Quick Link

for your convenience!

Chapter 13 - ONE MAN - SIX IDENTITIES - TWO STORIES

The refugee hearing began in November, 1989 and lasted with various adjournments for a number of months. The full story of the other aliases Ryszard Paszkowski had assumed, depending on the circumstances in his life became apparent. In June 1982, when he escaped from Poland with a friend, he used a passport in the name of Henryk Peca. During his short stint with the Foreign Legion, he was Adam Piotrowski, although this detail was not discussed at his hearing. In 1984, he came to Canada as Robert Fisher, an identity given to him by the RCMP in Italy. In August 1986, while on assignment for CSIS in Canada, he assumed the name of Edward Busch. On October 4, 1989, he returned to Canada with Ela with a German passport in the name of Krystjan Nieradzi.

The Refugee Board heard Paszkowski's testimony as to his involvement with CSIS from December 1984 to August 1986. It differed significantly from that of the CSIS intelligence officer, Nick Maduck, who identified himself as the "source handler" for Fisher. Maduck swore that the claimant approached CSIS unannounced in Canada on July 2, 1985, saying he wished to discuss a security-related matter. CSIS claimed this was the first contact they had with the claimant. Maduck stated that for the next ten months, which was the extent of the relationship CSIS had with him, CSIS was involved in a covert operation intended to corroborate information provided by the claimant. Maduck admitted that there were two occasions when Paszkowski was asked to travel to Ottawa to visit the Polish Embassy. These occurred in September 1985 and April 1986. CSIS, he concluded, developed a cover story on these occasions in order to give Paszkowski credibility with the Polish Embassy. Fisher was to be an impoverished Polish immigrant who wanted to work for the Polish intelligence service in return for money. For travel purposes only, he was asked to assume the name of Edward Busch.

Most significantly, Maduck did admit that the possibility existed that Fisher may have been asked to travel to Europe on behalf of CSIS if the agency was able to confirm the information Fisher was providing. It was for this reason that Maduck had assisted the claimant in completing his travel document application. However, in the spring of 1986, according to Maduck, CSIS came to the conclusion that Paszkowski was untruthful and unreliable and made the decision to sever the relationship. When Paszkowski returned to Edmonton from Ottawa in April, he was paid an honorarium and expenses for the Ottawa trip and told his services were no longer required. Maduck also swore that on April 29, 1986, in a telephone conversation he told Paszkowski not to contact him again. He was never requested by CSIS, Maduck went on, to go anywhere on their behalf outside the country or to do any further work for CSIS.

Maduck claimed too that on July 30, 1986, Paszkowski telephoned him to say he was going to Italy to work for the Polish intelligence service. Their last contact was on August 11th when Paszkowski phoned Maduck's superiors to say he would be leaving for Italy on August 15 or 16. Maduck added that only in June of that year did CSIS receive a photograph and the fingerprints of Ryszard Paszkowski from the West German authorities. Only on July 29, 1986, could CSIS confirm that Paszkowski and Fisher were one and the same person. Questions that remain unanswered are: Why did CSIS assist Paszkowski with getting a Canadian travel document so that he could leave Canada and why didn't CSIS inform Immigration and the RCMP about his double identity and have him arrested as obviously was the case three years later?

Maduck and Antonio Iachetta, another CSIS intelligence officer, both invited the Refugee Board to believe that based on their investigations and information obtained from a source classified as a "reliable defector source" CSIS was satisfied that Paszkowski at no time and in no capacity worked for the Polish intelligence service. Iachetta testified that in late 1985 or early 1986 Paszkowski had delivered a letter to the Polish Embassy in Ottawa offering to sell information regarding CSIS. This information, Iachetta said, was also obtained through the "reliable defector source," a senior officer with twenty years of service to the Polish intelligence service, who, according to both Maduck and Iachetta, would have known of any involvement of the claimant as an agent for the Polish SB. Maduck had told the Board that in mid-April, 1986, Paszkowski approached the Israelis, the CIA, and the Italian authorities to sell his services. These intelligence services and CSIS held discussions regarding the claimant at the headquarters level. Both CSIS employees swore that as of the fall of 1989 CSIS was of the opinion that Paszkowski's motives in dealing with them were purely for financial gain and that he was not a disinformation agent for the Polish intelligence service.

By its order dated June 6, 1990, the Immigration and Refugee Board denied Paszkowski's claim for convention refugee status and issued its reasons for decision.

