YO Ian McPhail Re: The Commission for Public Complaints against RCMP - #2013-2824

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:39:26 -0400
Subject: YO Ian McPhail Re: The Commission for Public Complaints
against RCMP - #2013-2824
To: Sheldon <Sheldon@nfa.ca>, Blair <Blair@nfa.ca>, "steve.graham"
<steve.graham@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Moreau"
<Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "steve.murphy"
<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:44:52 -0300
Subject: YO Ian McPhail Re: The Commission for Public Complaints
against RCMP - #2013-2824
To: PCC Complaints <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>, "Ian.McPhail"
<Ian.McPhail@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>, "bob.paulson"
<bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "steven.blaney"
<steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Moreau"
<Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "roger.l.brown"
<roger.l.brown@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, warren <warren@daisygroup.ca>, jacques
boucher <jacques.boucher@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
Gunther.Schonfeldt@cpc-cpp.gc.ca, dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, rusun@un.int,
john.adams@queensu.ca, John.Forster@cse-cst.gc.ca,
td.ombudsman@td.com, christopher.montague@td.com,
Frank.McKenna@td.com, Glenn.Greenwald@guardian.co.uk,
info@praxisfilms.org, birgittaj@althingi.is
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "justin.trudeau.a1"
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>,
enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk, sarah.chapman@fsa.gov.uk,
ambassador@brasilemb.org, slrc@itamaraty.gov.br

WOW Ya think somebody within the "Five Eyes" would finally do their
job now EH Glen Greenwald and the President Rousseff'?

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html

---------- Original message ----------
From: PCC Complaints <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:59:52 +0000
Subject: The Commission for Public Complaints against RCMP - #2013-2824
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Amos:

This is further to your recent communications with the Commission.
From September 18, 2013 to the present, our office has received 6
electronic messages from you. Many of these e-mails are not related to
RCMP conduct.

On October 1, 2013, you called our office and spoke with an Intake
Officer. You wished to enquire about three complaint files. When the
Intake Officer attempted to inform you that you have three enquiry
files with the Commission, you became agitated and insisted otherwise.
You raised your voice and spoke over the Intake Officer. You then
demanded the name of the Intake Officer, and subsequently yelled "see
you in federal court" and hung up the telephone line.

As a reminder, we request that all future correspondence with our
office must be courteous in tone and that you are respectful of the
requests that are made of you. While it is clearly not the intention
of the Commission to prevent you from making complaints against
members of the RCMP, your recent emails and telephone call have been
unproductive for both you and for Commission staff. In the future, we
request that all communication with our office be respectful in
language and related to our mandate. In the event that this request
is not respected, the Commission will consider imposing restrictions
on how you may communicate with our office.

Should you have a complaint about a specific RCMP member surrounding a
specific incident, I invite you to visit the Commission's website
(www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca<http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca>) to submit an online
complaint, rather than to send an email that is difficult to follow or
a copy of a letter you have sent to many others. The complaint form
will guide you through the information required that will enable the
Commission to process your complaint. Should you have difficulty in
accessing the complaint form and wish to have one sent to you, you may
provide your mailing address and a form will be mailed to you via
Canada Post.

I would also invite you to send your correspondence regarding any new
or existing complaints (quoting the appropriate Commission file
number) by letter mail to:

Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
National Intake Office
PO Box 88689
Surrey, BC V3W 0X1

Yours truly,

Günther Schönfeldt
Intake Officer / Agent d'information de liaison
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP /
Commission des plaintes du public contre la Gendarmerie royale du Canada
Tel/Tél : 1-800-665-6878 | Fax/Téléc : (604) 501-4095
complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca<mailto:complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>



[Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CCF6DA.65AE7FE0]


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: !enquiries <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:56:26 +0100
Subject: IPCC Reference: 2013/015918
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Dear Mr Amos

I acknowledge receipt of 4 emails at the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (IPCC) earlier today.

I note from our records that you have been advised on the IPCC remit,
as well as spoken with one of my colleagues in the customer contact
team. It remains unclear from your emails what your complaint against
the police is. This may be because you refer to a number of other
organisations, or matters outside of the IPCC's remit.

If you wish to make a complaint against the police you should provide
these details to either the IPCC or the relevant police force's
professional standards department (PSD).

The IPCC does not investigate allegations of crime(s) committed by
members of the public, nor can we direct a police force to commence an
investigation into such.

If you have any queries about the IPCC's remit or the complaints
process please contact us. However, emails to the IPCC that fall
outside of our remit will be read and filed, but may not be responded
to.

Kind regards

Elly Goodman
Customer Contact Adviser
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in
partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On
leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
and/or recorded for legal purposes.






Talk about pissing a guy off. EH Ian McPhail? What planet do CROWN's
bureaucrats come from anyway?

Need I say BULLSHIT once again??? The other CROWN Corp commonly know
as the CBC often puts that word over our airwaves so that can't be
offensive. That said I bet the call was recorded If so I demand a copy
ASAP. Next time I call I will record the call myself.

I must ask did the oh so silent boss Ian MacPhail and his buddy Bob
Paulson about the Yankee wiretap tapes being evidence of MURDER?
Better check the Canadian Ciminal Code about assisting in the cover up
of such crimes EH?

As for the call I remember it like it was yesterday. Howcome it took
Günther Schönfeldt three weeks to dream up the same sort of response I
got in 2007??? The first thing I did was ask for him and the woman
claimed he was not avaible and offered to help. She started out quite
nice but as soon as she admited that there was only a faxed complaint
in November of 2003 and that it did not warrant an answer I told her
to look some more. She got fairly argumentive and did not wish to
discuss the complaint I sent in August of 2005 (It appeared to me that
she read something in my file) I gave up and asked her name when she
got to snarky and she refused to give other than "Nora" So I said Cya
in Federal Court and hung up. The I sent your buddy Bob Paulson and
YOU Ian McPhail a Motherload of emails but I did only sent your
mindless bureaucrats six that were largely unrelated if they did not
know how to read deep.

However your Commission should not deny that I argued with its former
lawyer/boss Shirley Heafey about the aforesaid compliant in 2005
within emails sent to many Parliamentarians months for a I ran for a
sent Parliament again and she was replaced by the lawyer Paul Kennedy.
(The lawyer Heafey and your Commission always denied that complaint
existed until your office sent me a similar bullshit email after Mike
Murphy a former Minister of Health and later another former Attorney
General asked Deputy Commissioner Steve Graham to investigate my
concerns.

In return the Graham got transferred to Nova Scotia and RCMP falsely
arrested REMEMBER Stevey Boy Harper?

As I said Cya'll in Federal Court

Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
1 902 800 0369

http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139

http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc

http://davidamos.blogspot.com/

FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
Senator Arlen Specter
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Specter:

I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
raised in the attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that
these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in
contact with you about this previously.

Very truly yours,
Barry A. Bachrach
Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lisa Porteous <lporteous@kleinlyons.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:46:22 +0000
Subject: RCMP
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

David,

Thank you for your email inquiring about our class action against the
RCMP. As you may know, the Notice of Claim was filed in the British
Columbia Supreme Court on March 27, 2012. The lawsuit has been
brought by former RCMP constable Janet Merlo on behalf of female RCMP
members. Unfortunately, we cannot assist you with your claim.

We recommend that you contact Mr. Barry Carter of Mair Jensen Blair
LLP to discuss any claim you may have against the RCMP for harassment.
His contact information is as follows:

Mr. Barry Carter
Mair Jensen Blair LLP
1380-885 W. Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 3E8
Phone: 604-682-6299
Fax 1-604-374-6992

This is not intended to be an opinion concerning the merits of your
case. In declining to represent you, we are not expressing an opinion
as to whether you should take further action in this matter.

You should be aware that there may be strict time limitations within
which you must act in order to protect your rights. Failure to begin
your lawsuit by filing an action within the required time may mean
that you could be barred forever from pursuing a claim. Therefore, you
should immediately contact another lawyer ( as indicated above) to
obtain legal advice/representation.

Thank you again for considering our firm.

Yours truly,

Lisa Porteous
Case Manager/Paralegal

lporteous@kleinlyons.com
www.kleinlyons.com

KLEIN * LYONS
Suite 400-1385 West 8th Avenue
Vancouver BC V6H 3V9 Canada
Office 604.874.7171
Fax 604.874.7180
Direct 604.714.6533

This email is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
privilege. It is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is
addressed. Any distribution, copying or other use by anyone else is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
telephone us immediately and destroy this e-mail.

üPlease consider the environment before printing this email.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Amos" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
To: <Ian.McPhail@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>; <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>; "toewsv1"
<toewsv1@mts.net>; "danfour" <danfour@myginch.com>
Cc: <nelson.kalil@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>; "rmordenassoc"
<rmordenassoc@rogers.com>; <warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; "warren"
<warren@daisygroup.ca>; "warren.dosko" <warren.dosko@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>;
"Paulette. Delaney-Smith" <Paulette.Delaney-Smith@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>;
"WaterWarCrimes" <waterwarcrimes@gmail.com>; "robin reid"
<zorroboy2009@hotmail.com>; "tony" <tony@peoplestandup.ca>;
"Ken.Zielke" <Ken.Zielke@gov.ab.ca>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:18 PM
Subject: Attn Commissioner Ian McPhail QC I called again and tried to
speak to you twice today my number is 902 800 0369


http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/nrm/nr/2010/20100126-eng.aspx

As I said I am very serious and have no wish to speak to the likes of
Ms Leduc EVER again FYI I see that the gossip about my concerns is
leaking out here there an everywhere following this note is just
couple of the reasons why I called an tried hard to speak to you again
today

Please don't try to tell me that your office does not know what
happened between the RCMP and I within weeks of my sending the email
immedialy below this note.

