X. THE SOURCE, BRISTOW AND THE LEGAL PROCESS

In  this section, we examine allegations pertaining  to  the
Source's  and  Grant Bristow's involvement in various  legal
processes. We also look specifically at information provided
by  a  Source or otherwise obtained by CSIS, that  might  be
considered   to   fall  under  the  rubric  solicitor-client
privilege.

   10.1 Zundel's Legal Plans

In   early   Februay  1992,  the  Source  told   a   Toronto
Investigator  of  a  discussion  with  Zundel  concerning  a
"Toronto  Star" article on the "Anniversary of  the  Wannsee
Conference", In the Wannsee Conference in January 1942,  the
Germans  approved  the "Final Solution".  According  to  the
Source, Zundel was interested in
having  Droege lay a private prosecution against  the  paper
and  reporter for spreading false news. Zundel  had  already
had discussions with Doug Christie to find out about all the
ramifications  of such an action. Zundel  felt  that  if  he
pursued  the  prosecution, he would be in violation  of  his
"gag order".

This information was not passed to anyone outside CSIS.

   10.2 A Discussion about David Irving

David  Irving  is  a  British writer  who  denies  that  the
holocaust ever happened, and who has visited and lectured in
Canada a number of times. During a November 1992 visit,  the
Government undertook deportation procedures. According to a-
CSIS  assessment, Doug Christie advised that although Zundel
had returned to Toronto to assist, Irving requested that  he
(Zundel)  not appear directly connected to him.  Apparently,
Zundel  agreed to this request as Doug Christie had  advised
that  such  a connection would not help if Irving challenged
the  Canadian  Immigration'  position.  The  Source  further
learned  that  Christie  had told Irving  to  hold  a  press
conference  to  tell people that he had  left  Canada  after
receiving  his departure notice by travelling from Vancouver
to  Seattle. In effect he had violated his departure  notice
and was challenging the Canadian government to act. Christie
strongly-denies giving such advice to his client.'

The  information  was  obtained  prior  to  the  Deportation
hearing. Doug Christie was Irving's counsel, and Irving did,
indeed,  use the defence of his having left Canada and  then
returned. The information, however, does not appear to  have
been
forwarded  by  CSIS  to  anyone.  The  information  is   not
identified  as  having  been  forwarded  to  anyone  outside
CSIS.[1]

   10.3 Doan Discusses Legal Strategy

On  June  24,  1993,  the  Source learned  that  Droege  had
discussed  with his lawyer, Harry Doan, how  to  avoid  bail
restrictions  which  forbade him to have  any  contact  with
Heritage  Front  members.  The Committee  learned  that  the
lawyer Harry Doan had suggested that all the members of  the
HF  resign their membership. This would allow Droege to have
contact  with his associates and not be in contravention  of
his bail release conditions.

Doan categorically denies having made such a suggestion, and
added  that he has never given any advice to clients on  how
to  evade  a court order. He said that his involvement  with
the group was limited to legal work.

Before the Committee, Wolfgang Droege noted, "Right now, you
see, to get around my bail conditions, actually there is  no
actual  mAmhership. There is no membership, you  see,  right
now  what  we are doing is we are only running  a  group  of
supporters".[2]

There  is  no evidence that this information was  passed  to
anyone by CSIS.

   10.4 Defence Creativity

The  Review  Committee learned that Fischer's lawyer,  Harry
Doan,  will  use the Defence that ... [possible infringement
of solicitor/client privilege][3]. We have also learned that
the  information was not provided to anyone other  than  the
Review Committee.

   10.5 Solicitor-Client Communications

We  discussed  any possible infringement of solicitor-client
privilege  with  the source handler. The  Source  considered
that    some   conversations   were   not   solicitor-client
information, and brought them to the handler. He,  in  turn,
decided  if  the  information was  threat-related  and  thus
whether the information would be reported. He added that  no
solicitor-client  information was ever  reported  to  anyone
else;  not  to  the police, and not to the  prosecution.  In
effect, the handler was a screening control similar to  that
used   by   CSIS   for   the  screening  of   Court-approved
intercepts.[4]

We saw no other references to conversations possibly covered
by solicitor-client privilege.

1. The  "Record Tracking" section is blank.  Messages  when
   forwarded to domestic  departments, agencies, or police  forces,  are
   tracked.
2. pp. 119-120, Testimony before the Committee, November 16, 1994.
3. (Deletion of text by SIRC).
4. SIRC Interview of Handler.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor