Canadian spy escaped prosecution
Charges abandoned on fears archaic Official Secrets Act would fail Charter challenge

Jim Bronskill, Southam News
Ondrej Besperat, The Associated Press

OTTAWA - The federal government decided not to prosecute a Canadian who spied for the former Communist Bloc despite extensive evidence of his treachery.

The Department of Justice did not pursue charges against the retired External Affairs clerk under the Official Secrets Act out of concern the archaic legislation was unlikely to withstand a constitutional challenge.

Insiders familiar with the case say the clerk was a paid informant for the Czech intelligence service, the StB, while employed at the Canadian mission in Prague in the mid-1960s.

He completed other foreign postings, including a five-year stint at the Canadian High Commission in London, before retiring in 1990.

The Official Secrets Act, hastily passed in 1939 on the eve of the Second World War, allows for police searches without judicial warrant and closed-door trials. Subject to only minor revisions over the years, it has been widely criticized as ambiguous, cumbersome and a probable affront to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Despite the glaring weaknesses of the decades-old law, the federal government has not modernized it in the more than five years since the spy file was closed.

And critics warn that Canada will be unable to address current threats, such as the theft of industrial secrets by foreign spies, without more up-to-date legislation.

Evidence of the former employee's espionage included numerous audio tapes of meetings with his StB case officer and records of the thousands of dollars the Czechs paid him for Canadian secrets.

The justice department's decision not to take the case to court allowed him to return to his retirement overseas and to continue collecting a Canadian government pension.

Southam News pieced together the details of the espionage from documents released under the Access to Information Act, other public records and interviews with five officials familiar with the case who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Officials say the Canadian clerk began passing classified information, including secret diplomatic reports, to the Czechs after being ensnared in a "honey trap" -- a sexual liaison with a Prague woman who was in league with the StB and also worked at the Canadian mission.

The Czech intelligence service was effectively an arm of the KGB, and the Canadian secrets would have been relayed to Moscow.

Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution of 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall set the stage for the return of democracy and the eventual breakup of the country into two states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The StB, which had served as an instrument of totalitarian control, was dissolved and replaced by the Czech Security Information Service.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service saw the developments as an opportunity to forge a new relationship, promising co-operation with the Czechs in return for assurances their revamped security regime was not spying on Canada.

Czech authorities allowed CSIS to examine files of potential interest, including those dealing with operations mounted against the Canadian embassy in Prague. The exercise allayed long-held suspicions about some Canadians, but exposed the clerk's actions in the process.

The clerk worked in administrative jobs in Ottawa for External Affairs, as the Department of Foreign Affairs was then known, as well as at several Canadian embassies.

He arrived in Czechoslovakia at the height of the Cold War prior to the Prague Spring of the late 1960s, the brief rekindling of democratic spirit soon crushed by Warsaw Pact troops.

Canadians working in Czechoslovakia assumed their phones were tapped. Sometimes they were followed in public. Diplomats feared microphones were hidden in the embassy and the ambassador's residence. Everyone knew the StB was trolling for secrets and looking to compromise Westerners.

Canadian personnel were warned not to fraternize with local residents, including those employed by the mission.

The woman with whom the Canadian clerk was having an affair soon began pressuring him to hand over information.

One official said the clerk, who was married, should have been suspicious of the fact his lover had an apartment near the mission, a rare luxury for someone of her stature.

However, it was not strictly a case of blackmail, as he started receiving payment for Canadian secrets. "He was accepting cold, hard cash," said an insider.

Over the course of several months, the man passed numerous documents -- including some top secret information -- to the StB. Among the material were political reports from the embassy to External Affairs headquarters that revealed the intentions and strategies of Canada and other Western countries.

"He passed on everything he got his hands on," said an official, adding there was "clear, irrefutable evidence of his treachery."

The files provided to CSIS included compromising photographs of the Canadian's encounters with the woman, a list of items he had given the Czechs and several audio tapes of his dealings with the StB.

The watchdog over CSIS, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, examined the spy agency's work on the case in a little-noticed September, 1998, study. A copy of the study, released under the Access to Information law, reveals few details -- neither the clerk nor Czechoslovakia are mentioned by name -- but confirms the material disclosed to CSIS "was vital to unmask the espionage against Canada that had taken place years before."

Records from the early 1990s shed light on the investigation and the steps taken to inform key federal departments of the case.

A CSIS memo says the files were handed to the RCMP for "probable criminal charges."

The Mounties began a criminal probe of the clerk for violation of the Official Secrets Act, but the Conservative government was defeated before its completion.

Liberal stalwart Herb Gray succeeded Doug Lewis as solicitor -general after the Grits routed the Tories in the October, 1993, election. A briefing note to Mr. Gray on the spy case, from then CSIS director Ray Protti, said "a criminal investigation is well under way."

The Privy Council Office was also to be advised of the case.

Another CSIS memo indicates the seriousness with which the spy agency viewed the matter, noting that since the employee's activities "had gone undetected, they continued to pose a threat to national security years later."

One theory holds that CSIS feared the clerk could be "reactivated" by the SVR, the Russian foreign intelligence service, one of the agencies that succeeded the KGB following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Until he was exposed or it became clear Canadian authorities knew of his misdeeds, he remained vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.

After Prague, the clerk apparently continued his career with External Affairs in several other countries.

He was posted to the Canadian High Commission in London from the summer of 1985 until his retirement in August, 1990. As an administrator, he worked on the fifth floor of stately Macdonald House, a short commute from his living quarters in Ealing. He retired in the United Kingdom, but returned to work at the High Commission as a locally engaged staff member on four separate and brief occasions through May, 1992.

A short time later, the RCMP travelled to Europe to interview the former employee as well as his former StB case officer. The investigation completed, the file was submitted to the Department of Justice for consideration.

In an Official Secrets case, Crown counsel must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a likelihood of conviction and, if so, whether a prosecution would be in the public interest.

Charges under the Act can be instituted only with the approval of the federal Attorney-General.

The Department of Justice would not release files related to the case, saying it is exempt under provisions of the Access to Information Act concerning international affairs, investigations, personal information, consultations or deliberations and solicitor-client privilege.

It is therefore unclear whether the Justice Minister and Attorney-General of the day, Allan Rock, evaluated the case or if department lawyers concluded it could not proceed.

Spokesmen for Justice, the RCMP and CSIS declined to discuss the case.

However, individuals familiar with the file said the government decided a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act would be unsuccessful because the law could well be determined unconstitutional.

The Department of Justice decision to drop the matter, many months after receiving the file from the RCMP, angered officials who expected the former clerk to be brought to trial in Canada.

"I was just absolutely dumbfounded when they said they couldn't prosecute," said one who closely followed the case.

"You'd like to see a message go out to people that if you sell out your country, your country will come after you. But in our case, if you sell out your country, well, that's all right."

In the late 1990s, a federal working group drafted proposals to replace the Official Secrets Act with modern legislation, consistent with the Charter and more suited to addressing current threats.

Paint me Curious

All those in favour of Joy, say Aye (no not the redhead down the block), all in favour of brothe...forget that one too!

Let the brotherhood of Warriors, Soldiers and Kings progress beyond the season and work for the preservation of our country.

I am speaking Class A, of course - I presume you guys are really talking about the people who spend years and years in Class B and Class C callouts? That's a different ball of wax, of course. Not sure if they should be entitled, either - unless they've been prevented from joining the Regular Force for some reason, why should they get the benefit of a guaranteed pension without the responsibility of signing the dotted line for three (or twenty-three) years?

Like the kit issue, I think financial benefits have really increased a lot in the last few years. Dental coverage for Class A reservists, for one, the "retirement gratuity" for another, plus the huge pay increase of not too long ago and health care payments. Been a couple of small reverses, such as losing out on lunch money for full days worked without a meal provided, but that is negligible.

Q. ... people who spend years and years in Class B and Class C callouts ... why should they get the benefit of a ... pension without the responsibility of signing the dotted line for three (or twenty-three) years?"
A. First of all, when I was in recruiting reservists signed up for "an indefinite period of service" - they were never offered the option of signing up for a specified term of employment. Thus, in practice, reservists signed up until their Compulsory Retirement Age, or until they finally decided they had had enough. Thus, in relation to labour, employment and pension practices across Canada, the contractual agreement between the Crown and reservists could be considered as permanent employees (vice contract employees, who normally forego pension benefits in favour of increased wages).

Q. "... buyback ...?"
A. Well, again - fair's fair. Your pension is normally based on your contributions, which in turn are based on your length of service. And, the precedent is already extremely well-documented inasmuch as transferees from the reserves to the Regular Force routinely are offered the option of buying back their reserve service. Again, however, I emphasize that it's only fair to offer those with considerable previous service the option of buying back that time - to do otherwise would be in flagrant contradiction of publicly stated government policy (i.e. pensions for all part-time federal employees, as described previously, unless the government decides that reservists are valued less than, and do not deserve to be treated as fairly as civil servants).

But, after all is said and done, it really turns my crank to think a well-documented TRAITOR is receiving a federal pension, while long-serving, loyal reservists do not. This is manifestly wrong.

Dileas Gu Brath,
M.A. Bossi, Esquire

"A man who is good enough to give his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards."

Theodore Roosevelt

For "Mud", pensions have nothing to do with income or other taxes. Pensions are based on separate contributions to a pension fund throughout the duration of a term of service. Terms of service less than twenty years entitle the 'employee' to only the return of contributions.

What does the average reservist earn in a year from Class A employment? How much would they then contribute under the Cf Superannuation Act? And what monthly rate of pension do you perceive them getting after twenty years?

As an aside, how many reservists might consider accumulated contributions of 2-10K an incentive to leave, rather than to stay?

Instead of wondering whether reservists should recieve pensions, this should be considered as another incentive to join and stay. We join for a number of reasons, to serve, summer job etc and we stay because of the comradeship and sevice to the country. This does not makes us entilted but it would be nice to have some consideration.(other than " thanks for coming, can we have your watch back now.")

All this is new. Before we got little pay no benifits and no job protection. I think the gov't ( if it is serious about the reserves) so bring in job protection and make Class A time tax-free.

Exellent information, Michael. I believe I asked if reservists really are entitled to a pension, and you answered that one well. RCA, I asked if something isn't already in the works, and you answered that one, too.

But what about the gratuity for 10 years service. Is that not a considerable sum? How does that work for taxes - I understand there are benefits to investing it in an RSP...

Min 10yrs service=
rate of pay when leaving x 3.5 days x yrs served

after 20 yrs to a max of 210 days=
rate of pay when leaving x 7 days x yrs served

My understanding is the retirement gratuity is separte from the "pension plan" as it simply mimics (albeit lesser amount) that the the Reg F mbr recieves upon completion of his contract.

WRT the pension plan, it is currently being looked at in NDHQ. It is unknown (as far as I know) if it will be a defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, group RRSPs, or perhaps something exactly the same as Reg F has with CFSA. All of them have advantages and disadvantages depending on what type of Reservist you are and how long you have served.

"The benefits of being a reservist continue to get better and better. Most of the older fellows will remember when we didn't get any leave (full time service), vacation pay, pay was crap, no dental benefits for Cl A service, no retirement gratuity, educational benefits, SCAN benefits, pay cheques twice a month, etc, etc. These have all come into fruition since I joined 16 years ago and we've come a long ways."

In my time I have befriended and been befriended by many a proud reservist. There are good reservists as there are poor regular forces. Pride knows no boundary, as does incompetence.

The reserves are expected to and do shoulder a percentage of our Op Tempo, so let�s make it equitable. Soldier on and lets hope that with the intent to procure and develop our reserves and militia we offer them something that equates to a raison de etre towards long service.

�Even if for mercenary reasons, why else do regulars stick around for 20�. (Just a joke Gunner)

2 Charlie, Out

From a management approach, to a management system, the motto has and will always be, "An honest days wage, for an honest days toil". You my good sire I do not wish to embroil over mediocrity. We use a management model and that model utilizes, as it does in the rest of the corporate world, financial reward as the carrot.