If perhaps you people should read some blogs an watch some YOUTUBES ASAP?

Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos

http://davidamos.blogspot.com/

http://charlesotherpersonality.blogspot.com/2008/07/david-amos-picked-up-by-rcmp.html

http://govinjustice.blogspot.com/2008/07/david-amos-picked-up-by-rcmp.html

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/07/feds-institutionalize-determined-nb.html

http://www.leadershipdirectories.com/images/promo/FTC.pdf

QSLS Politics
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 15,116
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 164.62.7.# (Federal Trade Commission)
ISP Federal Trade Commission
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727;
.NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Aug 18 2010 1:50:29 pm
Last Page View Aug 18 2010 2:01:49 pm
Visit Length 11 minutes 20 seconds
Page Views 2
Referring URL http://www.google.co...i=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Search Engine google.com
Search Words "david amos" canada parliament
Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....eblower-part-1b.html
Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....eblower-part-1b.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Aug 18 2010 7:50:29 am
Visit Number 15,116


Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 11,630
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 199.212.215.# (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE)
ISP DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Ottawa
Lat/Long : 45.4167, -75.7 (Map)
Language English (Canada)en-ca
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Aug 13 2010 12:50:37 pm
Last Page View Aug 13 2010 12:52:15 pm
Visit Length 1 minute 38 seconds
Page Views 7
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blo...04/just-dave_22.html
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blo...3/ides-of-march.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time Aug 13 2010 8:50:37 am
Visit Number 11,630


Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 11,638
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 199.212.150.# (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
ISP Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Ottawa
Lat/Long : 45.4167, -75.7 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
INFOWEB-APPROVED; INFOWEB-APPROVED-IE6-FR; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR
2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Aug 13 2010 5:52:40 pm
Last Page View Aug 13 2010 5:52:40 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.blogger.c...15428735081915360609
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Aug 13 2010 4:52:40 pm
Visit Number 11,638

Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 11,639
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 199.212.215.# (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE)
ISP DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Ottawa
Lat/Long : 45.4167, -75.7 (Map)
Language English (Canada) en-ca
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1466 x 916
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Aug 13 2010 5:52:51 pm
Last Page View Aug 13 2010 5:52:51 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blo...04/just-dave_22.html
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blo...04/just-dave_22.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time Aug 13 2010 1:52:51 pm
Visit Number 11,639



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:34:30 -0300
Subject: Attn PAULINE PHILIBERT and ARNOLD HADLEY of the New Brunswick
Police Commission
To: nbpc@gnb.ca, arnold.hadley@gnb.ca, john.foran@gnb.ca,
premier@gnb.ca, Jeannot.VOLPE@gnb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
Wayne.STEEVES@gnb.ca
Cc: webo@xplornet.com

New Brunswick Police Commission
435 King Street
Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 1E5

A letter to support my complaint about various police forces in New
Brunswick will follow these emails just as I promised on the phone to
you people today.

I have no understanding as to why the Police Commission nor anyone
else holding a governmental mandate in the Province of New Brunswick
has never called me back or answered one email in nearly four years.
Shawn Graham should at least recognize his own documents to my framer
friend, Werner Bock from the time when he sat in opposition and was
the agricutural critic at the same time .

It appears to me that I am not the only one to get mad at the
malicious incompetence of John Foran and the cops of New Brunswick.
What is even more interesting though is the fact that John Foran was
once mad at the Police Commission and they way they investigated
things so secretly against the public's best interests. EH Mr. Volpe?
Rest assured that I ain't holding my breath for the police to continue
to harass me anymore after their nonsense yesterday. Nor will I wait
to see Wayne Steeves say or do the right thing after he has covered up
my concerns about the severe lack of police integrity for his politcal
party's benefit for four god damned years.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=JOHN+FORAN+WILSON+MacINTOSH&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/nb/nbqb/doc/1995/1995canlii3862/1995canlii3862.html

For the recod these Youtubes that are this arseholes favoutites were
created by the RCMP and I have no doubt whatsoever the people
slandering me are cops as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0NdNtvC-YI#GU5U2spHI_4

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigolcanoworms

At least his ID is correct. This is a big old can of worms. N'est Pas?

Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:17:05 -0300
Subject: Perhaps Paul Kennedy the current Commissioner of Public
Complaints Against the RCMP will call us back now EH?
To: Hermenegilde.Chiasson@gnb.ca, Dion.S@parl.gc.ca,
scotta@parl.gc.ca, Leblanc.D@parl.gc.ca, Holland.M@parl.gc.ca,
Hubbard.C@parl.gc.ca, jonesr@cbc.ca, nbombud@gnb.ca,
Ed.Doherty@gnb.ca, T.J.Burke@gnb.ca, roly.macintyre@gnb.ca,
aleblanc.mla@nb.aibn.com, eugene.mcginley2@gnb.ca, brian.kenny@gnb.ca,
roy.boudreau@gnb.ca, donald.arseneault@gnb.ca, danf@danf.net,
injusticecoalition@hotmail.com, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
stuart.jamieson@gnb.ca, Margaret-Ann.BLANEY@gnb.ca,
victor.boudreau@gnb.ca, rick.brewer@gnb.ca,
John.Ferguson@saintjohn.ca, Ivan.Court@saintjohn.ca
Cc: complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca, nouvelle@acadienouvelle.com,
newsroom@nbpub.com, carl.davies@gnb.ca, janet.trail@gnb.ca,
Akoschany@ctv.ca, jtravers@thestar.ca, alan_white@cbc.ca,
Tim.Porter@gnb.ca, Trevor.HOLDER@gnb.ca, bev.harrison@gnb.ca,
Wayne.STEEVES@gnb.ca, Jody.CARR@gnb.ca, Keith.ASHFIELD@gnb.ca,
David.ALWARD@gnb.ca, bruce.noble@fredericton.ca,
lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca

Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:36:41 -0400
From: "PCC Complaints" complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com

May 23, 2007

File No. PC-2005-1291

Mr. David R Amos
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Amos:

On a number of occasions you have called or sent e-mails our office to
raise matters which are of pressing concern to you.

Each time we have tried to respond by explaining to you the relatively
narrow mandate of this Commission and the limits of our powers to deal
with the matters which are of concern to you. I must stress, once
again, that the purpose of this Commission is to provide the public
with an opportunity to make complaints concerning the conduct of
members of the RCMP in the performance of their duties. We have
neither the expertise nor the legal authority to permit us to become
involved in issues beyond the scope of this mandate.

While it is clearly not the intention of the Commission to prevent you
from making complaints against members of the RCMP, an analysis of
your numerous contacts with the Commission indicates that your
concerns fall well outside the confines of our mandate. Further, your
frequent e-mails have been disruptive and unproductive for both you
and for the staff of this office.

Should you determine that some point in the future you have a
complaint concerning the conduct of a member of the RCMP in the
performance of his or her duties, please submit it to the Commission
by Canada Post only. As of now, your e-mails will be deleted unread.

Yours truly,

Andrée Leduc
Enquiries and Complaints Analyst

Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Say hey to Shawn Murphy for me will ya Brian?
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:25:45 -0400
From: "REVIEWS" reviews@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
To: "David Amos" motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has received
your e-mail message and will be responding in due course.

La Commission des plaintes du public contre la GRC a reçu votre
courriel et vous rendra une réponse au moment opportun.

Subject:
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com


January 30, 2007


WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Mr. David Amos


Dear Mr. Amos:

This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.

Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
Graham of the RCMP "J" Division in Fredericton.

Sincerely,

Honourable Michael B. Murphy
Minister of Health

CM/cb

Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,
John.Foran@gnb.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,
"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
"Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have n

Dear Mr. Amos,

Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off over
the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I was not
ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.

As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.

As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear that
Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada and the
US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment policing in
Petitcodiac, NB.

It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Warren McBeath, Cpl.
GRC Caledonia RCMP
Traffic Services NCO
Ph: (506) 387-2222
Fax: (506) 387-4622
E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca


Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Amos <motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Just so you know
To: HeafeyS@cpc-cpp.gc.ca, gemerson@tor.fasken.com, jgrant@baseconsulting.ca,
rabrahamson@baseconsulting.ca, mdesouza@baseconsulting.ca, csae@csae.com,
kim.keith@rci.rogers.com, jduncan@tor.fasken.com, Moore.R@parl.gc.ca,
ahamilton@casselsbrock.com, jm@jmellon.com, treasurer@casis.ca,
jbronskill@cp.org, RTRiley6@cs.com, pborbey@pco-bcp.gc.ca,
dlepage@pco-bcp.gc.ca, Allan.Kimpton@psc-cfp.gc.ca,
linda.gobeil@psc-cfp.gc.ca, janette.hamilton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
barbara.george@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, danielle.brunet-paquin@tpsgc.gc.ca,
robert.brule@cse-cst.gc.ca, Julie.Birch@cse-cst.gc.ca,
arnold.zeman@psepc-sppcc.gc.ca, nancy.taillon@psepc-sppcc.gc.ca
CC: info.com@chrc-ccdp.ca, Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca, Scott.A@parl.gc.ca,
radionews@mpbc.org, publisher@whatsup.nb.ca, kjamerson@wagmtv.com,
kbabin@globaltv.ca, jfoster@globaltv.ca, atvnews@ctv.ca, cmorris@cp.org,
info@ccna.ca, kbissett@broadcastnews.ca, bdnmail@bangordailynews.net,
ehutton@atlanticbusinessmagazine.com, argosy@mta.ca,
sylvain.martel@csn.qc.ca, events@cpac.ca, mmacdonald@cp.org,
crgeditor@yahoo.com, jeff.mockler@gnb.ca

No need to Bitch.
I am about to sue ya anyway but you did receive the same material
that everybody else got by email anyway. However now I will now
forward the other emails that various silly servants got after I had
had many talks with your incompetant and malicious assistants within
the Commission over the past two years. It seems that I had to insult
you and bust you in front of your friends to finally get a response
from you.
Furthermore on August 2nd I sent you your material byway of the
US Mail which was received and signed for. It was hard copy of my
concerns and allegations about you being in bed with the corrupt old
bastard Zack of the RCMP. I also sent a copy of wiretap tape # 139.
Instead of you acting within the scope of your employment you go on
vacation and bury your head in the sand while the RCMP assisted the
Yankees in throwing my wife and kids into the street without due
process of law?
Well your head may be in still the sand but you just stuck your
arse high up in the air. It is high time for me to give it a boot
before you stick it up Zack's ass in a vain effort to appear that you
have integrity after all. The following is the text of that letter and
after that is the US Mail's confirmation of when it was sent and
received by you.
Say hey to McLachlin for me will ya? Tell her I will be suing her
too. She has been covering up for the crooked Newfy Judge Dereck Green
for way past too long. To hell with lawyers appointed as commissioners
and other lawyers appointed as judges. From my point of view they were
only appointed to cover up public corruption. I look forward to
meeting the likes of you in court and arguing you on the public
record. You just proved for me that most lawyers ain't that smart. You
should have continued to play dumb Bitch. At least then you could have
blamed your assistants for not telling you what you obviously know.
however if you had done so, I would have pointed to the fact that you
are their supervisor and therefore ultimatly responsible. Everybody
else knows that the RCMP are as crooked as hell, so do you. call me a
liar now. I double dog dare ya.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos



July 31st, 2005

Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin,
C/o Norman Sabourin General Counsel and
Andrew Grant and Renée Maria Tremblay
Canadian Judicial Council
150 Metcalfe Street,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8

Shirley Heafey
Chair of Commission
for Public Complaints against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423
Station &quo t;D"
Ottawa,
ON K1P 6L4


RE: Rampant Public Corruption

Hey,
Pursuant to my recent phone calls to Norman Sabourin and
various underlings of Shirley Heafey within the Commission for Public
Complaints against the RCMP over the years plus my many faxes and
emails please find enclosed exactly the same material received by
every Attorney General in Canada over the past year. The CD which is a
copy of a police surveillance wiretap tape # 139 is served upon you as
officers of the court in order that it may be properly investigated.
As you can see I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to the latest
Attorney General Mr. Wally Opal in BC. Perhaps he should take a little
trip to Surrey and ask your office some hard questions. Perhaps the
ghost of my fellow Independent politician, Chuck Cadman may wish to
answer few questions now as well. Hard telling not knowing.

I will not bother you with the details of what I am sending
to you byway of the certified US Mail because I will be serving
identical material to many other Canadian Authorities in hand and tell
them I gave this stuff to you first and enclose a copy of this letter.
All that is important to me right now is that I secure proof that this
mail was sent before I make my way back home to the Maritimes.
However I will say I am also enclosing a great deal more material
than what Allan Rock had received in the UN. Some of it is in fact
the same material the two maritime lawyers, Rob Moore and Franky
Boy McKenna in particular received, while I was up home running for
Parliament last year. Things have changed greatly in the past year so
I have also included a few recent items to spice thing up for you.

I am tired of trying to convince people employed in law enforcement
to uphold the law. So all I will say for now is deal will your own conscience
and be careful how you respond to this letter. If you do not respond. Rest
assured I will do my best to sue you some day. Ignorance is no excuse to
the law or me.

Veritas Vincit

David R. Amos

153 Alvin Ave

Milton, MA. 02186

Label/Receipt Number: ED71 7170 484U S
Detailed Results:


[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Bullet
Delivered Abroad, August 11, 2005, 6:49 am, CANADA
Bullet
Out of Foreign Customs, August 08, 2005, 2:37 pm, CANADA
Bullet
Into Foreign Customs, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
Bullet
Arrived Abroad, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
Bullet
International Dispatch, August 03, 2005, 8:32 am, KENNEDY AMC
Bullet
Enroute, August 03, 2005, 8:30 am, JAMAICA, NY 11499
Bullet
Acceptance, August 02, 2005, 10:40 am, QUINCY, MA 02169

"Heafey, Shirley" <HeafeyS@cpc-cpp.gc.ca> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Heafey, Shirley"<HeafeyS@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>
Sent: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:10:00 -0400
To: "David Amos" <motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Just so you know

Just so you know, there was no message attached to the e-mail sent to
me. SO, in fact, I don't know what you think I should now know.

