That one sentence has always stuck with me since I first read it when I obtained the Certified Tribunal Records from the Military Police Complaints Commission when I made my application to Federal Court in February of 2013.
The conversation between P.S. and Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock From the Military Police Complaints Commisison Certified Tribunal Records 2013
Sgt. Hancock had called Jack, the father of P.S. earlier in the day of August 9th, 2011 and asked Jack to have P.S. give him a telephone call. P.S. called Sgt. Hancock in the afternoon.
What’s interesting about this is not the part “he further indicated that anything he had been involved in as a youth had already been handled by the military”, nor the part “he furhter stated that if charges were brought against him a lawyer would be handling that”. What’s interesting is that only one of those two statements would be introduced into the brief sent to the Alberta Crown.
From the Certified Tribunal Records from the Alberta Criminal Injuries Review Board June 2019
There are two things that I find interesting about what Sgt. Damon Tenaschuck submitted to the Alberta Crown in 2018.
The first is that my father’s statement is still in there even though I had illustrated during the September 2015 interview with RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban that it was our grandmother raising my brother and I during this period of time. I also supplied to Mr. Ghadban the answers from my father’s written examination in which my father admits that there was a babysitter in the house, but that it was his mother who hired the babysitter.
Nowhere in the submission to the Alberta Crown is any mention of my foster care records which would indicate that my father’s statement didn’t actually reflect what family life was like in the Gill household back then.
But more interesting is what was removed from the record of the telephone conversation between Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock and P.S.. The statement “he further indicated that anything he had been involved in as a youth had already been handled by the military” was removed yet the statement “he further stated that if charges were brought against him a lawyer would be handling that” remained.
What was so controversial about that one statement that it needed to be removed. The second statement wasn’t removed, so that shows that the CFNIS weren’t trimming out superfluous excess for the sake of brevity. I mean, if P.S. was charged, a lawyer would be handling that. That’s how the criminal justice system works in this country, right?
Why did the CFNIS decide that the Alberta Crown didn’t need to know that the military has already handled things for a multi-time convicted child molester? It wasn’t as if P.S. had never been convicted of child molestation before.
And we know that our government often enters into some rather boneheaded deals with criminals.
I honestly don’t believe that I am the only person who has ever come forward with complaints against P.S.. I can only wonder how many of the charges that P.S. was subject to between 1985 and 2000 were due to other dependants from CFB Namao coming forward with their own complaints.We know that the Department of National Defence accepted General Liability for the damages that P.S. suffered at the hands of Captain McRae on Canadian Forces Base Namao. Would that also mean that anyone that P.S. was convicted of molesting could also bring their own civil actions against the Department of National Defence?
Is this why the CFNIS has bent over backwards to ensure that no charges would ever be brought against P.S. thereby ensuring that the Canadian Forces would not be breaking the terms of the settlement reached in November of 2008?
Another interesting item is this:
From the Certified Tribunal Records from the Alberta Criminal Injuries Review Board June 2019
In both 2011 and 2018 the CFNIS determined that there was “insufficient evidence” to lay charges which was supported by review conducted by the Alberta Crown.
So why througout 2018 was Sgt. Tenaschuk telling me he expected that charges would be laid this time?
Email between myself and Sgt. Tenaschuk
The investigation was all bullshit, wasn’t it.
Nothing more than theatre for the mind.
The illusion of justice while being nothing more than a perversion of justice.
It’s amazing and somewhat disturbing how the Department of National Defence still gloats about the findings of the Military Police Complaints Commission.
If one wishes to make a complaint against the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, one does so at their own risk.
This risk is especially true for a civilian with no connection to the Canadian Forces as the civilian receives none of the assistance that a service member would receive whilst making a complaint against the military police or the CFNIS.
You would think that a person wishing to make a complaint against the CFNIS would be granted access to the CFNIS investigation paperwork so that one could indicate to the MPCC exactly what the issue is.
However, there exists no mechanism within the Military Police Complaints Commission guidelines that require or even allow for the complainant to view the military police / CFNIS paperwork.
And as former MPCC chairman Glenn Stannard told the Globe and Mail in 2015, the MPCC has never been given the full and complete set of documents that detail how the military police operate and function. According to Stannard, this means that the Military Police Complaints Commission has no idea of what documents to request from the Provost Marshal during a review.
So, if the MPCC doesn’t even truly understand how the Military Police Group works, how the hell is a civilian such as myself supposed to know how the Military Police Group operates?
The only way a person can obtain copies of the CFNIS investigation paperwork is to file an Access to Information request for the documents.
The delay between requesting the documents and receiving the documents can be quite substantial. For example, when I submutted my request in 2018 for the CFNIS investigation paperwork it was 20 months before I received the records.
The complaint to the MPCC is supposed to be made within one year of the event that gave rise to the complaint. 20 months is well outside of that 12 month window.
I even had to enlist the help of the Information Commissioner of Canada to give DND a swift kick in the ass to get DND to release the requested documents.
The OIC did find that my complaint of “Deemed refusal” was valid. “Deemed refusal” means that the party that is supposed to supply the documents is using delay as a tactic in the hopes that you will simply give up and abandone your request
DND acknowledged my original request on July 30, 2018.
DND finally released the documents to me on February 6th, 2020 I received the documents.
It must be remembered that by MPCC rules, you only have ONE year from the date of the matter you are complaining about to file a complaint with the MPCC.
The documents that I received are redacted almost to the point of being useless.
For example, completely missing from the CFNIS records that I requested is the brief sent to the Alberta Crown in 2018. Lucky for me, I already had made a complaint to the Alberta Criminal Injury Review Board in relation to a decision by the Alberta Victims of Crime Board. As a result of this complaint, the ACIRB released to me the documents that had been supplied to the AVCB. In this release of documents was the 2018 CFNIS investigation submission to the Alberta Crown. The CFNIS in 2018 basically just refiled the 2011 Crown Briefing which included my father’s faulty statement. The CFNIS did not make any attempt to clarify that other agencies had information that indicated what my father stated to the CFNIS in 2011 was not actually truthful. The CFNIS made no mention of the other victims of P.S. that came forward as a result of the Crime Stoppers Appeal. The CFNIS also made no mention of the other victims that I had placed in contact with the CFNIS in 2015 and 2016.
It was, as Sgt. Tenaschuk told me, that my complaint against P.S. was limited to only the one day in particular in the spring of 1980 when P.S. had been discovered buggering me in his bedroom of PMQ #26 – 12th Street.
Sgt. Tenaschuk had stated that his superiors had determined that my complaint was going to have to stand on it’s own merit. The statement given by P.G., another victim of P.S., was not going to be included in my complaint as determined by CFNIS brass.
Reading the CFNIS investigation paperwork I have no idea if Sgt. Damon Tenaschuk re-interviewed my father to ascertain the large discrepancies between my father’s statement to the CFNIS in 2011, and my foster care records from Alberta Social Service.
During the 2015 interview when I was interviewed by RCMP Major Crimes investigator Akrum Ghadban I supplied Mr. Ghadban with the relevant sections of my foster care records along with my father’s sworn statement that was entered into Federal Court in 2013.
These are the same foster care records that I supplied to the CFNIS in 2011 and which I would discover in 2013 that the CFNIS had excluded from the investigation.
Some examples of these descripancies:
In 2011 my father stated to the CFNIS that his mother only looked after my brother and I for a very short period of time, stating that grandma stopped looking after my brother and I after Andy died hinting that Andy shortly after he slipped in the bath tub in our house on Canadian Forces Base Namao.
Andy lingered in the Mewburn nursing home at the University of Alberta until he died just before the summer of 1985.
The reality is that our grandmother raised my brother and I from the spring of 1977 until the summer of 1981.
My father told the CFNIS in 2011 that we never had a babysitter in the house.
The problem with that statement is that from the summer of 1978 until the spring / summer of 1979 my father had been dating a woman named Vicki in Wetaskiwin, Alberta. In the summer of 1979 he briefly saw another woman before he started dating Sue. This woman was in the Canadian Forces and lived on CFB Griesbach in the row house PMQs on the north side of the base. My father started dating Sue shortly after he broke up with the woman from Griesbach. From the summer of 1979 until the summer of 1980, Sue lived in an apartment building over by Londonderry Mall in Edmonton. In August of 1980, Sue moved into our house on CFB Namao.
While Richard was dating these women, he’d often stay at their place. This was especially true when he was dating Vicki who lived in Wetaskiwin which is a town south of Edmonton.
Richard would also often go away on training exercises. These exercises were sometimes as long as 6 to 8 weeks. I know my father did Arctic training in the winter of ’79 and the winter of ’80.
So, if our mother “abandoned” the family in 1977 and Sue didn’t move into our house on CFB Namao until 1980, who was looking after my brother and I.
Now, you might ask why I didn’t raise these points during the 2012 MPCC investigation.
Remember, the MPCC is not required to allow the complainant to view the evidence and documents that the CFNIS had submitted to the MPCC.
I only discovered my father’s horrific statement to the CFNIS in 2013 when I received the certified tribunal records from the MPCC. However, by this time it is far too late to contest anything erroneous that was discovered as any documents entered into court to prove these errors will not be allowed as this is now considered to be “New Evidence” and will not be allowed into federal court.
Even when I examined my father by legal order in 2013, his answers were a stark difference to what he had stated to the CFNIS in 2011.
Why, yes, our grandmother did live with us.
Yes, there was a babysitter.
No, he didn’t actually have legal custody of my brother and I.
Sgt. Christain Cyr had drastically altered what I had discussed with him on May 3rd, 2011 and had even told the MPCC that he had flown out to Victoria BC and met with me in person. The problem with Sgt. Cyr flying out to Victoria to meet with me is that I have never met Sgt. Cyr in person.
On May 3rd, Sgt. Cyr asked me if I remembered anything about the base chaplain having been charged with molesting children during the same time period that I was aledging that P.S. abused me, my brother, and four other children.
I told Sgt. Cyr that I remembered going on five different visits to the rectory at the base chapel, that we’d play board games, watch TV, listen to records in the Padre’s “stereo chair”, and that I could never remember anything after I was given a “sickly sweet grape juice”.
Sgt. Cyr wrote in his notes that when he asked me about Captain McRae, that I remembered going to the chapel with P.S., but that nothing sexual ever occurred.
That’s not what I said.
Even the next day, when I sent emails to Sgt. Cyr indicating which chapel it was that P.S. had taken me to, Sgt. Cyr called me back and told me that I had to have been mistaken as the chapel that I indicated on the maps I drew was a new building that didn’t exist in 1980 when I lived on the base.
