Weird Phone Calls.

Every now and again I get weird phone calls related to my blog. The funny thing is, I haven’t really put my phone number out there.

Every now and again I get weird phone calls related to my blog. The funny thing is, I haven’t really put my phone number out there.

I don’t know who this person is, “unknown” number. But they sure had an interest in my blog postings about the MPCC.

This guy was adamant that when I made my complaint to the MPCC that I would have been allowed to view the CFNIS paperwork.

No matter how I explained to him that I did not see the CFNIS investigation paperwork until February of 2013 he wouldn’t believe me.

“What made you think that something was wrong with the investigation if you didn’t see the investigation paperwork” he asked.

I explained to him that my babysitter had his first criminal conviction for child molestation in 1984, two more convictions in 1985. And nine more convictions between 1985 and 2000. And for PO Morris to tell me on November 4th, 2011 that the CFNIS couldn’t find anything that would indicate that P.S. was capable of molesting the children he was babysitting, meant that something went wrong. I already knew about the $4.3 million dollar lawsuit between P.S. and the Minister of National Defence.

The caller interjected that just because P.S. had criminal convictions for child sexual abuse starting in 1984, this in no way automatically means that P.S. was guilty of molesting children prior to 1984. And to be fair to the mystery caller, my brother said the same thing to me back in 2013.

I explained to the mystery caller that if someone was convicted of raping a woman, and their modus operandi happened to match the modus operandi of the perpetrator in a couple of previous rapes that occured when this particular person happened to live in the vicinity of the two previous victims, you can be sure that the police would look into these matters. Sure, the similar modus operandi doesn’t mean that the three rapes were committed by the same person, but by the same token you don’t just discount any possible connection because they happened prior to the current conviction.

The mystery caller asked me why I didn’t bring this to the attention of the MPCC. I asked in response how could I when I had absolutely no idea what was done during the CFNIS investigation.

The mystery caller asked me if I was so certain that my father lied in his statement to the CFNIS why didn’t I say something to the CFNIS or the MPCC.

I tried to explain to the mystery caller that at no time during the 2011 CFNIS did the investigators ever ask me about anything my father had said to the CFNIS.

You would think that if someone said that they had been repeatedly molested for 1-1/2 years by a person acting as a babysitter, and then someone else countered and said that there never was a babysitter, that the investigators would want to follow up with the victim to understand this significant discrepancy. At no point in time in 2011 did the CFNIS ever call me to ask if I was certain that there was a babysitter.

The mystery caller then said that I should have told the MPCC about the lies in my father’s statement.

Again, I tried to expain to the mystery caller that I had no access to my father’s statement until 2013. By the time I read my father’s statement it was far too late to contest it. The CFNIS had my foster care records. I gave them a complete copy in August of 2011. They refused to consider them at all during the investigation. That means the CFNIS willfully ignored such things as:

Mr. Gill frequently contradicts himself from one meeting to the next.

Mr. Gill tells those he perceives to be in positions of authority what he believes they want to hear.

Mr. Gill brought his mother into the house to raise his children.

Mr. Gill uses work as an excuse for his frequent absences as a reason to not attend the family counselling sessions.

Robert was in the protective custody of Alberta Social Services and Mr. Gill had signed the paperwork placing Robert into the foster care system.

Mr. Gill told both Alberta Social Services and the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto that there was nothing wrong with his children, that the intense sibling rivalry between his two sons was just “boys being boys” and that the counsellors were no help at all.

The mystery caller was adamant that if this was in my foster care records, that the would have picked up on this.

I told the mystery caller that my father’s statement gave the CFNIS exactly what they wanted. According to my father, there was no babysitter in the house and that’s all the CFNIS needed.

I told the mystery caller that during the 2011 CFNIS investigation I was told repeatedly by the CFNIS investigators that there was no house fire at PMQ #26 on 12th street in the summer of 1980. It was suggested to me by various persons with the CFNIS in 2011 that the fire I was thinking of occured on 1986 and happened on CFB Griesbach, and that if I was wrong about this fire, maybe I was wrong about other things too. Maybe the babysitter didn’t molest my brother and I. Maybe it was a man who lived off the base. Maybe I was making this up.

The mystery caller wanted to know why I didn’t raise this with the MPCC if I was so certain that there was a fire.

I told the mystery caller that even though I was certain that there was a fire in the P.S. houseat #26 – 12th street that I had no proof that there actually was a fire. It was my word against that of the Canadian Armed Forces……. and why would the CF or the CFNIS lie about the fire? Again, it wouldn’t be until February of 2013 when I obtained the certified tribunal records that I would learn that the CFNIS had the Canadian Forces Fire Marshal records for the June 23rd, 1980 fire at PMQ #26 on 12th street and they knew that I had told the truth about the fire.

I really wish I knew who the mystery caller was.

Is he a member of the Canadian Forces, or maybe a reited member?

Is he another former military dependant that’s upset with the way that I’m slandering the Canadian Forces.

I don’t know.

“Anything he was involved in as a youth has already been handled by the military”

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.

The Military Police Complaints Commission

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.

An interesting ATI request

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.

You can download a copy of the ATI here:

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.

COVID-19

Well, I thought things at work would ease up with the Covid-19 pandemic. But it’s been the exact opposite.

Time that I thought that I would be spending at home has instead been spent at work verifying air flows and air pressures.

I thought that I was going to be able to spend time posting most blog entries, but that hasn’t been the case.

Hopefully, after the covid-19 coronavirus pandemic is over, I can spend more time posting.

The Man In The Sauna

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.

Just another posting

Just another posting. Nothing too serious.

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.

😉

MPCC Second Complaint

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”.

I Missed it……

The Military Police Complaints Commission has recently been in contact with me regarding documents and other forms of information that I have in my possession from the 2015 through 2018 portion of the CFNIS investigation into the acts of P.S. on CFB Namao from 1978 until 1980.

In preparation for sending the pertinent information to the MPCC, I’ve been reviewing the documents. And I realized something. The second investigation was designed to fail from the word go.

In the summer of 2015, after I had spoken to J.S. and then subsequently his son P.S., I wrote a letter to the Chief of Defence Staff and I sent a courtesy copy to Bob Paulson who at the time was the commissioner of the RCMP. Within a few weeks I was contacted by RCMP Major Crimes Investigator Akrum Ghadban. Mr. Ghadban was on secondment to the CFNIS and was responsible for reviewing major cases. Mr. Ghadban said that he had reviewed the 2011 CFNIS investigation and that he had concerns about the investigation and that he was going to instruct the CFNIS on areas that he thought they could improve.

This led to a new interview being conducted between myself, RCMP Inspector Ghadban, and Sgt. Tenaschuk of the CFNIS. This interview took place on September 22nd, 2015 at the RCMP detachment at the University of British Columbia.

Just prior to the interview, Inspector Ghadban met with me. He said that he had concerns about aspects of the 2011 CFNIS investigation. He said that the 2011 investigation was not up to “contemporary policing standards”.

During the interview, Inspector Ghadban said that he was going to instruct the CFNIS to concentrate on four specific areas of the investigation.

First is that Inspector Ghadban wanted the CFNIS to track down and locate P.S.’s younger brother who also has the initials of P.S.. For clarity I will call P.S.’s younger brother P.S.2.

Second is that Inspector Ghadban wanted the CFNIS to track down Doug Schwirtz who in 1980 would have been around 9 years old and lived at PMQ 13 on 12th street and had potentially seen the kids on the front lawn of the S. PMQ attack me when I came out of P.S.’s PMQ after P.S. had been discovered buggering me in his bedroom.

Third is that Inspector Ghadban wanted the CFNIS to talk to retired Warrant Officer Fred Cunningham to find out what Cunningham knew about the 1980 investigation into Captain McRae. After all, both J.S. and Fred Cunningham indicated that the investigation into Captain McRae was commenced due to the complaints of numerous parents on CFB Namao about the interaction of P.S. with their young children.

Fourth is that Inspector Ghadban wanted the CFNIS to ascertain that I did in fact mention during my initial interview with the CFNIS in March of 2011 that I had tried reporting P.S. to the military police in 1984 and in 1990. This was specifially to counter Alberta Crown Prosecutor Jon Werbicki’s concern that I hadn’t tried reporting these crimes to anyone before.

True to CFNIS form, when Sgt. Tenaschuk tried locating P.S.2 he contacted the family again. The same very protective family that closed ranks around P.S. during the 2011 CFNIS investigation. When Tenaschuk contacted these family members, they all claimed that P.S.2. lived out on the West Coast and that they had lost contact with him years ago and they didn’t know how to get hold of him. As it turns out P.S.2. lives in London, Ontario which is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from Fort Erie, Ontario where his father J.S. and his older brother P.S. both live.

Tenaschuk tracked down Doug Schwirtz. I have no idea what questions Doug was asked. According to Sgt. Tenaschuk, Doug remembers absolutely nothing from back then.

I have no idea of what Sgt. Tenaschuk did so far as trying to locate records of me having tried to report P.S. to the military police in 1984 and 1990.

Sgt. Tenaschuk then contacted Fred Cunningham. According to Sgt. Tenaschuk he asked Fred Cunningham what he remembered about our telephone call on November 27th, 2011. Fred said that he couldn’t remember anything.

So, here’s what caught my eye. Tenaschuk wasn’t asked to talk to Fred Cunningham about our telephone call on March 27th, 2011. Sgt. Tenaschuk was instructed to talk to Fred Cunningham about the 1980 investigation into Captain McRae.

Sgt. Tenaschuk avoided asking Cunningham about the 1980 investigation, such as why did the base military police interrogate P.S. in his family’s PMQ in May of 1980? Why had Fred Cunningham been tasked with investigating Captain Father Angus McRae?

