O'NEILL. The first tape that he was going to have to go down to Costa Rica and see the old man, take care of everything.

MANUEL. In other words, the money that Bouchard had available to him was from Costa Rica?

O'NEILL. Wait a minute now. This is where we are turning around again. Let's be very clear and precise.

MANUEL. Please.

O'NEIL. Bouchard alleged that he was going to get money from Vesco. My purpose was to either make Bouchard make a positive action to get money from Vesco or from whoever he could go to get money.

MANUEL. But wasn't your

O'NEILL. Or acknowledge the fact that part of the investigation was dead. That part of that transaction was no longer viable.

MANUEL. But likewise was it your information from the same tape that the only way Bouchard was to get that money was to send Peroff to Costa Rica to pick it up?

O'NEIL. If there is that type of money available and if the permission that was to be received by the father, the grandfather, whatever they called him in Canada, the man is in Canada, there should be money available in Canada to cover that.

MANUEL. What evidence did you have of that?

O'NEILL. I had no evidence of it. What we were trying to do was make Bouchard make a positive move to go through with this transaction. We knew that Bouchard didn't have a dime. We knew that he couldn't do it himself.

MANUEL. Why not resolve the issue by sending Peroff directly to Costa Rica to pick up whatever money Bouchard wanted him to pick up?

O'NEILL. Because he had never-it is my understanding and-that was mentioned once. You say it was mentioned twice on the second-that was only mentioned twice at top.

MANUEL. I am only saying Mr. Peroff testified to that. I wasn't anywhere around in July of '73.

O'NEIL. That was mentioned once, possibly twice. They never told Peroff where to go in Costa Rica. They said they would give him the name once the telephone or once the meeting of July 7th and July 8th was kept. Those meetings were never kept. The phone calls were never made. This whole thing was a figment of Bouchard's imagination to keep Peroff on the string. So what we wanted to do was put Bouchard in a position where he would have to make a positive move one way or the other.

We knew that Bouchard did not have any money. We didn't think that he had access to any great amounts of money.

What we wanted him to do was to finally tell Peroff that part of it was ended, it was terminated (pp. 615–617).

BOWERS REPORT CONFLICTS WITH HIMSELF, O'NEILL, DOS SANTOS

Sidney C. Bowers, the DEA agent in Montreal, filed a report August 2, 1973 in which he described the July 27 visit by Peroff to Montreal. A copy of the report was made part of the hearing record. The Bowers report conflicts with the testimony of Bowers himself and with the testimony of John O'Neill as well as the testimony of Richard Dos Santos. Bowers' testimony also conflicted with Peroff's. Bowers said in the report that Peroff arrived in Montreal Friday, July 27 aboard a 9:30 a.m. Eastern Airlines shuttle from New York. Bowers said Peroff, acting according to a plan made by the RCMP, registered at the Ramada Inn at 1005 Guy Street, Montreal. From 3 to 4:45 p.m., Peroff met in his room with Bouchard and Louis Cote. Bowers wrote:

In essence, Bouchard and Cote maintained that the plans for attempting to smuggle 100 kilograms of heroin into North America by aircraft were proceeding but there would be a delay, of an unknown duration, while arranging for the necessary financing.

Bowers said Peroff demanded money from Bouchard to meet his installment payments on the airplane. "Bouchard indicated he would try to arrange for some," Bowers wrote in his report.

As the meeting was ending, Bowers wrote, Bouchard casually made the assertion that 10 kilograms of heroin were being smuggled into Montreal on Saturday, July 28, or Sunday, July 29, by a woman courier and the heroin was being offered to Bouchard at the price of $7,000 a kilo. Bouchard said he had already sold the arriving heroin to a Detroit figure for $20,000 a kilo, Bowers wrote.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were wary of this informa tion, fearing it might be a trick that would lead them to apply extra security at the Montreal International Airport over the weekend in anticipation of the heroin being brought in. By over-reacting they might reveal Peroff's confidential informant role. Bowers reported that the Mounties decided against any "extraordinary measures" at the airport. But, mindful of Bouchard's known link with John Fecarrota of Detroit, DEA Agent T. Bauer in Detroit was advised of the lead and an effort was made to find out if Fecarotta was planning to travel to Canada, Bowers wrote.