Try again.

SH

-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:24 PM
>To: gemerson@tor.fasken.com; jgrant@baseconsulting.ca;
rabrahamson@baseconsulting.ca; mdesouza@baseconsulting.ca;
csae@csae.com; kim.keith@rci.rogers.com; jduncan@tor.fasken.com;
Moore.R@parl.gc.ca; ahamilton@casselsbrock.com
Cc: Zeman, Arnold; jm@jmellon.com; Taillon, Nancy; treasurer@casis.ca;
jbronskill@cp.org; RTRiley6@cs.com; pborbey@pco-bcp.gc.ca;
dlepage@pco-bcp.gc.ca; Allan.Kimpton@psc-cfp.gc.ca;
linda.gobeil@psc-cfp.gc.ca; janette.hamilton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
barbara.george@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; danielle.brunet-paquin@tpsgc.gc.ca;
robert.brule@cse-cst.gc.ca; Julie.Birch@cse-cst.gc.ca; Heafey, Shirley
Subject: Just so you know

CSIS can never say they didn't know. This should put Shirley Heafey's
panties in a knot when she get back from her vacation. I can only
wonder what Ms. Longo of the RCMP is saying about now.

"Zeman, Arnold" <Arnold.Zeman@PSEPC-SPPCC.gc.ca> wrote:

Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: For the record Joan I did talk to
your boss Abrahamson yesterday and more people you know today
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:16:11 -0400
From: "Zeman, Arnold" <Arnold.Zeman@PSEPC-SPPCC.gc.ca>
To: "David Amos" <motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>
This is an automatic reply. I'm away froom the office and will return
on Monday September 26,2005. If you need information before then,
please contact Marie-France Kingsley at 990-6306.
************************************
Ceci est une réponse automatique. Je serai de retour au bureau le
lundi 26 septembre 2005. Si vous avez besoin d'aide, veuillez
communiquer avec Marie-France Kingsley au 990-6306.
*******************************
A. W. Zeman
Assistant Inspector General of CSIS /
Inspecteur général adjoint du SCRS
340 Laurier Avenue West / 340, avenue Laurier ouest
Ottawa ON K1A 0P8
phone / tél : (613) 990-8274
fax / télécopieur : (613) 990-8303
email / courriel : arnold.zeman@psepc-sppcc.gc.ca
********************************




http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/paul-kennedy

Paul Kennedy

What Happened
Paul Kennedy was removed as head of the Commission for Public
Complaints (CPC) regarding the RCMP after he advocated a more powerful
and independent Commission. He sought adequate funding for
investigations, increased accountability and improved service
standards. The Harper government appointed a Conservative Party ally
to replace him.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Kennedy was appointed Chair of the Commission for Public
Complaints (CPC) Against the RCMP in 2005. He was re-appointed for
three more one-year terms in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Throughout his tenure, Kennedy was known as a relentless advocate for
a more independent CPC. He believed that the CPC relied too heavily on
the cooperation of senior RCMP officials, and was too limited in
independent power to probe the RCMP's activities, or to inquire into
witnesses' testimonials and to demand the production of documents as
evidence.

Kennedy also advocated for better funding to oversee the RCMP so that
the CPC could investigate more cases and investigate them thoroughly.
He argued that the CPC's budget of $5.2 million paled in comparison to
the RCMP's $4.1 billion budget.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan cut Kennedy's budget by $600,000
in 2009, seriously limiting the scope of the CPC's investigations.

Kennedy did get funding for the high-profile investigation into RCMP
involvement in the tasering death of Polish immigrant Robert
Dzienkanski at the Vancouver International Airpoirt in 2007, and his
work to reform RCMP policies on taser use. But that funding was only
made available temporary. Similar investigations in future might not
get the funding they need given the small size of the CPC's budget.

Media sources have reported clashes between Kennedy and the
Conservative government during Kennedy's time as head of CPC. He was
ridiculed by Conservative officials for his stance that Mounties' work
requires proper review and that access to evidence and witnesses was
necessary in order to ensure accountability. Although the government
has promised reform monitoring of the RCMP, this promise was not kept
during Kennedy's tenure.

Kennedy had other successes: during his tenure, the RCMP was under
public pressure to modify training and operational procedures. The
commission now regularly conducts reviews of RCMP activities and their
policies in self-investigation. Kennedy also addressed investigations
of death and verbal abuse involving RCMP officers, and proposed
legislative and policy changes to avoid conflicts of interest.

Kennedy's final weeks in office were marked by the release of a report
strongly critical of the conduct of the RCMP officers involved in the
death of Robert Dziekanski. The RCMP would go on to accept all but one
of the findings in Kennedy's CPC report, and address the report's
recommendations, eventually creating an Office of Professional
Integrity, as well as a new policy to ensure independent and impartial
investigation of RCMP employees.