I tried to introduce these emails into Federal Court, but the Attorney General demanded that they be struck as I hadn’t provided these emails to the MPCC during their investigation. The problem was that during the MPCC investigation I had no idea that Sgt. Cyr had failed to make mention of these emails in his police reports so therefore I had no reason to introduce these emails to the MPCC.
I also obtained from the Department of National Defence a copy of the blueprints for ” Our Lady of Loretto” chapel that showed the chapel was built in the 1950s. These were struck from the federal court as well.
If you go to the MPCCs website and look at previous REVIEWS (not inquiries, inquiries are completely different) you’ll find that reviews almost always find in favour of the Military Police.
This is not an accident.
As was discovered in the civilian world, the majority of these police review boards are stacked against the complainant and are biased in favour of the police.
Take for example the fact that the MPCC can only hire retired police officers to be investigators. Many inquiries into civilian police review boards have found that these investigators almost always have a bias against the complainants. It’s part of the “Us vs Them” mentality that permeates police departments across North America.
The rules that the Military Police Complaints Commission works under are biased against the complainant as well.
The MPCC cannot share any of the information that the Provost Marshal has provided to the MPCC to the complainant so that the complainant can advance their complaint against the military police and the CFNIS.
The MPCC cannot even ask the complainant questions based upon the documents supplied to the MPCC by the Provost Marshal.
An MPCC review is seriously nothing more than a fell good exercise practically designed by the agency that it is supposed to oversee.
During an MPCC review, the MPCC cannot administer oaths, the MPCC cannot subpeona documents or witnesses.
During an MPCC review, the complainant cannot examine the military police or the CFNIS.
An MPCC review is easily controlled by the Provost Marshal as the Provost Marshal can determine which documents are and which documents are not issued to the Military Police Complaints Commission.
It’s almost as if the MPCC was set up specifically to hide the defects of the military disciplinary system from the eyes of the general public.
And considering that it is the National Defence Act that establishes the Military Police Complaints Commission I think it’s pretty obvious that the MPCC isn’t designed to benefit the complainant.
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 cover letter
The second page is a photocopy of the file folder from the office of the Judge Advocate General.
The coverpage of the Judge Advocate General file folder
The third page states that pages 2 to 266 are being exempted under the privacy act section 19(1).
Everything has been exempted to protect Captain McRae’s privacy, who has been dead since May of 2011.
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.
Kevin Donovan, Toronto Star Feb 11, 1990 Page A 14
Also, an instructor with the Canadian Forces College had access to these documents.
Dr. Chris Madsen Canadian Forces College
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.
Chapter N-5, Section 83 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.
Excerpt from GO 2011-5754 The first report would be CFSIU DS-120-10-80 which commenced on May 12th, 1980 The second report would be the base military police investigation of P.S. for what he had been doing with younger children on the base.
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.
Regina vs. Sullivan Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
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.
1970 R.S.C. Chapter C-34 Criminal Code of Canada Section 140 – Consent Children under 14 cannot consent.
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”.
CFSIU Investigation DS 120-10-80
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.
Section 33 Juvenile Delinquents Act
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.
During the July 30th interview at VPD headquarters, one of the investigators kept mentioning that this case would be tough due to the 40 years that have passed.
Well, this isn’t exactly true.
Former Canadian Armed Forces corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan was convicted in 2019 for molesting numerous boys from the Ottawa area in the mid ’70s.
Sullivan had been a boy scout leader when the Ottawa police in the ’70s started to get complaints.
Sullivan disappeared off the radar so to speak. The police couldn’t find him.
Turns out he had joined the Canadian Armed Forces.
However his stint in the Canadian Forces wasn’t enough to disaude him from molesting young boys.
In 1984, he was given a court martial for his assaults against the boys.
In 1985, he tried to appeal his conviction via the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.
The CMAC ruled that the Canadian Armed Forces had the legal right to conduct a court martial for the crimes of “Gross Indecency”, “Indecent Assault”, and “Buggery”.
The interesting thing about Sullivan’s court martial conviction is that it did not show up in his civilian records and was not taken into consideration during his sentencing in 2019.
When I brought Sullivan’s military convictions to the attention of the reporter covering the 2019 convictions, he passed this information on to the Ontario Crown.
The Crown was not too pleased to hear this.
Below are a sampling of historical child sexual assault cases from the 1970s and 1980s.
All I searched for was “canada man charged for sexual assaults in the 1970s”
There’s the ongoing saga of Gordon Stuckless from Maple Leaf Gardens in the ’80s who to this day is still facing more charges as more adults keep coming forward.
There’s also the curious case of Kenneth Estabrooks from St. John, New Brunswick. Mr. Estabrooks died in the early 2000’s. After his death, numerous people came forward with complaints that Mr. Estabrooks had abused them while they were in his custody in the juvenile detention system.
The City of St. John hired a private investigator to look into these complaints. The investigator came to the conclusion that Estabrooks had in fact sexually abused well over 260 children that had been placed into his care.
Even though Estabrooks is long since dead, the city is facing numerous lawsuits and in fact is facing a class action lawsuit.
So, why would the CFNIS make such a big deal about the fact that the abuses I reported occured from 1978 to 1980.
It’s obvious that smaller civilian police departments without the budgets or the manpower of the Canadian Armed Forces have absolutely no problem bringing charges.
If I had to guess, I would assume that the risk or potential for civil actions arising out of the actions of former employees of the Department of National Defence plays a major role in determining whether or not charges will be laid.
Again, the investigators with the CFNIS are still subject to the Chain of Command. There is no language in the National Defence Act which exempts investigators with the CFNIS from section 83 of the National Defence Act.
Yes, the CFNIS and the CFNIS investigators are supposed to be independent of the Chain of Command. But, there is no language in the National Defence Act that exempts the Provost Marshal, the Military Police Group, or the CFNIS from the Chain of Command.
A simplified outline of the Chain of Command in the CFNIS hierarchy is :
Minister of National Defence -> Chief of Defence Staff -> Vice Chief of Defence Staff -> Provost Marshal -> Commanding Officer CFNIS -> Regional Commanding Officer CFNIS -> CFNIS investigator.
In March of 2001, when my former babysitter, Mr. P.S. sued Angus Alexander McRae, P.S. was obligated to sue the Minister of Defence as at the time McRae abused P.S., McRae was a member of the regular force.
The Canadian Forces did accept legal liability for the abuse that P.S. had endured at the hands of Captain McRae on Canadian Forces Base Namao.
At the time of my Federal Court appeal in October of 2013, I didn’t have access to the Department of Justice paperwork from when the Department of Justice defended the Canadian Forces in P.S.’s civil action.
However, now that I have that paperwork, I know that a settlement was reached.
If the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had brought charges against P.S. for the abuse he committed against myself, my brother, P.G., M.O., and the other 25 children that McRae and P.S. were known to have abused on CFB Namao from 1978 to 1980, this would have opened up a civil action Pandora’s box.
So, how will my matter with the “man in the sauna” conclude?
Well, first off the only witness to the abuse in the sauna was P.S..
Depending on how the CFNIS approach P.S., he may or may not be willing to talk.
Under the current Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, I can’t see the CFNIS being permitted to approach P.S. as a witness.
In 2011, when the CFNIS became aware of the direct connection between P.S., Captain McRae, and 5 distinct visits that P.S. had taken me on over to the chapel, the CFNIS outright refused to change the scope of the investigation from investigating P.S. as the main suspect to investigating P.S. as another victim of Captain McRae who had used P.S. to bring young children over to the chapel for McRae to abuse.
In the current investigation of the man in the sauna, it is apparent that whoever this man was used P.S.. Therefore P.S. is not a suspect in this investigation, nor should he be considered a suspect.
However, I have no doubt in my mind that the CFNIS will not be permitted to approach P.S. as a witness.
The CFNIS will approach P.S. in a manner guaranteed to make sure that he is as uncooperative as possible.
This way, when this investigation concluded, the CFNIS can shrug their shoulders and say “We tried, but 40 years is a long time, there’s nothing we could do” thereby ensuring that no civil actions can be brought against the Canadian Forces.
On Thursday July 30th, 2020 I was interviewed again by the CFNIS Western Region.
This interview was for the “man in the sauna”
We’ll see how this plays out.
I have an idea of who the man in the sauna was.
A name was mentioned in Canadian Forces Special Investigation Unit investigation DS 120-10-80. This name has had previous charges related to sexual acts with underage children.
This man was sent from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa specifically to help Captain McRae deal with his affairs during the CFSIU investigation DS-120-10-80.
But sadly, there seemed to be quite a few perverts on Canadian Forces Base Namao / Canadian Forces Base Griesbach back in the ’70s and ’80s.
In addition to Corporal Larry King who had been tried in civilian court in 1980 for raping a 16 year old girl on CFB Griesbach, and in addition to P.S. who had molested numerous children in 1979 and 1980 as well as a 9 year old boy in 1985 on CFB Namao, there was a man at the rec centre who had exposed himself to some young girls at the base rec centre. And then there was another man from CFB Griesbach who had exposed himself to a young girl over at one of the malls just on the other side of 97th Street.
With the exception of P.S., was the man in the sauna one of these men?
How many other pedophiles were on CFB Namao / CFB Edmonton in the ’70s and ’80s?
Sadly, the only witness to this whole event is none other than P.S.
Will P.S. talk?
I don’t see why he would. He was allowed to play the role of the “innocent angle” all those years ago. And from the looks of it, the Canadian Forces are more than willing to allow P.S. to continue on in this role.
OPP Det Sgt. Jim Smythe was able to get Canadian Armed Forces officer Colonel Russell Williams to confess to the murders and rapes that Williams had committed.
At the time, the OPP had very little to go on other than some matching tire treads and some boot prints. Those on their own weren’t enough to indicate that Williams had done sweet bugger all.
Opp Det. Sgt. Jim Smythe basically let Williams talk himself into his own arrest.
What deals did the Canadian Forces and the Department of Justice reach when they settled out of court with P.S. in November of 2008?
Again, who knows.
But remember, our government has often agreed to bad deals.
Karla Holmolka is walking the streets and Paul Bernardo is rotting away in prison.
I’m not saying that Paul, should be free.
I’m saying that Karla should have been sentenced to a very lenghty sentence as well.
She supplied the animal tranquilizers.
She administered the animal tranquilizers.
She killed the girls.
But the Clown Prosecutors and the Attorney General decided that it was better to make a deal with her (the infamous Deal With The Devil), than it would be to lose the case against Paul Bernardo.
After all, Paul had to be the worst of the two, right?
In 2011, when contacted at home by Mcpl Hancock, P.S. told Mcpl Hancock that “anything he had been involved in as a youth has already been handled by the military”.
Was this another “Deal with the Devil”?
