Secret Agent Gal!

It's a bad news kind of day for author/journalist/spy Stevie Cameron. Her thin claim, of being erroneously categorized as an RCMP informant has taken a bit of a hit. Cameron, who apparently has been passing on information to the Mounties since 1988, had previously claimed she was not a confidential informant as she wasn't paid, nor was she given a code.

Alas, she may have stumbled if not into a bit of a fib, then a healthy sense of constructive memory. In an affidavit release from court yesterday, RCMP Superintendent Allan Matthews said that Ms. Cameron was given the RCMP code number A2948. As the superintendent puts it, Stevie Cameron may find the designation of `confidential informant' distasteful, but in my interactions with her, she clearly wanted to benefit from the operational effect of the assertion of confidential informant privilege, namely that her identity and the fact of her cooperation with the police would be kept confidential," The Superintendent went on to say that her insistence to keep her relationship off the record, caused a fair amount of work for her Mountie handlers. A rather definitive comment that one is, which paints Ms. Cameron as wanting things both ways.

And with that, a struggle to hide her relationship with the Mounties comes to an end. Needless to say the media are having a field day with the defrocking of one of their own. As they weigh the options of defending a long time member of the club, with the idea that if they don't expose the duplicity, then the sources for newspapers across the country will dry up.

Cameron came to fame during the Mulroney years, mainly as the main antagonist in the media towards the Boy from Baie-Comeau. Her epic tale of corruption "On the Take" reads like an RCMP briefing document, ooops hey wait, perhaps it was. The publication of the book about the Airbus scandal among other things, has resulted in a cloud of suspicion to hover over the Mulroney regime to this day. Mind you as a collective group, they didn't do much in their behavior to counter the impressions from the book.

The key argument to the current controversy is whether the Chretien government of the day, launched an investigation into the affairs of Mulroney, Frank Moores and Karlheinz Schrieber, based upon the information of Ms. Cameron. Who basically made her income in the late eighties on the reporting negatively of the Mulroney era happenings. At least that is theory presented by Edward Greenspan, who is representing Mulroney et al in the proceedings. Claiming that the whole Airbus and affiliated investigations were nothing but a political vendetta, which will be traced back eventually to the Chretien office. Yet another little present for new Prime Minister Paul Martin to get brought up to speed on.

As for Cameron, her worries about her career may soon come to pass. While she may not have been taking home brown envelopes filled with cash for her efforts, she surely must have found that the relationship benefited her published works. But as any good reporter would know, the reporter should never become the story. And in this instance she's not only THE story, apparently she's the GENESIS OF THE STORY.

There is always the need to trade information to get sources, fill out details and find the truth. There is however a line that should never be crossed, one where you become not only participant in events, but the instigator of them. It would appear that despite her denials, Ms. Cameron made the choice to move beyond Journalism.

It may spell the end of her days as a daily or feature reporter, but I sense that there is a pretty good book to be had from this mess. Her past books such as "Last Amigo" "Blue Trust" and "Ottawa Inside Out", were well received as they exposed the hypocrisy and double dealing of the federal government and the bureaucracy.

Her next book will probably benefit from all the publicity, but her efforts will now be looked at in a different light. It's always a bit of a disappointment when the one shining the bright light ends up being caught in a lie, as it tarnishes their past efforts, calling the credibility of the author into question.