with the U.S.
government for its treatment of Arar. Public Safety Minister Stockwell
Day also rejected opposition suggestions RCMP Commissioner Giuliano
Zaccardelli be fired or forced to resign for the actions of his force,
which bore the brunt of the blame for the Arar affair in the report.

"We're not taking any precipitous action related to the RCMP," said Day.

The RCMP remained silent for the second straight day about the inquiry
findings, directing all inquiries to the Public Security Department.

Outside the Commons, Liberal MP John McCallum said he is "inclined to
think" that Zaccardelli should go and Irwin Cotler, the Liberal public
safety critic and Arar supporter, said that the force, perhaps as far
up as the top, should somehow pay for its actions.

"The government could make a determination whether they feel
Zaccardelli should have to go or Zaccardelli could make his own
decision whether he feels under the circumstances he should resign,"
said Cotler. "It may be in this instance the responsibility lies with
those officials who conveyed the wrongful information and those
individuals need to be held accountable through whatever means the
RCMP has to hold its officials accountable."

He suggested that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, an
independent public watchdog, could examine the issue of fault.

Arar, meanwhile, called on the government Tuesday to take action
against those responsible, but he did not elaborate.

"I have always said that I want whoever is responsible for this to be
held accountable, to make sure that this doesn't happen to any other
Canadian. It is really up to the Canadian government to decide how to
do this," Arar said Tuesday.

When asked whether Zaccardelli should lose his job or resign, Arar
said that is also up to the government.

Lorne Waldman, Arar's lawyer, said that the 36-year-old father of two,
who now lives in Kamloops, B.C., has not heard from any government
officials since the report's release. He said that the RCMP should be
held accountable for, among other things, a key finding in the Arar
report that members of the force intentionally kept government
officials in the dark about the Arar case and misled them on whether
he had been tortured in Syria.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International, suggested there
should be a criminal investigation into the activities of the RCMP,
perhaps by another police force.

A Syrian-Canadian, Arar was arrested by U.S. officials while passing
through New York's JFK airport in September 2002 and deported to
Syria, where he endured torture in a Damascus jail before he was
released a year later, without charges.

The inquiry report concluded that an inexperienced RCMP anti-terrorism
squad gave inaccurate information to American authorities — tagging
Maher Arar as an "Islamic extremist" — which very likely set off a
chain of events leading to his ordeal.

Arar's case is commonly cited among human rights activists as an
egregious example of "extraordinary rendition," the Bush
administration's practice of sending terror suspects to third
countries where more extreme forms of interrogation are allowed.

But, "even if (Arar's case) were rendition, we understand as a
government what our obligations are with respect to anyone who's
rendered by the government to another country," Gonzales said. "That
is, we seek to satisfy ourselves that they will not be tortured. We do
that in every case. If, in fact, he had been rendered to Syria, we
would have sought those same kind of assurances, as we do in every
case."

U.S. lawyers for the former Ottawa engineer appealed to the Bush
administration for an apology and demanded his name be removed from
the country's terrorist watch list.

"Right now, Maher wants the U.S. government to clear his name, just
like the Canadian commission did," said Maria Lahood, an attorney at
the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. "I would hope
that would be accompanied by an apology."

The centre has filed notice it will appeal a U.S. federal court
decision in February that dismissed Arar's lawsuit claiming
compensation from the Bush administration for depriving him of his
civil rights.

O'Connor's report unequivocally cleared Arar of any "taint or
suspicion" that he has terrorist ties and called for federal
compensation for his one-year ordeal in a Syrian jail.

The report stressed there is no evidence that Canadian officials
"participated or acquiesced" in the U.S. decision to bundle Arar on a
plane for Syria.

The report makes 23 recommendations, including compensation for Arar
and a possible apology, training for RCMP involved in national
security investigations, a new system for submitting "lookout" alerts
to foreign countries about Canadian citizens, and a ban on CSIS and
the RCMP sharing information internationally that could lead to
torture.

The report also concluded that Canadian officials leaked "confidential
and sometimes inaccurate information about the case to the media for
the purpose of damaging Mr. Arar's reputation or protecting their
self-interest or government interests."

© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=2ffc69af-309a-4c64-944b-c7a92c479ca4&k=46604

Harper calls on Bush to 'come clean'

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. President George W. Bush
yesterday that Canada will launch an official protest over the United
States' treatment of Maher Arar.

By The Gazette (Montreal) October 7, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. President George W. Bush
yesterday that Canada will launch an official protest over the United
States' treatment of Maher Arar.

Harper said he is urging U.S. officials to "come clean" about their
"inappropriate conduct" in the case. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was
apprehended in New York in 2002 and deported to his birth country
Syria, where he was tortured.

The protest was recommended by Justice Dennis O'Connor's recent report
into the Arar case.

The prime minister issued four demands:

- He wants the U.S. government to "come clean with its version" of
what happened to Arar - something the U.S. has avoided doing so far.

- He wants Washington to acknowledge "the deficiencies and the
inappropriate" way it dealt with Canadian officials following Arar's
arrest.

- He says it would be "appropriate" for Arar to be removed from U.S.
no-fly lists now that his name has been cleared.

- Harper also wants Washington's commitment that it will not violate
its international agreements, as it appears to have done in the Arar
case.

Harper said he told Bush by phone that Foreign Affairs Minister Peter
MacKay sent a letter yesterday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
to launch a formal complaint.

"American officials had not been candid and truthful in their dealings
with Canadian officials in the case," Harper said at a Calgary news
conference. He said he would like to see the U.S. government
acknowledge "the deficiencies and inappropriate conduct that occurred
in this case - particularly vis-a-vis its relationship with the
Canadian government."

"What I would like to see is obviously the United States government
come clean with its version of events, I would hope to acknowledge the
deficiencies and the inappropriate conduct that occurred in this
case," Harper said.

Arar, a 36-year-old Syrian-Canadian, was arrested while passing
through New York's JFK airport in September 2002 and deported to his
birth country. He spent a year in a Damascus jail before he was freed
without charge.

On Arar's return to Ottawa, officials tried to cover up their mistakes
by deliberately leaking false information about him to the media,

O'Connor's report found.

The report concluded an inexperienced RCMP anti-terrorism squad gave
false information to U.S. authorities - tagging Maher Arar as an
"Islamic extremist" - which very likely led to his deportation and
torture.

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli offered Arar a public apology
last week for the "terrible injustice'' he and his family endured.

The report also cleared Arar of any "taint or suspicion" that he has
terrorist ties. However, he still remains on a U.S. no-fly list.

Yesterday, Harper said he's not certain Arar will be removed from that
list, adding it didn't come up in his phone conversation with Bush.

But the PM said removing him from the list "would be an appropriate
action they would want to take."

Arar's lawyer, Lorne Waldman, said his client won't be completely
happy unless the official protest addresses three major issues listed
in O'Connor's report: deporting a citizen on a Canadian passport,
misleading Canadian officials and violating the Vienna Convention,
which covers consular relations.

"Mr. Arar wants to make sure the government of Canada follows through
on Justice O'Connor's recommendations," Waldman said.

Harper stopped short of apologizing to Arar for Canadian government
actions, but indicated that will come later, once Arar's $400-million
lawsuit against Ottawa reaches a conclusion.

He said he's instructed government officials to talk to Arar and his
representatives to arrive at a "just settlement" as soon as possible.

NDP foreign affairs critic Alexa McDonough said an apology is long overdue.

"The apology doesn't have to be tied to the dollars and cents," she
fumed in a phone interview. Further delay is "utterly morally
bankrupt."

Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said the two leaders
spoke on such international issues as Afghanistan and Sudan.

"Prime Minister Harper also expressed Canadian concerns about the case
of Maher Arar, in light of the recently concluded Canadian commission
of inquiry into this case," Perino said. "The president noted his
appreciation for Harper calling him directly on this."

CP contributed to this report

© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.683811

CSIS suspected U.S. would deport Arar to be tortured: documents
CBC News
Posted:Aug 09, 2007 6:14 AM ET

Previously censored Arar commission documents

Previously blacked-out portions of the Maher Arar report state that
Canadian security officials believed the United States might send the
Syrian-born Canadian to a foreign country to be questioned under
torture.

"I think the U.S. would like to get Arar to Jordan where they can have
their way with him," a Canadian Security Intelligence Service officer
based in Washington wrote in a report dated Oct. 10, 2002, according
to documents released Thursday.

The note was written days after the United States deported Arar, who
was returning to Canada from a vacation in 2002 when he was detained
during a flight stopover in New York, wrongly accused of links with
al-Qaeda and sent to Syria, where he was jailed for months and
tortured.

The newly released documents also say the CSIS operative "spoke of a
trend they had noted lately that when the CIA or FBI cannot legally
hold a terrorist subject, or wish a target questioned in a firm
manner, they have them rendered to countries willing to fulfill that
role. He said Mr. Arar was a case in point."

Arar's lawyer, Marlys Edwardh, said Thursday that CSIS did nothing to
communicate this information to Canada's political leaders.