What did Fred Cunningham remember on November 27th, 2011? Quite a lot. What Fred Cunningham told me that day has been verified by Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit file DS 120-10-80 and by two separate Canadian Forces Fire Marshal reports.

During our brief phone call on November 27th, 2011 Fred identified another boy, younger than P.S. named F.A., as a “prolific pyromaniac”.

And what a pyromaniac he was. The Canadian Forces Fire Marshal identified F.A. as having been responsible for two separate house fires on CFB Namao. One of the Fire Marshal reports even goes on to identify this boy named F.A. as having been friends with P.S. and that P.S. had been at F.A.’s house earlier in the day prior to one of the fires and that both F.A. and P.S. had been playing with fire on the stove in the F.A. household.

The Fire Marshal’s report also indicated that this boy named F.A. wasn’t attending school as he had just recently been released from psychiatric care.

It was also noted in the most recent Fire Marshal report that F.A. seemed to like to play the role of the “hero” by “discovering” the fire and alerting people to the fire.

According to Fred Cunningham, when the charges stemming from F.A.’s complaint against Captain McRae were dropped by the “brass”, the boy named F.A. thought that P.S. had stabbed him in the back. Fred Cunningham said that the boy named F.A. had no idea that it was the “brass” that dropped all of the charges against McRae except for the charges related to P.S..

Fred Cunningham said that there had been a massive falling out between F.A. and P.S.

I asked Fred if this pyromaniac named F.A. had anything to do with the June 23rd, 1980 house fire at P.S.’s family’s PMQ.

Fred Cunningham said is that he wasn’t going to speak to that.

As I have the CF Fire Marshal’s report for the June 23rd, 1980 fire at the S. PQM, I know that Colonel Dan Munro’s signature was the final signature on the Fire Marshal’s investigation report for June 23rd, 1980 fire. In the Fire Marshal’s report, Colonel Dan Munro declines the need for further review of the cause of the fire.

I also learnt that someone did actually die in that fire. An Edmonton area civilian gas fitter employed on base by the Canadian Forces named Sam Stelter died as a result of trying to shut off the gas to prevent a major fire. Sam died of a heart attack in the basement of the S. family PMQ.

The Alberta Fire Marshal ruled that the house fire was due to a defective brass gas line behind the stove. I’ve often wondered since November 27th, 2011 just how hard it would have been for someone to have given that already defective gas line a simple tug. Someone with a grudge against a resident of the house. Another opportunity for someone to play the hero maybe?

Pure speculation I know.

Colonel Dan Munro was also Captain Father Angus McRae’s commanding officer.

Was Colonel Dan Munro the “brass” that dropped all of the charges against Captain McRae except for those relating to P.S.? Or was it someone higher up the chain of command?

In 2018, Sgt. Tenaschuk said that he wouldn’t be able to talk to Colonel Munro due to the 3-year time bar that existed in the National Defence Act prior to 1998.

It should be noted that the term “brass”never referes to a non-commissioned officer. If you were in the military, you would never call a Master Warrant Officer “the brass”. And you would almost certainly not call a junior rank officer “the brass”. It’s generally not until you get into the senior officer ranks that you start referring to officers as “the brass”. Colonel is the highest rank senior officer.

Above Colonel are the General / Flag officers. These you can call “the brass” as well.

Tenaschuk spooks the S. clan by contacting them and asking them for contact information for P.S.2 becuase he wants to talk to P.S.2 about what P.S. did in 1980. That family is extremely protective of P.S.. They view P.S. as the sole victim of Captain McRae. They obviously view the children that P.S. was abusing as being of no consequence. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the S. clan blame all the children that P.S. abused on CFB Namao as being the driving force behind P.S. attempting suicide in January of 2000. See, we’re not victims, we’re ruthless cold hearted killers who won’t leave poor misunderstood P.S. alone.

During the 2015 through 2018 CFNIS investigation, I provided the CFNIS with the names of other victims of P.S.. The CFNIS took their statements, and kept them separate from my investigation. According to Tenaschuk, this was a decision by his superiors.

The Crime Stoppers appeal that was run in November of 2016 provided “numerous” tips with others coming forward with complaints about P.S.. None of this information was forwarded to the Alberta Crown in 2018.

Sure, my father died in January of 2017, but the CFNIS had a whole year and a bit to interview him again. The statement that he gave to the CFNIS in 2011 does not reflect the reality of my family as it was back in the late ’70s and early ’80s. More specifically my father’s statement to the CFNIS is 100% at odds with the answers he gave me when I examined him for Federal Court in 2013. I provided Sgt. Tenaschuk with the pertinent sections of my foster care / Alberta Social Service records as well as a copy of my father’s answers to my written examination. From what I’ve seen that was provided to the Alberta Crown in 2018, Sgt. Tenaschuk made no mention at all that he had any concerns about the validity of my father’s statement to the CFNIS in 2011. My father’s statement would have had a very negative effect on the Crown’s decision.

In 2018, in the same letter that Sgt. Tenaschuk informs me that he can’t talk to Colonel Dan Munro due to the 3-year time bar, Tenaschuk informs me that the P.S. “investigation is still with the Crown Prosecutor” and that he viwed this as a “positive note”.

Weeks later the 2015 through 2018 investigation goes down in flames.

Sgt. Tenaschuk informed me in 2018 that the Alberta Crown was declining to recommend charges as it wasn’t in the public interest.

In late 2018 an agency of the Alberta government reviews the 2015 through 2018 portion of the CFNIS investigation and can’t find any evidence that any type of criminal code offence occured.

From the documents that I’ve seen from another agency of the Alberta government, Sgt. Tenaschuk basically resubmitted Sgt. Hancock’s 2011 Crown Briefing.

I don’t think that it was Sgt. Tenaschuk’s decision. Someone within the chain of command within the CFNIS and the Provost Marshal ensured that the 2015 through 2018 portion of CFNIS GO 2011-5754 stayed concerned only with the four exact concerns that RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban had raised. This meant that the CFNIS excluded just about anything else that had been brought to their attention. Other victims, potential witnesses, details about the 1980 investigation, these were all excluded from the 2015 – 2018 investigation.

This explains why the Sgt. Tenaschuk bascially re-submitted Sgt. Hancock’s investigation to the Alberta Crown. Excluding all of the new evidence ensured that the Alberta Crown was just going to give the same answer they gave to the flawed 2011 investigation.

This means that the 2015 through 2018 portion of CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754 was just yet another dog and pony show that was never meant to wake up long dead ghosts.

It will be very interesting to see where the current MPCC review goes. It’s abundantly clear that the Canadian Forces do not want to revisit anything from 1980. And considering how narrow and restricted the review process is, I have no doubt that the MPCC will have absolutely no choice but to find in favour of the CFNIS just like the last time.

And unless the powers of the MPCC have been improved since my last go round, the Provost Marshal holds all of the cards.

Two dog and pony shows for the price of one.

The Military Police Complaints Commission

It should be no secret that I’ve already filed a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission, which I’ll refer to as the MPCC from here on in. This complaint is for the 2015 through 2018 portion of CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754.

From a job posting located at
buyandsell.gc.ca
buyandsell.gc.ca is a Government of Canada website run by Public Works and Government Services Canada

Yes, the MPCC is supposed to be an “arm’s length” agency, but bear in mind that all employees of the MPCC are government employees who may wish to move upwards in the governmental hierarchy, and who will more often than not act in such a manner as to not jeopardize their ascension up the ranks.

The Military Police Complaints Commission is charged with reviewing military police investigations. Generally the MPCC may conduct two styles of investigation. The MPCC may conduct a “Review” or the MPCC may conduct a “Public Interest Hearing”.
For now I’ll talk about a “review” and in a subsequent posting I’ll talk about a “Public Interest Hearing”

An MPCC REVIEW

The first style of investigation the MPCC may conduct is a “Review”.

Due to the design of the review process, findings against the military police are very rare.

During a “Review” the MPCC can only review the documents supplied to it by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

During a review, the MPCC cannot administer oaths. There is no risk of penalty for uttering false statements to the MPCC.

During a review, the MPCC cannot subpoena documents or witnesses. This means that during a review, the MPCC can only take what the Provost Marshal has decided to give to the MPCC. Also, because witnesses cannot be forced to talk to the MPCC during a review the MPCC may find itself unable to interview key personnel.

During a review, the complainant cannot cross examine the witnesses.

During a “Review”, the MPCC does not “test” the evidence to see if it was possible to come to a different conclusion, thereby calling into question the investigative ability of the investigator or the supervisory ability of the investigator’s chain of command. All the MPCC does during a review is a basic check list.

Did Mr. Bees make a complaint?

Was the complaint investigated?

Did the investigator reach a conclusion that was within a range of resonable conclusions?

The Provost Marshal knows exactly what your complaint is about as you have to first submit your complaint to the Provost Marshal.

It can be seen then that the Provost Marshal can submit favourable documents to the MPCC that paint the CFNIS in a very favourable light. You as the complainant will have absolutely no access to any of these documents until AFTER the MPCC have rendered their final decision.

The biggest flaw with this is that any evidence that you intend to introduce at the Federal Court level in an application for Judicial Review is considered “New Evidence” and will be struck from the Judicial Review.

It’s almost as if the Canadian Forces created the MPCC and the review process to be defective by design.

Yes, Parliament would have crafted the legislation which created the MPCC, however, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, the Provost Marshal, and the Judge Advocate General would have had their input into the design of the MPCC. There would have been no representation from parties from which complaints could be expected to be received.