Did the Canadian Armed Forces, the Provost Marshal, the office of the Minister of National Defence, or even the Attorney General of Canada make a deal with Mr. P.S.?
During the interview, I read a fairly long statement.
This statement was very detailed.
In 2011, my statement was very specific. It only related to the abuse that I endured at the hands of P.S. from late fall 1978 until the spring when someone discovered him buggering me in his bedroom. My statement also included all of the abuse that I saw P.S. committ against my brother as well as the abuse he committed against four other children.
My stupidity lay in the fact that I didn’t describe my home life.
Because I didn’t describe my home life right off the bat, my father was able to substitute his own fantasry for reality.
Whether my father had some help in shaping his fantasy is anyone’s guess. But my father’s version of reality simply didn’t match the social service records and other records that I came into possession later.
The sad thing about the 2011 CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754, is that once the CFNIS had what they wanted, they ran with it, even after I provided my foster care records, my Alberta Social Service records, my Children Aid Society of Toronto Records, PEI Family Court Records, the CFNIS still absolutely refused to admit that they fucked up the case pretty bad.
After all, if the Government of Canada had made a deal with P.S. related to his out of court settlement relating to the matter of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae, the government wouldn’t reneg on that deal, would they?
Sure, the MPCC gave the CFNIS a gold star in 2013.
However, during the 2012 – 2013 MPCC review, the MPCC shared absolutely none of the documents with me that the Provost Marshal had provided to the MPCC. This meant of course that I was unable to raise my concerns with any of the numerous flaws with the 2011 CFNIS investigation, such as Mcpl Cyr’s faulty transcription of what I told him on May 3rd, 2011, my father’s obviously distorted reality, or the fact that the CFNIS refused to look at the connection between P.S. and Captain McRae, or the fact that the CFNIS refused to consider what the Alberta Social Service records and the Children Aid Society of Toronto, or the IWK Children’s Hospital had to say about my father.
Yes, I did go to Federal Court. However almost all of the documents that I had submitted to the MPCC were struck from the hearing as this was considered “new evidence”. Basically, you can’t introduce “new evidence” into your hearing for judicial review if it wasn’t before the tribunal you wish to have reviewed. However, as you have no idea of what is in front of the tribunal, you have no idea of what to introduce.
It’s a vicious Catch-22 that seems to have been designed like that on purpose.
So, we’ll have to wait and see how this one plays out.
Yes, the CFNIS and the Canadian Forces allowed me to have Earl Ray Stevens. But Earl represented absolutely no risk of liability to the Canadian Forces or the Federal Government.
The same cannot be said about P.S., nor can the same be said about the “man in the sauna”
Remember, under the National Defence Act, there is absolutely no exception to section 83 of the National Defence Act for members of the CFNIS.
If the CFNIS investigators Chain of Command decide the direction of the investigation, the investigators must obey those orders. The independance of the CFNIS investigators is an illusuion at best.
Here is a copy of CFAO 19-20 for your reading pleasure.
CFAO 19-20 pretty well went hand in hand with the Federal Government’s determination to weed out homosexual and other sexual deviants using such unorthodox methods like the infamous “Fruit Machine”.
CFAO 19-20 was only supposed to apply to Canadian Forces personnel.
However, this toxic attitude applied to just about everyone living in the military community, including the children of service members living on the bases.
Back in 2019, I was trolling around the government website that lists all ATI requests that have been filed with the various departments and what the outcome of those reports was.
One ATI request caught my eye. Someone had requested a copy of all of the General Occurence Reports from DND related to “Sexual Assault” that occured on CFB Namao from 1978 until 1980.
I filed a request with DND for a copy of this information on October 10 2019.
I just received a copy of this report on Friday July 3rd 2020.
There were three “sexual assaults” on CFB Namao in the years of 1978 until 1980.
The first was related to a male exposing himself to young females at the base rec centre. The fact that the military police administered a polygraph to this person indicates that this person would have been subject to the Code of Service Discipline. This event occured in November of 1978.
The next incident occured in the vicinity of Northtown Mall in May of 1979. A member of the Canadian Forces exposed himself from his waist to his ankles to a girl. The City of Edmonton police and the CFB Edmonton police worked on this matter. The fact that the incident report indicate that the male was “dress in civilian clothing” and the fact that the CFB Edmonton military police we called in by the Edmonton Police Service also indicates that this was a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
Then of course there’s the matter of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae.
Curiously, there is one incident that is missing.
In June of 1980, Corporal Larry King, who was 39 years old at the time, had been sentenced to 3 yers in prison for choking and raping a 16-year-old Edmonton girl.
Corporal Larry King, 39, was sentenced in civilian court to three years in prison for choking and raping a 16-year-old Edmonton Girl
There were three sexual assaults in two years in addition to all of the sexual assaults that P.S. and Captain McRae committed on CFB Namao. You can’t tell me that the Canadian Forces was a safe environment for children to grow up in.
I haven’t been writing on here for a while as I’ve been occupied at work with this COVID-19 issue and I have something else that has occupied my time recently.
I bought myself a motorcycle.
Yeah, it’s not brand new. It’s a 2013 Suzuki Burgman 650.
Paid $6k. Low kilometres. Very decent condition.
It’s a “scooter” in the fact that it has a step through frame. But it’s a 650cc engine.
The last time I rode a motorcycle was around 2008.
I was a late bloomer to the world of motorcycles. I didn’t actually start riding until I was into my 20s. My old man’s anger-riding left me with a love-hate relationship with motorcycles. Loved to ride on his motorcycles as a kid, just didn’t like it when he’s lose his temper with other drivers and start anger riding.
Started off riding on a small Honda CB125, then jumped up to a 1980 Honda CB 750-Four. From there I went to a 2001 Triumph Sprint RS. And then off to a couple of Yamaha Viragos before I just gave up riding. I put it down to things were just getting too hectic in the corporate world with all that ladder climbing I had to do.
I haven’t finished climbing the ladder yet. But I’m about 6 years away from retirement. So the ladder climbing is far less intense these days. Which leaves more time for motorcycling.
In this petition I am asking that Parliament strike an inquiry to look at this issue of child sexual abuse that occurred on the Canadian Forces bases in Canada. Child sexual abuse occurred at least as frequently on base as it did in the civy world. Because of that you’d expect to see some sort of statistics that indicate this. But DND has no numbers available. DND can’t (or isn’t willing to) publish statistics for sexual assaults committed against children on the bases.
Taking into account the unwillingness of DND to share these numbers. And taking into consideration that in 2011 Colonel Tim Grubb stated that there was a disturbingly higher incidence of child sexual abuse within the defence community, there should be some sort of numbers to indicate this.
DND has nothing.
And even when DND did offer up information, it was wrong. For instance, recently I asked in a Freedom of Information request for a spread sheet indicating how many charges were laid per year for sexual crimes committed against children.
What I received instead was a tally of all of the sexual assaults prosecuted through the military justice system since 2002. DND and the Provost Marshal have no records from prior to 2002.
To be quite frank, the number of sexual assault charges was alarming, as was the number of “unfounded” investigations. But that’s a windmill for someone else to tilt at.
The following charges are not “Sexual assault” as defined under the both the 1970 and the 1985 Criminal Code of Canada: Gross Indecency; Indecent Assault; Buggery; Sexual Interference; Invitation to Sexual Touching; Sexual Exploitation; Incest.
Prior to 1985, the Canadian Forces could not conduct a service tribunal for “Murder, Manslaughter, and Rape”. The above charges are not rape. From 1985 until 1998 the Canadian Forces could not conduct a service tribunal for “Murder, Manslaughter, and Sexual Assault”. The above charges are “sexual offences”, they are not “sexual assault”.
As such, these charges are considered to be “Service Offences” and they are charges that not only can the CFNIS and the military police investigate, but they are charges that can be dealt with in a service tribunal.
I have since submitted to DND an Freedom of Information request for a list of investigations and prosecutions for the specific charges indicated above.
It has been explained to me by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada that the SAMPIS record keeping system that the CFNIS and the base military police use is very limited in how it can be searched and the type of data that it can provide. Sounds like a defect by design.
Also explained to me by both the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada and the Library and Archives Canada is that DND and the CF had horrific to almost non-existent record keeping prior to the early 2000’s.
This is why an external inquiry completely free of the encumbrances of the Department of National Defence is the only way that the truth will be allowed to come out.
As a matter of policy DND maintains no records of former military dependants that live on the bases in Canada. The only way to have former military dependants come forward would be to make an official public request. DND and the Canadian Armed Forces aren’t willingly going to go and find all of these former military dependants. Yes, there are base brat groups on Facebook. However, it is apparent that the number of former brats in the base brat groups on Facebook is a very small drop in the sea. Also, as I’ve noticed, some brat groups tend to censor sensitive posts.
Making further amendments to the National Defence Act is also something that I am asking for via this petition. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that a 3-year time bar can effective prevent any form of criminal investigation from being commenced against a person who was subject to the Code of Service Discipline prior to 1998. The Criminal Code of Canada has no equivalent “statute of limitations” for indictable offences.
I am also asking for amendments to be made to the National Defence Act that would render null and void any decision by a commanding officer to dismiss charges that had been brought against their subordinate for crimes that amount to child sexual abuse. The idea that a person with no legal training, and no duty to uphold the Criminal Code of Canada is somehow capable of deciding whether or not their subordinate should face charges is absurd.
You can download a copy of Legislative Summary LS-311E using the “Download” button below.
2(a)(1) on page 12 talks about the implications of the 3-year time bar and why it had to be removed in 1998. I know the 3-year time bar affects modern day CFNIS investigations as Sgt. Damon Tenaschuk told me in 2018 that due to information from his legal an investigation would not be commenced as charges could not be laid due to the 3-year time bar which existed when the Criminal Code offence of Obstruction is alleged to have occurred.
2(d) on page 18 talks about the Summary Investigation flaw and how commanding officers could dismiss charges that they wouldn’t have been able to try the accused on. 2(d) also highlights that once a commanding officer dismissed charges related to a service offence that those charges or similar charges arising out of the same or similar facts could never be brought against the accused at a later date.
Dr. Hedy Fry, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre has determined that because there are no military bases in Vancouver Centre, that she can’t help people who were sexually abused as children.
A while ago, it was suggested to me that maybe I should try the petition route to get my matter before the House of Commons seeing as how the Department of National Defence has no legal obligations towards military dependants.
I submitted the following petition to the House of Commons petition website on April 12th, 2020. I required five supporters. I was able to get the maximum of ten supporters. The way it works is you select ten people that you know will support your petition. The House of Commons will email these people to verify their eligibility to support the petition. The first five people to reply to the House of Commons become the supporters of your petition.
I was notified by email that Dr. Hedy Fry had declined to authorize the petition. Below is her answer in highlight.
