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