In the summer of 2015, MPCC chairman Glenn Stannard told the Globe and Mail during an interview that the MPCC has never been given the documents required to truly understand how the Canadian Forces Military Police and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service operate. Mr. Stannard said during this interview that without those documents, the MPCC doesn’t even know what it should be requesting from the Provost Marshal.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/outgoing-military-complaints-chair-stresses-need-to-fix-ottawas-oversight/article23676643/

From the Globe and Mail
March 27th, 2015
by Gloria Galloway

Not very reassuring, now is it?

Yeah, and about the findings of the MPCC. The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal can still tell the MPCC to go piss up a rope if it doesn’t like the findings of a review. Reviews are non-binding and have no legal weight.

During a review, the MPCC cannot subpoena witnesses, the MPCC cannot subpoena documents, and the MPCC cannot administer oaths. The fact that statements given to the MPCC are not taken under oath means that there is no threat of consequences for perjury.

During an MPCC review, participation is voluntary.

Access to Investigation Paperwork

It would seem that it would make common sense for a complainant to have access to the paperwork from their investigation. This is apparently not how it works in Canada. Very few police review boards require that the complainant have access to documents that would be critical for the success of a complaint.

During an MPCC review, the complainant is not given access to the investigation documents, nor is the complainant given access to copies of the documents that the Provost Marshal submitted to the MPCC.

Yes, one could submit an Access to Information Request for copies of the documents and files related to a CFNIS investigation. I did. I submitted an ATI back in July of 2018.

As of today December 29th, 2019 this request has not been fulfilled.
Still awaiting an investigator.
apparently there is a considerable backlog at the Office of the Information Commissioner

Why is access to the CFNIS investigation documents necessary?

It allows the complainant to counter statements in the CFNIS investigation and prove errors committed during the investigation.

Did Sgt. Cyr fly down to Victoria, BC and meet with me personally to discuss this investigation as he told the MPCC investigators? No he didn’t.

Did “some lady from across the street” keep an eye on my brother and I from time to time? No.

Was I expelled from school in the spring of 1983 or was I kept at home to avoid being apprehended by Alberta Social Services for my father’s non-compliance with the family counselling program? It was the latter, which was all contained in the social service documents.

Did Sgt. Cyr properly record into his occurrence reports the details of our conversation on May 3rd, 2011. No he did not. Me telling him that I can remember P.S. taking me on 5 different visits to the chapel but that I can’t remember anything after being given “sickly sweet grape juice” is definitely not that same as “Mr. Bees stated that he remembered going to the church with P.S. but that nothing ever happened”. In fact being given the part about the “sickly sweet grape juice” isn’t in his occurrence report.

When Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock submitted his case summary to the Alberta Crown, why did Sgt. Hancock see fit to remove “anything he had been involved in as a youth has already been handled by the military” from the record of P.S.’s phone call to Sgt. Hancock in August of 2011. Why didn’t the MPCC pick up on this detail?

All of these issues I could have easily raised with the MPCC during my interview had I been given access to the CFNIS investigation paperwork. But I wasn’t. And as such when I went before the Federal Court with my application for judicial review, all of the copies of telephone bills and copies of emails between myself and Sgt. Cyr were struck from the proceedings as being “new evidence”.

The MPCC Investigators

The investigators conducting the MPCC review are retired police officers, which means that there is a serious bias from the get go. The thin blue line is not an urban legend. It’s a well known phenomenon that exists within police culture.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2019/07/25/0d38f34724b285f00295da165d24b5ac/2019-07-15_-_revised_sow_en_annex_a.pdf
From the Government of Canada website

In my teens I worked for three Metropolitan Toronto Police officers that owned a amusement machine company as a side business. From dealing with these three I learnt quickly that police see themselves as being different from the civilians they protect. It’s bound to happen in organizations like the police.

Out here in Vancouver during the late ’90s we had a serial killer that was preying on women from the Downtown East Side. The serial killer was Robert Pickton.

As Inquiry Commissioner Wally Oppal concluded, the police didn’t really put any effort into protecting the women of the DTES because the police, both the RCMP and the VPD, viewed these women as “throwaways – unstable, unreliable.”

Wally Oppal was never a police officer. Wally Oppal had been a judge for most of his life. He then became the Attorney General for the province of BC. He was never tainted by the thin blue line. Which explains why he had no qualms about letting both the VPD and the RCMP wear the shame of the Pickton fiasco.

A few year ago, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP looked at the desirability of police investigating police.

The document may be found here:
https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/police-investigating-police-critical-analysis-literature

A copy may be downloaded from here:
https://cfbnamao.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/police-investigating-police_-a-critical-analysis-of-the-literature-_-civilian-review-and-complaints-commission-for-the-rcmp.pdf

Here are some excerpts from that document:

I was interviewed by the MPCC on July 19th, 2012. I left the interview stunned and nauseated. I was so stunned in fact that I went for a walk and just kept walking. I didn’t stop walking until just after midnight. The two investigators didn’t really listen to what I had to say, they already had their mind made up that the CFNIS investigators had gone above and beyond their requirements and conducted a stellar investigation.

Even back in 2012, I was still able to amass sufficient documentation to show that the 2011 CFNIS investigation left a lot to be desired.

The investigators with the MPCC referred to my documents as if they were trivial in nature and of dubious quality. The investigators with the MPCC even outright ignored the Social Service observations of my father.

Take for example where the MPCC investigators noted that my father told the CFNIS investigators that my grandmother only looked after my brother and I until her husband died. The CFNIS recorded my father’s statement in such a manner that it made it sound as if my grandmother only looked after my brother and I for a very brief point in time on CFB Namao and that “some lady from across the street would keep an eye on my brother and I from time to time”. My grandmother raised my brother and I from the spring of 1977 until about the spring of 1981. Her husband, Andy Anderson, didn’t die until sometime around 1985. Except for a very brief period of time in the spring of 1978 our grandmother was our primary care giver and raised my brother and I for just over four years.

In 2006, when I talked to my father about what had happened on CFB Namao, my father named the babysitter himself. I didn’t have to tell my father the babysitter’s name. My father blamed my grandmother for hiring the babysitter even going so far as saying that he warned my grandmother not to hire him. He also said that I should have told someone what the babysitter was doing and that it was partially my fault that it went on for so long and that I had no business allowing the babysitter to mess with my younger brother.

During my interview with the MPCC investigators, I made sure that the MPCC investigators understood the significance of my family’s social service records, especially the part where the psychologist hired by the Canadian Forces to interview my father determined that my father accepted no responsibility for his family, blamed others for problems with his family, expected others to solve the problems with his family. In turn the MPCC only recorded in their findings that my social service records indicated that I was depressed as a child.

There were other records that indicated that grandma was still living with us in 1981 and there were records that indicated that my father blamed grandma for issues that my brother and I were having.

Alberta Social Services indicate two key findings about my father. First, my father often told conflicting stories from one meeting to the next. Second, my father was found to tell people that he perceived to be in positions of authority what he thought they wanted to hear.

When I introduced my family’s social service records into Federal Court to dispute the observation of the CFNIS, this evidence was struck because it was “new evidence” that had not been before the MPCC during the review.

I believe that the inability of the two investigators assigned to the previous MPCC review to listen to what was being said was due to their police culture bias.

In my next blog entry I will discuss the “Public Interest Hearing” and how the Provost Marshal and the CFNIS are at a complete disadvantage.

Unfounded / Founded Not Cleared.

I submitted an Freedom of Information request with the Department of National Defence in July of 2018. I was looking for “copies of any reports, memos, letters, emails, or any other documents and communications indicating how many cases of child sexual abuse occurred pre-1998 and were brought to the attention of the CFNIS / MP / CFPM post 1998 and declined prosecution due to the 3-year time bar which existed pre-1998”

In August of 2018, DND responded to me that (a) their record keeping system was limited in its functionality, and (b) creating a tally of these crimes would be “creating new documents” which runs counter to the ATIP Act.

The above email reached me prior to the official letter which is below.

Two things are learnt from the above letter. The first being that the military police record keeping system was much different prior to 2002 than it is now.
Second, the Access to Information office won’t “create new documents’, and by that they mean if they go through the records as they exist prior to 2002 and created a spread sheet to track what charges there were for child sexual assaults, this would be considered to be the creation of new documents. And due to how records were maintained prior to 2002, creating a new tally sheet would be the only way to meaningfully count the number of sexual assaults in question.

The Information Commissioner of Canada did get involved and DND did finally agree to release some information to me.

On January 2nd, 2020 I recevied my response from DND.

The letter that accompanied the DVD explained that DND has released to me the information that I have requested, but only from the period of 2001 to current day as the Canadian Forces Military Police crime database does not go back prior to the year 2000.

This letter also explained that there is no data available for the years of 1998 to 2000. When DND says they never had a problem with child sexual abuse on the bases, they can say it with a straight face as they have no data due to piss-poor record keeping.

DND also explained that the information is “Invalidated raw data”. Whatever that means.

The data set can be down loaded from here.
https://cfbnamao.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/a-2018-00779.pdf

Between 2001 to 2019 there were 2,804 sexual assaults reported to the Canadian Forces Military Police.

In 782 of the cases, charges were recommended. One thing to remember is that these cases only resulted in charges, there’s nothing to indicate if a conviction resulted due to the charges.

From page 70 of the “External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces” which was conducted by retired Supreme Court of Canada justice Madame Marie Deschamps.

423 cases were closed as being “Unfounded”.

From CBC news article
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-unfounded-1.4831424

881 cases were closed as being “Founded Not Cleared”

171 cases were subject to “Departmental Discretion”.
I’m still waiting for an explanation for this one.

52 cases were investigations for sexual crimes involving children. The fact that these cases are being investigated by the CFNIS means that Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross wasn’t stating the facts before the Defence Committee when Randall Garrison asked her who had the jurisdiction for child sexual assault investigations on Canadian Forces Bases in Canada. The response from Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross was that matters involving children are always handed off to the outside civilian authorities. This would be a very similar response to what I was told by Lt. Col. David Antonyshyn of the Office of the Judge Advocate General.

However, one thing became very apparent while I was reading this data set.

This data set is only for “Sexual Assault”.

Sexual assault is a very specific charge under the Criminal Code of Canada.

So, I filed off another Access to Information request.

One of the key elements of the criminal justice system in this country is that a person being charged with a criminal code offence has to be charged under the criminal code that was in place at the time the alleged offence occurred.

If someone sexually assaulted a child in 1981, and they were investigated today, they would have to be charged under the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter C-34, Criminal Code.

If someone sexually assaulted a child in 1986, and they were investigated today, they would have to be charged under the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter C-46, Criminal Code.

Sexual assault as a charge did not exist prior to 1985. Prior to 1985 sexual assaults against female children were usually dealt with by Sections 146, 148, 149, 150, 153, 155, and 157. Sections 143 and 145 were rarely used when female children were sexually assaulted. When male children were sexually assaulted, the charges used were usually Sections 155, 156, and 157.

With the new Criminal Code, rape was removed, so there were no longer charges specific to the victim’s gender.

From 1985 onward, persons who sexually assaulted children were usually charged with Section 151, 152, 153, and sometimes Section 159.

Sexual assault in regard to adults is usually dealt with in the 1985 Criminal Code under Section 271, 272, and 273.

We’ll have to wait and see what DND’s response is to my latest request.

A peculiar thing.

One thing that has struck me as odd is the editing that was applied to a document that formed part of the briefing that was sent to the Alberta Crown, first by Sgt. Hancock in 2011, and then by Sgt. Tenaschuk in 2018.

Back in 2011, the CFNIS attempted to contact P.S. though his father. But retired Sgt. J.S. told the CFNIS that he was not going to allow the CFNIS to interview his son and that his son had already paid for “things he did 20 to 30 years ago”

Well, lo and behold, P.S. did in fact contact the CFNIS of his own volition.

P.S. called Sgt. Hancock on August 9th, 2011.

P.S. said that he wasn’t going to participate in the investigation and that “anything he had been involved with as a youth had already been handled by the military” and that if charges were brought against him “a lawyer would handle that”

This is what was captured in the SAMPIS database during the investigation.

I don’t know about you, but if I was an investigator and a suspect said this to me, I think I’d want to investigate this a little further.

Sgt. Hancock

What I find odd and peculiar is that when Sgt. Hancock submitted his brief to the Alberta Crown in 2011, either he or one of his superiors edited the SAMPIS record of the telephone conversation that Sgt. Hancock had with P.S.

This is what was submitted to the Alberta Crown in both 2011 and 2018.

The question is, who elected to remove the potion “anything he had been involved in as a youth had already been handled by the military”
What was P.S. “involved in as a youth”
How did the military “handle it”?

As we know, the Minister of National Defence settled out of court with P.S. in November of 2008. And I know from talking directly to P.S. in July of 2015 that there was an “agreement” that went along with this settlement.

Oddly enough, what was passed on to the Alberta Crown was the opinion of the CFNIS investigators that I frequently changed jobs, had a very unstable employment history, was constanly in trouble at school, only called my father when I needed money, and that I was a societal malcontent with an axe to grind against the Canadian Armed Forces.

There was no mention of the fact that I was in foster care, or that my family was a social services magnet from one side of the country to the other with “parental concerns” being a constant factor for our involvement with social services, or that my father didn’t really live with us on CFB Namao due to his frequent absences due to training exercises.

Also missing from the crown brief was the fact that P.S. molested an 8 year old boy on a Canadian Forces Base in Manitoba in 1984 and that P.S. had been kicked out of his family’s PMQ on CFB Edmonton in the spring of 1985 for having molested a 9 year old boy on CFB Namao.

Sure, as some with more familiarity with the criminal justice system may say, P.S. having numerous convictions for sexual assaults involving children doesn’t automatically prove that he molested me, my brother, or the four other children I saw him molest. But it does prove that he does in fact have a predilection for committing sexual acts with children. This should have intensified the investigation into P.S., this should not have resulted in Warrant Officer Blair Hart telling the RCMP that my case was likely to go nowhere due to a lack of evidence.

Communication between Warrant Officer Hart of the CFNIS and Cpl French of the RCMP.
At this point in time, the investigation had been only going on for 3 – 4 months, not 6.

It’s almost as if the CFNIS had an agenda. An agenda that didn’t involve bringing charges against a multi-time convicted child molester who just happened to reach an out of court settlement with the Minister of National Defence in November of 2008.

In other words, the CFNIS had a mandate, and this mandate didn’t involve waking up a sleeping giant from the 1980s which could possibly expose the Minister of National Defence to the potential of multiple civil actions from those who as children had been victims of P.S. and Captain Father Angus McRae.

Richard Gill vs. Reality

Seeing as how Richard died back in January of 2017, we’ll never get to know the truth about his interview with the CFNIS on June 9th 2011.

This interview was conducted with Sgt. Cyr of the CFNIS. Yes, the same Sgt. Cyr who claimed that he flew down from Edmonton, AB and met with me in Victoria, BC.

Yes, the same Sgt. Cyr that couldn’t remember asking me if I knew anything about Captain Father Angus McRae being arrested for molesting children on CFB Namao.

Yes, the same Sgt. Cyr that failed to mention anything about my emails that detailed my visits to the chapel with P.S. to see Captain McRae.

Yes, the same Sgt. Cyr that told me that P.S. was 13 years old when he was caught buggering me in the spring of 1980.

Yes, the same Sgt. Cyr that told me that the church that I indicated to him in an email was a brand new church on the base and that the church that was on the base when I lived there was in a completely different location.

We know that Sgt. Cyr plays fast and loose with the truth.

Richard however also had his own versions of the truth as well.

And as I’ve learnt over the last few years, even if the investigator doesn’t actually have bad intentions, a bad “hunch” can cause the investigator to come down with a case of “tunnel vision” which is sure to run even the best cases off the rails. Take for example the case of “Marie Adler” from Lynnwood, Washington. She had been raped at gunpoint in her apartment. But the police right from the word go latched on to little trivial inconsistencies in her statement. The police also put far too much weight on the personal opinions of her foster parents. The police intimidated “Marie” to the point that she recanted her statement and agreed with the police that she had made the entire story up. The police ended up charging Marie with making a false report. She was fined by the city of Lynnwood and sentenced to probation. The only problem for the police was that about three years later, as the result of an investigation into a string of sexual assaults in another state, the FBI uncovered pictures of “Marie” that had been taken while she was being raped. The pictures pretty well matched what she had said in her initial statements to the police. The city of Lynnwood settled with her for $150k. Her lawyer suggested they could get more. But all she wanted was the apology and $150k was enough for her to get away from Lynnwood and to start over someplace else.

I’m probably cutting the CFNIS too much slack on this. After all, the CFNIS were bound and determined right from the start to not allow the connection between P.S. and Captain Father Angus McRae to be noted anywhere in the official investigation.

Was Richard taken out for a coffee and donut before he gave his statement to the CFNIS? You know, just so that Richard could be made to understand how I obviously had an agenda to screw the military over for money, and that it would be great if Richard could help set things straight for them.

According to the CFNIS “Pre-Charge Screening Report” this is what my father told Sgt. Cyr during his interview.

This is pretty well the same paragraph contained in the tribunal records that were submitted to me.

Actually, here is my father’s entire statement to the CFNIS:

Item (a)
When Richard was posted to Edmonton in 1978, we resided on CFB Namao from 1978 until 1980. We then moved from CFB Namao in October of 1980 and arrived at CFB Greisbach. I can only wonder if it was Richard or if it was Cyr that intentionally stayed away from using the name CFB Namao. CFB Edmonton was comprised of two separate bases. CFB Namao was the air force base, and CFB Greisbach was the army base. CFB Namao was also where P.S. resided and where Captain Father Angus McRae resided. CFB Namao was not called CFB Edmonton, nor was CFB Greisbach called CFB Edmonton. CFB Edmonton was used for referring to both bases, but each base retained its individual name. Make sense? Thought so. But yes, the fact that CFB Namao was not mentioned in my father’s statement struck me as odd.

This is our telephone listing from the 1979 Ed Tel phone book.
Lancaster Park was on CFB Namao, not CFB Greisbach
This is our telephone listing from the 1980 Ed Tel phone book
This is out telephone listing from the 1981 Ed Tel phone book.
PMQ #70 – 10215 – 138 Ave was on CFB Greisbach.

Item (c)
I talked to my father in August of 2006 about the babysitter. My father knew the babysitter’s name. My father at the time pleaded for me to understand that it wasn’t his fault that the babysitter was looking after my brother and I. My father pleaded with me to understand that the babysitter had been hired by our grandmother. Therefore it was grandma’s fault obviously. Richard said that he had warned his mother about the babysitter, but she wouldn’t listen to him.

Item (g)
Grandma came to live with us at CFB Summerside in PEI. Her and her husband, Andy Anderson, moved into the PMQ on CFB Namao when we moved there in the summer of 1978. Andy Anderson was my father’s step father. Andy didn’t die until sometime early 1985. Andy Anderson, due to a slip and fall in the bathtub, was hospitalized from winter of 1978 until his death in 1985. The long bus trips into the city is why Grandma would hire P.S. as our babysitter when she went to visit Andy in the nursing home. Grandma lived with us from 1978 until 1981. We stayed with grandma in Edmonton over the summer of 1984 and 1985. After Andy died in 1985 we never went to see grandma again. But then again she died in early 1986.