"In fact, they sat on it," Edwardh told CBC News.

Another ofArar's lawyers, Lorne Waldman, said the new information "now
confirms that as of two days after Mr. Arar was sent to Syria, the
Canadian government was aware that it was very likely he was going to
be tortured when he was there."

Arar and his wife, Monia Mazigh, were not commenting publicly Thursday
on the release of the documents.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on a trip to the Arctic, side-stepped
the issue of whether he would again raise the Arar case with
Washington in light of the latest findings. He also once again noted
to reporters that the mistreatment of Arar occurred under the previous
Liberal government.

"This government has committed to implementing all of the
recommendations of this report to ensure the events that occurred
under the Liberals are not replicated for other Canadian
citizens,"Harper said.

Canada used info fromcountries with poor rights records
The Arar commission released its report in September 2006, but about
1,500 words were blacked out because the federal government argued
thepassages would reveal national security secrets, including some
received from foreign agencies. The censored portions represent less
than one per cent of the lengthy report from the inquiry.


The blacked-out portions of the report were released Thursday on the
July order of a Federal Court judge.

'Our law is very clear. You cannot use evidence that is the product of
torture [to obtain a warrant].'—Arar commission lawyer Paul Cavalluzzo
The newly-released portions also state that Canadian authorities
relied on a country with a poor record on human rights for information
to obtain a search warrant. The disclosed portions said investigators
did not disclose that the information used to get the warrants "might
be the product of torture."

Paul Cavalluzzo, the lead lawyer for the Arar commission, said
Thursday thathe hoped the release of the censored information would
force law enforcement agencies to be "totally candid" when they go
before a judge to obtain a warrant.

"Our law is very clear," Cavalluzzo said. "You cannot use evidence
that is the product of torture [to obtain a warrant]."

Many of the blacked-out words refer to Canadian contacts with U.S.
security services —the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.

Both Arar and the inquiry's commissioner, Dennis O'Connor, had argued
before the Federal Court judge at hearings in the spring that the
public should see the document in its entirety.

In July, Justice Simon Noël ruled that some, but not all, of the
excised information should be revealed. He saidpublic interest was
best served by keeping the rest of the document secret.

The inquiry found that the RCMP wrongly labelled Arar a terrorist and
passed the misleading information to U.S. authorities, where it led to
Arar being linked to al-Qaeda and deported to Syria.

O'Connor, associate chief justice of Ontario, cleared Arar of any
links to terrorist organizations, and the federal government agreed to
pay Arar $12.5 million in compensation.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/08/30/maher-arars-former-lawyer-decries-tory-security-directives/

Maher Arar's former lawyer decries Tory security directives Provided
by The Canadian Press
By Jim Bronskill | Aug 30, 2012 4:21 pm | 0 Comments

Canada's Maher Arar, right, talks with Lorne Waldman moments before he
addresses the European Parliament Committee on the alleged use of
European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention
of prisoners, at the European Parliament in Brussels, Thursday March
23, 2006. (AP Photo/Thierry Charlier)

A lawyer who represented torture victim Maher Arar says
information-sharing directives issued to federal security agencies
show the government hasn't learned anything about shunning brutality.

Ministerial instructions to the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service, RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) leave the door
open to the kind of information exchanges that led to Arar's torture
in Syria a decade ago, says Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman.

"It's extremely disappointing that after all of these years, and after
all of the effort, we're not any further ahead than we were," Waldman
said in an interview.

Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was detained at a New York airport in
September 2002, winding up in a grim Damascus prison. Under torture,
he falsely confessed to Syrian military intelligence officers about
being involved with al-Qaida.
Talking Heads

Justice Dennis O'Connor, who led a federal inquiry into the case,
concluded that faulty information the RCMP passed to the United States
very likely led to the Ottawa telecommunications engineer's year-long
nightmare. O'Connor recommended in September 2006 that information
never be provided to a foreign country where there is a credible risk
that it will cause or contribute to the use of torture.

The 2011 government directives to CSIS, the RCMP and the border agency
— released under the Access to Information Act — outline instructions
for deciding whether to share information when there is a "substantial
risk" that doing so might result in someone in custody being abused.

They also state that protection of life and property are the primary
considerations when deciding on the use of information that may have
been extracted through torture.

"I think that there's been no change since Arar," said Waldman, who
represented Arar at the O'Connor inquiry. "There is no more
sensitivity today than there was back in 2004 and 2005 to the whole
question of the use of evidence under torture.

"I see immigration proceedings where CBSA routinely adduces evidence
from regimes that engage in torture without ever questioning the fact
that the evidence they're obtaining comes from such a regime, without
expressing any concerns about the reliability," Waldman said.

"And I've been successful in some cases in getting the evidence thrown
out because of concerns about the reliability of the evidence
obtained, because they come from regimes that don't respect human
rights and the rule of law."

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews says Canada does not condone torture
nor engage in it, calling the practice fundamentally abhorrent and
contrary to Canada's reputation as a protector of human rights.

However, he says the government also does not abide "dithering" when
it comes to choices about using information in the face of threats to
Canadian lives.

Human rights organizations and opposition MPs have denounced the
directives as a contravention of Canada's obligations under
international law prohibiting torture.

Once Canada determines that information has been extracted from
torture, or that using it would result in mistreatment, "then there
shouldn't be any further steps," said Carmen Cheung, senior counsel at
the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

"They simply shouldn't be using it or sharing it."

The government directives are based on a framework document that
indicates the information sharing principles apply to all federal
agencies.

"The objective is to establish a coherent and consistent approach
across the government of Canada in deciding whether or not to send
information to, or solicit information from, a foreign entity when
doing so may give rise to substantial risk of mistreatment of an
individual," says the four-page framework.

Public Safety spokeswoman Jessica Slack refused to say when the
framework document was drafted or by what division of her agency, even
though the previously secret record is now declassified.

The document says that given the different mandates of various
departments and agencies, "the framework will be operationalized
through individual ministerial directions."

However, key federal agencies that share sensitive information with
other countries were silent about any actions they've taken.

Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Claude Rochon refused to say whether
minister John Baird had issued a directive in the last year on
information sharing with foreign agencies. Baird's office also
declined to answer the same question.

National Defence spokesman Daniel Blouin also would not comment on
whether Defence Minister Peter MacKay had issued such a directive.
Aside from responsibility for Canada's military, the defence minister
oversees the Communications Security Establishment, which spies on
foreign governments, organizations and individuals, and exchanges
information with partners abroad.

Raymond Rivet, a spokesman for the Privy Council Office, the agency
responsible for co-ordination of security and intelligence activities,
would not discuss which — if any — federal agencies had issued
directives on information sharing.

Human rights and civil liberties organizations say the government has
been forthcoming enough about the directive process.

"We need clarity and transparency from the government on that front,
not piecemeal responses and secrecy," said Alex Neve, secretary
general of Amnesty International Canada.


http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/abtprp/ccmcma/index-eng.html
http://www.retfaerd.org/gamle_pdf/1997/3/Retfaerd_78_1997_3_s13_42.PDF

VAls minority report!
Heritage Front Affair Val's Minority Reports

THE HERITAGE FRONT AFFAIR: OUR VIEW DISSENTING OPINION of the REFORM
PARTY of CANADA

Presented by Val Meredith, M.P.
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

It was nineteen months ago when the Sub-Committee on National Security
began its consideration of the Security Intelligence Review
Committee's Heritage Front Affair report. Finally, after a long and
often arduous effort, the Sub-Committee has tabled its report.

At this point in time, it is important to clarify a couple of
significant issues: The delays in producing the Sub-Committee report
have nothing to do with the activities of the opposition parties, but
rather are due solely to delays caused by membership changes and
disagreements among the government members.

Secondly, the so-called report of this Sub-Committee has little input
from the opposition members. The joint dissenting opinion of the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party more accurately reflects the
multi-party consensus of the majority of members of this Sub-Committee
who actually participated in most of the Sub-Committee's hearings.
While the joint dissenting opinion does not fully reflect the Reform
Party's position on this issue, it is included to illustrate the
changes to the report imposed by the government members.

It must be noted that the major changes to this report did not occur
during a Sub-Committee meeting, and neither opposition member was
present. It is clear that the Liberal government was not prepared for
the Sub-Committee to table the more critical report that is now the
joint dissenting opinion. With regard to the official report of the
Sub-Committee, the current government members of the Sub-Committee
have produced an extremely emasculated version of the original report.

Their report is just an extension of SIRC's Heritage Front Affair
report which did not provide a sufficiently critical review of the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service's investigation.