However, in November 2009, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan's
office notified Kennedy that he would not be re-appointed after his
contract terminated that December. Kennedy had been prepared to serve
another term.

In January 2010, Ian McPhail, a long-time contributor to the
Conservative Party, was appointed interim chair of the CPC. McPhail
was a real-estate lawyer with some limited experience on other
commissions. Observers felt McPhail lacked the experience required
head the CPC. McPhail's appointment was seen by Paul Kennedy and
others as a wholly partisan move, that placed a strong Conservative
ally in an important watchdog position. The replacement of Kennedy
with McPhail has been criticized as an attempt to silence Kennedy's
criticism of the RCMP, thereby reducing accountability of the RCMP to
the government and the public.

In January 2010, Kennedy made an appearance on Parliament Hill to
express concerns about the fate of civilian oversight bodies under the
Harper government. He was joined by two other watchdogs who the
government had removed for dubious reasons: Peter Tinsley, who had
been the Military Police Complaints Commissioner; and Linda Keen,
former President of Canada's nuclear safety regulator.

Kennedy has said the government was not willing to let the CPC fulfill
its intended purpose. He has also called on the government to
institute a fixed term for which a commissioner is appointed, so that
people who have a job to do on behalf of the public don't end up
essentially working for the governing party.

In 2011 the new Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, re-appointed
McPhail as head of the CPC for another year.

Relevant Dates:
October 2005: Paul Kennedy is appointed Chair of the Commission for
Public Complaints (CPC) against the RCMP.
October 2007: Robert Dziekanski dies after being tasered by an RCMP
officer at the Vancouver International airport; Kennedy strongly
criticizes the way the situation was handled.
December 2008: Paul Kennedy is reappointed for another 1-year term as
Chair of the CPC, until December 31, 2009
August 11, 2009: Kennedy calls for policy changes to enhance
accountability of the RCMP.
November 18 2009: The government tells Kennedy his contract will not
be renewed.
December 8, 2009: Kennedy publishes a report criticizing some of the
RCMP's actions.
January 24, 2010: The government appoints Ian McPhail as interim Chair
of the CPC.
January 26, 2010: Paul Kennedy, Peter Tinsley and Linda Keen hold a
press conference, expressing their concern over the government's
silencing of watchdogs.
February 4, 2010: The RCMP announces a new policy to ensure
independent and impartial investigations of its employees.
Role or Position
Paul Kennedy was Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints (CPC)
Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) from 2005 to 2009.

Implications and Consequences
Transparency: The removal of Kennedy means the loss of a qualified
civil servant with over thirty five years experience in public
service, with a proven track record of creating change for increased
accountability.
Democracy: The effectiveness and independence of watchdog
organizations are compromised when leaders are appointed to short
one-years terms and removed at will by politicians. The slashing of
the CPC budget means in practice that there will be minimal oversight
of the RCMP.
Democracy: If public officials are removed and replaced whenever they
threaten to hold the government to account, the strength of our
democracy is diminished.
Photo: CTV News

Sources
"CPC Chair responds to the RCMP Commissioner's letter...," Paul
Kennedy, CPC against the RCMP, 16 December 2009
"CPC Report on the death of Mr. Dziekanski," William Elliott, RCMP, 10
February 2011
"Former RCMP watchdog warns commission heads liable to sway," Janice
Tibbests, CanWest News Services, 4 January 2010
"Former watchdogs speak out on Harper government," Susan Delacourt,
The Star, 26 January 2010
"Harper Government Names Realtor as RCMP Watchdog," Nathan Griffiths,
InformedVote.ca, 1 February 2010
"Ottawa names interim RCMP watchdog," Colin Freeze, The Globe and
Mail, 24 January 2010
"Minister Toews announces re-appointment of Ian McPhail as Interim
Chair of the CPC," Public Safety Canada, 14 January 2011
"New civilian watchdog agency will oversee RCMP," RCMP Watch, 4 February 2010
"Police Oblivious to pain Tasers inflict: RCMP Complaints
Commissioner," CBC News, 25 June 2008
"RCMP response to CPC regarding its report into Robert Dziekanski's
in-custody death," William Elliott, RCMP, 7 December 2009
"RCMP should limit self-investigations," CBC News, 11 August 2009
"RCMP to implement all watchdog recommendations on Robert Dziekanski
case," CPC against the RCMP, 10 February 2011
"RCMP watchdog won't be reappointed," CBC News, 27 November 2009
Report on death of Robert Dziekanski (PDF), CPC, 8 December 2009
"Report slams RCMP in airport Taser death," CBC News, 8 December 2009
"Tories drop RCMP complaints commissioner," Tonda MacCharles, The
Star, 27 November 2009
Français


DEMAND IMMEDIATE APOLOGY FROM CANADIAN ALLIANCE MP
Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:00 pm
John Cummins' office replies 'Get a life' when invited to Maher Arar vigil

Ottawa, Canada – 17/12/02) – CAIR-CAN is calling on Canadians to demand
that John Cummins, member of Parliament of Delta-South Richmond, B.C.,
offer a public apology for recent remarks made by his office when Cummins
was invited to a silent vigil for Maher Arar. In response to the
invitation, Cummins' office replied by email, "Get a life."