There are no military bases in the riding of Vancouver Centre
“There are no military bases in the riding of Vancouver Centre”, yep, that’s what she said.
I haven’t really had any dealings with Hedy Fry directly. Most of my dealings were filtered through her assistant Steven Bourne. In one of our meetings, Steven brought up the subject of Hedy Fry and her comments about the KKK burning crosses in Prince George, BC and that how even though she was eventually vindicated, that he’d be very cautious about letting Hedy get embarrassed like that again.
I’ve lived in the West End of Vancouver since 1992. That’s coming up on 27 years now. Hedy has been my member of Parliament since then. I have been her constituent. Never have asked anything of her before.
However, it appears that because there are no military bases in the riding of Vancouver Centre, she can’t raise an important issue within the House of Commons.
And this got me to wondering.
How many other former military dependants have gone to their respective Member of Parliament for assistance only to have their MP tell them that they can’t get involved because there “are no military bases” in their riding.
How does this affect people who were sexually abused on bases that no longer exist due to budget cuts and downsizing…….. “sorry, that military base no longer exists, I can’t get involved” .
I have tried enlisting the help of MPs in other ridings previously, but unless you reside in their riding, the MP is not obligated to assist you in any manner.
Are former military dependants expected to move to ridings that have military bases if they want to enlist the help of a Member of Parliament?
Do I really have to quit my job and eat into my savings in order to move to a riding that has a military base?
No wonder the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence don’t seem worried. Between Members of Parliament that don’t want to do anything, and Acts that are so vague they can have 20 different interpretations, there’s no reason for DND and the CF to worry about the ghosts from their past haunting them.
Why would the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service be instructed to conduct such a weak investigation into the criminal actions of P.S. which P.S. committed on CFB Namao between June 20th, 1979 and June of 1980?
It’s not like P.S. would see any serious form of punishment if he were to have been charged in the present day for the crimes he had committed while he was subject to the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
P.S. was born on June 20th, 1965. As of June 20th, 1979 P.S. would have been fully culpable for any Criminal Code offence that he had committed. This would have included having had any type of sexual relation with a minor under the age of 12. The fact that he was acting as the babysitter for many of these children would have compounded his problems. The law at the time would not have looked to kindly upon him for having anal and vaginal intercourse with children as young as four years of age or demanding oral sex from those same children.
1970 Revised Statutes of Canada Chapter J-3 Juvenile Delinquents Act
The Juvenile Delinquents Act was in force from 1908 until April 2nd, 1984. Prior to the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908, children of any age were treated similar to adults. In Ontario in 1850 a nine year old boy was sentenced to hang for the murder of a four year old girl. Children were often sent to prison for petty crimes. And while awaiting trial, children were often housed in the same cells as adults.
1970 Revised Statutes of Canada Chapter J-3 Juvenile Delinquents Act
The goal of the Juvenile Delinquents Act was reformation instead of incarceration. It was thought that the child could become a productive member of society if they simply received the proper manner of reformation. Typically this would have been accomplished by counselling, or in the more serious cases, “reform school” otherwise known as “industrial school”.
1970 Revised Statutes of Canada Chapter J-3 Juvenile Delinquents Act
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act children who reached the day of their 14th birthday could be found guilty of committing Criminal Code offences. Actually, children as young as seven could be found guilty so long as the police and prosecutor could convince the courts that the child ought to have known right from wrong.
The actual age limits of the Juvenile Delinquents Act are set by the Criminal Code of Canada.
1970 Revised Statutes of Canada Chapter C-34 Criminal Code of Canada
The above simply means that a 14 year old hasn’t reached 14 years of age until the expiration of their birthday anniversary. A child would be 13 years old until the day of their 14th birthday has been fully completed.
1970 Revised Statutes of Canada Chapter C-34 Criminal Code of Canada
The upper age limit of the Juvenile Delinquents Act was set by the Juvenile Delinquents Act itself.
1970 Revised Statutes of Canada Chapter J-3 Juvenile Delinquents Act
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, children as young as 14 could still be executed, but to do so their case would have had to have been moved to adult court. Steven Truscott serves as an example of this. At the age of 14 Steven Truscott had been sentenced to hang for the murder of Lynne Harper. A conviction that was very dubious in nature considering the presence of Royal Canadian Air Force Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk.
However, in the case of P.S., I don’t think that he would have faced any serious sanctions under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
When I spoke with Fred Cunningham on November 27th, 2011, he stated that during the Captain McRae investigation that the “brass” prevented both the CFSIU and the base military police from calling in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with P.S. for the crimes he had committed between June 20th, 1979 and June of 1980.
Who this brass is is anyone’s guess.
According to the findings of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry, base commanders were known to have an undue amount of influence over military police and CFSIU investigations. And in the case of Captain Father Angus McRae, the base commander was Captain McRae’s commanding officer.
Who was the base commander?
According to the Department of National Defence, <retired>Colonel Dan Munro was the base commander of Canadian Forces Base Namao at the time. The Canadian Armed Forces have also confirmed that <retired>Colonel Dan Munro was Captain McRae’s immediate superior.
What information could <retired>Colonel Dan Munro shed on the events and decisions of 1980? No one knows at this point in time as Sgt Damon Tenaschuk’s legal advisor in Ottawa would not allow Munro to be investigated due to the 3-year time bar that existed prior to 1998.
It must be remembered though that base commanders have to follow the orders of their superiors.
Without speaking to anyone associated with the Canadian Forces senior leadership from back then, I don’t think we will ever know the true reasons as to why the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were never called in to deal with P.S..
I have one very damning hypothesis supported by not only the actions of the Canadian Forces moving Captain McRae’s court martial “in-camera”, but also by curious language contained within the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
1970 Revised Statutes of Canada Chapter J-3 Juvenile Delinquents Act
A summary conviction requires far less evidence for a conviction to be secured than an indictable offence. Captain McRae was charged and convicted for committing “Acts of Homosexuality” with P.S.. As P.S. was 14 years of age as of June 20th, 1979, P.S. could have been charged and convicted for committing sexual acts against children between the ages of 4 and 12 had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been informed of his deviant behaviour. This meant that Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae would have more than likely been found guilty upon summary conviction in Juvenile Delinquents Court of having contributed to the delinquency that P.S. was exhibiting when P.S. molested the children for which he would have been convicted had someone not prevented the RCMP from being called in.
Why was this done?
Was this done to protect P.S.?
From what I’ve been told by some of the former brats that lived on the base at the time, due to the number of children that P.S. abused there were plans afoot in the Junior Ranks mess to lynch P.S..
By not handing P.S. over to the RCMP for investigation, did the Canadian Forces chain of command believe that they were diffusing a bad situation.
Or, was there something else afoot in the decision to not call in the RCMP to deal with P.S..
I think this had everything to do with legal liability.
Had P.S. been handed over to the RCMP, and had the RCMP charged P.S. for the sexual acts he had committed with children as young as four years of age, and had the Crown prosecuted P.S. and secured convictions, Captain McRae could have been summarily convicted in Juvenile Delinquents Court for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
By convicting Captain McRae of contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, being the employer of Captain McRae, could have been found liable for the actions of their employee.
In 2011, when I made my complaint to the Edmonton Police Service Angus McRae was alive and well.
The Canadian Forces knew right from the start of the connection between P.S. and Angus McRae.
The Canadian Forces knew that if the CFNIS brought charges against P.S., these charges would have to be brought under the Juvenile Delinquents Act as P.S. had committed these offences while the Juvenile Delinquents Act was in power.
This means that Angus McRae could also be charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act for contributing to the Delinquency of a minor.
The fact that Angus McRae died over three months after the start of the investigation into my complaint against P.S. is of little concern as Angus McRae plead guilty before a courts martial on July 18th, 1980 to having committed “Acts of Homosexuality” with P.S..
In November of 2008 the Canadian Forces Director of Claims and Civil Litigation accepted General Legal Liability for the personal damages P.S. suffered at the hands of Angus McRae while Angus McRae held the rank of Captain and was an employee of the Canadian Forces.
I think what the Canadian Forces have feared all along is the liability.
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the concept of an adult being responsible for the delinquency of a minor was well established.
This one fact alone poses a problem for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Even though Angus McRae had been mentally incompetent since June of 2007 and obviously couldn’t be prosecuted, DND and the CF had a problem.
McRae already plead guilty of his own free will on July 18th, 1980.
Captain McRae admitted to committing the exact same offences against P.S., that P.S. in turn committed against us much younger children. Acts such as Indecent Assault( sexual touching of the private areas), Gross Indecency(non-penetrating sexual acts between males, i.e. masturbation), and Buggery( anal intercourse).
So as long as P.S. had at least been charged, with or without a conviction, a civil action could have been commenced against the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
And considering that Canadian laws at the time provided the ability to hold an adult responsible for the delinquency of a minor, I think that the victims of P.S. and McRae would have had success in obtaining compensation in court.
For further proof of the issue of liability, look no further than the matter of Earl Ray Stevens, the commissioner from my time when I was enrolled with the Sea Cadets at the Denison Armouries in North York, Ontario.
I was first interviewed by the CFNIS on April 11th, 2017 at the Vancouver Police Department Headquarters. By June the CFNIS had handed the case over to a detective with the Toronto Police Service. Through June and July I had some telephone conversations with this detective.
On August 14th, 2017 I was informed by the Toronto Police Service that Earl Ray Stevens had been arrested and charged with 6 counts of Sexual Assault.
On August 21st and 22nd 2018 I participated in the preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing the Crown Prosecutor laid out the charges against Earl. Earl’s defence attorney was allowed to examine me and ask me questions. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing the justice overseeing the preliminary hearing ruled that there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
Unfortunately Earl died of bladder cancer before we could get to trial.
So, why did the Canadian Forces allow me to get Earl and not Peter.
Again, it’s liability.
The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence are not legally responsible for cadets, even if those cadets are participating in a cadet parade night in a building that is owned and operated by the Department of National Defence.
If you want proof of this, look no further than the cadets from CFB Valcartier in 1974.
In 1974 a group of army cadets were at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier for their summer training course. One day the cadets were in one of the barracks receiving safety training for live munitions. This was not so they could handle live munitions, but so that when they were out on the training ranges, they could recognize live munitions and safely stay away from them.
The instructor for the course, a Captain with the regular forces, brought a case of dummy grenades into the class. Amongst the dummy grenades was an actual live grenade. To this day, no one has ever established how the live grenade got into the class. According to witness testimony, one of the boys picked up the real grenade and asked the instructor if the grenade was real, the instructor assured the cadet that the grenade was not real. The cadet then pulled the pin out of the grenade and released the fuse handle while holding on to the grenade. The cadet and 5 other boys between the ages of 13 and 15 were killed immediately when the grenade exploded. 155 other cadets that were in the room suffered various physical and mental injuries.