THE SIRC REPORT SIRC claims to be the "eyes and ears of the public and
Parliament on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service." Yet after
months of consideration of the Heritage Front Affair report, it is
clear that SIRC has been not only negligent in this role, but
deliberately dishonest as well. Instead of providing Parliament with a
thorough and objective review of CSIS' use of a human source in its
investigation of the Heritage Front, SIRC's report exonerates CSIS and
the Source of any wrongdoing.
In its exoneration of CSIS, SIRC ignored or suppressed any evidence
that was inconsistent with their conclusion that the Service did no
wrong. SIRC has wilfully mislead Parliament and the Canadian people.
The exoneration of CSIS by SIRC is a betrayal of SIRC's role as a
review committee. While the Reform Party is deeply concerned with the
wrongdoings of CSIS, SIRC's refusal to address these transgressions in
an open and honest manner is cause for even greater concern.
After nineteen months of reviewing the SIRC report and obtaining
additional information, it is clear that SIRC is not fulfilling the
function that Parliament intended. Originally the Reform Party had
planned to do a thorough and critical review of the SIRC report,
pointing out numerous inaccuracies and omissions. However, because the
original version would have been too lengthy, we have chosen to focus
on two main issues: Grant Bristow - CSIS Source, and the CSIS
investigation concerning Preston Manning, that formed Chapter VIII of
the Heritage Front Affair. ; GRANT BRISTOW - CSIS HUMAN SOURCE Unlike
the government members of the Sub- Committee, I have no hesitancy in
identifying Grant Bristow as the CSIS Source who infiltrated the
Heritage Front.

This position is not an assumption, nor speculation. In August 1994, I
was contacted by an individual who had first-hand knowledge of Grant
Bristow as a CSIS Source. A former police source, this individual was
approached by Bristow, who offered to introduce him to a CSIS
investigator.

In September 1994 I accompanied this individual to a SIRC interview.
The information this individual provided is faithfully recorded in the
SIRC report at section 3.1.3, although it does not identify Bristow as
the Source.

In addition, at his appearance before the Sub- Committee on May 27,
1996, the Director of CSIS, Mr. Ward Elcock, inadvertently confirmed
that Bristow was indeed the CSIS Source. In his opening statement,
which was also provided in writing, the Director made the following
comment: "What about our source's arrest in Toronto, along with
American white supremacist Sean Maguire? That was a co-ordinated
operation with law enforcement agencies. Mr. Maguire was expelled from
Canada. Our source was released. No criminal offence was committed."

Now contrast the Director's above comments with the relevant passage
in SIRC's Heritage Front Affair report: "On September 20, 1991, Sean
Maguire and Grant Bristow were travelling in the latter's car, when
they were stopped at gunpoint by the heavily armed Metro Toronto
Emergency Task Force. Sean Maguire was arrested on an Immigration
warrant. RCMP and Immigration officials were on hand for the arrest,
as was a CSIS investigator from Toronto Region.

Grant Bristow, when he was stopped, had guns in the trunk of his car.
Both men were taken to police station 41." (emphasis added) It is
obvious from the above-mentioned information that Bristow is the CSIS
Source in question. It is an issue, because the way that SIRC wrote
their report, many of the questionable activities were committed by
Bristow, as opposed to the Source. So it is important to acknowledge
that Bristow was indeed the Source.

As expressed in paragraph 28 of the joint dissenting opinion ("Having
concluded that the placement of a human source was acceptable,
although for a shorter time than this Source was actually in place,
the opposition members of the Sub-Committee then asked themselves
whether the Service should have recruited and put in place this
particular Source?"), there were serious questions about using Bristow
as the Source. While SIRC made all efforts to downplay Bristow's role
in the creation and operation of the Heritage Front, clearly he was
responsible for much of the success of the organization.
The best indication of Bristow's role in the Heritage Front was the
video that the Front put out with excerpts of Bristow's speeches, that
had been edited out of the previously released videos. The excerpts
from this video show that Bristow was the main administrator of the
Heritage Front. He was responsible for the raising of money, for
selling memberships, literature and paraphernalia, and for getting
people out to Heritage Front rallies and demonstrations. His
questionable contributions can be best summarized from the one video
where he bragged that the Heritage Front in Toronto raised more money
to assist incarcerated members of the white supremacist terrorist
organization, The Order, than any other group in North America. ;
Bristow under police investigation.

There is one other aspect of Bristow's history that SIRC chose to
ignore, despite the fact that this incident was in the original
newspaper story that spawned their investigation. In 1993, the Metro
Toronto Police Force investigated Heritage Front members Carl Fischer,
Elkar Fischer and Andrew Maynard, for the kidnapping and assault of
Tyrone Mason, another Heritage Front member. During the course of
their investigation the police began to actively investigate Grant
Bristow.

The police investigators were so convinced that Bristow was involved
in witness tampering, that they applied to the courts and obtained a
Criminal Code Part VI warrant to intercept his communications. When
the Mason case finally made its way to trial in the fall of 1995, a
plea bargain was arranged. As a result of plea bargaining all charges
were dropped against Maynard, and though convicted, the Fischer
brothers received only a thirty day sentence to be served
intermittently.

Interestingly, a lawyer representing the federal government was
involved in the negotiations. It would appear that Bristow's role in
the incident prevented the Crown from aggressively prosecuting the
case. Despite frequently referring to this case in their testimony as
an example of the heinous activities that Heritage Front members were
capable of committing,

SIRC completely ignored the police investigation of Bristow's role in
the case. ; Bristow and the Reform Party. The Reform Party is also
deeply concerned about Bristow's activities within the Reform Party.

As reported in the SIRC report, CSIS was aware that Heritage Front
leader Wolfgang Droege "wanted to discredit Preston Manning and the
Reform Party before the general election in 1993. This idea would be
accomplished by the Movement publicly identifying itself and its
security relationship with the Reform Party's senior executive level.

Among those who allegedly knew of the Droege plan were Gerry Lincoln,
James Dawson, Ernst Zundel, Terry Long, Jurgen Neumann, Peter
Mitrevski, and Grant Bristow (emphasis added)." Not only was Bristow
aware of this plan to discredit the Reform Party, but he was one of
the major players in it. Bristow, along with Alan Overfield, were the
two individuals who made all the security arrangements.

While it was Overfield who originally offered the services of his
bailiff company to the Reform Party, he was not aware of Droege's plan
to discredit the party. Thus it was left to Bristow, a CSIS source, to
create the relationship.

According to the representative for the Reform Party, Andrew Flint,
Grant Bristow did a very effective job in creating the security
relationship between the Reform Party and the Heritage Front. In an
affidavit sworn on May 1, 1995, Flint described the June 1991 meeting
with Bristow and Overfield in the following manner: "The meeting was
dominated by Grant Bristow who did most of the talking regarding the
security for the event. I was certainly very impressed by his
immaculate dress which included an elegant suit and highly polished
shoes. This was the only meeting I attended involving security for the
up-coming rally."

Flint also mentioned that "at the meeting of the security team for the
June 1991 event at the International Centre, Grant Bristow requested a
letter from me stating that he and Al Overfield were authorized to
handle the security for this event. I was told he needed it to present
to the Regional Police which operated a sub-station on the premises of
the International Centre."

This letter is also mentioned in the SIRC report. However, the report
stated "Overfield asked for the letter in order to receive recognition
and to show that he was appointed. Grant Bristow's name was included
in the letter because he said: #145;Unless we have a letter of
understanding, there could be legal liabilities if there was a
confrontation with protesters at a Reform Party event.'

" Naturally, Bristow is the source of this information. It is
interesting that Bristow claimed that Overfield asked for the letter
to receive recognition, and that his own name appeared only for
liability purposes. If Bristow's name was necessary for liability
purposes, then why were the names of the other individuals who were
providing security not included as well?

In reality, the most useful application of this letter would have been
to prove a security arrangement between the Heritage Front and the
Reform Party. Yet, according to the SIRC report, Overfield was unaware
of the plan to discredit the Reform Party, so there is little reason
for him to request the letter. Bristow on the other hand, would
certainly have pleased Droege by providing him with a letter to
demonstrate that the security arrangement between the Reform Party and
the Heritage Front actually existed. SIRC's willingness to accept
Bristow's version of events is typical of their report.

Much of the report is based on the evidence of Bristow. He is cited as
the source of information 135 times; 96 times as the Source and a
further 39 times as Grant Bristow. In addition, the source handler is
cited 20 times as the basis of information.

SIRC has basically provided the public with Grant Bristow's version of
events, while contradictory information was generally dismissed. While
SIRC denied any wrongdoing by Bristow or CSIS, they failed to address
a very important issue - the entire operation was conducted in
violation of a 1989 Ministerial Direction.

On October 30, 1989 then Solicitor General Pierre Blais issued the
following Ministerial Direction on #145;CSIS' Use of Human Sources' to
the Director of CSIS. The Direction states in part: "that special care
is required in regard to investigations which impact on, or which
appear to impact on, the most sensitive institutions of our society. I
am primarily thinking in this regard of institutions in the academic,
political, religious, media or trade union fields.... I am writing
that you personally, or a Deputy Director designated by you in
writing, approve the use by the Service of confidential sources in
such investigation."

It is obvious that Bristow's role as one of two individuals who was
"jointly responsible for the security of all present and future Reform
Party Events that are planned for this region," would be part of a
human source operation that "impacted, or appeared to impact on a
political institution."