Richard’s actual father lived in Oshawa, Ontario. We visited him for Christmas of 1982. I don’t know when Richard’s father died, as Richard and his father had a very icy relationship. Even when we moved to CFB Downsview in 1983 we never went to see Richard’s father in Oshawa. We would frequently visit Sue’s parents and brothers in Oshawa. We’d often go shopping for groceries at Knob Hill Farms in Oshawa. But other than the visit at Christmas in 1982, we never did go visit Richard’s father again. And to be clear, Richard’s father only lived about 10 blocks away from Sue’s parents.

If I had to hazard a guess, there was no “neighbour” across the street on CFB Namao. Why would we need a neighbour when our grandma was living with us? And what neighbour is going to “keep an eye” on his kids when Richard goes away on a six week training exercise to the arctic? The million dollar question is, did Richard imagine this woman across the street, or was it suggested to Richard that it would help if he remembered the babysitter as NOT having looked after my brother and I. Remember, the CF up to this point had actively been scrubbing any mention of Captain McRae from the investigation.

Item (g).
So far as Richard and any of my school teachers went, he ignored them for the most part. Mr. Bowles, my grade 8 science teacher wanted me to enter my 5mW helium-neon laser into the National Science Fair in Ottawa. No matter how hard he tried, he couldn’t get hold of my father. Mr. Ford, my grade 8 and grade 9 music teacher, wanted to get me enrolled in a extracurricular program for electronics and computers in music. Mr. Ford couldn’t get hold of my father. Mrs. Donskov, my grade 7 music teacher wanted me to play the bass guitar so badly that she even arranged for me to be able to borrow one of the school’s amplifiers and one of the bass guitars. She drove me home, and as expected, Richard blew up at her and threatened to call the military police on her if she ever stepped foot on base again. Mr. Snyder the computer lab teacher at Elia Jr. High suggested that I get either a Commodore 64 or an Apple IIe for home use so that I could join one of the local computer clubs and hang out with the other kids that were interested in computers. Richard had his own ideas about that.

And besides, as the few items below indicate, Richard had a very acrimonious relationship with our school teachers.

In 1980 Richard Gill thought that there was nothing wrong with his kids.
In 1983 Richard Gill was of the opinion that there was nothing wrong with his kids.
Jan 28th, 1983 The school and my counselors are apparently harassing poor Richard.
Richard really didn’t like my civilian child care worker apparently.

Item (i)
So much wrong with this paragraph.
I got cut off by a cabbie that ran a stop sign. ICBC found the cab driver 100% at fault. ICBC rebuilt my motorcycle and paid for all new riding gear. ICBC even paid for a rental vehicle while my motorcycle was being repaired.
Yes, I seized the engine in the Plymouth Horizon. No, my mother never paid for it. I bought a used engine from West Edmonton Pick-a-Part and swapped the engines over the course of a weekend. The engine was $150.00. All the sundry parts were maybe another $150.00. This was in early November of 1990 so I was still living mostly off the money I made at Canshare Cabling in Toronto. The long drive from Wabamum into Edmonton is what convinced me to rent an apartment for December 1st 1990.

Item (j).
Since moving out on my own in 1987, I’ve never asked for nor have I received a single nickle from my father. He invited me to move to Edmonton with him in June of 1990 just after I finished the Canshare Cabling job. As I was flush with cash (over $20k) I paid for my way and a little more during the trip. I bought my car, bought a year’s worth of insurance, and rented an apartment, with my own money. Through the good and bad I’d never turn to Richard for money as I knew that I’d never get it. I learnt well as a child to never ask him for money as he’d promise it to you if you did some chore like mowing the lawn, but then he’d renege on paying by finding some trivial fault.

As a kid, my father would quite often promise things and then never have any intention whatsoever of following through with them. Birthdays, driver’s training, attending award ceremonies, etc. And he always had a handy excuse available. So yeah, you just learnt to not rely on Richard.

Item (k)
Richard was full aware of what I changed my name to. I sent him a very detailed and concise explanation as to why I wanted to change my name and what I was changing it to and why I specifically chose the names that I did.

Item (l)
Richard didn’t ask me for a proper reason in 2006. He knew of the abuse, he just didn’t know how bad it had been. He wanted to know why I let the babysitter abuse my younger brother. I had to remind him of how old I was, how old the babysitter was, and the fact that both he and his mother were usually either angry or drunk. In 2006 this just elicited silence from him and a bit of a mumble apology.

By August of 2011, the CFNIS had been given a copy of my Alberta Social Service and foster care records, which had this to say about my grandmother and her position in my family.

Mr. Gill’s mother was Margret Anderson (nee) Winiandy
Richard said that apparently grandma hid problems from him.
Grandma a threat – authoritarian and oppressive.
Grandma moved out of our house in the spring /summer of 1981

Grandma was a bit of a mixed bag. She had been through Indian Residential school as a child. One of the more notorious ones. Holy Angels in Fort Chipewyan. She lived by the maxims of “Children are to speak only when spoken to” and “Children are to be seen and not heard”. She had a very strong affinity for the church. She had a short temper and was not afraid to use corporal punishment. She drank a lot. When she was drunk she was a “happy drunk”.

I wonder what it is they’re trying to say here?
Intake form from November 1981.

In the winter of 1983 I stopped going to school. At the time my father said that I had been expelled because I wouldn’t stop kissing other boys. In August of 2011 I learnt that I stopped going to school because Alberta Social Services was on the verge of removing me from the home due to my father’s non-compliance with counselling.

In the spring of 1983 just after we started on the drive to Canadian Forces Base Downsview from Canadian Forces Base Greisbach, Richard said that the reason we had to move suddenly was that he was saving me from the drugs the counselors wanted to give to me to stop me from kissing other boys. Again, another lie. From reading the paperwork from Alberta Social Services they had absolutely no concern about my apparent sexual orientation. Their concern was my home life and my father’s inability to look after his family. The only two people that had a hang up on my sexual orientation, imagined or otherwise, were Captain Terry Totzke and my father.

So…………..

Was my father being creative with the truth?

Was Sgt. Cyr being creative with the questioning?

That’s the $64,000.00 dollar question.

Hello Media……..

Below is a copy of a letter that I just sent off to a member of the Canadian media after having read their story about the growing calls for the Catholic church and the various Archdiocese in Canada to release the names of the Catholic clergy that the church knew or suspected of having molested children in the various Archdiocese across Canada.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there were more members of the catholic clergy on base abusing their rank and going after the children of junior rank and NCOs knowing full well that their word as a captain carried far more weight than the word of a private or a corporal.

Hello Media,

Do the names Angus McRae, Roger Bazin, or Donald Joseph Sullivan ring a bell?
No?
I don’t blame you for not knowing them.

McRae and Bazin were both officers in the Canadian Armed Forces. Captain Angus McRae and Brigadier General Roger Bazin to be exact.
Sullivan was a corporal.

There connection is that they were all involved with the Catholic Clergy on the bases.

Captain McRae was investigated for “acts of homosexuality” in 1973 while he was at the Royal Military College in Kingston. RMC Kingston is attached to CFB Kingston. Captain McRae ended up at CFS Holberg where apparently he had an interaction with a teenage boy on Canadian Forces Station Holberg on Vancouver Island. In May of 1980, Captain McRae was investigated by the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit on the suspicion of having molested over 25 children who were living in military housing on Canadian Forces Base Namao. Due to certain flaws that existed in the National Defence Act prior to December 1998, the number of charges brought against Captain McRae were severely reduced and he was dealt with by courts martial instead of facing a civilian judge. Major Roger Bazin was flown out from Ottawa to assist Captain McRae with his personal matters.
In February 2010, retired Canadian Armed Forces officer Brigadier General Roger Bazin was arrested and charged with having sexually abused a young boy who was living on Canadian Forces Base Borden in 1974. Brigadier General Roger Bazin was a captain in 1974.

Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan was given a courts martial for committing acts of gross indecency with numerous boys on CFB Gagetown. In 1986, Cpl Sullivan appealed his court martial sentence. From the Court Martial Appeals Court decision.

2 The facts are not in dispute. All of the charges involved teenaged boys. At the time of the offences four of those boys were fourteen or fifteen years of age and one was eighteen years of age. The appellant had met the boys through his position as an instructor of altar boys at the Base Roman Catholic Chapel and through his position as a counsellor in social youth organizations in a town nearby the Base. The four younger boys were children of service personnel stationed on the Base. The offences took place at the accused’s quarters on the Base where the boys visited with the accused regularly.

3 As to the first count, the facts were that the appellant and the boy had been acquainted for two years and during that time the boy would go to the appellant’s residence twice each week. On the particular occasion, after the boy arrived at the appellant’s residence, he was given alcoholic beverages and was shown a pornographic movie. At the appellant’s suggestion the boy changed into his gym shorts and subsequently removed all of his clothing after which the appellant encouraged the boy to masturbate and then the appellant masturbated the boy and performed fellatio on him.


Reading further on in the decision, one can see the logic by which the Canadian Armed Forces was able to try child sexual assaults via military tribunal.

