There’s only one person throughout this whole sordid affair that appears to have tried his best within the constraints of the defective military justice system.
He was a military police investigator with the CFSIU back in 1980.
Actually, he was a base military police officer until March of 1980, then he became the acting section commander of the CFSIU at CFB Edmonton.
He is the one who investigated Captain McRae.
He’s also the one who had to ask base commander Colonel Dan E. Munro to allow McRae to be held in closed custody as he was worried that McRae was going to go “talk” to the families of the children involved.
McRae was a Captain.
J.S. the father of P.S. was a Sgt.
Most of the other fathers of the kids involved were also junior rank members of the Canadian Forces.
My father at the time was a lowly corporal and wouldn’t have been able to defy the wishes of Captain McRae, or anyone else up the chain of command for that matter.
The following section from the National Defence Act would have ensured that the parents of the children involved would have followed the wishes and desires of the chain of command, whether they liked it or not.
This is the file for the CFSIU investigation paperwork for the Captain Father Angus McRae matter in 1980.
First is the Charge Sheet. As the Summary Investigation flaw detailed in LS-311E indicated, it was the commanding officer of the accused that determined which charges the accused would face and which charges would be dismissed. In this case, it was CFB Namao Base Commander Colonel Dan E. Munro who would have been required by Section 139 and 140 of the 1970 National Defence Act.
Second is that Captain McRae plead innocent to the charges until P.S. was called into the court martial hearing as a witness. Once P.S. gave his statement, McRae changed his plea from innocent to guilty.
McRae’s defence officer appears to have tried to use the fact that the Catholic Church had conducted an Ecclesiastical Trial against McRae and found him guilty therefore the court martial should not be able to find McRae guilty again. The Ecclesiastical Trial paperwork is at the end of the court martial transcripts.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
I might have the ear of a news reporter that is willing to look at my matter.
This reporter is more interested in some of the results I have recevied from the Department of National Defence in response to my various Access to Information requests.
The most recent results I recevied were from an Access to Information Request that I filed with the Department of National Defence in 2019.
In April of 2019, I had been contacted by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. I was told by the OIC that DND had released documents to another party that were the same documents that I had been requesting since 2012 and therefore I should submit a new request for the exact documents that DND had just released.
The records that I had requested were for the July 18th, 1980 court martial of Captain Father Angus McRae.
I made an application for these documents on April 3rd 2019. DND acknowledged this request a few days later.
In July of 2020 I finally received the documents that I had requested.
This is the cover page of the documents.
The second page is a photocopy of the file folder from the office of the Judge Advocate General.
The third page states that pages 2 to 266 are being exempted under the privacy act section 19(1).
So, basically, I recevied three worthless but very humorous pages from DND.
The interesting thing about this information is that a Toronto Star reporter had access to this information back in 1990 for a news story he was writing about Captain McRae having been busted for molesting more children at a Scarborough Ontario church.
Also, an instructor with the Canadian Forces College had access to these documents.
So, why am I not being given access to McRae’s court martial records?
In plain and simple terms. There’s a coverup under foot.
The DND Access to Information Office, the Judge Advocate General, the Provost Marshal, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, they all work under the same minister.
This is the same minister that must be sued in any civil action brought against a current or former member of the Canadian Forces.
This is the very same Minister that asked me “What my angle was”, and “What game was I playing” when I went to speak with him in 2016 at his constituency office in Vancouver.
There is nothing in the language of the National Defence Act whch exempts the Judge Advocate General, the Provost Marshal, or anyone in the Canadian Forces Military Police Group from Section 83 of the National Defence Act.
What does this have to do with the refusal of DND to release the requested documents to me?
During the 2nd portion of CFNIS investigation GO2011-5754, the investigators with the CFNIS noted that although my name wasn’t mentioned in CFSIU investigation DS-120-10-80 they would ask me a series of questions to see if my answers matched details within CFSIU DS 120-10-80.
I was never asked any questions.
The goal was never to connect me to P.S. or Captain McRae.
The goal was a “Dog and Pony Show” investigation that wouldn’t lead to any charges against P.S., but would give me the feeling that something had been done.
Yes, P.S. would never face a court martial. But you have to remember that at the start of this investigation back in March of 2011, Angus McRae was alive and well.
The CFNIS had to structure the investigation around the fact that even if P.S. were to implicate Captain Angus McRae, the Canadian Forces would never be able to bring charges against Captain McRae due to the 3-year time bar that existed pre-1998.
The Minister of National Defence, the Judge Advocate General, and the Provost Marshal do not want to establish that I or any other child from CFB Namao were involved with the P.S./ Captain McRae child sexual abuse scandal on CFB Namao.
The decision was made in 1980 to only charge Captain McRae with committing “Acts of Homosexuality” against P.S. as P.S. was the only boy above the age of 14.
14 was the age of consent in 1980.
And as was explained in the Court Martial Appeal Court ruling in the matter of Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan vs. Regina, the Canadian Armed Forces have the right to conduct a court martial for “Gross Indecency”, “Indecent Assault”, and “Buggery” so long as consent could have been a consideration.
This implies that if consent wasn’t given, then the Canadian Forces couldn’t conduct a service tribunal. The matter would have to go before a civilian court. And in a civilian court, the Department of National Defence would have a much harder time throwing a “wall of secrecy” around the matter.
It must be remembered that at the time in 1980, 14 was the legal age that a child could consent to sexual activities.
This is why the Chain of Command, according to Fred Cunningham, dropped all of the charges against McRae except for the charges related to P.S.. P.S. was the only boy over the age of 14. Instead of this being a matter of child sexual abuse, now this was a matter of “homosexuality”.
P.S., being the only boy over the age of 14 would have been the only one who could have possibly “consented”.