According to the Ministerial Direction, this would have required that
either the Director or the Deputy Director (Operations) approve
Bristow's role as part of the security team. In reality, Toronto
Region only sought out CSIS Headquarters' advice in August, two months
after the Mississauga rally, and even then the file did not go to the
Director or the Deputy Director.

SIRC goes on to great lengths to point out that CSIS was careful that
only Droege's activities as they related to the Reform Party were
investigated, not the Reform Party itself. But they do not address the
issue of a CSIS source operation that impacted on, or at least
appeared to impact upon a sensitive political institution, namely the
Reform Party. SIRC's refusal to address this issue is somewhat
mystifying, considering that was one of the questions that the Reform
Party specifically wanted answered when we put forth a series of
questions to SIRC in a letter, presented to them at the September 13,
1994 Sub-Committee meeting:

Question 73: Given the 1989 Ministerial Directive by then Solicitor
General Pierre Blais, concerning CSIS utilizing sources in sensitive
institutions such as political parties, religious groups and the
media, was the Director's approval required prior to Bristow's
attendance at the Reform Party meeting?;

Question 74: If yes, did the Director approve of this operation?
Bristow's role in the security group was indeed crucial in forming the
link between the Heritage Front and the Reform Party. As Andrew Flint
stated, he was impressed with Bristow's "knowledge of security
procedures and technical terminology...", as well as his "elegant suit
and highly polished shoes." Grant Bristow was the one member of the
Heritage Front who had the respectability and the expertise to make
Flint believe that he was dealing with a legitimate group of
individuals. It is extremely unlikely that Flint would have ever used
this group if he had met with skinheads or other Heritage Front
members.
In the final analysis, Wolfgang Droege had a plot to discredit the
Reform Party by linking the party to the Heritage Front through its
security arrangement.

Grant Bristow played a pivotal role in this conspiracy, if in no other
way than by providing the security group with the respectability and
expertise they could not have gotten elsewhere within the Heritage
Front.

When the story broke in 1992 the Reform Party was indeed discredited,
although there are no objective means to measure to what extent. It is
bad enough that Droege, an individual deemed to be a threat to the
security of Canada, devised a plot to discredit a legitimate political
party and CSIS did nothing about it. It is much worse when Grant
Bristow, a CSIS source, played an integral role in accomplishing this
task, in violation of a Ministerial Direction. But it is a complete
travesty when SIRC, the body that Parliament established to monitor
CSIS, fails to even address the issue. CSIS INVESTIGATION OF PRESTON
MANNING While compiling its report on the Heritage Front Affair, SIRC
included a chapter that had nothing to do with the Heritage Front. It
was about the Reform Party and a foreign government, subsequently
identified as South Africa. SIRC wanted us to believe that by
including this chapter they could allay any fears amongst Reformers
that CSIS had investigated the party, or the leadership.
In the SIRC report, the CSIS investigation is portrayed as a
by-the-book, straight-forward operation. Upon closer inspection this
investigation proved to be anything but straight- forward. Rather than
allaying any of our concerns about CSIS investigations, SIRC's
willingness to lie about the facts has made the Reform Party even more
suspicious.

Through a Privacy Act request by Preston Manning, CSIS released its
documents on this investigation. Although they are heavily censored,
the documents show that SIRC withheld information and misrepresented
the facts in their report, so that they could demonstrate that CSIS
conducted a proper investigation. Any evidence that was contradictory
to their conclusion was suppressed.

In the following pages, we will review the actual investigation,
SIRC's version of the investigation, and the bizarre fallout from this
chapter of their report. In exchanges of correspondence and testimony
that occurred after the tabling of the report, we learned that CSIS
documents were altered and misdated.

We observed SIRC make admissions, and then subsequently retract these
admissions, completely contradicting their earlier statements and
testimony. The Director of CSIS also provided a version of events that
not only contradicted his earlier testimony, but also required him to
admit that almost everyone who touched this file made mistakes.
In the final analysis, the Reform Party is convinced that CSIS
launched an insupportable investigation of Preston Manning in 1989,
and tried to cover it up five months later. Both the current
management at CSIS and SIRC have continued that cover-up, frequently
changing their story when confronted with facts that did not fit their
version of the events. ;

A dubious source sparks an investigation. As SIRC reported, and the
CSIS documents confirm, this investigation began with a tip from a
source who was described by the CSIS investigator as "self-serving and
very opportunistic, particularly if it benefited himself." This
dubious source informed CSIS about a conversation that he had with a
board member of an association that promoted links between South
Africa and Canada. This source then stated that the board member said
that his group was giving money to Preston Manning's campaign, as
Manning was running against External Affairs Minister Joe Clark.

This information by itself should not have been of interest to CSIS.
In democracies, citizens can financially support whoever they want in
an election, for whatever reason. For CSIS to investigate they needed
information that South Africa was actually providing the money. During
the first meeting between CSIS and this dubious source, the source
stated that he thought the board member meant that the money was
coming from South Africa. When the source realized that he did not
have the key piece of evidence that CSIS required, he miraculously
obtained it less than three weeks later. The source stated that he had
been talking to an unidentified, close associate of the board member,
who supposedly told him that the South Africans may have contributed
as much as $45,000 to Preston Manning and the Reform Party in trying
to defeat Joe Clark in his riding of Yellowhead. This is the extent of
CSIS' information about the Manning campaign receiving money from a
foreign government.

Third-hand information from a source who is not only of unknown
reliability, but who had been identified by the CSIS investigator as
"self-serving and opportunistic", should not be the basis of a CSIS
investigation of any Canadian citizen, much less the leader of a
legitimate political party. ; CSIS analyst stated, basis for
investigation "difficult to support"! We are not the only ones to
question the validity of this investigation.

After the regional investigator sent two reports to CSIS Headquarters
in November 1988, a response from the HQ analyst on the South Africa
desk was sent to the region in January 1989. As the SIRC report
acknowledged, the analyst stated that in HQ's opinion, the source of
the alleged funding was most likely the group of Canadian businessmen
who belonged to the association. But when the analyst addressed the
possibility of foreign funding, SIRC did not accurately portray the
analyst's comments. The analyst did state that, "if it were shown that
South Africa indeed contributed as much as $45,000 to Manning's
campaign, HQ could in time attempt to make the argument that South
Africa is unduly influencing Canadian politics." However, SIRC chose
not to include the following sentence by the analyst in their report:
"To say the least, this kind of argument would be difficult to
support."

Since the analyst had stated that there was no basis for a CSIS
investigation, contradicting SIRC's conclusion that it was a
legitimate investigation, SIRC chose to suppress this line. It is the
only line in that section of the report that SIRC did not include in
the Heritage Front Affair report. The HQ analyst concluded this
January 10, 1989 message by requesting that the region keep "HQ
apprised of any forthcoming information which you may obtain in light
of the above."

There was no further information forwarded by the region. Rather, the
next document that appears in Manning's file is an authorization of a
TARC Level 1 investigation, dated October 17, 1989. ; Lead up to the
TARC Level 1 investigation - January 10, 1989 to October 17, 1989.
While there is a great deal of controversy over what happened between
October 17, 1989 and March 30, 1990, we are equally perplexed about
what happened between January 10, 1989 and October 17, 1989.

The Reform Party has never received a logical answer to why an analyst
on the South African desk in CSIS HQ stated that there was no basis
for an investigation into the alleged contribution to Preston Manning
on January 10, 1989, and yet without any additional, or new,
information, an analyst on the South African desk in CSIS HQ submitted
a request for a TARC Level 1 investigation on October 17, 1989? SIRC
attempted to provide the following as an answer: A reliable source
provided CSIS with information that a foreign country (read South
Africa) had transferred over a quarter of a million dollars to Canada,
to try to influence 24 Members of Parliament from other political
parties (read Progressive Conservatives and Liberals).

When asked, SIRC stated that CSIS did not take any steps to
investigate these M.P.s. If the information about South Africa funding
these 24 M.P.s did indeed inspire the investigation, why was there no
mention of this on the form (REQUEST FOR AND APPROVAL OF COLLECTION
LEVELS 1, 2 AND CATEGORY A aka 4002) authorizing the investigation?

It is therefore unlikely that this information played any role in the
investigation. SIRC would still have us believe that CSIS received
information from a reliable source that the South African Government
was using over a quarter of million dollars to influence 24
Conservative and Liberal M.P.s, but did not investigate them. Instead,
CSIS proceeded to launch an investigation of Preston Manning, who was
neither an M.P., nor a Progressive Conservative nor a Liberal.

We find SIRC's logic to be less than satisfying. ; The Actual
Investigation: Who, What, When, Why? >From the moment the Solicitor
General tabled the Heritage Front Affair report, one particular
passage has caused a great deal of grief for the Sub-Committee, SIRC
and CSIS. This passage resulted in a number of admissions,
explanations, contradictions, retractions and accusations.

The Reform Party believes that the best way to present this complex
subject is in the following chronological manner:

December 15, 1994 The Solicitor General tabled SIRC's report, the
Heritage Front Affair, in the House of Commons. Included in section
VIII, at paragraph 8.3 is the following passage: "On October 17, 1989,
the Service decided to formally investigate the alleged $45,000
contribution. CSIS said that they could not go back to the informant
as all contacts had ended on December 31, 1988.

The Service authorized a three-month Level 1 investigation entitled:
#145;LNU FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral
Campaign)'. The Service cited section 12 and paragraph 2 (b) of the
CSIS Act as the legal basis for the investigation." ;

December 16, 1994 ;SIRC appeared before the Sub-Committee on National
Security. Having been advised that the above-mentioned passage was
inaccurate, the Reform Party made the following request:

Ms. Meredith: "Can you have your officials go back to CSIS and have
them examine the hard copy of the original authorization of the Level
one investigation on the Reform Party and a foreign government, not
just the corrected copies? Specifically, can your employees examine
the caption on the file?"

Summary - After the meeting, the Reform Party was approached by SIRC
research officials. They asked what they should be looking for
specifically. This led the Reform Party to believe that SIRC was not
aware of a changed caption. ;

January 27, 1995 In a letter from Maurice Archdeacon, the Executive
Director of SIRC, to Derek Lee, M.P., the Chairman of the
Sub-Committee on National Security, Val Meredith's request was
answered in the following manner:

"Ms. Meredith, M.P. requested that SIRC have its officials re-examine
the original authorization of the Level I investigation on the Reform
Party and a foreign government. Specifically, Ms. Meredith asked to be
told what the caption was on the file.

The nature of Ms. Meredith's question suggests that the answer may
well already be known to her. Nevertheless, the caption she referred
to for the targeting authority dated October 17, 1989 was #145;Preston
Manning.' The caption was revised on March 30, 1990 to state,
#145;LNU/FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral
Campaign).'

I would be remiss if I did not point out that, aside from the amended
caption, there were no other changes to the text of the targeting
requests/authorizations. That is, the text in each of the documents
was identical, and clearly stated that the investigation was to
determine whether a #145;foreign influence' threat existed. CSIS did
not suspect Mr. Manning of complicity..."

Summary - Mr. Archdeacon admitted that the name on the targeting
authority dated October 17, 1989 was #145;Preston Manning.' He also
mentioned that "there were no other changes to the text of the
targeting request/authorizations. That is, the text in each of the
documents was identical." It is quite apparent that Mr. Archdeacon is
stating that there were two versions of the same document, with the
only change being to the caption. From his choice of words being the
#145;targeting request/authorizations', there is no doubt that Mr.
Archdeacon is referring to the form 4002. ;

March 30, 1995 The Solicitor General appears before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, for the Main Estimates. He is
accompanied by his Deputy Minister and the heads of the various
agencies under his control, including Mr. Ward Elcock, Director of
CSIS. The Reform Party asked Mr. Elcock a number of questions about
this particular investigation.

The following excerpts are from the transcript of this meeting: (Page 15)
Ms. Meredith: "Can you explain then why Mr. Manning's name was used
for a TARC level one investigation and why that investigation was not
conducted under the foreign government?"

Mr. Elcock: "I don't know why that name was used. I suspect that, as
much as anything else, it may have been just used as a convenient tag.
I don't know the precise reason why it was used, but there is no
question from the file that at any time the subject of the
investigation was ever Mr. Manning himself."

Ms. Meredith: "Why was that file named under Mr. Manning, then, and
not under #145;unknown contributor?'"

Mr. Elcock: "I said, Mr. Chairman, that I didn't know the reason why
that name was used. It clearly was in error, because in substance, the
investigation at all times was an investigation of the actions of a
foreign government, not an investigation of Mr. Manning."

(Page 17) Ms. Meredith: "So Mr. Manning's name never came up under a
requisition or a request for a TARC Level One investigation?"

Mr. Elcock: "It was in the sense, Mr. Chairman, that the title of the
TARC was initially in Mr. Manning's name. His name was there. Was
there an investigation of Mr. Manning? Absolutely not."

Ms. Meredith: "I didn't ask if there was an investigation of Mr.
Manning. I asked if a TARC Level was ever instituted under Mr.
Manning's name?"

Mr. Elcock: "The answer, Mr. Chairman, was that there was a TARC Level
in Mr. Manning's name. But as I have said, the subject of that TARC
was not Mr. Manning at any time, ever."

(Page 34) Ms. Meredith: "I have your policy manual here, the
declassified version of the CSIS Operational Manual. For a TARC Level
one authority, an investigator must submit a request for an approval
form, CSIS form 4002. There's a space for the name of the individual
to be investigated. Can you tell me whose name was in that spot on the
form 4002 in question, signed on October 17, 1989?"

Mr. Elcock: "As I think I said earlier, there was in the TARC title
Mr. Manning's name. However, as I said quite clearly, the subject of
that file was at all times an investigation of contributions in terms
of the possibility of contributions having been made by a foreign
government to a Canadian political party. It was at no time an
investigation of Mr. Manning himself, notwithstanding the title. I
would that (sic) the title had been otherwise, but it wasn't. That's
the fact."

Summary - During this meeting, the Director of CSIS made it quite
clear that on October 17, 1989 the TARC Level 1 authorization, the
form 4002, was on Preston Manning. Mr. Elcock did not once suggest
that the caption was "Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's
Electoral Campaign." (Nor did Mr. Elcock suggest that the error
occurred with a different document known as a FILE OPENING REQUEST -
PEOPLE FILES form.) At this same meeting the Reform Party also
questioned the Director as to why SIRC was not made aware that the
original 4002 was in the name of #145;Preston Manning'.
That led to the following exchange: (Page 17)

Ms. Meredith: "Can you explain to me why that information wasn't
provided to SIRC? In their report, they reported very thoroughly on
that investigation, with the exception of the original TARC level?"

Mr. Elcock: "Why what information?"

Ms. Meredith: "That the TARC level on Mr. Manning was excluded from
the SIRC report, that SIRC was unaware of that having happened?"

Mr. Elcock: "I don't know that in fact SIRC was unaware. I don't know
why they would not have put it in their report or would have chosen
not to do that. That's SIRC's business, and you would have to address
that question to SIRC."

Ms. Meredith: "When we brought it to SIRC's attention, they were
unaware of that fact. It was only by it being brought to their
attention that they were able to go back and find out the information.
So I assumed from that they did not know that information was not
provided to them, and I would like to know why it wasn't?"

Mr. Elcock: "I don't know that that assumption is correct; I would
have to check. In fact, my belief is that they did have that
information, but I'll certainly check that for the hon. member."

Summary - This was the first information that the Reform Party
received that SIRC was aware that the original TARC Level was on
Preston Manning. ;

March 31, 1995 In response to Mr. Elcock's testimony, Val Meredith
wrote to SIRC, seeking clarification of what SIRC knew and when. "Was
any member or employee of SIRC aware that the original TARC
investigation launched on October 17, 1989 (was) in the name of
Preston Manning and not "LNU FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston
Manning's Electoral Campaign), when the Heritage Front Affair report
was tabled on December 9, 1994?" Summary - The Reform Party
specifically asked SIRC if they knew prior to the tabling of their
report that the TARC investigation was in the name of #145;Preston
Manning.' ;

April 7, 1995 In a letter, under the name of Jacques Courtois, P.C.,
Q.C., but signed by Maurice Archdeacon, Val Meredith's letter was
responded to in the following fashion: "You asked whether any member
or employee of SIRC was aware of the TARC investigation launched on
October 17, 1989 in the name of Preston Manning and not the corrected
title. SIRC staff saw the original title of the targeting
authorization, as well as the corrected title and all other documents
pertaining to the investigation. As I mentioned in my letter dated
January 27, 1995 to Mr. Derek Lee, M.P. Chairperson of the
Sub-Committee on National Security, the description (narrative text)
of the authorization never changed... The original caption was seen
for what it was - an error, and the Service corrected that error five
years ago."

Summary - Once again SIRC admitted that the caption on the TARC on
October 17, 1989 was in the name of Preston Manning. They also
admitted that they knew this prior to tabling their report. Although
Mr. Archdeacon does not specifically state why SIRC chose to exclude
this information from their report, the only possible explanation they
offer for its exclusion is that the original caption was seen as an
error, and that CSIS corrected that error in 1990. ;

June 20, 1995 SIRC appeared before the National Security Sub-Committee
for the Main Estimates. The Reform Party asked SIRC a number of
questions about this particular investigation.

The following excerpts are from the transcript of this meeting: (Page 7)
Ms. Meredith: "Are you trying to tell this committee that there was
not a TARC Level one investigation opened on Preston Manning?"

Mr. Archdeacon: "No, I'm not, obviously, because we're repeating
discussions we had over several hours earlier. You know very well that
I'm not doing so. Someone - and we admitted it was sloppy work, and
I'm sure the Director of CSIS would admit that - instead of taking the
trouble to write on the TARC title #145;Unknown Contributor to Preston
Manning's campaign' just wrote #145;Preston Manning.' The text,
however, in the TARC report makes it absolutely clear - and you read
the text - that Mr. Manning was not being investigated. We can't say
it any more than this. It's question asked and answered."