It wasn’t until March of 2017 that the Department of National Defence agreed to compensate the families of the boys who had been killed by offering each family $100,000.00. The survivors or their families will be eligible for $42,000.00. They will also be allowed to apply for up to an additional $310,000.00 for pain and suffering.
For forty years the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces fought paying the families any manner of compensation even though the deaths and injuries were caused by a military grenade, on a military base, while a bunch of children between the ages of 13 to 18 were under the control of a member of the regular forces.
Under no circumstance would I ever be able to seek compensation from the Department of National Defence for the abuse I endured at the hands of Earl Ray Stevens.
To further insulate the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence from any type of civil action is the fact that Earl Ray Stevens was not an employee of either the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. Earl Ray Stevens worked for an outside contractor that provided security services at the Denison Armouries.
The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence could allow me to have Earl Ray Stevens as Earl Ray Stevens presented absolutely no legal risk to either the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces.
P.S. is a problem for the Canadian Armed Forces.
P.S. is a path of direct liability.
In 2008, the Department of National Defence admitted to full legal liability for the personal injuries that P.S. suffered at the hands of Captain McRae.
The Department of National Defence paid P.S. compensation.
On July 18th 1980, in Court Martial CM62, Canadian Armed Forces Officer Captain Father Angus McRae plead guilty to all of the charges that he had been charged with in relation to the crimes he had perpetrated against P.S.
The Juvenile Delinquents Act at the time said that adults could be held directly responsible for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Whether or not Angus McRae is alive or dead is a moot point.
Yes, he cannot be charged criminally.
However, Angus McRae already plead guilty.
The victims of P.S. only needed P.S. to be charged and convicted for the door of civil liability to be flung wide open.
This is something that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces were not going to allow.
If the Canadian Forces could be held liable in a civil damages trial for the matter of Captain McRae, how many other victims of sexual assault on the many different bases would also be able to sue?
P.S. isn’t some random guy that I picked out of the phone book. I suffered for over a year at his hands, as did my brother, and four other kids that I know of.
P.S. had his first criminal conviction for child molestation just four years after he had been caught buggering me in his bedroom in May of 1980. In 1984 P.S. was charged and convicted with molesting an eight-year-old boy on a Canadian Forces Base in Manitoba.
In 1985, after his family had been posted back to CFB Edmonton from CFB Petawawa, he was arrested and charged with molesting a nine-year-old boy on CFB Namao. As a result of this the Canadian Forces kicked P.S. off the base. J.S., the father of P.S. rented P.S. an apartment in the west end of Edmonton. P.S. lured a thirteen-year-old newspaper boy into his apartment and molested the boy. In August of 1985 P.S. was convicted on both counts.
According to an RCMP constable who had run a CPIC check on P.S., P.S. had many more charges between 1985 and 2000. Most charges were for sexual assaults, some charges were for assault, and a few charges were for robbery. Most charges ended up with convictions, and some charges were stayed or dismissed.
So, when Petty Officer Morris told me on November 4th, 2011 that the CFNIS just couldn’t find anything to indicate that P.S. was capable of the crimes that I had accused him of, I immediately knew there was something else at play.
That something at play was the desire to avoid liability.
No charges against P.S. = no connection to Captain McRae.
No connection to Captain McRae = No liability for the Canadian Force or DND.
And this is one of the many “conflict of interest” scenarios that should have seen the CFNIS recuse themselves from this matter. The CFNIS, as per Canadian Forces Provost Marshal policy CFMP 2120-4-0, should have offered this matter to the outside civilian authorities having jurisdiction.
CFPM policy Directive CFPM 2120-4-0
P.S. was at the time of the commissions of his crimes from June 20th, 1979 onward, a civilian with absolutely no connection to the Canadian Forces.
CFPM Directive 2120-4-0 clearly stipulates that these matters are to be offered to the outside civilian agencies first.
The CFNIS didn’t do that for investigation GO 2011-5754.
The CFNIS did however follow this proceedure in the matter of Earl Stevens when they offered the case to the Toronto Police Service and the TPS accepted the case.
Liability is what it all boils down to.
It has nothing to do with protecting P.S.
P.S. would have faced almost nothing in consequences as he would have had to be dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Any loss of liberty, P.S. has already endured as a result of his convictions from 1984 onward.
The only agency with anything to lose is the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.
And it just so happens that the police agency that would have to bring charges against P.S. just also happens to be within the chain of command of the organization that would suffer civil action should charges be brought against P.S.
Not really too much independence from the Canadian Forces chain of command, is there.
The VCDS is the Vice Chief of Defence Staff.
The CFPM is the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal
The CO CFNIS is the commanding officer for the entire CFNIS division.
The CFNIS Regional Commanders are the Officers Commanding for the different divisions such as CFNIS Pacific Region, CFNIS Western Region, CFNIS Central Region, etc.
The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff reports directly to the Chief of Defence Staff.
The Chief of Defence Staff in turn reports directly to the Minister of National Defence.
In total the CFNIS investigator is 5 steps removed from the Minister of National Defence.
Section 83 of the National Defence Act states that all subordinates must obey the lawful commands of their superiors.
You can hopefully understand why I think something stinks about this whole matter.
If somebody wanted to initiate a civil action for damages they endured at the hands of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, they’d have to name the Minister of National Defence.
P.S. vs. Minister of National Defence et. al. Alberta Court of Queens Bench action Q0103 08346 claim amount $4.3 million
Here is the request for payment after the Department of National Defence agreed to accept General Legal Liability for the personal damages that P.S. endured.
Shortly after this request being issued the lawyer for P.S. filed a motion for a discontinuance.
Alberta Court of Queens Bench Procedure Card Action Number Q0103 08346The comments P.S. made to Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock of CFNIS WR on August 9th, 2011
I’m still really curious as to what is was that the military “handled” for P.S.. But in the end, I don’t believe that this was the reason the CFNIS in 2011 conducted such a laughable investigation.
I believe that the reason the CFNIS conducted such a soft investigation in 2011 was due to a chain of command desire to prevent further settlement payments to in the matter of P.S. & Captain Father Angus McRae.
I believe that the 2015 restart of the 2011 CFNIS investigation was just a worthless “Dog and Pony show” to try to put a positive spin on what had been a really bad investigation.
And I honestly believe that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence are very well aware of the problems they were having with the Catholic Clergy on the bases in Canada. Hence why in the 1980s they shut down the rectories on all the bases.
And if liability wasn’t a concern, what’s this about then?
If you think that the Canadian Forces made it harder to obtain baptismal records because they want to “respect the Federal Privacy Act and to alleviate identity fraud”, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell to you. If you can’t prove that you were baptized in the Catholic faith, then it’s even harder for you to prove that you had any legitimate reason to be at the base chapel.
You wanna buy a bridge? Have I got a bridge for you.
I believe that the art of investigative journalism is dead in this country. If it’s not out right dead at this point in time, then it’s pretty well on death’s doorstep.
I believe that “media consolidation” and the move towards infotainment is responsible for the sad state of our media.
Editors now direct their teams based upon a calculation of “eyeballs / dollar”. The more eyeballs a story can bring in, the more advertising dollars the network can enjoy.
The number of investigative journalists is at such an all time low that simple things like an election throw most news room into chaos.
As a result of this chronic under staffing, journalism in this country seems to be able to handle only one thing at a time.
But it never used to be like this.
We used to have a media that asked the though questions and demanded the answers.
Nowadays reporters are afraid to ask questions because it might hurt the feelings of the person they’re asking the question of.
In the matter of child sexual abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces, all the news media has to do in this matter is to ask the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence some very simple and straight forward questions.
10 simple little questions.
No direct allegations against anyone.
No accusations of wrongdoing.
Just some simple little questions.
First question: Who investigates child sexual abuse cases in which a child is sexually abused on a Defence Establishment either by a civilian or by a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
Second question: Do either the base Military Police or the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service have specially trained sections that deal with victims of child sexual abuse.
Third question: In light of the findings of the External Review conducted by retired Supreme Court justice Madame Marie Deschamps, how can the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence ensure that investigations of childhood sexual abuse didn’t fail due to the very same shortcomings highlighted by the External Review.
Fourth question: What is the unfounded rate for childhood sexual assault investigations within the Canadian Forces Military Police Group.
Fifth question: How many investigations are there undertaken every year that look at the following crimes committed against children: “Indecent assault”; “Gross Indecency”; “Buggery”; “Sexual Interference”; “Invitation to Sexual Touching”; “Sexual Exploitation”; You would have to ask for these very specific Criminal Code offences as DND and the CF have a very sneaky manner of using sleight of hand to substitute “Sexual Assault” for the specific Criminal Code offences listed above. Sexual Assault is a Criminal Code offence all on it’s own and it is separate from the charges listed above.
Sixth question: On July 6th, 2010 Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Colonel Tim Grubb released a report that stated “the DND community has a noticeably and disturbingly higher per capita rate of sexual violations against children, including child pornography, firearms offences and other assaults when compared to the rest of the Canadian population”. Where are the military police investigations that correspond with these “violations against children” and were these matters successfully prosecuted. Were these matters prosecuted in the military justice system or were these matters transferred into the civilian justice system.
Seventh question: Prior to 1998 there existed a flaw in the National Defence Act that placed a three-year-time-bar on all Service Offences. Service offences include “Indecent assault”, “Gross Indecency”, “Buggery”, “Sexual Interference”, “Invitation to Sexual Touching”, “Sexual Exploitation”, and “Sexual Assault”. Indictable offences have no statute of limitations in the civilian justice system. How does the Canadian Forces work around this legal hurdle to ensure that persons who were sexually abused on defence establishments as children have the same legal rights as persons who didn’t live on defence establishments as children and who were abused by persons with no connection to the Canadian Armed Forces?
LS-311E describing the effects of the 3-year time bar.The three-year-time-bar still has implications that affect modern day investigations.
Eighth question: Prior to November 1997 the National Defence Act required that a commanding officer conduct a summary investigation AFTER the military police had laid charges against the commanding officer’s subordinate. Prior to November 1997 the commanding officer had the full authority of the National Defence Act to dismiss any charge, military or civilian, that had been brought against their subordinate. The charges that a commanding officer could dismiss included, but were not limited to: “Indecent assault”, “Gross Indecency”, “Buggery”, “Sexual Interference”, “Invitation to Sexual Touching”, “Sexual Exploitation”, and “Sexual Assault”. As LS-311E explained, once these charges were dismissed by the commanding officer, these charges or similar charges arising out of the same facts could never be brought against the accused at a later date be either a civilian or military authority. How does the Canadian Armed Forces deal with these matters where a commanding officer may have dismissed the charge prior to 1998, and the victim, now as an adult, desires to press charges unaware that the military has already once dismissed the charges brought against their abuser?