A response to an information request on the treatment of members of the Polish Intelligence submitted by Paszkowski's then lawyer Tita DeRousseau had already been prepared by the Immigration and Refugee Board Documentation Centre in Ottawa. The document, dated October 24, 1989 said: "According to an expert on military intelligence at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, it is very common that ex-members of the Polish Intelligence Service are harassed and even threatened with death after they defect. This source adds, however, that in the case of Poland, this type of action has become less frequent. Operations of this nature are much more common in West Germany than in Canada due to geographic proximity."

The document also outlined help given to Soviet and Polish defectors in the U.S., including new identities and annual payments, and added that all communist countries except Romania and Cuba "try to refrain from assassinating emigrés and defectors in the U.S. Nevertheless, defectors are monitored by various intelligence agencies. Monitoring is thought to be more active in West Germany and could involve more direct harassment, beating, or possibly assassination. According to the Jamestown Foundation (a private U.S. organization lobbying for better aid to defectors), a defector whose case has been made public would be much more at risk than one who is immediately put under official protection."

Why the two members of the Refugee Board did not include this opinion, prepared by their own Documentation Centre, in their consideration of Paszkowski's case, remains a mystery. It certainly undermines the force of their decision.

A month later, the Federal Court of Appeal without giving any reasons rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal the decision of the Refugee Board. Officials at the headquarters of Immigration Canada in Ottawa later conducted a review of the case, which was supposed to take into account his personal circumstances as they related to current conditions in Poland and West Germany. They decided that he would not face any unduly harsh or inhumane treatment if he were returned to Poland or Germany.

Hallam Johnston, Director General of Case Management in Ottawa, concurred with the recommendation of the Post-Claim Review Committee on the Paszkowski case: "Mr. Paszkowski's story is unique and complex. However, even if one acknowledges that some semblance of reality may lie beneath the murky fog of anecdote and allegation, the CRDD [Convention Refugee Detention Division] Panel has concluded that it does not warrant his being afforded Canada's protection under the Convention. I concur with the conclusion of the Review Committee to the effect that it is also insufficient to warrant a positive decision under the provisions of the Post-Claim Review procedure."

At about that time, Paszkowski sent a submission to the Immigration department in Edmonton outlining why he felt exceptional measures should be taken in his case and requesting that he be allowed to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds: "I did not ask for anything from this country - only the right to stay here with my family and the right to a peaceful life. Please take into consideration the fact that my family and I have no other possibility of settling in any other democratic country. We have nowhere to go."

A few weeks later, Randy Gurlock, a senior Immigration officer with the Edmonton office, decided after reviewing Paszkowski's file and submission that no compelling grounds existed to warrant letting him stay. He accepted that Paszkowski's wife and child might face difficulties if left alone in Canada, but added in his written review that Ela had two options: she could return with Paszkowski to Europe or she could remain in Canada and be landed as a convention refugee. If she was landed as a refugee, she would be eligible for the full range of adjustment assistance, he wrote, and this would give her the same opportunity to settle as any other new immigrant.

Gurlock based his decision mostly on focusing on Paszkowski's danger to Canadian society. "In my opinion, Mr. Paszkowski poses a potential threat to the safety and good order of Canadian society. He is potentially dangerous and he would stop at nothing to gain his own ends. He is a convicted airline hijacker and prison escapee. He admits to assuming an entirely false identity to immigrate to Canada. This history, combined with all of the circumstances of his case paints a picture of an individual whose personality is one of total manipulation." The official concluded that humanitarian and compassionate factors in the case were outweighed by the potential threat the subject poses to Canada. "His humanitarian and compassionate submission should be rejected and his deportation order be effected." Paszkowski was informed that his grounds to warrant special consideration had been found to be insufficient. He learned that arrangements for his removal from Canada were being made.

* * * * *

In the spring of 1991, Paszkowski sent a complaint to the Edmonton Chief of Police, which read:

"I have been receiving threatening telephone calls since 9:20 pm on March 13, shortly after David Kilgour's speech about my situation in the House of Commons. In unaccented English the caller told me to leave Canada immediately and to take my family with me. He said that if I did not leave, I could have an unfortunate accident - and the same thing could happen to my family. He said that `they' know everything about me. `They' know where I am working....