(Page 20)
Mr. Archdeacon: "The fact is at the moment you're looking at the form
- I understand your point - and saying the form of that 4002 gave the
impression, because the name Preston Manning was there, that the TARC
was on Preston Manning. That is the form of it."

Summary - SIRC once again confirmed that the 4002 was in the name of
Preston Manning. Mr. Archdeacon went so far as to state that he
obviously wasn't denying that there was a TARC Level one investigation
opened on Preston Manning. ;

June 21, 1995 to November 7, 1995 During this time period, the
Sub-Committee on National Security considered its report on the
Heritage Front Affair. During these meetings, the Sub-Committee was
operating on the understanding that the original 4002 was in the name
of "Preston Manning" and this was altered to "LNU/FNU (Unknown
Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign" on March 30,
1990. ;

November 9, 1995 To clarify questions about alterations to 4002, and
who knew about the caption "Preston Manning", the Sub-Committee sent a
letter to the Director of CSIS.

The following are the key excerpts from this letter: "On January 27,
1995, SIRC advised the Subcommittee, in response to its questions,
that the caption on the October 17, 1989 targeting authority dealt
with in Chapter VIII of the SIRC Report was originally #145;Preston
Manning.' The Review Committee went on in the same letter to advise us
that the caption was changed on March 30, 1990 to read #145;LNU-FNU
(Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign).' How
was the caption change made on the Form 4002 - was the original form
altered or was the original form destroyed and a new, back-dated,
re-signed or re-initialled form created? Another of the documents
contained in the file obtained by Mr. Manning is a November 10, 1989
Transit Slip (Form 3040) from the Chief of Counter Intelligence -
General Desk to the Director General of Counter Intelligence. I would
like to draw your attention to item 5 on this document where it is
asserted #145;caption is considered appropriate under policy
provision.' Can you provide the Subcommittee with an explanation of
this assertion in light of the fact that at the time the caption read
#145;Preston Manning' and was not changed until March 30, 1990? If the
caption was appropriate as it was on November 10, 1989, what made it
unacceptable on March 30, 1990?" Summary - These questions challenged
SIRC's and CSIS' contention that #145;Preston Manning's' name
appearing in caption was just a #145;clerical error.' It would be
difficult for CSIS to maintain the #145;clerical error' excuse if the
Director General of Counterintelligence was aware of the caption, and
agreed with it. ;

March 29, 1996 According to CSIS, they did not receive the November 9,
1995 letter from the Sub-Committee until this date. There is no
explanation as to what happened to the letter during the intervening 4
1/2 months. ;

April 15, 1996 The Director of CSIS responded to the Sub-Committee's
letter of November 9, 1995. In a complete departure from previous
statements and testimony from CSIS and SIRC, the Director contended
that the Form 4002 never read #145;Preston Manning', but the original
caption was #145;Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral
Campaign.' Key excerpts from his letter are as follows: "In response
to your query regarding the #145;REQUEST FOR AND APPROVAL OF
COLLECTION LEVELS 1, 2 AND CATEGORY A' form, dated October 17, 1989, I
am satisfied that this is the original document associated with this
file. As is shown on this form, the original caption was #145;Unknown
Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign'. The
collection authority and a second form, #145;FILE OPENING REQUEST -
PEOPLE FILES', is required by the Service's Information Management
branch, in order to create a file. It was at this stage in the process
that the clerical error occurred regarding this file caption. In an
effort to facilitate the electronic opening and future retrieval of
this file and the relevant documents, the caption that was erroneously
entered on the #145;FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES' form was
#145;Preston Manning'. This error caused the creation of an automated
hard copy file under this incorrect caption. It was during the latter
part of March, 1990, while preparing this assessment report, that the
file caption error was corrected. Item 5 on the #145;TRANSIT SLIP'
(Form 3040), dated November 10, 1989, discusses the appropriateness of
the caption as presented originally - #145;Unknown Contributor(s) to
Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign' and the comments indicate that
the author believed the caption to be appropriate."

Summary - This was an astounding development. The Director totally
contradicted 15 months of statements and testimony from both SIRC and
himself. According to the January 27, 1995 letter from Maurice
Archdeacon to Derek Lee, M.P., the targeting authority (form 4002)
read #145;Preston Manning' on October 17, 1989 and was changed on
March 30, 1990. Mr. Elcock made no reference to this fact in his
letter. Nor does the Director address his own testimony before the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on March 30, 1995,
where the following exchange took place:
Ms. Meredith: "So Mr. Manning's name never came up under a requisition
or a request for a TARC Level One investigation?"

Mr. Elcock: "It was in the sense, Mr. Chairman, that the title of TARC
was initially in Mr. Manning's name. His name was there. Was there an
investigation of Mr. Manning? Absolutely not."

Ms. Meredith: "I didn't ask if there was an investigation of Mr.
Manning. I asked if a TARC Level was instituted under Mr. Manning's
name?"

Mr. Elcock: "The answer Mr. Chairman, was that there was a TARC Level
in Mr. Manning's name."

There is no explanation of why Mr. Elcock would state on March 30,
1995 that "the title of the TARC was initially in Mr. Manning's name,"
and then on April 15, 1996 he would write that "the original caption
was #145;Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral
Campaign.'"

It must also be noted that in none of the correspondence or testimony
from CSIS or SIRC, between December 16, 1994 and April 14, 1996, was
there even a single mention of a "FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES"
form. This particular form was certainly known to CSIS, as it was
included in Preston Manning's Privacy Act request. However, subsequent
investigation and testimony would show that Mr. Elcock was not
completely forthcoming in this letter. ;

May 15, 1996 SIRC appeared before the Sub-Committee on National
Security for the Main Estimates. While there was little discussion
about this issue at this meeting, the following exchanges occurred:
(page 30)

Mr. Discepola: "I'd like to know, then, in your opinion why in the
world Preston Manning's name was used at all in any of the
documentation that related to the investigation of the suspected third
country contribution to the election campaign."

Mr. Archdeacon: "I've forgotten the exact date but the original title
was #145;Unknown Contributor to Preston Manning's Election Campaign.'
It should of had more on it then that, but that was the exact title.
It was not titled #145;Preston Manning', and Mrs. Meredith has a copy
of the sheets of paper. Here it is, and the title on it is
#145;Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign.'
Then there's the text of what is to be looked at, which is whether
somebody, some country, was going to contribute money to Preston
Manning's electoral campaign. When you have a TARC like that you must
open a file, and this TARC was sent down to the management information
section in CSIS. Because it didn't have LNU/FNU in front of the
#145;Unknown Contributor(s)', which means last name unknown, first
name unknown, the only name the clerk down there could see was Preston
Manning, and you have to have a name on a file. So he didn't write
#145;Unknown Contributor(s)' , he wrote #145;Preston Manning'. That
was an error. He shouldn't have done that. That error remained like
that for at least three months without being corrected. It wasn't
corrected until about March, when the assessment was being done. There
have been allegations that the title on the TARC was changed. Written
in ink was #145;LNU/FNU' ahead of what had always been there and had
never been changed. Because Mrs. Meredith was so sure of this, and
because we knew she had our information from somewhere else, we
decided to have the original TARC X-rayed. We have exact evidence that
everything Mrs. Meredith has said about this - about it having been
titled #145;Preston Manning', about things having been typed around
it, and about all those sorts of things - is completely and totally
incorrect. The file was mistitled and the file does not give anybody
any reason to investigate anybody. A file title does not authorize
anybody to investigate anybody. There was never any time when every
CSIS agent across the country could have investigated Mr. Manning.
That is a figment of someone's imagination." (page 32)

Ms. Meredith: "Then I would like to put something on the record, Mr.
Chair. I'd like to put on the record, Mr. Archdeacon, that the
comments you just made are in complete contradiction to a letter on
January 27, 1995, addressed to Mr. Derek Lee, and in testimony you've
given before this committee. It's a complete contradiction."
The Chairman: "I'm sure SIRC would want to address that. Perhaps this
is something that can be clarified later. Can I take it, Mr.
Archdeacon, Mr. Courtois, that you would differ?"

Mr. Archdeacon: "We would differ with that characterization." ;

Summary - Mr. Archdeacon's comments are a complete departure from
SIRC's previous correspondence and testimony.
First of all, it was not Ms. Meredith who stated that the original
TARC was captioned #145;Preston Manning', it was Mr. Archdeacon
himself who first made this statement in his letter of January 27,
1995, when he stated:; "The caption she referred to for the targeting
authority dated October 17, 1989 was #145;Preston Manning'.
The caption was revised on March 30, 1990 to state, #145;LNU/FNU
(Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign).'"

Then there is the letter that Mr. Archdeacon signed on April 7, 1995,
in which he stated:; "You asked whether any member or employee of SIRC
was aware of the TARC investigation launched on October 17, 1989 in
the name of Preston Manning and not the corrected title. SIRC staff
saw the original title of the targeting authorization, as well as the
corrected title and all other documents pertaining to the
investigation."