8 Counsel for the appellant contends that while the court may have jurisdiction to try the appellant, in the circumstances it should not have done so having regard to recent changes in the National Defence Act with respect to jurisdiction which are the result of amendments made to the Criminal Code of Canada. The reference was, of course, to changes in s. 60 of the NationalDefence Act which takes away the jurisdiction of a Court Martial to try cases of sexual assault if committed in Canada. The section provides:

60. A service tribunal shall not try any person charged with any of the following offences committed in Canada:

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter;

(c) sexual assault;

(d) sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm;

(e) aggravated sexual assault; or

(f) an offence under ss. 249 to 250.2 of the Criminal Code.

Prior to this change the relevant limitation had been to charges of rape. Sexual assault includes the former offence of rape, the former offence of indecent assault against females and against males by either a male or a female. But the offence of gross indecency is not an included offence in sexual assault nor is sexual assault an included offence in gross indecency. An important distinction between the two offences is that the absence of the consent by the victim to the act is an element of the offence of sexual assault but is not an element of the offence of gross indecency. Counsel submits that the change which prohibits prosecution of a broad range of sexual offences should be regarded by us as a policy against prosecution by a service tribunal of other offences of a sexual nature in favour of prosecution in the criminal courts of the land. The short answer to this is that Parliament has not disturbed the jurisdiction to prosecute some acts of gross indecency. The jurisdiction in relation to these acts remains as it was, so that charges of gross indecency may be tried by court martial if the crime was committed in Canada.

14 While Parliament has taken away the jurisdiction of the military court to try some offences against the person, it has not disturbed the jurisdiction to try other offences which have a real military nexus or service connection.

15 In this case the offences were committed by Sullivan who was a serviceman and they were committed in service quarters on the base against the children of service personnel who lived there. The case had all of the elements present in Belford. It offended morale and discipline and struck deeply at the integrity of the military establishment. In my opinion, there was indeeda real military nexus or service connection within the meaning of the cases referred to. This ground of appeal fails.

As a side note, there’s a reason why the military loved to place special emphasis on the age of fourteen. At the time, fourteen was the age of consent. If the military had charged Sullivan with molesting anyone under the age of 14, that not only changed the optics of the crime in the eyes of the public, but that also means the military loses the ability to prosecute via service tribunal as no one under the age of consent can consent to sexual relations. This is why in the case of Canadian Forces officer Captain McRae, the military reduced all of the charges against McRae to only the charges related to a teenaged boy with the initials of P.S.. P.S. was 14 when McRae was charged. P.S. was the only boy over 14. The rest of the children McRae was known to have abused were ages 5 to 13.
So, this brings up the question. How many other military chaplains were convicted of child molestation and quietly dealt with in house by the Canadian Forces disciplinary system.

It should be noted that after Angus McRae was booted from the military, he ended up going for treatment at Southdown. After that Angus McRae ended up in Scarborough Ontario where he was arrested and charged with molesting two brothers. Angus McRae was initially going to plead innocent, but changed his plea when the Crown informed him that they had complaints from 10 other children.

In  2005 Roger Bazin paid the family of an Ontario teen $24,000 to settle out of court with the family. It was alleged that Bazin had sexual relations with the family’s teenaged son.

As an officer in the Chaplaincy Branch, Bazin would have been involved with the prosecutions of other kiddie diddling members of the catholic clergy on the bases in Canada.

And as Anus McRae illustrates, the Canadian Forces simply moved their troubled clergy from one base to another.
The Canadian Armed Forces KNEW they had a problem with the Catholic clergy on the bases in Canada.

The chapels on base all had rectories.
These rectories were all systematically removed in the late ‘80s.

Military Plea Bargains and other things.

Plea bargains are nothing new in the criminal justice system. The Crown makes deals all of the time. Plea guilty for a lesser charge, avoid the possibility of a substantial prison sentence, and get a shorter sentence, if any.

Sometimes plea deals work really good in the case of a defendant. Take Karla Homolka and the Crown’s “deal with the devil” for example. Sure, it got Paul Bernardo put away for life, but as it turned out Karla wasn’t innocent either.

The following paragraphs are taken from the Final Report of the External Review Authority.

As with sexual harassment, there is very poor collection of data regarding incidents of sexual assault in the CAF. Since sexual assaults go widely unreported, the data does not in any way reflect the actual rate of occurrence. Even where complaints are laid, the fact of a sexual assault will often be buried in the court record. For example, if the accused pleads guilty to an alcohol related charge, or to conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, only a careful review of the sentence will, in some cases, indicate that the conduct or underlying issue involved acts of a sexual nature.

Tracking the occurrence and outcome of incidents of sexual assault is essential to determine if the CAF’s policies are functioning to improve the conduct of its members, both on an individual and systemic basis. Yet in the case of sexual assault in the CAF, the relevant data is missing. While it is true that data on sexual assault is difficult to gather, the CAF needs to understand how incidents are impacting its members, and victims are entitled to make an informed decision about whether or not to disclose a complaint. The ERA heard from participants that a number of data banks are in place in the CAF that could be used to improve data collection. For example, if appropriate coding systems were in place, the CFHIS, which is currently used to report injuries, could be refined to also reflect the causes of the injuries—including sexual assaults. Unfortunately, this is not taking place and the failure to keep data on complaints of sexual assault significantly weakens the accountability of the chain of command and impedes the CAF’s ability to prevent future sexual assaults from occurring.”

It’s no secret that the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police Group has problems tracking sexual assaults. My opinion is that this is not accidental. This lack of proper tracking actually serves the needs of the Canadian Forces Chain of Command. If there’s no data, then there’s obviously no problem, eh?

And if the Canadian Forces are having this much difficulty tracking adult sexual assaults, just imagine how much difficulty they are having tracking sexual assaults involving children living in the defence community.

The ex-JAG lawyer that I spoke with a few weeks ago was under the impression that ALL sexual assaults involving children were always prosecuted through the civilian courts. When I sent him a copy of CFSIU DS-120-10-80 it was apparent by his response to me that he was caught off guard.

Back on February 9th 2015 I had a brief telephone conversation with Lt. Col. David Antonyshyn of the Office of the Judge Advocate General. Mr. Antonyshyn was of the opinion that domestic matters within the PMQs were always handed off to the outside civilian justice system.

Even Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross told the Standing Committee on National Defence that matters involving child sexual abuse are always handed off to the outside civilian authorities.

But, it would appear that this is not always the case.

And Captain Father Angus McRae wasn’t the only member of the Canadian Armed Forces to have been given a courts martial for sexual crimes against children. I have a couple of CMAC findings in which Canadian Forces personnel who were subject to a courts martial, later appealed their sentences.

The Canadian Forces military justice system was an absolute mess prior to 1998. Commanding officers had far too much sway. Base commanders ruled like kings. The military police and the CFSIU were only independent of the chain of command in fairy tale stories.

So, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there were a significant amount of child sexual abuse cases prosecuted “in-house” by way of courts martial. And I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there were a significant amount of child sexual abuse cases plead down to “disgraceful conduct” or “conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline”.

Disgraceful conduct covers Section 92 to Section 98 of the National Defence Act. Section 97 “Drunkenness” has often been used to “excuse” the bad behaviour of service personnel who obviously only committed their offence because they had one too many drinks due to “stress”.

“Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline” covers Sections 72 to 128 of the National Defence Act. Basically this allows for a person to be dismissed with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service for being drunk or insubordinate.

By allowing a member of the Canadian Forces to cop a plea to “disgraceful conduct” or “conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline” the Canadian Forces get to sweep the matter under the rug, and sweep the offender out the door where the offender now becomes someone else’s problem.

Lawyers and other musings.

I had a conversation with a lawyer a few days ago. Another one of these ex-JAG lawyer types.

I’ve had calls with these ex-JAG lawyers before. And this call, just like the others before it got off on the wrong foot.

See, Captain McRae was never supposed to have been given a courts martial for Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery. So, when someone like me calls up claiming that the military conducted a courts martial for a Captain charged with sexual crimes against children these ex-JAGs obviously think that I’m some fucking nut making bullshit claims against the Canadian Armed Forces.

And that’s more or less how this call went.

For the last eight years, all the way from Halifax N.S. to Victoria B.C., ex-JAG lawyers have basically given me the same brush off. Captain McRae could not have been prosecuted by Courts Martial as crimes such as rape, gross indecency, indecent assault, bugger, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, etc, were ALWAYS handled by the civilian courts, never the military tribunals.

And previously, all I ever had was newspaper stories referring to the courts martial. I never had anything in concrete.

Well know I have a copy of CFSIU investigation report DS-120-10-80 which clearly states that Captain McRae appeared before a courts martial to answer for the charges of Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery.

I have Department of Justice paperwork that clearly referres to the courts martial of Captain Father Angus McRae.

I also have copies of back and forth communications between the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada referring to the courts martial of Captain Father Angus McRae.

I sent copies of some of these documents off to the lawyer.

These documents changed things.

The lawyer’s reply back was probably the most detailed and concise response that I’ve had to date.

The lawyer explained that criminal case notwithstanding, my ability to make a civil claim against the babysitter, Mr. P.S. actually expired long ago. Criminal code matters have no “statute of limitations”. Civil claims do. My legal guardians, acting on my behalf, would have had to initiate a civil claim against Mr. P.S. years ago. I could have possibly argued in court using my social service records as evidence that my guardians at the time were unfit and were not acting with my best interests in mind. But the time frame for that claim would have been 2011 to 2013.

So far as initiating a civil claim against the Minister of National Defence. The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act has a limitation period of 6 years.

This is why when Mr. P.S. sued the Minister of National Defence in 2001 he had to state in his claim that “due to counselling, he had just become aware of the effect the abuse had on his life”. By making that statement in his claim, Mr. P.S. reset the countdown timer to March of 2001.