Legislative Summary LS-311E A legal document for Parliament that accompanied Bill C-25 in 1998.
Ninth Question: Are members of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and their superiors exempted from Section 83 of the National Defence Act? How does the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence ensure that Section 83 is not utilized in such a manner by the chain of command to limit and control the scope of a CFNIS investigation.
Current language in the National Defence Act makes it very hard for CFNIS investigators to be independent of the chain of command.
Tenth Question: In 2015, just after General Jonathan Vance became the new Chief of Defence Staff, he told Canadian Armed Forces military personnel that they could call 9-1-1 (civilian police) to report sexual assaults if they didn’t feel confident in the military system. Why wasn’t that same allowance made to civilian victims of military sexual assault? Why do civilian victims still have to deal with the military police and the CFNIS to report the crimes committed against them.
Military Personnel can call 9-1-1. Former base brats are stuck with the base military police and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service
These are all simple question. Nothing too hard to ask. These are questions that I can’t ask though as I’m a nobody so far as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are concerned.
The news media? They have powers that mere members of the public don’t have.
They have access to the eyeballs.
Let’s be honest. Nobody reads my blog. The only time it gets any type of traffic is when I make a post to one of the brat groups. Other than that, there’s no traffic.
As the headline says, today I received the official word from Global News that there is no interest in pursuing our story.
If I had to surmise why this is such a difficult story for the media to cover, I would have to say that it’s the ignorance that is inherent in the media.
The media for the most part are “Book smart and street dumb”.
The current reporter wouldn’t be the first one to state to me that if there had been a problem in the Canadian Forces, they would have heard about it by now.
We know for a fact that the Canadian Forces has had some rather dubious characters in its employ: Colonel Russell Williams; Brigadier General Roger Bazin; Captain Father Angus McRae; Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan; Blackmore; Private Buckland; Private Clabby; Corporal Ryan; 2nd Lt. Sheehy-Tremblay; Seaman Mitchell; Corporal Turner; The gang from Somalia; And many, many more. But these were the ones that weren’t quietly swept out of the military.
We also know from the report released by Colonel Tim Grubb in the aftermath of the Colonel Russell Williams fiasco that the review conducted by the Provost Marshal found a “disturbingly higher” incidence of child sex abuse in the defence community”
I asked the reporter I was most recently involved with if Colonel Tim Grubb’s report, along with the 3-year time bar, and the Summary Investigation flaw caused him to have any concerns. He said that he couldn’t see how these were related to one another.
The reporter that I most recently dealt with says that he recently filed an FOI request with DND asking DND how many members of the Canadian Forces were charged with child abuse.
Child abuse is not a crime. No, really, it’s not. And I don’t mean that it’s legal to abuse children. There is no Criminal Code offence called “Child Abuse”. So of course, DND is going to respond that it could find no records.
I told this reporter many times over that if he wanted to look for criminal convictions that he’d have to look for these charges using very specific terms such as “151 – Sexual Interference, 152 – Invitation to Sexual Touching, 153 – Sexual Exploitation” for crimes that occurred after 1985, and Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery for sexual crimes that occurred prior to 1985.
And even at that, DND didn’t start maintaining a database of offences until the early 2000’s. This means that if you wanted to look for sexual crimes committed against children prior to 1998, you’d have to search through every service member’s file held at the Library and Archives Canada. To do so though, you’d need the permission of either the service member or the service member’s next of kin if the service member has been deceased for less than 20 years.
And I know that DND is very deceitful with the information that it releases. Back in 2018 I filed an ATI with DND ” how many cases of child sexual abuse occurred pre-1998 and were brought to the attention of the CFNIS/MP/CFPM port-1998 and declined prosecution due to the 3-year time bar”. DND fought me on this first arguing that this would require them to create new records which they weren’t obligated to. The Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada became involved and DND finally released the information I requested. Or so it appeared. What clued me off that something was amiss was that CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754 was absent from the release of documents. GO 2011-5754 was my complaint against P.S. that I filed in March of 2011.
What I did realize quickly is that DND had released to me a list of “Sexual Assaults”. Sexual Assault is a unique Criminal Code offence that does not include “Indecent Assault”, “Gross Indecency”, “Buggery”, “Sexual Interference”, “Invitation to Sexual Touching”, and “Sexual Exploitation”.
This is something that the media in Canada just can’t seem to wrap their heads around. The media seems to equate “no records can be found” with “no crimes were ever committed”.
I suggested to this reporter that if he really wanted to see just how big of a problem sexual crimes committed against children had been back in the days prior to 1998 that Global perhaps run some spots during its nightly news broadcasts asking viewers to call in to Global to report if they were ever the victim of child sexual abuse on a Canadian Forces Base. This doesn’t accuse the Canadian Forces or anyone with the Canadian Forces of having committed anything. It’s just a request for victims to come forward. Once the victims come forward, then you listen to their stories. Once you have their stories, then you pick a common theme. Once you have that common theme, then you start hammering away on DND until DND owns up to the skeletons in their closet.
Sitting around on your arse, waiting for the Minister of National Defence or the Chief of Defence Staff to come forward and say “Hey look, we had a problem, we fucked up”, is going to waste a lot of time.
If you want an organization like DND to respond, you need to crank up the heat and make it uncomfortable for them.
The media also seems to equate the lack of victims willing to go on record as an indication of their honesty. Many former brats that I’ve spoken to, whom came from dysfunctional families on base, are for the most part terrified of saying anything against the Canadian Forces. Then there are the brats who are terrified of saying anything out of fear of some of the members of the base brat groups on Facebook.
I know for a fact that a lot of the Facebook groups for base brats will censor my posts and will remove them. So no, the base brat groups cannot be viewed as being a cross section of typical former brats, as the views espoused in some of these groups are very sanitized.
I’ve been trying to garner media attention since way back in 2011 when I first learnt of the connection between my babysitter, P.S. and Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae.
The media see absolutely no conflict of interest with having a “police” organization such as the CFNIS conduct investigations which may subject their superiors to civil actions. There were 25 children who had been sexually abused on Canadian Forces Base Namao by Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae and his altar boy P.S.. McRae taught P.S. how to sexually abuse children. McRae encouraged P.S. to abuse children. McRae requested that P.S. escort children over to the chapel to be abused by both Captain McRae and P.S. after administering alcohol to the children.
P.S. sued the Minister of National Defence in March of 2001 and settled out of court in November of 2008 with the Minister of National Defence after the Department of National Defence accepted General Legal Liability for the personal damaged that P.S. endured at the hands of McRae. I can’t say if P.S. settled with the Archdiocese of Edmonton or the estate of Angus McRae, but I can’t see DND absorbing all of the costs when P.S. had named all three parties. If each party shared 1/3 of the liability, this means that P.S. walked away with close to $600,000.00. Not bad for someone who wasn’t as innocent as the Canadian Forces portrayed him to be back in 1980.
Because the Department of National Defence accepted legal liability, the chain of liability has well been established. If P.S. were to admit that (a) he sexually abused the children he was babysitter while he was 14 years of age and older, and (b) that he acted upon Captain McRae’s instructions and brought the children he was babysitting over to the chapel to be sexually abused by both Captain McRae and himself, the victims of both Captain McRae and P.S. would have a very simple time arguing in court that they were entitled to at least the same amount of compensation that the Department of National Defence agreed to compensate P.S.. Now, let’s say that there were in fact 25 children being sexually abused by Captain McRae and P.S.. And lets say that P.S. had been awarded the maximum that the Canadian Forces Director of Civil Claims and Liabilities is authorized to sign for, which is $200,000.00. That’s five million dollars in payouts at a minimum.
Why don’t I just sue the military on my own? Suing the military without a direct connection being established between myself and P.S. would be an extreme exercise in futility, especially seeing as how the 1980 CFSIU investigation established that P.S. was in fact the only victim of sexual abuse and that there were no other victims. This is also why suing P.S. for civil damages would be out of the question as well. Surely if P.S. had been molesting children and assisting Captain McRae with his devious schemes back in 1979 to 1980, the military police and the CFSIU would have handed P.S. over to the RCMP, right?
The media seems to like to think of the members of the CFNIS as being police officers just like civilian police officers. The CFNIS and the Provost Marshal operate completely different than any civilian police force. CFNIS investigators do not run their own investigation. SAPMIS, the record keeping system used by the military police is not secure. The investigator’s superiors running the investigation aren’t necessarily trained in law enforcement and may not even have training in the field of the investigation being undertaken. And more alarmingly, there are no provisions in the National Defence Act which exempt CFNIS investigators from section 83 of the National Defence Act. This means that investigators with the CFNIS are bound by the National Defence Act to obey all lawful commands of their superiors upon threat of life in prison for disobeying the lawful command.
The Chain of Command for the CFNIS looks kinda like this: Minister of National Defence –> Chief of Defence Staff –> Vice Chief of Defence Staff –> Provost Marshal –> CFNIS commanding officer –> CFNIS regional commanding officer –> CFNIS investigator.
You can see why this is a bad arrangement and you can hopefully see why the CFNIS need to be disbanded. The RCMP, as troubled of an agency as they are, are completely outside of the command influence of the Canadian Forces chain of command.
The sad thing is that the media can’t see this conflict of interest.
In the next little while, I’m going to start naming all of the reporters that I’ve dealt with since 2011.
Global has shown no commitment.
CBC has shown no commitment.
CTV has shown no commitment.
And to be honest, media consolidation in this country has probably been the single largest contributing factor which explains the media’s lack of interest.
All I know is that these reporters and these news agencies are helping the Canadian Armed Forces keep their dirty little secrets hidden and buried in the past. I’ll be 49 in a few months. Statsically speaking, I have 20 years or so left to live So if it takes another 10 years to find a news agency willing to get off its high-horse and actually start doing some investigative work, I might be 65 by the time this story hits the headlines.
And that’s all the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have to do is simply wait us out.
Most of the brats that lived on base during the ’50s are starting to pass on.
Next to go will be the brats that lived on the bases in the ’60s.
All DND has to do is wait until 2040 and most of the kids who were in their teens during the ’70s will start passing away.
By 2050 DND won’t have to worry about former sexually abused military dependants making noise.
There’s a reason why DND transferred control of the PMQs to an independent arms length agency in the 1990s
There’s a reason why the number of family PMQs on base are dwindling and why DND and the Canadian Forces are encouraging members to buy homes and live in the civilian world instead of in the PMQ patches on base.