Peroff tried to make contact with Bouchard Saturday and Sunday, Bowers wrote in his report. But Peroff could not reach Bouchard, Bowers said, adding that Peroff did meet briefly with a Bouchard associate, Claude Lemoyne, Sunday night. Lemoyne told Peroff that Bouchard was out of town and there was no new information on the heroin effort anyway, Bowers wrote. Bowers noted that Peroff left

Montreal Monday, July 30 at 1:30 p.m. on an Eastern Airlines shuttle

for New York.

The report was filed under the identification of "Joseph Boldrini, et al., XÂ-71-0015." Under the title of "Synopsis" at the top his report, Bowers wrote:

Over the weekend of July 27, 28 CI SXA-3-0004 traveled to Montreal, P. Q. in an attempt to discover the intentions of Conrad Bouchard, et al., relative to a proposed heroin smuggling venture.

Bowers' code number for Peroff-SXA-3-0004-was the one given him in early 1973 by the now defunct Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDĎ). It was inappropriate for Bowers to refer to Peroff by the old BNDD number. First, Bowers, a former Customs agent, might have referred to Peroff under the previous Customs code, D-73-1, but there was little logic to his using a BNDD number. Second, Peroff had, as of July 26, a DEA number, SCI-3-0149, of his

own.

John O'Neill testified that one of the reasons to designate Peroff a cooperating individual July 26 was to enable the agency to pay him for his work in Canada subsequent to July 26. Yet on his first trip under the new status, DEA, which July 17 was referring to Peroff as D73-1, reverted back to an even older code for him August 2. Making this point even more confusing was the fact that O'Neill, in his testimony, said he was unaware of Peroff's European informant work and the existence of a BNDD code number for Peroff.

Bowers' testimony before the Investigations Subcommittee differed considerably from his August 2 report. Bowers said, for example, that Peroff's July 27 trip to Montreal was not in connection with the proposed heroin venture at all. The purpose of the trip, Bowers testified, was to find a reason to get Frank Peroff out of jail (p. 793). It was as if the Sidney C. Bowers who wrote the August 2, 1973 report was not the same Sidney C. Bowers who testified before the Subcommittee June 13, 1974.

In his testimony, Bowers told Senators that around July 16, 1973 he asked the RCMP if they wanted Frank Peroff to come to Montreal again. Bowers said he made this inquiry because Richard Dos Santos asked him to in a July 16 phone call (pp. 789, 790).

RCMP agents were not "too wild" about the idea of Peroff returning to Montreal, Bowers said. Nor were they anxious to pursue the Vesco-LeBlanc link to the Bouchard inquiry, Bowers added. The Mounties had adopted a position of "waiting and seeing" how the case would develop before they committed an investigation of their own into the possibility that Vesco and LeBlanc were tied in with Bouchard (pp. 790, 791).

Bowers was as unenthusiastic about having Peroff come to Montreal in July 1973 as the RCMP agents were. He said that when Peroff got out of jail, Dos Santos called to ask, "Can you use him up there?" (P. 792.)

Bowers said he told Dos Santos he didn't want Peroff to come to Montreal. Bowers testified that he told Dos Santos:

I don't see any need for him to come up. He is talking to
Bouchard over the phone. Every time he comes up here we are
just spending money that we are not getting anything out of.
It is cheaper to have him talk over the phone (p. 792).

According to Bowers, then, the RCMP didn't want Peroff around in late July of 1973. And Bowers himself, a DEA man on the scene, didn't want Peroff nearby. In fact, Bowers felt there was no merit to leaving Peroff behind bars. "I told Dos Santos then as far as I am concerned he can stay in jail," Bowers testified (p. 793).

In turn, Peroff himself testified that he pleaded with Dos Santos not to make him go to Montreal. All it would do would be to make Bouchard angry and undermine the entire effort, Peroff said (pp. 122, 123). And Bouchard himself, according to Peroff, was in fact, quite annoyed and feared Peroff's presence in Montreal would undercut the heroin scheme (p. 90). But Peroff was sent to Montreal anyway. Subcommittee Investigator Philip Manuel tried to elicit from Bowers why, against all advice, DEA in New York insisted that Peroff fly to Montreal July 27. This discussion occurred:

MANUEL. Did you make any inquiries specifically on your own to determine exactly why he was coming up to Montreal?

