The
Heritage Front AffairA report to the Solicitor General of Canada
The
Heritage Front Affair
On November 2, 1988, an individual gave a CSIS Investigator some information
about his relationship with a foreign mission in Canada.
He reported a conversation he had had with a member of the Board of Directors
of an association which promoted links between the foreign government and
Canada. He conveyed to the Board Member his concern over what he felt was
unjust criticism by the foreign government of Canada's foreign policy towards
the foreign country.
According to the individual, the Board Member apparently responded to this
statement by telling him that everything had been taken care of, as they
were giving money and support to Manning and his group in the upcoming
Federal election. The individual advised CSIS that he thought that the
Board Member's reference to giving money and support to Manning and his
group, meant that the foreign government was contributing money and support
to Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party, who was running against
Joe Clark in the Alberta riding of Yellowhead.
The Regional Investigator commented in his report to CSIS Headquarters
that if in fact true (i.e. the foreign government was providing money and
support to Preston Manning and the Reform Party), this would appear to
be a classic foreign interference operation.
The Regional investigator, however, cautioned CSIS HQ about the source
and the veracity of the information. The individual was an unknown quantity,
who was both self-serving and very opportunistic, particularly if it benefitted
himself. However, notwithstanding the reliability of the above information
and given that it may have had some, as yet unconfirmed, validity, it was
reported for information purposes.
A few days later, on November 21, 1988, a CSIS' Regional office learned
of another conversation the individual had had with a close associate of
the Board Member's, who he would not identify. The individual learned that
the foreign government may have contributed as much as $45,000 to Preston
Manning and his Reform Party in trying to defeat Joe Clark in his riding
of Yellowhead. The Investigator immediately provided CSIS HQ with the information.
CSIS Headquarters analyzed the information provided by its office later
in December. In January 1989, the Desk at CSIS HQ provided the Regional
office with HQ's analysis of the information
CSIS Headquarters also requested any new information the Region might
have learned about the issue.
In 1988, Canada was a leading advocate on an important international
issue. The foreign government particularly resented Canada's position and
engaged in covert operations in this country and provided funds to support
those operations.
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[1]
investigation entitled: "LNU[2]
FNU[3] (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.[4]
To support its investigation, the Desk Head cited the following facts:
The Unit Head remarked that the Level 1 authorization was requested
in order to undertake a regional check of public records. He wanted to
determine if indeed any sizeable monetary contribution was made to Preston
Manning by either sympathetic groups or individuals, or the foreign government.
To paraphrase, he wrote that:
"We do not, at this time, suspect Mr. Manning of any complicity
with the foreign government concerned and/or their supporters. Due to the
manner in which the CSIS Targeting Policy is drafted, we cannot conduct
the necessary enquiries of public records of electoral candidates' financial
election statements without an appropriate TARC authority."
Under the targeting policy at the time, the Service could not examine
public records of the electoral candidate's financial election statements
without TARC authority. The Unit Head had the authority to authorize the
necessary Level 1 authority without further consultation. However, because
of the sensitivity of the issue, he first discussed the matter with the
Director General (Counter-Intelligence), CSIS Senior Legal Counsel, the
Chief of the Counter-Intelligence - General Desk, and the TARC Coordinator
for counter-intelligence. The Director General (Counter-Intelligence) stipulated,
in a written note, that the investigation was not to "proceed beyond
a search/review of public records without referral" back to him.
The Service did not use intrusive techniques, such as Federal Court
warrant powers, physical surveillance, informants, etc., for this investigation.
CSIS restricted its investigation solely to the collection of public documents
from Elections Canada to ascertain if a sizeable contribution had in fact
been made to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign; it then checked the
names of contributors against its databases. CSIS did not enter the names
of the contributors into its databases.
On October 17, 1989, CSIS Headquarters tasked its Ottawa Regional Office
to obtain a copy of Preston Manning's auditor's report: "... containing
detailed statements of all election expenses, etc. and the amount of money
or services provided for the use of the candidate by individuals, governments,
businesses, etc...".
On October 26, 1989, an investigator met with a Legal Advisor at Elections
Canada who provided the CSIS investigator with the following documents:
[Graphic in actual SIRC report]
These documents are all available to the general public.
The Ottawa Region investigator's report then added the following:
"Documentation regarding the Reform Party's Return will not
be available until July 1990 [...]. The Candidate's documents indicate
that Manning incurred a total of $112,366.41 in expenses during 1988, the
majority of which was spent on "advertising". Manning received
a total of $23,390.15 in donations from individuals and $25,975 from businesses.
He received seven $1,000 and one $1,500 donations from individuals. From
businesses he received three $1,000, two $2,000 and one $5,000 donations.
Other donations were of smaller sums."
To paraphrase, the Investigator concluded that until they were able
to obtain the returns for the Reform Party in July 1990, they would be
unable to draw a conclusion as to whether Manning and/or the Reform Party
may have received a financial contribution either directly or indirectly
from the foreign government. It appeared from these records that a contribution
of this size would have been a substantial addition to Manning's campaign.
Since Manning was competing in Joe Clark's riding of Yellowhead, however,
it would have certainly benefitted the foreign government to support any
candidate who might have ousted Clark from his position.
The Head of the Counter-Intelligence General Desk in Ottawa Region added
that, from the available evidence it was clear that Mr. Manning's election
campaign did not receive any sizable sums of money from the foreign government
through its intermediaries."
The CSIS Ottawa Region Investigator checked the names of the contributing
individuals and companies against the CSIS databases but found nothing.
CSIS HQ sent hard copies of Preston Manning's return to three of its offices
and all responses were similarly negative.
In September 1990, a CSIS District office conducted an interview about
the foreign embassy's dealings with the association and about the foreign
mission's ties to the Reform Party. He answered that he "is not
aware of any connections/contacts between the foreign Embassy and representatives
of the Reform Party of Canada."
First, we considered whether funding and support to a political party
from a foreign government would constitute a threat to the security of
Canada. In our opinion, the preliminary information and the foreign government's
plans seemed to have all the ingredients of a foreign influence operation.
We have not seen any political instruction regarding that investigation.
There is no documentation on file to indicate that the Solicitor General's
Office either had any knowledge of the investigation or provided direction
to CSIS.
We assessed whether CSIS took the appropriate measures to minimize the
potential impact that this investigation could have on the Reform Party.
CSIS did not investigate the Reform Party or its membership. In 1988 and
1989, CSIS had a Level 3 investigation against the activities of the foreign
intelligence service and its agents in Canada. In the course of its investigation,
CSIS collected some information about Reform Party contacts with that foreign
country's embassy. The information collected on the Party's contacts with
the Embassy was very limited.
Overall, we believe that CSIS had reasonable grounds to suspect a threat
to national security from the foreign government's intelligence service,
as defined by section 2(b) of the CSIS Act.
1 Level 1 investigations are the least intrusive. They are restricted
to the use of public information and access to government and police records.
2 Abbreviation for "Last Name Unknown".
3 Abbreviation for "First Name Unknown".
4 Section 2(b) of the CSIS Act defines foreign influence activities.
"Threats to the security of Canada means: (b) foreign influenced
activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests
of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person."