Once again Mr. Archdeacon confirmed that the original title was
"Preston Manning", and admitted that SIRC staff saw both the original
title of the targeting authorization, as well as the corrected title.
If, as Mr. Archdeacon maintained on May 15, 1996, the original title
was "Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign",
why would he state in two pieces of correspondence that the caption
was "Preston Manning".
Furthermore, during SIRC's appearance before the National Security
Sub-Committee meeting on June 20, 1995, there was this exchange:;

Ms. Meredith: "Are you trying to tell this committee that there was
not a TARC Level one investigation opened on Preston Manning?"

Mr. Archdeacon: "No, I'm not obviously, because we're repeating
discussions we had over several hours earlier. You know very well that
I'm not doing so. Someone - and we admitted it was sloppy work, and
I'm sure the Director of CSIS would admit that - instead of taking the
trouble to write on the TARC title #145;Unknown Contributor to Preston
Manning's Campaign' just wrote #145;Preston Manning.'"

Mr. Archdeacon made no effort to explain why, on May 15, 1996, he told
the Sub-Committee that there was not a TARC Level one investigation
opened on Preston Manning, when on June 20, 1995 he stated the exact
opposite.

Clearly, Mr. Archdeacon and SIRC have fully endorsed the April 15,
1996 letter from the Director of CSIS. Like Mr. Elcock, they make no
effort to explain the contradictions.
There is one comment of Mr. Archdeacon that would be contradicted by
the CSIS Director two weeks later. Mr. Archdeacon made a definitive
statement that the error was caused by a clerk in the Management
Information Section, who wrote "Preston Manning." As we will see in
the next section, this statement has no basis in fact, but is rather a
figment of Mr. Archdeacon's imagination. ;

May 27, 1996 Mr. Elcock appeared before the Sub-Committee to answer
questions about the Heritage Front Affair. During his appearance the
Reform Party asked him about a number of discrepancies contained in
his letter of April 15, 1996.
Four of the specific subjects that were broached, included:

I) The Altered #145;FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES' Form. In his
letter, Mr. Elcock stated, "the caption that was erroneously entered
on the #145;FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES' form was #145;Preston
Manning.'" However, the copy of that form that Mr. Manning received in
his Privacy Act request did not read #145;Preston Manning', but rather
#145;Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign'.
It is obvious that the section of the form for the subject's name has
been altered, as have the sections for #145;Present Address' and
#145;Occupation'.

The following exchange took place in relation to this form:

Ms. Meredith: "Mr. Elcock, your letter clearly states that it was on
this file, this PEOPLE FILES form here, and if people look carefully
you can see where there has been alterations made to this document.
The alterations have been made not only on the subject line, but on
the #145;Occupation' line and the #145;Present Address' line. Your
letter states that it was this form that Preston Manning's name was
put on by mistake. I'm asking you why does this form not have Preston
Manning's name on it? It has #145;Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston
Manning's Electoral Campaign."

Mr. Elcock: "Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sundstrom reminds me that although it
doesn't show here underneath, it was just Preston Manning when the
form was first completed."

Ms. Meredith: "So, if you agree, or if you read Mr. Archdeacon's
comments where he noted it had been a clerk and it was a clerk in the
Management Information Section that changed the document from
#145;Unknown Contributor to Preston Manning' and put Preston Manning's
name in it. It's obvious that #145;Occupation' and #145;Present
Address' have also been altered, changed, whited-out. Did this clerk
also put Preston Manning's address and his occupation in there? Do
they have the right to just add that in as they saw fit?"

Mr. Elcock: "Mr. Chairman, it compounded the clerical error, but
there's nothing that prevents them from adding those details."

Summary - While Mr. Elcock confirmed that the #145;Subject Name',
#145;Occupation' and #145;Present Address' sections were all altered,
he maintained that it was a "clerical error". Well it might be
possible that a CSIS clerk would not use the proper caption in this
case, it is ludicrous to suggest that the clerk would, on his or her
own initiative, add Mr. Manning's address and occupation. Besides, if
as CSIS and SIRC maintain, Mr. Manning was never investigated, how did
CSIS even know his present address. In any event, as we shall see in
section #145;IV', the story of the clerk making a mistake is soon
retracted. ;

II) Citing a document two weeks before it existed. In the form 4002,
which authorized the TARC Level 1 investigation on October 17, 1989,
there is a reference to a proposed meeting between Mr. Manning and an
unidentified Ambassador. The reference goes on to state that the
meeting was canceled at the last minute by the Embassy. Only one
N.S.R. (CSIS database) message in the package obtained by Mr. Manning
in his Privacy Act request contained this information. It was dated
November 1, 1989, two weeks after the form 4002 was supposedly
completed.

Questions about this discrepancy went as follows:

Ms. Meredith: "Can I get you to go to tab #145;L' in the documents
that we've provided for you? This document is the only document that
was received under the access, under the Privacy Act, to Mr. Manning,
that makes any reference to an Ambassador and Preston Manning meeting,
and the meeting being canceled by the Embassy. Can you give me the
date of that message?"

Mr. Elcock: "The date at the top is 89- 11-01."

Ms. Meredith: "What does that equate to... November 1, 1989?"

Mr. Elcock: "Yes, it should do."

Ms. Meredith: "How is it possible that this message number and this
date can be an additional background on a document that is dated
October 17, 1989? How is it possible that this information is on a
document when it didn't exist at the time?"

Mr. Elcock: "The honourable member is concluding that it's the same
reference; I don't know that it is."

Ms. Meredith: "If that is not the report, then why was the report not
included in the Privacy request by Mr. Manning? This is the only
document that was in the information provided to him."

Mr. Elcock: "I will check and see what the date is and advise the
committee what the date of the document was."

Summary - The Reform Party did ask, in writing, for CSIS to confirm
the date of this message. At the time this dissenting opinion was
written, CSIS had not responded to our request. If this is the report
in question, then it lends credence to the suggestion that this form
4002 was re-written some time after October 17, 1989. It also suggests
that someone believed that the original justification for the
investigation was so weak, that additional information had to be
provided. If, on the other hand, there was documentation withheld from
Mr. Manning's Privacy request, one wonders what else has been
withheld. ;

III) The Altered Form 4002. If the inclusion of information from a
message that was not yet reported suggested that the form 4002 had
been re-written, another fact that supported this suggestion was that
the date on the top right corner of the document had been altered. The
Reform Party employed the services of forensic consultant, an expert
in the examination of questioned documents, who stated "as a matter of
information it should be noted that within the questioned handwritten
digital date #145;1989-10-17' on exhibit A1 (a), partially within and
immediately above the handwritten numbers there exist undecipherable
fragmentary markings foreign to the handwritten #145;1989-10-17'
numbers."

This information led to the following exchange:

Ms. Meredith: "Mr. Elcock, I want to bring your attention back to the
first page of form 4002 and I want you to look at the handwritten date
at the top, right-hand corner. That handwritten date was altered,
wasn't it? Tab #145;B'."

Mr. Elcock: "And it goes back, I think, to the piece that you had
asked... I noted that Mr. Archdeacon had indicated the piece had been
X-rayed and in fact there was another date underneath."

Ms. Meredith: "Can you tell the committee what the date was that was
underneath?"

Mr. Elcock: "The date was 1990...March 29, 1990."

Ms. Meredith: "Thank you, Mr. Elcock. I think that just proves what I
have considered, that this document was typed up in full with a
changed subject-matter on March 29, 1990; that this document did not
originate on October 17, 1989."

Mr. Elcock: "No, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree that it does."

Ms. Meredith: "Can you explain how the date March 29, 1990 would be at
the top of that file if that was not the case?"

Mr. Elcock: "At the time, often the dates on those files, on those
documents are left open and completed later when the documents are
first issued because they don't have a file number either when they're
first issued."

Ms. Meredith: "Mr. Elcock, so you want me to believe, you want this
committee to believe that they filled in the form, that the effective
date was put in at the bottom, the expiry date was put in at bottom,
that it was signed off and the date was put in at the bottom, but that
at the top it wasn't. Is that what you want this committee to
believe?"

Mr. Elcock: "I believe there was a mistake made. We believed that at
the time the typist entered the date and subsequently crossed out
because she had mistakenly entered it and they put back in the
appropriate date."

Summary - Although Mr. Elcock admitted that the form 4002 carried the
date March 29, 1990, he maintained that this was the original 4002
filled out on October 17, 1989. His argument that the date wasn't put
in because the document did not have a file number is extremely weak,
since the FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES form that was signed on
October 17, 1989 was filled out specifically to obtain a file number.