"The next call was at 9:35 pm on March 18. The same person called and said that I was not taking `them' seriously enough. He said that I should understand that `they' meant what `they' said and I should leave Canada immediately and take my family with me. If I did not take this warning seriously, I would be a dead man.

"When I returned to Canada in October, 1989, I was immediately arrested and held at the Edmonton Remand Centre while my case was being dealt with. I stayed at the remand centre for three months and four days. During this time, my fiancee lived with friends of mine in Edmonton. She started receiving telephone calls then, but the caller did not speak. There was one telephone call towards the end of 1989 where the caller spoke in broken Polish and told her to tell me to drop my immigration case. He told her that we should leave Canada immediately or `they' would fix me. Since then, the silent caller has continued telephoning but never speaking. We still get those telephone calls even now.

"I went to talk to Mr. Kilgour today about this problem. He then consulted with your office and was advised that I should submit an official complaint about the threatening telephone calls and that I should see Sargeant [sic] Van Camp about getting a firearm permit for self-protection. Mr. Kilgour spoke with Sargeant [sic] Van Camp who also suggested that I apply for a firearm permit. I plan to listen to this advice and apply for such a permit very soon because I take the threats against myself and my family extremely seriously and because my being in Canada is inconvenient and embarrassing for CSIS. Also, it must be taken into account that I am considered a deserter by the Polish Intelligence Service.

"I look forward to quick action in this matter since the safety of my family and myself is at stake."

He received a response several months later which said that before considering his written request for a firearm permit the police would require a letter from Germany as his last country of residence stating he was never convicted of a crime, even though they knew of his hijacking conviction. This, however, didn't stop the Edmonton police from issuing an annual security clearance Paszkowski needs for his job. Paszkowski applied formally some time later for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate. He never received a reply.

In the fall of 1990, I started receiving threatening telephone calls. Unfortunately, my name and number were listed in the city telephone book. The caller would tell me graphically what would become of me and my family if I didn't leave Canada. Most of the time, I was so annoyed that I would tell the caller what I thought of him and hang up. The calls continued, so I contacted the Edmonton City Police and they installed a tracking device so they would be able to tell what number the calls were made from. During the next several months the phone calls continued, but the police were unable to determine where the calls were coming from. It seemed strange to me, but what could I do? I changed my phone number to an unlisted one. Before I changed the number, I received one very weird call from a young man. In a scared voice he introduced himself, said he was calling from a correction house and that he had read about me in the press and would like to help me as a Canadian. The last thing I needed at this point was the help of a juvenile delinquent. I didn't treat him seriously, and hung up. I didn't think too much about this call until later when I realized what was behind it.

One evening, the telephone in Paszkowski's apartment rang again. The RCMP officer on the other end of the phone line wanted to know if Paszkowski knew someone by the name of [a minor]. "There was someone by that name who called me some time ago," Paszkowski answered, remembering the strange call he had received a few weeks previous. "He was interested in my case and wanted to help me," he added.

"We took your phone number from the long distance bill at the corrections house for young offenders. [The minor] escaped from the corrections house a few days ago. Do you know where he is, Mr. Paszkowski?"

"How the hell should I know?" an irate Paszkowski replied. "I don't even know the guy. I've never seen him in my life and it's not my job to help you search for young offenders!" He slammed down the receiver.

A couple of weeks later, another telephone call came. Again, it was the RCMP asking about the youth, wanting to know where he was. This time Paszkowski was really angry, sensing some kind of set-up. He told the caller to buzz-off and hung up. He thought that would settle the matter for good.

During this period, I was involved in a legal battle with the superintendent of the building where we rented our apartment. We were flooded three times; there was water up to our knees; things were always breaking down; and we were fighting a losing battle with mice. The management of the house did nothing to help and on the few occasions something was done, it was slow in coming. I would argue often with the superintendent who, quickly becoming fed up with my complaints, tried to get rid of us by harassing my shy wife. I would often find Ela crying upon my return home because of that woman. The other tenants also had large bones to pick with her, so I wrote a petition to the management of the building asking them to have her replaced. Twenty-five persons signed the petition. When the superintendent learned that I was collecting signatures against her, she telephoned me to tell me to stop doing it. "It's illegal," she said and, "If you continue, I will call the police. You can't do it." I laughed and said she could even call the prime minister himself if she wished. I was going to continue with my petition. She shouted something in response, but I had hung up.