There’s far too much liability and risk in running company towns. Especially when you’re the employer and you provide the security services.
On March 10th, 2020 I was contacted by an investigator with the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Western Region office at Edmonton Garrison.
This has to do with a second member of the Canadian Armed Forces that my babysitter, P.S., provided me to for sexual purposes.
Who this man was, I don’t know.
Through paper work supplied to me by various Access to Information requests, I think I have a good idea of just who this person might be.
My grandmother had me involved with all manners of sports while we lived on Canadian Forces Base Namao. I was in hockey, I was in 5 pin bowling, I played basketball, and I was in the Red Cross swimmers program. Most of these programs were heavily subsidized to the point of not costing anything outside of the cost of uniforms or equipment.
I had been at the base pool for one of the youth swim nights. I was by myself. Now, this wasn’t a big deal back in the late ’70s, early ’80s for an eight year old kid living on a military base to be at the base swimming pool alone without adult accompaniment.
Sadly though, I can tell you from personal experience that there were perverts in the military back then.
I had just finished showering, and I was heading to my locker when P.S. came up to me and grabbed me and told me there was someone that wanted to see me in the sauna.
This would have just been a few weeks after he had been caught buggering me in his bedroom. In the time after he had been caught buggering me, he had become very physically aggressive and violent and had resorted to making all sorts of threats against me of harm that would happen if I ever told anyone about what he had done to me.
I know this encounter in the sauna occurred prior to the June 23rd, 1980 house fire on 12th street that destroyed the S. family home.
At the time, my father was still mainly living off base with his then girlfriend Susan. He was rarely home at the time. Richard and Susan didn’t move into the house on CFB Namao until August of 1980. My father relied on his mother to raise both my brother and I. My grandmother was usually drunk most of the time. And my grandmother had numerous emotional issues. So no, there was no telling grandma about what was happening.
Unlike the five times that P.S. took me for visits over to the base chapel to visit with Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae, there was no alcohol given to me prior to the sexual acts. So, I remember all of it.
I won’t go into describing the event, but suffice to say, no eight year old should be required to do what I did. And no 15 year old should be facilitating the event. And no Canadian Forces service personal should ever request these types of services from an eight year old child.
I don’t remember too much about this man. I know that he looked like a service member. Sure, he wasn’t wearing anything more than a towel in the sauna, but he had a typical neat and trim appearance. And I doubt that he just wandered onto the base and managed to find the one 15 year old boy that was willing to pimp out other children.
For the longest time, I could never put a name to this man. I honestly had no idea who he was. However, after I received certain documents from DND in 2018, I’m more than certain that I know who this man was, and why he was on the base in that period of time.
So, right now I’m just waiting for the COVID-19 pandemic to be lifted. After this I will be interviewed by the CFNIS.
Do I hold out much hope for anything happening?
Not really. This is the Canadian Forces matter.
Back around 2017, I had asked Sgt. Tenaschuk of CFNIS Pacific Region if he could drive on over to Victoria and asked retired Canadian Armed Forces officer Colonel Dan Munro what exactly transpired on Canadian Forces Base Namao after his direct subordinate Captain Father Angus McRae was investigated for molesting numerous children on CFB Namao from 1978 to 1980.
Sgt. Tenaschuk checked with his legal advisor, and this is what the legal advisor told him.
Now, what must be remembered is that all I asked for Sgt. Tenaschuk to do is to talk with <ret> Colonel Dan Munro. I hadn’t accused <ret> Colonel Dan Munro of anything illegal.
In 2010, retired Canadian Armed Forces officer Brigadier General Roger Bazin was arrested and charged for molesting a young boy on Canadian Forces Base Borden in the early 1970s when Bazin was a Captain serving as the base chaplain.
In 2010 the charges were dropped just as quickly as they had been brought.
In 1986, the Court Martial Appeal Court found in the matter of Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan, that the Canadian Armed Forces have the right to consider Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery as Service Offences under the National Defence Act. As such the Canadian Armed Forces have the authority to conduct a service tribunal for these service offences, even in the modern day.
The three-year time bar that existed prior to 1998 applied to ALL service offences.
Under the National Defence Act, service members also had the right to request a courts martial to have their charges dealt with.
You see where this is going, right?
And you also hopefully understand why the Canadian Armed Forces have such a squeaky clean record when it comes to child sexual assaults prior to 1998.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 3-year time bar matter played a significant part in the decision to drop the charges that had been brought against Bazin.
Did Bazin request that his charges be proceed with in a court martial? The National Defence Act allows for the Canadian Forces to charge retired service members with service offences. As the person was subject to the Code of Service Discipline at the time of the offence would this person be able to request a court martial instead of a civilian trial? And if so, then the 3-year time bar automatically comes into play.
Could a retired service member argue in civilian court that because they were subject to the code of service discipline at the time of the offence that they deserved to have the 3-year time bar applied in their matter?
If only the media in this country would start asking these types of questions instead of waiting for DND to bless them with an answer, we might finally see Parliament create legislation that retroactively removes the 3-year time bar from Service Offences that as Criminal Code matters would not have had any type of statute of limitations.
The mucky-mucks at National Defence Head Quarters must be really pleased with how extremely disinterested the media is with the topic of child sexual abuse that occurred on the bases in Canada.
I first had dealings with this reporter back in the summer of 2019. They seemed interested in the story, but they just couldn’t find the time. Other things kept popping up, other issues kept taking precedence.
This reporter, like many before them, laments the lack of people willing to come forward, or if they do come forward, they won’t go on camera and they won’t allow their names to be used.
And to be honest, this isn’t the first reporter that strung me along with a tenuous interest in the story that I had to tell.
For me it’s not that hard to understand why people would be unwilling to come forward and go on camera.
Back in the ’90s and even up to the mid 2000s, if you told me that I had been sexually abused, I probably would have told you to go fuck right off. There was no way on Earth that I was going to admit that I had been abused on CFB Namao and then again on CFB Downsview primarily at the Denison Armouries.
If you were a male military dependant, and you were buggered on base, you kept your damn mouth shut. When I was growing up on base, the general attitude was that only queers, fags, and homos took it up the ass. And yes, by the time my family was posted from Canadian Forces Base Greisbach to Canadian Forces Base Downsview, I fully understood what homosexuality was, and I fully understood from Terry that homosexuality was a mental illness and that I was going to get electroshock treatments at the Alberta Hospital if I kept it up. I was 9 when we moved to CFB Greisbach from CFB Namao. I was 12 when we left CFB Greisbach for CFB Downsview.
Terry was the “counsellor” that I started seeing after my arrival on CFB Greisbach. Terry was helping me to work though my attraction to other boys that I had exhibited when I was caught being buggered by a teen who was almost twice my age. It was August of 2011 when I learnt that “Terry” was actually Captain Terry Totzke, a military social worker with the Canadian Armed Forces. And I have no doubt that what Captain Terry Totzke was doing would in this day and age be called “conversion therapy”.
It was the military after all. It has been written that in the Canadian Forces men were sometimes buggered in an attempt to humiliate them or to “fix” disciplinary issues, or to simply “knock ’em down a peg or two”. After all, it seemed that as long as you were the person doing the buggering, you weren’t seen as being gay. If on the other hand you were the person being buggered, well that just opened up a whole can of worms.
When I had been sexually assaulted by Earl Ray Stevens while I lived on Canadian Forces Base Downsview, one of his threats was that if I ever told anyone that I would be kicked out of cadets. Even though I wouldn’t learn about CFAO 19-20 until around 2015 I fully understood that gays and lesbians were not welcome in the Canadian Forces. Somehow Earl knew that my father was in the Canadian Forces, and Earl would remind me that if I ever told anyone, that my father would find out, and that if my father found out there would be dire consequences. And after having lived through those consequences on Canadian Forces Base Greisbach, I didn’t want to live through those consequences again. So, I pleasured Earl whenever he wanted it. It was just easier that way. Besides, as Earl had quipped once or twice, that by giving me money it was a fair trade.
The more I wonder about Earl the more I wonder how many other children he molested on military bases during his career in the Canadian Armed Forces. After all, the first time he assaulted me, he wasn’t at all shy or coy about it. His hand didn’t accidentally brush against my crotch behind closed doors. He grabbed my crotch knowing full well what he was doing. He also knew that by my lack of response, that I was an easy mark.
Homophobia in the military back in the ’60s through ’80s was nothing new. It was just a reflection of the attitudes of society, but it was amplified via the machismo that is typical in military organizations. And unlike general society, the Canadian Forces filter out who gets in and who doesn’t. So after awhile the military becomes nothing but a massive echo chamber of like minded attitudes.
The official policy of the Canadian Forces towards gays and lesbians was dictated by Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-20 which concluded that homosexuality was a “sexual abnormality” only further reinforced homophobic attitudes in the military and normalized these attitudes.
My father always had a warped sense of humour. But it was typical for the guys he hung out with. When we lived on Canadian Forces Base Downsview he asked me once if I knew what Gay stood for. I looked at him kinda puzzled. He replied with a laugh “Got Aids Yet”. Another time he asked if I knew what AIDS stood for. Again another puzzled look to which he replied “Anally Injected Death Sentence”.
And with homophobia being as wide spread in the Canadian Forces as it was back then, I wasn’t the only military dependant that had to endure it. How many male children on the bases were abused and kept their mouths shut due to the rampant homophobia in the military? We’ll probably never know. How many male children ended up committing suicide due to their abuse on base and the fear of being labelled “gay” or “queer”? Again, we’ll probably never know.
I’ve submitted Access to Information Requests to DND looking for any type of studies that DND may have undertaken to look at the lives of military dependants. There never were any. And this makes sense, after all we were nothing more that DF&E.
Another problem that reporters with the media seem to have understanding is that there is no directory of military dependants. The Canadian Armed Forces keep absolutely no records of us aside from possibly our birth certificates in our serving parent’s file.
There are many groups on Facebook for former military dependants. But these groups seem to be filled with brats who came from functional families and who didn’t encounter any abnormal issues while they lived on base. Myself, I wouldn’t be in any of these groups if it wasn’t for my desire to find other former brats who had problems on base.
Some of the brats that I know are only in one group out of the many groups on Facebook for base brats. And they’re usually only in the one particular group because they were looking for someone very specific.
There is a department manager where I work. This manger runs one of the larger and more important departments at this operation. This manager had Googled my name a few years ago and had discovered my blog. This manger pulled me aside and confided in me that they too had been a military dependant and they too had been sexually abused on base. But this manger asked me to never divulge to anyone that they had been a military dependant. They said that they were ashamed of having been a dependant and that they didn’t want anyone at work to judge them based upon their childhood.
In my professional life, when I’m asked where I’m from and where I grew up, I just say my birth province. It’s far much easier that way.