I joined for the thrill and desire of being a soldier, I enjoy the kinship and the camaraderie, because at the end of this, that $g or more of pension we all receive, really is not a lot too fall back upon.

But if improving the lot of the reserves and militia, notably those who stay for the betterment of their regimental or unit families, then it's good to recognize it the same way that the Public Service, etc does, financially.

2 Charlie, Out.

This can also be said of volunteer fire fighters and volunteers in general. With the exception of a few regions, many volunteer fire services have to adopt a standard of training that a few years ago was unheard of. As a result many departments are going through a steep learning curve of what the newfound volunteerism means.

The Province of Ontario has adopted the policy of reducing the volunteer brigades by establishing a province wide professional Fire Service. Why, many individuals and departments cannot meet the level of training and experience required to meet the standards established.

So what is my point, well somewhat Machiavellian to be precise. The notion of purity and loyalty for service too our country is noble, but if you have other responsibilities such as family, bills and career. There has to be a balance, and unfortunately, lets be honest, many people never do this until it is too late. Marital discord, tarnished credit ratings, or career implications. Whether regular, reserve or militia this has and still does occur.

Yes, I respect your comments of reserve or militia service before self, but realistically, it is a part time job. Unless you get the opportunity to go to war and validate your beliefs and sacrifices, what have you garnered? Pride is an important element of each and every one of our personalities, but too what end. I have visited many a person who dedicated their lives to military service, at the expense of everything else. Thank god for regimental or unit families, because many of these soles would have little or no one in their lives.

So, do the ends justify the means or do the means justify the end. From my point of view, you won�t get out of this life alive. As I indicated above, the capitalist dogma of, �An honest days wage for an honest days toil�. This combined with a balanced existence justify the means too and end.

Actually... I believe this applies only to the CF. Civilian pensions all vary, but normally include matching contributions from employer and employee. If one leaves the plan before the employer contributions are "vested" one may lose them. If one leaves the plan after they've vested, but before retirement age, one keeps both but a portion may be "locked in" until retirement.

Only the CF, to my knowledge, does not allow contributors to keep the employer portion when leaving before pensionable age. A major disadvantage of the CF system. This is, undoubtedly, due to the fact that all the contributions are, in fact, notional in the first place.

A major plus, of course, is that a regular can retire at age 40 (or thereabouts) and immediately begin collecting pension. This is the only pension in the country, as far as I know, where this is true. Even MP's now have to wait until 65 to draw.

**************

On the matter of whether Reservists should be paid competitively, I find the discussion fascinating. Especially the debate between whether the reserve is/should be a "job" or a "calling" and the different approaches to compensation expected depending on one's point of view.

Perhaps the biggest problem with effectiveness in the reserve is the fact that it is not treated as a part time job by many it employs.

For many "purists" it is merely a hobby -- one which they choose to pursue vigorously at times, and at other times, not at all. Call it a "patriotic calling" if you like, but a "hobby" nonetheless.

Even 7-Eleven demands more of its employees in many ways: i.e. if you don't show up for your shift, you're fired. If you don't know how to do the job, you're fired. And for that, they get a competitive wage. No one pours slurpies because it's their duty.

It is true that we can never guaretee numbers at any parade or exercise and it is frustating as hell to watch people decide not to go on ex as ther weather worsens towards the weekend. However that plenty more who never miss a parade so it is unfair to them to paint them with the smae brush as the fair wheather soldiers. And it is for them we push for "compensation".

As an aside - to qual to be a job first one must have a job desription and a company goal - we have neither.

As for "If you don't know how to do the job, you're fired" this is not true even I dare say with the professionals - how many duds have we seen in the Reg F who became COs and RSMs and still can't find their ass with both hands. The Peter Principal is alive and well in the Forces and you did stir up the muck with that comment. However I put it down to just ingonorance not a personality flaw.

How can we fault the Peter principle , when the folks in question are but a product of the current CF doctrine and expectations.