A few weeks later, I was playing with my son on the sofa when somebody knocked on the door. It was the police. When I opened the door, five or six officers ran into the room and one of them declared I was under arrest. When I asked him what I was under arrest for, he responded, "Uttering death threats against the superintendent of this building."

They escorted me out of my apartment and into the street. There were policemen everywhere with their guns pulled and a lot of police cars. It was a large-scale operation as if they were arresting an armed gangster or something.

In the police car, one of the officers told me I would be released soon on bail. I could only wonder what this circus was all about. Once at the remand centre, they took my photo and fingerprints. The next day, my lawyer, Brian Beresh, arranged for my release on $1000 bail. I was to appear in court at a later date on the charge.

The city police came to my home again one evening a short time later. I wasn't there and Ela was alone. They wouldn't tell her what I was wanted for. Detective Barros and another officer got into the apartment and searched the rooms without a warrant. Before leaving, Barros left his phone number and told my wife that I should call him as soon as I returned. When I got the message from Ela, I called him immediately.

"What is it this time, Mr. Barros? What have I done now?" I was a bit worried that Immigration had found a country that would take me and were ready to deport me, but they wouldn't send the city police would they? They would send the RCMP to arrest me.

"You are wanted on charges of having anal intercourse with a minor."

What the hell is that? I thought. My English wasn't good enough to understand the charge. I sensed it was something vulgar, but I wasn't sure.

"Can you explain to me in plain English what it is?" I asked.

Barros sounded distressed by my question, but finally burst out, "Fucking a teenage boy in the ass."

My entire body went numb with fear and then anger. I realized my opponents were willing to use any means to get rid of me, but going this low was really beyond my comprehension. This was the third charge against me. They were trying to discourage me by throwing these ridiculous charges at me, hoping I would give up and leave.

The next day, after talking with my lawyer, I reported to the police station where I was arrested by Barros. Before doing that, I called the press telling them about the charges. By the time I arrived, Barros had already received some phone calls asking about the case and was upset that I had informed the media. I guess they thought I would be too embarrassed to tell anyone and would keep quiet this time. It was only when I was arrested that I learned who the boy was, the mysterious young voice who had called me from the corrections house for young offenders. The same one the RCMP had been searching for. I was charged with having intercourse with someone I'd never met in my life.

I spent the weekend at the remand centre and was released on $500 bail. Immigration headquarters in Ottawa soon escalated it's efforts to deport me. With the two charges against me, I was a danger to the public peace and order in Canada.

The Edmonton Immigration office is notified by Edmonton Police Services that Ryszard Paszkowski was arrested on June 7, 1991 and charged under Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code for uttering death threats and subsequently released on bail. Paszkowski was arrested again by the police on July 6, 1991 for uttering threats against his landlady. The following day he was released from custody to appear in court on July 9th. The preliminary hearing for the previous charges was set for September, 1991.

In mid-July 1991, Ryszard Paszkowski was also charged with sexually assaulting a fifteen-year-old boy. He was arrested on July 15 and charged on one count of anal intercourse. He reserved his plea in court and was released on $500 cash bail. His next court date was set for July 22, 1991. A note with two scenarios of the possible developments of the sexual assault charge against Paszkowski was drafted by someone at the Edmonton Immigration office. "Scenario #1: Monday, July 22, 1991. The charge of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy against Paszkowski is dropped and the perception that CSIS was involved in a set-up increases dramatically. Scenario #2: Monday, July 22, 1991. The charge of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy against Paszkowski goes to trial and the credibility of the charge increases."

It was during the preliminary hearing at Edmonton Provincial Court that I saw the youth for the first time. He avoided eye contact with me and appeared nervous. The prosecutor proceeded with questioning him about the alleged incident, which according to him took place at a motel outside of Edmonton. The questions were precise and so were the young man's replies. Too precise and pat for a juvenile delinquent wasting his youth at a group home.

The whole circus was well orchestrated. There I sat listening to all those outright perversions of the truth spilling from the mouth of an obviously troubled adolescent. When the prosecutor finished, it was time for my lawyer, Brian Beresh, to take his turn questioning the youth, but the judge decided there was no time left in the day and adjourned the court for several months.

When I again reported to court to resume the case, it turned out the hearing couldn't proceed because the youth had disappeared and couldn't therefore continue his accusations. Apparently, he had again escaped the group home. The judge issued a warrant for his arrest and once more adjourned the court. A few months later, the hearing couldn't continue yet again. The RCMP had been unable to locate the youth to bring him to court. It looked to me as if they hadn't even tried to find him. The charges were stayed and the case was closed.