Until the media step up to the plate and start actively looking for these other sexually abused military dependants, none will come forward.
And I think sadly this is the last reporter that I will ever be able to approach about this topic as the people whom I’ve placed this reporter in contact with have asked for me to stop giving their contact information out as these reporters never want to listen to what they’re being told, and these reporters keep pressing these other former military dependants to allow their names and faces to be used.
One former dependant was all ready to go a couple of years ago, but the reporter running with the story back then reneged on their promise of allowing this other victim to use an alias and to sit behind a screen while the interview was being conducted. This other reporter assured this other military dependant that their face would be pixelated during the post process. However, this meant that there would be a video recording of this dependant’s face.
A lot of former military dependants that I’ve spoken with are literally terrified of the Canadian Forces. Very little, if anything was done for them when they were abused. Some, but not all, came from dysfunctional homes where the father was abusive and the base MPs would often turn a blind eye.
And some, like me, would go on into their adult lives believing what they had been told when they were children living on the various Canadian Forces Bases. That they were responsible for what had happened, that they liked what had happened because they let it go on for so long, and that they had a mental illness because they were having sex with other boys twice their age.
It kept us silent.
The media’s deafness ensures our silence stays in place.
These law firms are very intrigued with the topic of child sexual abuse within the defence community.
Both of these law firms are looking for other victims.
Both of these law firms would like to speak to anyone, who as a military dependant, was sexually abused on a Defence Establishment within Canada, whether or not their abuser was subject to the Code of Service Discipline, and whose abuse was investigated by the base military police or the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit prior to 1998.
A Defence Establishment is bascially any property leased or owned by the Department of National Defence. This would include all PMQs on base, all PMQs off base like the Hilcrest Housing Development in Summerside, PEI or the LDH’s at CFB Downsview. These housing developments were on long term lease to the Department of National Defence and were therefore considered Defence Establishment property. Armouries are Defence Establishment property as well.
Because of the status of “Defence Establishment” the base military police or the CFSIU would have had jurisdiction to investigate all criminal matters and lay charges against persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
At this time, the matter is limited to pre-1998 issues due to very specific flaws in the National Defence Act which were well documented, publicized, acknowledged and “fixed” by Parliament by very specific legislation.
One of the primary asks will be that as part of any potential settlement, the Canadian Forces Military Police Group and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service be barred by legislation from investigating ANY form of child sexual abuse which occurs on a Defenece Establishment whether or not the abuse was committed by a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline. The RCMP are the Federal police force of Canada and they already have concurrent jurisdiction with the CFNIS for all civilian matters on Defence Establishments. All it would take is an Act of Parliament to further amend the National Defence Act to set these boundaries in stone.
To contact me, I would urge you to do so via encrypted email.
I use Protonmail and ProtonVPN.
You can download Protonmail from protonmail.com
You can download ProtonVPN from protonvpn.com
You don’t need ProtonVPN, but the extra security never hurts.
When you set up your Protonmail email account, do not use anything that could identify you.
When you create your Protonmail account, write down your username and password and keep it secure. The law firm(s) will make their initial contact with you via this secure email.
You don’t have to send ANY personal information at this time. Just a basic description of what happened, when it happened, and what province it happened in. Unfortunately, at this time, we can’t deal with matters that occured on Defence Establishments OUTSIDE of Canada.
If this action proceeds, you will be notified by the secure email. The lawyer(s) will then arrange to have their documents couriered to you, and your response will be picked up by prepaid courier.
You don’t have to use a secure email program to send a message to this address. But anything to protect your privacy is worth it.
The email address for the inital contact is: DND_action@protonmail.com
Paste and copy the email address into your email program.
The MPCC investigation into my complaint against the CFNIS is still ongoing. Unlike last time around, I was able to file an Access to Information request prior to making my final submission to the MPCC.
What this means is that unlike my previous complaint to the MPCC, I have all of the paperwork from the 2015 to 2018 portion of CFNIS investigation GO# 2011-5754.
This helped a lot as I was able to confirm what the CFNIS did and didn’t do in the second portion of the investigation into my complaint against P.S.
We still have to remember that the Provost Marshal holds all of the cards in a MPCC review.
I’ll admit that I was pretty naive the last time I made a complaint to the MPCC.
Dealing with the CFNIS in 2011 was really my first time ever having any dealings with any type of police agency. And during my dealings with the CFNIS I honestly had no idea of the historic issues facing the military police within the Canadian Forces. I also had absolutely no knowledge of the historical flaws in the National Defence Act. I just thought that it was so cool after having twice before been told that the military police couldn’t investigate P.S. because he was a military dependant that all of a sudden, here was the CFNIS ready and willing to investigate P.S.
But when Sgt. Cyr opened his mouth on May 3rd, 2011 and spilt the beans about the sordid details from back in 1980, I realized that the justice train had come off the rails before it even left the station.
I knew on November 4th, 2011 when PO Morris told me that the CFNIS couldn’t find any evidence to indicate that P.S. was capable of the crimes I had accused him of, that something had really gone wrong with the investigation.
The statement PO Morris made to me on November 4th, 2011 became all the more laughable in August of 2012 when I came across the Edmonton Journal article that detailed P.S.’s three criminal convictions for child sexual assault prior to September of 1985.
When RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban recommended that the CFNIS re-open the 2011 investigation and concentrate of four areas that he thought needed improvement I decided to keep detailed notes and records right from the word go.
All of these records and details were submitted to the MPCC.
So, we’ll have to sit back and see where this goes.
As I said at the start, I fully realize that the MPCC doesn’t have a lot of investigative powers during a review. The MPCC can’t subpoena documents or witnesses during a review. The MPCC can’t administer oaths during a review. The MPCC pretty well has to function with what the Provost Marshal gives to them.
I know the Provost Marshal has a very dim view of my request for a review of the CFNIS investigation. The Provost Marshal has already informed me that he considers my complaint to be baseless. The Provost Marshal has also stated that he considers the 2012 MPCC review to be sufficient and that he doesn’t believe that a second review of the same investigation needs to be undertaken. What the Provost Marshal is ignoring is that the 2011 portion of GO #2011-5754 is very distinctly different from the 2015 to 2018 portion of GO #2011-5754. The Provost Marshal even stated that he refused to review the video of my statement that I gave to RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban in September of 2015.
So, here’s hoping that things are different this time around.
One lesson that I did learn from my previous trip to Federal Court is that you can’t introduce “new evidence” into a hearing for judicial review. What is “new evidence”? New evidence is anything that wasn’t before the Military Police Complaints Commission during the review of a complaint against the military police.
And believe me, I am fully aware that not everything that was before the CFNIS manages to make it to the MPCC.
I finally finished with my submissions to the Military Police Complaints Commission. This time around I hope that things work out a little different.
My first tango with the MPCC back in 2012 was the first time ever that I had dealt with an agency such as the MPCC. I had no lawyer, and no legal advice. I went I completely naive expecting the MPCC to agree that an investigation that couldn’t bring charges against a person with already numerous charges for child sexual abuse had to have been flawed.
Flawed it was, but I had absolutely no access to any of the paperwork from the CFNIS investigation. I had no idea that the Provost Marshal could determine which documents were sent to the MPCC and which documents were withheld from the MPCC.
I also had no idea that CFNIS investigator participation in a MPCC review is strictly voluntary, and that the MPCC investigations can take flights of fancy with their statements to the MPCC as their statements are not taken under oath.
The Military Police Complaints Commission was created by an act of Parliament with extensive input from agencies such as the Department of Justice, and the Department of National Defence. You just know the rules are stacked against you from the word go.
What I find the most disappointing about agencies such as the MPCC is that they aren’t structured at all to assist the complaintant.
To make a successful complaint against the military police, one would need to have access to the investigation paperwork.
However, the MPCC is not set up to be able to assist a person with obtaining the paperwork for the police investigation that they would like to complain against.
In 2018, as soon as I heard that the Alberta Crown was again declining to reccomend charges against P.S., I filed an Access to Information Request with the Department of National Defence to get the paperwork from the CFNIS investigation.
This request was filed on July 27th, 2018. DND acknowledged the receipt of this request on July 30th, 2018. On September 5th, 2018 I filed a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission in regard to the second portion of CFNIS GO# 2011-5754.
I made it specifically clear in my complaint that I was awaiting the paperwork from the investigation before I would be able to clearly state my concerns. I explained that as the CFNIS investigator who had been working on the second portion of my case would not give me a firm date as to when the investigation had ended, that I was filing my second MPCC complaint as a way to ensure that the deadline for my filing a complaint didn’t expire.
You only have one year from the date of the end of the investigation to make a complaint.
I recevied the investigation paperwork on Februaty 5th, 2020. This is over 7 months past the one year deadline for filing.
And I only received the documents after the involvement of the Office of the Information Commmisioner of Canada. The OIC stated that my complaint against DND for “deemed refusal” was “Well Founded” and will be officially recorded as such.
Deemed refusal is a term of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. It means that while the agency responsible for releasing the information being requested has agreed to the request, they are intentionally dragging their heels in an attempt to deny a person access to the information that they have requested.
Needless to say, had I waited until I received the paperwork from the investigation before I made my complaint, I would have been well past the deadline for filing a complaint.
The paperwork that I received was redacted to the nth degree. There is a lot of good information contained in the documents, but a lot is missing as well.
I know for example that two different investigators spoke with Fred Cunningham during the second portion of the CFNIS investigation. I know that Fred was refusing to be interviewed if the interview was recorded. He also didn’t seem to want to attend the CFNIS detachment on base.
I also know that the CFNIS basically regurgitated the 2011 CFNIS investigation and fed that back to the Alberta Crown again. It became very apparent that no matter how many other witnesses came forward with complaints against P.S., the the CFNIS were going to keep all of our complaints separate.
You do have to understand, the CFNIS and the Provost Marshal are not protecting P.S.. The CFNIS and the Provost Marshal are doing everything within their power to ensure that the Canadian Public never discover that the Canadian Armed Forces were having the exact same problem with their Catholic clergy that the various civilian archdiocese were having. Captain McRae wasn’t the only service member charged with sexual acts involving children in the Catholic clergy in the Canadian Forces. Canadian Armed Forces Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan was another, along with Canadian Armed Forces officer Brigadier General Roger Bazin.
And there are probably many more who were never charged due to the 3 year time bar in the pre-1998 National Defence Act, or the summary investigation flaw that also existed in the pre-1998 National Defence Act.
There is one aspect of my current complaint that concerns me is that most of the personnel involved with the investigation of my complaint against P.S. have moved on to other endeavours. Some have been “released” while some have “retired”.
Child sexual abuse in the Canadian Forces 