THE HERITAGE FRONT AFFAIR: OUR VIEW
(abbreviated version)
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 the 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 sufficient 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 willfully misled 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 this 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 from 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: '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 '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 of 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 did 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 approach 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 this issue.
Continue . . .