I was pleased and angry at the same time. How could they arrange this whole scheme, find a person to accuse me, lay false charges, create suspicion and blacken my character, only to let the matter drop so I couldn't prove in court it was a set up!

This was in fact the second trial that did not finish. The first was when they charged me with illegally entering Canada. I was prepared to tell everything during the hearings, so it would be clear under what circumstances I had entered the country. However, in September of 1990, the Department of Justice stayed its charge of using fraudulent means to enter Canada. My opportunity to reveal publicly in a Canadian court the dirty tricks CSIS used and to defend my name was thus gone.

The government's third case did go to court. The death threat charges against our building superintendent proceeded. It was easy for my lawyer, Brian Beresh, to prove that the woman was lying and could not even remember all her accusations. She contradicted her own testimony in court and even said different things from what she said during the preliminary hearing. During the trial, the young prosecutor tried to offer a deal that I wouldn't contact her and would stop threatening her in exchange for dropping the charges. That would mean that I would admit to threatening her. I refused and the court found me not guilty of the charge.

It was now 3 - 0 for me. All attempts to have me criminally convicted and found `a threat to Canadian society' had failed. A friend warned me to watch every step as my adversaries in high places might trump up another charge against me in the hope that I would just quit trying to stay in Canada. I refused to give up. They underestimated me if they thought they could simply discard me after having used me in their amateur spy games. They couldn't kick me out of the country with the blessing of a compliant Immigration service. I was a tough opponent and if attacked I would reciprocate in kind.

* * * * *

In an effort to seek answers to many questions posed by Paszkowski's saga, I decided to pursue the matter through the channels available to Members of Parliament. In the spring of 1991, I tabled two questions on the Order Paper. "With respect to Canadian Security Intelligence employee Ryszard Paszkowski, (a) did CSIS inform him of the nature of his mission in Rome in 1986, and if not, for what reason (b) did CSIS attempt to persuade him to tell Roman police authorities that he was on a private visit, and if so, for what reason?"

The second: "Have officials of the Department of External Affairs attempted to have the government of the Federal Republic of Germany reinstate Ryszard Paszkowski's lapsed status as a refugee, and if so, for what reason? Have measures been taken to remove Ryszard Paszkowski from Canada, and, if so, (a) when (b) for what reason?" An answer never arrived.

Cadieux's answer to my first question as printed in Hansard: "Mr. Ryszard Paszkowski was never an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). After his first arrival in Canada in December 1984, and before his departure for Rome in 1986, he did provide information to the Service about the alleged activities in Canada of a foreign intelligence service. This information could not be verified and as stated in the House by the Honourable James Kelleher, when Solicitor General, on January 22, 1988, CSIS ended its relationship with Mr. Paszkowski before he left Canada voluntarily for Italy in August 1986. The relationship between the Service and Mr. Paszkowski has been thoroughly examined by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) and no wrong doing of any kind by the Service in relation to Mr. Paszkowski was found."

At about the same time, I put a question in the House to Pierre Cadieux as the minister then responsible for CSIS. I asked why CSIS had sent Paszkowski to Rome. Cadieux provided no answer, saying only that as I had tabled a similar question on the Order Paper the response would come at an "appropriate time".

My supplementary question: "Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General should be aware that a government travel document was provided by CSIS to Paszkowski that summer. This has been documented by Richard Cleroux in his book Official Secrets. My supplementary question is for the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration.... Mr. Paszkowski's wife, Elzbieta, has recently been found, as the minister knows, to be a refugee in Canada. The minister's own department is seeking to expel him. Will the minister not intervene in this case to allow her husband who has rendered significant services, I believe, to CSIS, to remain in this country with his wife and son?"

"Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada): Madam Speaker, I would just like to tell my hon. friend that if he knows the answer to the question I do not see why he is asking it, assuming that the information as to that travel document which he alleges is true. I will neither deny or confirm that. With respect to the book to which he refers, I do not think it is my responsibility to become a literary critic. With respect to Mr. Paszkowski, as my hon. friend knows, SIRC has looked into the case of Mr. Paszkowski. In its report of 1987-88, SIRC said: `We satisfied ourselves that CSIS dealt properly with Mr. Paszkowski.'"