BOWERS. As far as I am concerned that late Montreal trip was arranged as a favor to Frank to get him out of jail. MANUEL. Arranged by whom and with whom?

BOWERS. Between Dos Santos and myself acting as liaison with the RCMP.

MANUEL. Why would anybody do such a thing?

BOWERS. I guess they were feeling a little sorry for Frank.
MANUEL. Why.

BOWERS. Because he was locked up (p. 793).

Bowers went on to say that Peroff's visit to Montreal was not related to the DEA inquiry of Bouchard and heroin anyway. It was designed as an effort to have Peroff meet with Bouchard to learn what his legal strategy was for his ongoing trial. Bowers reaffirmed this assertion in his statement to the DEA-Customs inquiry. Accordingly, Bowers said, the entire trip-Peroff's airfare and expenses-were paid for by the RCMP (p. 794).

But, as if to re-emphasize his earlier assertion that the Mounties were reluctant hosts for Frank Peroff, DEA Agent Bowers volunteered the fact that the RCMP specifically tried to keep Peroff out of Montreal July 27. If Peroff had to come, Bowers said, the Mounties wanted him the following week, not the 27th (pp. 796, 797).

Manuel asked Bowers if during the July 27 trip to Montreal if Peroff had demanded advance money from Bouchard. Bowers replied, "I don't know." (Pp. 794, 795.) But in his August 2 report Bowers

asserted:

During this meeting, the CI pressed Bouchard for some advance funds indicating that the money was needed to help make installment payments on the CI's aircraft. Bouchard indicated he would try to arrange for some.

At the hearings, Manuel said to Bowers:

Mr. Dos Santos has testified before this Subcommittee under oath as has Mr. John O'Neill. Mr. Dos Santos has testified with respect to Peroff's trip to Montreal on July 27 that it was in furtherance of the Vesco-LeBlanc or possible VescoLeBlanc involvement. Mr. O'Neill has testified that at least one of the purposes for Mr. Peroff to go to Montreal on that trip was in furtherance of that same investigation or that same possible involvement of Vesco and LeBlanc.

I am wondering, Mr. Bowers, if you can explain to the Subcommittee in light of their testimony why it is that you were not aware of that purpose?

Bowers replied:

I am not sure that I can. All I can say is that I hadn't seen Frank since the May trip. This was almost two months later. I hadn't had any conversations with him (p. 797).

This answer was in conflict with Bowers' own words in his August 2 report in which he wrote that the purpose of Peroff's July 27 visit to Montreal was "to discover the intentions of Conrad Bouchard, et al., relative to a proposed heroin smuggling venture."

Manuel asked Bowers if Peroff and Bouchard met Saturday, July 28, 1973. "I don't know," Bowers testified (p. 797). But, according to Bowers' August 2 report, Peroff met for one hour and 45 minutes with Bouchard on July 27 but "attempts by the CI to meet with Bouchard throughout July 28, 1973 were unsuccessful." Manuel asked Bowers if Peroff could have met Bouchard July 28 and he, Bowers, not know about it. "I suppose that is possible," Bowers said (p. 797).

Manuel asked Bowers if he knew of, or knew the purpose of, the description of an executive jet being phoned by Richard Dos Santos to Corporal Claude Savoie to be relayed to Peroff. Bowers said he was "vaguely aware" of the description of the jet having been forwarded to Peroff during the July 27 trip (p. 798).

Manuel asked Bowers if the passing of the jet's description to Peroff was related to confirming in Bouchard's mind the purported fact that Peroff was capable of flying into Costa Rica in an executive jet. Bowers replied:

No. As I recall the situation there was that Bouchard in talking with Frank over the telephone had put somebody on the telephone and began to ask him pointed questions about the aircraft, the type of aircraft, range, speed, instruments and Frank needed that information to help back up his story (p. 798).

This discussion ensued at the hearings:

MANUEL. His story for what purpose?

BOWERS. The fact that he had an aircraft available.

MANUEL. To do what?

BOWERS. To act as a vehicle for smuggling a large quantity of drugs.

MANUEL. Specifically, at that time what was that plane going to be used for within the context of the case?