In 2011, I became aware of the effect that the abuse at the hands of Mr. P.S., and possibly Captain McRae had on my life, and the psychological scarring that I suffered due to the forced conversion therapy I endured at the hands of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Terry Totzke in the period of 1980 to 1983. Therefore the time for me to bring an action against the Minister of National Defence expired in 2017.

The lawyer did mention that those members of the Canadian Forces who were suspected of being homosexual and who were subsequently booted out of the military during the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s would have run out of time to file a civil action against the military long ago. Moreover, those members of the Canadian Forces who were suspected of being homosexual and who were subsequently booted out of the military prior to 1985 could never bring a Section 15 charter challenge against the Canadian Forces as the Charter did not exist prior to 1985. Even though the government could have blocked the lawsuit, it didn’t. The lawyer said that this was more than likely for political reasons.

The lawyer did mention that I could approach the MPCC and ask for a review of the current CFNIS investigation.

This I actually did last year and the review is ongoing. Remember though that during a review the MPCC does not have the power to subpoena documents, nor does it have the power to subpoena witnesses, nor can it administer oaths. The MPCC can only accept documents from the CFNIS. The MPCC cannot question the veracity of those documents. And if the statement of former MPCC chairman Glenn Stannard is to be believed, the MPCC has never been given access to the policy guidelines or manuals that govern to operation of the Canadian Military Police Group and therefore the MPCC has no idea of the documents that it should be requesting.

Because of the shortcomings of an MPCC review, I did request that the MPCC conduct and inquiry into the CFNIS investigation. The MPCC declined this request.

It should be noted that the Deputy Commander, Colonel Martin Laflamme, of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group / Professional Standards refused to conduct a review as requested. In his reasoning for directing that no review be undertaken, Mr. Laflamme leans heavily upon the flawed 2011 MPCC review. The initial 2011 MPCC review found in favour of the CFNIS. However, bear in mind that I was unable to view any of the documentation that was supplied to the MPCC by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal until AFTER the MPCC had reached its decision.

An interesting thing about Mr. Laflamme’s response to me is that my complaint was far more than just a complaint about a “verbal debrief”.

The lawyer suggested approaching the Canadian Forces Ombudsman. The lawyer did mention something that I’ve been aware of since 2012, and that is that the Ombudsman cannot review anything that occurred prior to 1998. 1998 is the date that the Canadian Forces Ombudsman was created. The lawyer explained that the Office of the CF Ombudsman was created by ministerial authority and not by statute like the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The Military Police Complaints Commission is unable to review any military police investigation that occurred prior to 1998. This I believe is for a few reasons. The first reason is that the MPCC was created in 1998. The second reason is the existence of both the “Summary Investigation Flaw” and the “3-year time bar flaw”. The third reason is that the military justice system as it was before the reforms of 1998 via Bill C-25 was so broken that the MPCC would be eternally bogged down reviewing each and every questionable decision made by the pre-1998 military justice system.

How broken was the military justice system prior to 1998? Look no further than the Somalia fiasco. Or look at the Captain Father Angus McRae fiasco. Same broken justice system.

The Minister of National Defence can request that the CF Ombudsman look into matters that occurred prior to 1998, but there are limitations to what the Ombudsman can do.

For example, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the military police or the military justice system. However, the Ombudsman could look at tangential issues.

I have contacted the Office of the CF Ombudsman numerous times since 2012, the most recent being June 22, 2019.

My complaint involves the Canadian Forces Military Police and the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit, therefore it cannot be looked at by the CF Ombudsman (nor by the MPCC for that matter). However, as the lawyer inferred, and as Mr. Lick has stated, the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, has always had the authority to request that the CF Ombudsman review any pre-mandate matter.

The problem with Harjit Sajjan is though, he was a career soldier. He’s not going to shit in the bed that he sleeps in considering that his military career launched his political career.

The CF Ombudsman is appointed by the Minister of National Defence. The Minister therefore may be inclined to appoint an Ombudsman whose ideology aligns with that of the Minister.

In 2013 the Ombudsman received numerous complaints about the 1974 Valcartier grenade incident in which 6 teenagers were killed and 62 more were injured due to the negligence of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who allowed a live grenade to be handled by teenagers. The Minister of National Defence at the time was Rob Nicholson. Mr. Nicholson requested the CF Ombudsman review this matter, even though the matter fell far outside the legal mandate of the CF Ombudsman.

I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason why Mr. Nicholson called on the CF Ombudsman to review the Valcartier cadet matter is that Mr. Nicholson had no tangible connection to the Canadian Armed Forces.

The CF Ombudsman noted that the cadets fell into a “legal void”. As they weren’t members of the Regular Forces, and as they weren’t civilian employees, they were unable to receive any matter of compensation from the Canadian Forces or the Federal Government. What the CF Ombudsman found most alarming is that the members of the Canadian Forces who were wholly responsible for this incident did in fact receive compensation for their injuries related to this event.

The OMBUDSMAN has to seek and receive the permission of the Minister of National Defence in order to initiate any manner of investigation for pre-1998 matters.

The entire Ombudsman’s report can be downloaded here:

So, where does this leave me, or any other person who as a child was sexually abused on a military base in Canada?

Going through the courts would be an obvious waste of time. The Crown Liabilities and Proceedings Act pretty well slams the door shut. The fact that the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence have no culpability for anyone who was injured on a Defence Establishment if that person was not a civilian employee or a member of either the Regular force or the Reserve force also places any type of civil action outside the realm of possibility. I think that the inability to bring any manner of legal action against DND or the Government of Canada is the primary reason why child sexual abuse on the bases in Canada has been unheard of to date.

It’s not that child sexual abuse didn’t occur, it’s that the courts offer absolutely no remedy. Don’t forget, Mr. P.S. setteled with the Minister of National Defence. There was no court award. There never could be a court award. However, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Justice felt that it was better to settle with Mr. P.S. than to risk the public humilation of a trial where all of these shortcomings would be aired in public.

What would the public think if it became public knowledge that Angus Alexander McRae could not be sued by Mr. P.S. as Mr. McRae was an employee of the Department of National Defence at the time?

What would the public think if it became public knowledge that the Department of National Defence could not be sued for the actions of one of its employees which occured in military housing on a military base?

So a settlement was reached, DND admitted no guilt, Mr. P.S. walked away with some cash, and everything went away.

Public attention is about the only way that the Government of Canada or the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence are ever going to be coerced into owning up to what happened.

The real question is, will the media get on board, or will the media sit back and wait for the Minister of National Defence or one of their minions to announce that there was in fact a problem?

Encryption and the art of hiding things.

If you ever wanted to know why no one has ever really paid attention to child sexual abuse on the various Canadian Armed Forces bases, it’s because the Canadian Armed Forces are good at hiding and obscuring issues.

A couple of years ago I filed an Access to Information to the Department of National Defence. I was looking for copies of any documents or emails between myself and a particular person.

What I received in response blew me away.

It was a copy of an email between Denis Paradis and William Bain of the Ministerial Correspondence Unit.

Paradis was requesting that Bain attach a copy of an email between the Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, and the Deputy Judge Advocate General, Major Zenon Drebot, to my file.

Denis Paradis is requesting that my file be encrypted, and the subject matter of my file be changed in name to “Concerns with the CAF’.

This would pose sigificant problems to anyone who was ever searching for the existence of my paperwork.

For example, if a media wonk was to submit a request to DND to see if the Minister of National Defence has ever dealt with subjects such as “child sexual abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces”, their request would come back with negative results as the Ministerial Correspondence Unit changed the subject name of my correspondence.

What’s stopping a media wonk from requesting copies of any documents that mention “Concerns with the CAF”?

Well, they’d never get my files as my files are encrypted. And any files they do get might run the gamut from disgruntled vets upset about their pensions to fishers worried about the impact of our submarines on the cod stocks. Concerns with the CAF might yield so many results that DND would be able justifiably turn this request down due to the amount of time to collect all of the results.

I was able to request a copy of the “encrypted files” because I specifically knew they existed and I knew who created the “encrypted files”. The file contains copies of letters that I had sent to the Chief of Defence Staff and the Minister of National Defence. The file also contains 8 pages of documents redacted in their entirety due to Section 27 of the Privacy act. Numerous sections redacted due to solicitor / client privilege. And a whole bunch of back and forth between the Judge Advocate General, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the Minister of National Defence.

Am I being paranoid?

Nope. Not in the slightest.

A high ranking officer was found during the recent fiasco involving the former Vice Chief of Defence Staff Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to have avoided using Mark Norman’s name on documents and internal correspondence in order to thwart access to information requests and discovery requests.

During the Mark Norman pre-trial, it was discovered during the examination of a DND employee that when this employee went to their commander to fulfil an access to information request for documents relating to Mark Norman, the commander told their subordinate “Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name. Send back nil return”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/witness-at-mark-norman-hearing-alleges-dnd-attempts-to-keep-files-hidden-from-public-view

It is very apparent that DND is adept at the art of hiding information. And I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that they actively use their skills to hide a lot of embarrassing issues from the public eye.

SAMPIS and other musings

I’ll post a copy of the email I received from the Office of the Information Commissioner.


SAMPIS does not have searchable fields that would give the age of the victims. This is what DND itself has told the OIC. DND has also told the OIC that records outside of the SAMPIS system cannot be searched.