In early June, I attended a meeting of the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. Doug Lewis, then Solicitor General and CSIS Director Reid Morden were present. Though not then a member of the committee I was allowed to ask a question of Morden; Lewis answered for him and the exchange was recorded as follows:

"Mr. Kilgour: Finally to Mr. Morden, a question about Ryszard Paszkowski. You may not want to do it now, you may have to look it up, but I would like to know when he stopped drawing a regular income from CSIS. Secondly, did your representatives in Edmonton not put, to put it mildly, very considerable pressure on him to go on a mission for CSIS in mid-1986 to Rome?"

"Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I think those allegations are completely out of character for a Member of Parliament and should be completely ignored and expunged from the record. Knowing the individual who made them, I am not surprised."

"Mr. Kilgour: But the answer to the question, Mr. Chairman?"

"The Chairman (Robert Horner): There really was not much of a question there."

* * * * *

Since 1990, I wrote often to ministers in the Mulroney cabinet on behalf of Paszkowski and his wife, attempting to create enough pressure to ensure that the case would finally get a fair hearing. My letters to ministers Barbara McDougall, Bernard Valcourt, Kim Campbell, Doug Lewis and Pierre Cadieux perhaps caused Immigration headquarters and CSIS to update continually the briefing notes and media lines for their ministers even though no question was raised in the House of Commons about Paszkowski after 1991. In terms of changes in bureaucratic attitudes toward the case, the letters produced nothing.

The replies I received from CSIS Director Ray Protti and Solicitor General Doug Lewis in 1992 repeated the same lines: "I'm satisfied that the Service acted professionally and appropriately in its dealings with Mr. Paszkowski." A quote from the 1987-88 Annual Report of the SIRC sometimes appeared as back-up for the latest decision not to intervene. Citing a list of review bodies and former Solicitor Generals who were involved with Paszkowski's case, Doug Lewis ended his June 1992 letter: "I have nothing further to add in this regard and consider the matter closed."

The Chrétien government, brought to office in the October 1993 election, offered Ryszard and Ela real hope that with new people new attitudes would follow. In the fall of 1993, as his case continued, I both wrote to and spoke with the new Immigration Minister, Sergio Marchi. In fairness, the minister, barely two months into his job, had little time to review the highly complex Paszkowski case; moreover, most of the same mandarins who had been feeding briefing notes to the previous ministers were now advising him.

In a December 1993 letter to Marchi outlining the reasons Paszkowski's case deserved a review, I wrote:

"While true that he was convicted of air piracy in West Germany, he was never charged with terrorism.... Paszkowski clearly believed his life depended on escaping from the Soviet sphere because he had defected from the Polish Security Service. Surely, our own courts would deal differently with someone hijacking a plane from Cuba as opposed to the USA.

"The document prepared by Case Management of Immigration NHQ in Ottawa while summing up Mr. Paszkowski's case concluded: `He will remain criminally inadmissible unless Governor in Council approval is obtained on the grounds that he has rehabilitated himself. He will not be eligible to be considered for this process until the spring of 1994.'

"According to various news sources, former East German secret police agents and communist officials have teamed up with organized crime, posing a threat to the united country. A similar situation exists in Poland where former SB agents are employed in the police force after the events of 1989. A former Polish government official told me some months ago, following a trip to Warsaw, that Paszkowski's life would definitely be in real danger from rogue members of the SB if he were forced to return to Poland.... At the very least, has he not rehabilitated himself after risking his life for CSIS on at least two occasions?"

The response was a severe disappointment to the Paszkowskis. In a style highly reminiscent of the briefing notes and media lines provided to previous ministers, Mr. Marchi's letter declared: "This letter has been given a careful review and it has been determined that Mr. Paszkowski has been dealt with fairly. He has had the full benefit of Canada's very generous refugee determination system, and is unlikely to face unduly harsh or inhumane treatment should he be returned to his native Poland. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Paszkowski originally secured admission to Canada as a fugitive from justice, under a false name. Accordingly, I have determined that my intervention in this case is not warranted."

In May 1994, some truly astonishing documents obtained from the Immigration and Refugee Board by the media revealed that rapists, drug dealers, addicts, and armed robbers were among 197 newcomers - all convicted of crimes in Canada - who had persuaded the Appeal Division of the Board to stay their deportation orders during 1993 alone. What offense had Ryszard committed? All three charges brought against him in Canada were either dropped by prosecutors or thrown out by our courts.