I might have the ear of a news reporter that is willing to look at my matter.
This reporter is more interested in some of the results I have recevied from the Department of National Defence in response to my various Access to Information requests.
The most recent results I recevied were from an Access to Information Request that I filed with the Department of National Defence in 2019.
In April of 2019, I had been contacted by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. I was told by the OIC that DND had released documents to another party that were the same documents that I had been requesting since 2012 and therefore I should submit a new request for the exact documents that DND had just released.
The records that I had requested were for the July 18th, 1980 court martial of Captain Father Angus McRae.
I made an application for these documents on April 3rd 2019. DND acknowledged this request a few days later.
In July of 2020 I finally received the documents that I had requested.
This is the cover page of the documents.
The second page is a photocopy of the file folder from the office of the Judge Advocate General.
The third page states that pages 2 to 266 are being exempted under the privacy act section 19(1).
So, basically, I recevied three worthless but very humorous pages from DND.
The interesting thing about this information is that a Toronto Star reporter had access to this information back in 1990 for a news story he was writing about Captain McRae having been busted for molesting more children at a Scarborough Ontario church.
Also, an instructor with the Canadian Forces College had access to these documents.
So, why am I not being given access to McRae’s court martial records?
In plain and simple terms. There’s a coverup under foot.
The DND Access to Information Office, the Judge Advocate General, the Provost Marshal, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, they all work under the same minister.
This is the same minister that must be sued in any civil action brought against a current or former member of the Canadian Forces.
This is the very same Minister that asked me “What my angle was”, and “What game was I playing” when I went to speak with him in 2016 at his constituency office in Vancouver.
There is nothing in the language of the National Defence Act whch exempts the Judge Advocate General, the Provost Marshal, or anyone in the Canadian Forces Military Police Group from Section 83 of the National Defence Act.
What does this have to do with the refusal of DND to release the requested documents to me?
During the 2nd portion of CFNIS investigation GO2011-5754, the investigators with the CFNIS noted that although my name wasn’t mentioned in CFSIU investigation DS-120-10-80 they would ask me a series of questions to see if my answers matched details within CFSIU DS 120-10-80.
I was never asked any questions.
The goal was never to connect me to P.S. or Captain McRae.
The goal was a “Dog and Pony Show” investigation that wouldn’t lead to any charges against P.S., but would give me the feeling that something had been done.
Yes, P.S. would never face a court martial. But you have to remember that at the start of this investigation back in March of 2011, Angus McRae was alive and well.
The CFNIS had to structure the investigation around the fact that even if P.S. were to implicate Captain Angus McRae, the Canadian Forces would never be able to bring charges against Captain McRae due to the 3-year time bar that existed pre-1998.
The Minister of National Defence, the Judge Advocate General, and the Provost Marshal do not want to establish that I or any other child from CFB Namao were involved with the P.S./ Captain McRae child sexual abuse scandal on CFB Namao.
The decision was made in 1980 to only charge Captain McRae with committing “Acts of Homosexuality” against P.S. as P.S. was the only boy above the age of 14.
14 was the age of consent in 1980.
And as was explained in the Court Martial Appeal Court ruling in the matter of Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan vs. Regina, the Canadian Armed Forces have the right to conduct a court martial for “Gross Indecency”, “Indecent Assault”, and “Buggery” so long as consent could have been a consideration.
This implies that if consent wasn’t given, then the Canadian Forces couldn’t conduct a service tribunal. The matter would have to go before a civilian court. And in a civilian court, the Department of National Defence would have a much harder time throwing a “wall of secrecy” around the matter.
It must be remembered that at the time in 1980, 14 was the legal age that a child could consent to sexual activities.
This is why the Chain of Command, according to Fred Cunningham, dropped all of the charges against McRae except for the charges related to P.S.. P.S. was the only boy over the age of 14. Instead of this being a matter of child sexual abuse, now this was a matter of “homosexuality”.
P.S., being the only boy over the age of 14 would have been the only one who could have possibly “consented”.
If the Canadian Armed Forces had tried to charge Captain McRae with molesting the children that were between the ages of 4 and 14 that both he and P.S. molested both individually and together, the Canadian Armed Forces would have lost the ability to conduct a court martial against Captain McRae.
The problem this posed for the Canadian Armed Forces is that Captain McRae was the first officer in the Canadian Armed Forces investigated for molesting children.
In a court martial, the Minister of Defence may allow the proceedings to be moved “in-camera” and thereby keep an embarrassing situation out of the media.
If the Canadian Forces had charged Captain McRae with molesting the children under the age of 14, McRae would have had to be prosecuted in civilian court.
To move a court martial “in-camera” is far easier than it is to try to move a civilian court case “in-camera”.
This also explains why the base military police and the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit were not allowed to call in the RCMP to deal with P.S..
If P.S. had been investigated and charged with molesting the children he had been babysitting, he would have been dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
There was an odd section of the Juvie Act which allowed for the adult that contributed to the delinquency of a minor to be found guilty on summary conviction.
Had the Chain of Command in 1980 allowed either the base military police or the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal woth P.S., the Canadian Forces would have lost all ability to control the narrative of the eventual investigation into Captain McRae.
By keeping things “in house”, the Chain of Command knew they could keep a very embarrassing situation out of the local media.
The problem that created is that any of the children being molested by P.S. and Captain McRae would be forever denied acknowedlegment or justice.
One thought on “DND and the art of hiding stuff”
I was “growing up” in Greisbach Barracks PMQ up to the fall of 1970. In the eyes of a 4 to 10yo boy, that place was filled with quite the variety of the “undesirable elements” DND had dealings with.
I suspect many kids’ experiences started somewhere else first!
Stoopad is, it continued there!