In the final report of the Fynes Public Interest Hearing, the Military Police Complaints Commission voiced numerous concerns about SAMPIS. SAMPIS does not retain a history of changes made to documents contained within the SAMPIS system. General Occurrence reports can be re-written and no history will remain of what was added, removed, or amended to the GO report. Article 636 from the Final Report of the Fynes Public Interest Hearing: ” The hearing revealed that, once created, SAMPIS entries can be, and routinely are, reviewed and edited by investigators and their supervisors. This is of particular importance as SAMPIS does not retain a history of changes made to a document. It saves only the latest version”

Now, so far as the CFNIS investigating historical child sexual abuse that occurred prior to 1998. This would be a legal impossibility. Prior to 1998, a service tribunal had to be commenced against an accused no more than three years after the date of the alleged service offence. This time bar was removed in 1998. Service offences included all criminal code matters. But certain offences had to be prosecuted through the Civilian courts.

Murder, manslaughter, and rape had to be prosecuted through the civilian courts prior to 1985.

After rape was removed from the Criminal Code in 1985 murder, manslaughter, and sexual assault had to be prosecuted through the civilian courts.

In 1998, the National Defence Act was amended and Murder, Manslaughter, and kidnapping are now the crimes that have to be prosecuted through the civilian courts.

It should be noted that rape was never a crime that could have ever applied to males. The Criminal Code was very specific that rape could only apply to females. This is how the Canadian Forces had a court martial for Captain Father Angus McRae in July of 1980 for the crimes of “gross indecency”, “Indecent assault”, and “buggery”. Also, in most cases, not every sexual assault of a female child resulted in rape charges. Indecent assault and gross indecency were the preferred charges. prior to 1985.

Anyways, back to the 3 year time bar.

Any former retired member of the Canadian Forces who was suspected of committing the crimes of “gross indecency”, “Indecent assault”, and “buggery” prior to 1985 would have their matter dealt with via a service tribunal as these were not excluded offences. This means that these crimes could never be prosecuted in the modern day as they would have to be prosecuted through the military justice system and more than 3-years have lapsed between the date of the offence and the resultant service tribunal.

The time period of 1985 until 1998 is a murky period as the Canadian Forces couldn’t conduct a service tribunal for the criminal code charge of sexual assault (271 – 272), but they could conduct a service tribunal for the criminal code charges of 151, 152, 173(2).

It should be noted that the criminal code of Canada has no such limitations on indictable offences and this is why you hear of civilian cases going to court where some 80 year old pervert, who was a hockey coach or a school janitor, molested kids back in the 60s.

Now, it also should be remembered that prior to November of 1997, the commanding officer of the accused was required to conduct a summary investigation AFTER the military police or the CFSIU laid charges against their subordinate. The flaw with this was that the commanding officer could dismiss any charge brought against their subordinate whether or not the commanding officer would have had the authority to try the accused on the charge. This means that prior to November of 1997, commanding officers could dismiss charges brought against their subordinates that would have had to have gone either to court martial or to the civilian courts.

Jurisdiction is another weird issue that changes more often than the weather. In 2011, the CFNIS took the investigation of my complaint of sexual assault at the hands of another military dependant away from the civilian police. I was 7, the accused was months shy of his 15th birthday. The Juvenile Delinquents Act made the accused culpable for any criminal code offence he committed as of the day of his 14th birthday. And there were a lot of offences.

In 2017 I made a complaint to the CFNIS related to some sexual assaults I endured at the hands of a commissionaire at the Denison Armouries in Toronto when I was in cadets. The Denison Armouries were a defence establishment, the commissionaire worked for the Canadian Corp of Commissionaires. The CFNIS in Borden handed this matter over to the Toronto Police Service. The TPS was able to lay six charges of sexual assault against Earl within a month of the TPS being given the case.

I can’t figure out what the criteria is for CFNIS claiming investigative jurisdiction and what the criteria is for the CFNIS to cede investigative jurisdiction. As I said, it seems to change more often than the weather.

Boys Beware

The attitudes of society in general towards male victims of child sexual abuse has always been less than desirable.

Males have always been seen to be the instigators of sexual assaults and never the victims of sexual assaults. If a male was he victim of a sexual assault, it was becuase he was weak, or defective, or even a budding homosexual.

Under the criminal code as it was prior to 1985, the charge of “rape” only applied to males having intercourse with females. In Canada, rape was never a crime that could apply to males.

RAPE was only a crime that could be committed by a male against a female.
In Canada, male children could never be the victim of rape.

Male teens have always been an outlier if you will. Most laws that involved an adult having sex with an underage male put the male child at almost equal fault with the adult perpetrator.

Yes, this was an actual “educational” video used is schools.
It was produced in cooperation with an actual police department.

“Ralph was arrested, Jimmy was released on probation into the care of his parents”

And let’s be clear. Ralph isn’t a normal homosexual. Depending on how old Jimmy is, Ralph is either an ephebophile, a hebephile or a pedophile. And yes, heterosexuals can be ephebophiles, hebephiles, or pedophiles

This was the attitude towards male victims of child sexual abuse in the ’60s. The Canadian Armed Forces have always been about 20 years behind civilian society. Canada, for the most part, decriminalized homosexuality in the ’70s. In 1973 the APA, the American Psychiatric Association, removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. It would take the Canadian Armed Forces until 1994 before it stopped discriminating against homosexuals and ceased treating homosexuality as a mental illness. So yeah, almost 20 years behind the times.

I can undertand why society may be more protective of females. They’re the ones that risk getting pregnant. Sure, boys can’t get pregnant, however they can suffer just as much psychological damage as females can.

Being blamed for the abuse causes issues of self worth.

Being shamed into silence causes trust problems.

The child will sometimes have great difficulty understanding why one adult enjoys sexual touching while other adults will be repulsed and disgusted.

Many times, in small closed communities, the abused child is seen as defective, that there is in fact something wrong with the child. This also happens in a large open community to a certain extent, but in the civilian world the possibility that two neighbours work for the exact same employer are pretty slim. The idea that everyone on the same block works for the same employer is even less likely. And the idea that everyone in the same town or city works for the same employer is just about impossible. There are numerous articles that look at the merits and shortfalls of “Company towns”.

It would turn out that I wasn’t the only dependant from CFB Namao that was prevented from attending activities such as hockey or basketball or swimming. And I would imagine that this same attitude prevailed on most of the other bases in Canada.

Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-20 formed the policy for how the Canadian Armed Forces were to deal with suspected homosexuals. CFAO 19-20 was in force until 1994.

“Disposal”……
The Canadian Armed Forces considered “homosexuals” to be garbage that needed to be disposed.

The Canadian Forces Military Social Workers that sexually abused male children were put in contact with on the bases would have been expected to deal with Canadian Forces service members as per the policy of CFAO 19-20. And yes, CFAO 19-20 didn’t apply to military dependants, but there is no way that the military social workers were going to switch off their military training when dealing with sexually abused male children.

The Criminal Code prior to 1985 had a charge called “Buggery”. Buggery is one male having anal intercourse with another male. The odd thing about buggery is that it was a charge in which both parties were considered to be equally culpable. It was implied that buggery had no victim. Usually though, the police would only prosecute the party that was over the age of 18.

The Curious Case of Sub-Lieutenant Jeffery Paul Delisle or how the FBI / CSIS / RCMP excluded the CFNIS from an investigation.

So, is the jurisdiction of the CFNIS really set in stone?
One has to wonder why the CFNIS weren’t involved in this matter.

The matter of former Canadian Forces officer SLt. Jeffery Delisle is an interesting study in the jurisdiction of the Canadian Forces military police and the CFNIS.

On January 13, 2012, SLt. Jeffery Paul Delisle was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for violating the Security of Information Act. His offence was that he had been selling “5 -Eyes” intelligence to the Russians.

5-Eyes is the name of the intelligence alliance comprising of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The information that Delisle had given to the Russians was most damaging to the United States, hence why the American Federal Bureau of Investigations was the first agency to become involved in this matter.

The FBI made contact with the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and informed CSIS of the activities of Mr. Delisle.

From documents released under Access to Information Requests, it became very apparent that the CFNIS was kept out of the loop literally until the last minute.

So the timeline want like such:
December 9th, 2011 CFPM informs the CO CFNIS that an investigation is underway into a member of the Canadian Forces.
January 13th, 2012 Canadian Forces officer Sub-Lt. Jeffery Paul Delisle is arrested by the RCMP.
December 13th, 2012 the RCMP fully brief the Commanding Officer of the CFNIS on the particulars of the investigation.

In a report issued in October 2012 which discussed the matter of Sub-Lt. Delisle,

Was this interesting section:

Basically, this is the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence pouting that their “police” weren’t involved in the investigation of their own officer Mr. Delisle. One can only wonder why the FBI, CSIS, and the RCMP wanted to steer clear of involving the Canadian Forces Military Police Group and the CFNIS .

SLt. Delisle had been sharing “5-Eyes” intelligence that he collected from DND computers, located on DND property, while he was a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline. If anyone was deserving of being investigated by the CFNIS, it was SLt. Delisle.

The National Defence Act even has sections that specifically deal with persons such as Mr. Delisle.

Sections 75(b), 75(c),75(j) would possibly have applied.

Section 78 may be a stretch, but it could still be argued that if Russia is not an ally, then it is automatically considered an enemy.

The Security of Information Act is what Mr. Delisle violated.

4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) seem to be the sections that Mr. Delisle ran afoul of.

The Security of Information Act applies to all persons who were subject to the Code of Service Discipline when they became aware of the information.

A prohibited place means a military base, or even a building that is used by the military for military business.

Is the incompetence of the CFNIS really that legendary?

In March of 2015, then Defence Minister Jason Kenney said that an MPCC report issued had clearly indicated that the military police were guilty of “wrongdoing and incompetence”.

If the Slt Delisle case does prove one thing, it’s that the “sole jurisdiction” claim of the CFNIS is laughable at best.