Maher Arar is the Canadian citizen who was detained illegally in the United
States en route to Canada and deported to Jordan and then to Syria. Arar
was denied access to Canadian officials, prevented from calling his family,
tried through a non-transparent process without a lawyer present, and
deported to his country of birth in violation of international law. He is
currently being held in a Syrian jail.

The statement follows recent comments by Stephen Harper, Diane Ablonczy,
and Stockwell Day of the Canadian Alliance which condemn Arar without any
regard to his illegal deportation, the lack of a fair trial process, and in
the absence of any definitive evidence linking him to terrorism.

(See CAIR-CAN action alert # 84:
http://www.caircan.ca/cgi-bin/actionalerts/viewnews.cgi?newsid1038072766,60770,)

The remark made by John Cummins' office is deeply insulting and a clear
breach of his duties as a public official," said CAIR-CAN Executive
Director Riad Saloojee.

He should immediately offer an unqualified apology to the Arar family and
to all Canadians," he added.

ACTION REQUESTED (Be firm, but polite):

CONTACT Steven Harper and John Cummins.

E-mail: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, Cummins.J@parl.gc.ca

Telephone or Fax:

Stephen Harper
Tel: (613) 996-6740
Fax: (613) 947-0310

John Cummins
Tel: (613) 992-2957
Fax: (613) 992-3589

DEMAND an immediate apology from John Cummins for the remarks made by his
office yesterday.

INFORM Canadian Alliance leader Steven Harper that his party has failed in
its duty as the official opposition to defend the rights of a Canadian
citizen. Recent comments by his party indicate a troubling trend of
treating Maher Arar, a Canadian Muslim and Arab, as a second class citizen.

COPY Canada@cair-net.org on all correspondence.

Colin Mayes, Conservative

This rookie B.C. MP made headlines this year after he defended the PM's new
restrictions on media access in a column to his local paper. Mayes went
further and suggested journalists would be more responsible if they faced
jail terms for professional misconduct. "Boy, would the public get accurate
and true information if a few reporters were hauled away to jail! Maybe it
is time that we hauled off in handcuffs reporters that fabricate stories,
or twist information and even falsely accuse citizens." Mayes quickly
retracted his comments.


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Amos" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
To: "pm" <pm@pm.gc.ca>; <deb@debgrey.com>; <debgrey@gmail.com>;
<valerielmeredith@aol.com>; <RathgB0@parl.gc.ca>; "MulcaT"
<MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>; "Heather Martin" <martinhea39@gmail.com>;
"bob.paulson" <bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; "kevin.violot"
<kevin.violot@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; "Wayne.Lang"
<Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; "toewsv1" <toewsv1@parl.gc.ca>; "bob.rae"
<bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net>; "Bob.Kerr" <Bob.Kerr@cbc.ca>;
"terry.seguin" <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>; "mckeen.randy"
<mckeen.randy@gmail.com>; "mcknight.gisele"
<mcknight.gisele@dailygleaner.com>; "mclellana"
<mclellana@bennettjones.com>
Cc: <Whistleblower@ctv.ca>; <martine.turcotte@bell.ca>; "oldmaison"
<oldmaison@yahoo.com>; "stop_codex" <stop_codex@hotmail.com>; "josh
steffler" <canuckfanjosh@yahoo.com>; <webmasterlawrence@gmail.com>;
"xtofury" <xtofury@gmail.com>; "grenouf" <grenouf@genuinewitty.com>;
"hiddenfromhistory1" <hiddenfromhistory1@gmail.com>; "J Bowman"
<canada.acp@gmail.com>; "leader" <leader@greenparty.ca>;
"maryann4peace" <maryann4peace@gmail.com>; "john.green"
<john.green@gnb.ca>; "police" <police@fredericton.ca>; "David Amos"
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>; "greg.weston" <greg.weston@cbc.ca>;
<Billa.MEDHURST@vpd.ca>; "mark.lord" <mark.lord@fredericton.ca>;
"Leanne.Fitch" <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 12:17 AM
Subject: So Debby Baby Grey "Famous Amos" would like to know if Harper
and the RCMP in BC are paying attention YET???


Some Deja Vu for you and Val

http://deanrays.blogspot.com/2009/07/vals-minority-report.html

http://www.debgrey.com/contact.html

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