In the documents obtained by Mr. Manning under his Privacy Act
request, we know that the first N.S.R. message that was sent on this
file was dated October 17, 1989, and since a message can not be sent
without a file number, a file number was obviously assigned on this
date. It is highly unlikely that CSIS would wait an additional five
months to fill in the rest of this form. This admission also calls
into question the testimony of Mr. Archdeacon from May 15, 1996, who
first brought up the subject of having the form X-rayed, and then
stated the form was never changed. ;

IV) Both Documents filled out by the Same Individual. The last area of
questioning concerned the contention put forth by CSIS and SIRC, that
the error in captions occurred not with the form 4002, but when a
clerk made an error in filling out a second form, a FILE OPENING
REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES form. Mr. Elcock called this a "clerical
error".

In his May 15, 1996 testimony, Mr. Archdeacon went even further when
he stated, "this TARC was sent down to the Management Information
Section in CSIS... The clerk down there thought that the only name
that he had, and you've got to have a name on a file, the only name he
could see was Preston Manning. So he didn't write #145;Unknown
Contributor', he wrote #145;Preston Manning'. That was an error. He
shouldn't have done that." Again these sound like plausible
explanations. Plausible that is until one examines the forms.

The Reform Party and the Sub- Committee were somewhat hampered because
of the censoring of the documents, which deleted the names of the CSIS
employees who filled out these forms. We were instead forced to
examine the handwritten dates on both the form 4002 and the FILE
OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES form. It is apparent that they were
written by the same person. The Forensic Consultant, an expert in the
examination of questioned documents confirmed the similarities.

While it may have been plausible that a clerk put in the wrong caption
on the second form, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that an
intelligence officer in CSIS HQ would fill out a form 4002 to
authorize an investigation in one name, and then on the very same day
he would fill out a second form to obtain a file number, and use a
different caption. As absurd as that sounds, that is what the Director
of CSIS wanted us to believe.

Witness the following exchange:

Ms. Meredith: "And that this unit head authorized a TARC Level
investigation on #145;Unknown Contributor to Preston Manning's
Electoral Campaign?' Is that right? That is in essence what this is
all about, right, is that they authorized a TARC one on an
#145;Unknown Contributor.'"

Mr. Elcock: "An Unknown Contributor to Preston Manning's Electoral
Campaign, yes."
Ms. Meredith: "And that the problem originated or the problem was
picked up when somebody filled out the FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE
FILES, and then wrote in #145;Preston Manning.'"

Mr. Elcock: "Yes." Ms. Meredith: "It wasn't a clerk who filled out
those forms, was it?"

Mr. Elcock: "No, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure what the honourable
member's point is."

Ms. Meredith: "My point is that if you look at the date in the top
right- hand corner of the FILE OPENING REQUEST and you look at the
date under the authority section on the same form, the PEOPLE FILE,
FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES, and then you look at the date
which is hand-written in at the top of the form 4002, I would suggest,
Sir, that it's the same person that wrote these two documents, that
worked with these two documents. How is it possible that the same
person on one file can put #145;Unknown Contributor to Preston
Manning's Electoral Campaign' and on the other file, the very same
day, put #145;Preston Manning.' And that his unit head, in reviewing
these on the same day, wouldn't pick up the mistake."

Mr. Elcock: "I'm not -- the honourable ...."

Ms. Meredith: "These are things that, I'm sorry, how is it possible
that a Counterintelligence officer can mistakenly, this is who filled
out this form, is an intelligence officer in Counterintelligence. How
could he look at a TARC form that he also filled in and filled it in
with #145;Unknown Contributor to Preston Manning' and on the very same
day on another form put Preston Manning's name down?"

Mr. Elcock: "These things happen. Names are sometimes left in
documents when they ought not to be." Ms. Meredith: "And his unit
chief who is authorizing and okaying these didn't notice that one of
the forms was under Preston Manning's name?" Mr. Elcock: "I'm sure as
the honourable member will know, these things happen from time to
time."

Summary - Mr. Elcock's defence, given this information is simply that
these things happen. That is even more frightening than a planned
investigation of Mr. Manning. The Director of CSIS stated that he
wanted to re-assure the Reform Party that nothing untoward happened
with this file. Yet, the only explanation Mr. Elcock offers for the
conduct of his department, is that the employees who were involved in
this investigation were grossly incompetent?

However, the Reform Party has more faith in the ability of working
level staff at CSIS than the Director does. However, the Director did
confirm that the FILE OPENING REQUEST - PEOPLE FILES form was never
filled out by a clerk in the Information Management Section of CSIS.
That begs the question: Why did the Executive Director of SIRC, Mr.
Archdeacon, make up his story to mislead the Sub-Committee? ;
CONCLUSIONS The Reform Party regrets having to present such a
painstakingly, detailed review of the Preston Manning investigation,
but it was necessary to demonstrate the extreme lengths that we have
had to go to in our attempts to find the truth in this matter.

The documents obtained by Mr. Manning through his Privacy Act request
afforded us the opportunity to challenge SIRC's version of events
directly. SIRC has demonstrated that their word cannot be accepted at
face value. But what does this all mean in the final analysis?

Two issues need to be resolved. The first is what initiated the
October 17, 1989 TARC Level 1 investigation. Since the South African
desk in CSIS HQ wrote off any investigation on January 10, 1989, what
suddenly spawned interest nine months later.

One would think that it would be logical for someone to have something
in writing suggesting that an investigation be opened. But that didn't
happen.

The questions that remains unanswered, are:

Who ordered this matter re-opened, and why? The other issue that must
be answered is: Why are CSIS and SIRC going to such extreme lengths to
mislead the Sub-Committee, Parliament, and Canadians? If they had
maintained their original explanation that the file caption was
inappropriately opened in the name of #145;Preston Manning', and
subsequently changed, the Reform Party would have little to complain
about. But for CSIS and SIRC to retract all their previous admissions
without explanations, and to out-and-out lie to a Parliamentary
Sub-Committee, it is clear that there is something important they are
hiding.

The question is: What? Contrary to the assurances from SIRC and CSIS,
the Reform Party has learned that from October 17, 1989 to January 17,
1990, it was recorded in CSIS' main database, N.S.R., that there was a
TARC Level 1 on Preston Manning. There was no restricted security on
this file, so this information was available to any CSIS employee who
had access to N.S.R.

Any employee who came across this information would have believed that
there was a legal TARC Level on Manning, and could have legitimately
carried out a Level 1 investigation. If the government members of the
Sub-Committee weren't so intent on burying this report, the Sub-
Committee itself may have been able to produce some of its own
answers.

However, it became apparent, especially after the Liberals changed the
membership of the Sub-Committee, that government members are just as
interested in covering up the truth, as are CSIS and SIRC. This is
typified by the member from Windsor - St. Clair's vociferous objection
to the Bloc Quebecois attempting to give their time to question the
Director of CSIS to the Reform Party at the May 27, 1996 meeting. Why
else would they object to the Reform Party having a few extra minutes
to ask questions?

It is clear to the Reform Party that SIRC's Heritage Front Affair
report is a complete whitewash. SIRC was able to divert what should
have been a review of the activities of a CSIS Source into a review of
the Heritage Front itself. Both SIRC and CSIS champion this case as a
great success for the Service, but the mere fact that the Source's own
actions made this case public, should suggest it was a failure. But
what this case has done is to show that the review system established
by the CSIS Act does not work.
The government has joined with CSIS and SIRC in covering up the truth.
Why? What are they afraid of? This government has expressed no concern
that the leader of a legitimate political party had his name on a
document authorizing a CSIS investigation on him. They have expressed
no concern that all the original documents authorizing that
investigation were altered in one manner or another. They have shown
no concern that both CSIS and SIRC admitted that originally the TARC
level was on Preston Manning, then fifteen months later proceeded to
deny it, with absolutely no explanation.
It would appear that this government is not interested in holding the
bureaucracy accountable. How is it possible that the government is not
concerned that one of its agencies operates without accountability.
Was that not why a civilian intelligence agency was formed? Did not a
previous Liberal administration pass the CSIS Act, to make Canada's
intelligence community accountable to Parliament?

Those Canadians who care about the truth will have to wait until this
country has a government committed to Parliamentary accountability,
before the true version comes out. In the meantime, the Reform Party
hopes that those journalists, researchers or academics who are
interested in pursuing security issues continue their search for the
real story. The truth is out there!

RECOMMENDATIONS In light of the negligent performance of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee in reviewing this investigation, it is
clear that there is no place in the review process for a group of
patronage appointees who believe that they do not have to answer to
Parliament.

To find an alternative we need look no further than to our neighbours
to the south. The Americans utilize not only a House Select Committee
on Intelligence, but a Senate Committee as well. Given the immense
Intelligence network in the United States with the CIA, the NSA and
the Intelligence Division of the FBI, the Americans have demonstrated
that review by elected representatives is not only workable, but in
the Reform Party's opinion is preferable. ;

Reform Party Recommendation The Reform Party recommends that this
government introduce legislation in Parliament that would amend the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, deleting all references to
the Security Intelligence Review Committee. All references to the
Security Intelligence Review Committee should be replaced by the
Standing Committee on National Security. ;

; Created by Maurice Murphy Revised: December 01, 1996

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Leave Comments here