If the Canadian Armed Forces had tried to charge Captain McRae with molesting the children that were between the ages of 4 and 14 that both he and P.S. molested both individually and together, the Canadian Armed Forces would have lost the ability to conduct a court martial against Captain McRae.
The problem this posed for the Canadian Armed Forces is that Captain McRae was the first officer in the Canadian Armed Forces investigated for molesting children.
In a court martial, the Minister of Defence may allow the proceedings to be moved “in-camera” and thereby keep an embarrassing situation out of the media.
If the Canadian Forces had charged Captain McRae with molesting the children under the age of 14, McRae would have had to be prosecuted in civilian court.
To move a court martial “in-camera” is far easier than it is to try to move a civilian court case “in-camera”.
This also explains why the base military police and the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit were not allowed to call in the RCMP to deal with P.S..
If P.S. had been investigated and charged with molesting the children he had been babysitting, he would have been dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
There was an odd section of the Juvie Act which allowed for the adult that contributed to the delinquency of a minor to be found guilty on summary conviction.
Had the Chain of Command in 1980 allowed either the base military police or the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal woth P.S., the Canadian Forces would have lost all ability to control the narrative of the eventual investigation into Captain McRae.
By keeping things “in house”, the Chain of Command knew they could keep a very embarrassing situation out of the local media.
The problem that created is that any of the children being molested by P.S. and Captain McRae would be forever denied acknowedlegment or justice.
I can only imagine how terrified the brass within the Canadian Armed Forces were at the prospect of the Canadian public discovering that the military couldn’t protect children living on secure military establishments.
Just imagine for a minute that you’re Colonel Dan Munro, and that you’re the base commander of Canadian Forces Base Namao. Imagine that you have been informed by the base military police that a military dependant living on the base has just implicated your direct subordinate in a child sexual abuse scandal.
Imagine that you have to instruct your other subordinate, Captain David Pilling, to instruct Acting Section Commander Warrant Officer Fred Cunningham, to investigate your direct subordinate, Captain Father Angus McRae, for having committed “acts of homosexuality” with teenage boys on the the base that you command. These are the children of the men and women ultimately under your command.
I wonder if Munro went over to the Lamplighter Pub to down a few good stiff ones first before he made that dreaded phone call to Ottawa.
Now imagine that you’re in Ottawa, and you’re on the other end of that phone call. Can you imagine what it was like inside the hallowed halls of the Major-General George R Pearkes building in Ottawa to discover than an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces was molesting children on a defence establishment. And not just one or two children, we’re talking 25 children.
This must have activated the damage control machinery at National Defence Head Quarters. Captain Jim Grey seems to have been the media spokesperson designated to deal with the media on this matter.
I can only wonder what the Chaplaincy branch was doing. After all, as it turns out, the Catholic church was well aware of what its priests were up to during the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s. And if the Catholic church was aware, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Canadian Forces Chaplaincy branch was well aware. This probably explains why DND removed all of the rectories from the base chapels in the late ’80s.
The first thing DND did back then was to “throw a wall of secrecy” around the entire Captain McRae matter. This was unusual because court martial hearings were supposed to be open to the public. Sure, the court martial occurred on a defence establishment, and DND could control access to the court martial by controlling access to the defence establishment. But the public were supposed to be admitted to the court martial. Yes, P.S. was a juvenile, but there were ways that his identity could have been shielded from the public and the media. This was a common occurrence during public trials which involved children.
This wouldn’t be the only time that DND and the CF hauled out the P.R. machinery in relation to this matter.
In January of 2000, P.S. tried to commit suicide. It was after this that P.S. realized that the abuse he suffered at the hands of Captain McRae might have been at the root of all of the legal problems that P.S. was enduring up to that point in time.
P.S. contacted a lawyer in Edmonton, AB. This is because you have to sue in the jurisdiction that the crimes occurred in. This alone probably explains why more military dependants haven’t ever tried to sue their abusers.
In March of 2001, Mr. R.P. Lee, on behalf of P.S. initiated a $4.3 million dollar action against the Minister of National Defence et. al. in the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.
The Department of Justice automatically springs into action whenever and type of action is taken against any department of the Federal Government.
This means that the Government of Canada is able to use tax payer money to bury people like me. The only reason P.S. was successful in his action against the Minister of National Defence et. al., is that he was anointed as the sole victim of Captain McRae by both the base military police and the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit in the spring of 1980.
The pages below come from the paperwork from the Department of Justice. It should be noted that almost all of the paperwork in the DOJ file is redacted. Out of close to 6,000 pages released, I think that less than 200 pages were un-redacted.
The first thing that the Canadian Forces Director Public Affairs Planning and Operations did was to remove the names of the Criminal Code offences from the press release. Why would they do this? Simple. To sanitize the crimes and to minimize triggering anyone else coming forward.
Unless you love reading through the various acts, you would never know what sections 155, 156, and 157 were, would you? Most people without a legal background would have easily understood that buggery meant anal intercourse, or more specifically that a 50 something year old Captain in the Canadian Forces placed his penis inside the rectum of a 14 year old boy. Gross indecency and indecent assault may not have been well known, but there were more than likely enough Canadians who would have known that basically Captain McRae was giving and receiving oral sex to and from a 14 year old boy.
Where as, if you strip away the descriptions of the offences and just tell Canadians that Angus McRae committed the indictable offences of 155, 156, and 157, then it doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
So, here is the “cleaned up” version that was released to the Canadian Media. Did you happen to notice that the Canadian Armed Forces give no indication of the age of the victim? For that matter, they also don’t mention the age of Captain Father Angus McRae. Nor do they mention that Captain McRae outranked each and every parent of the children he had abused. And unlike during the original CFSIU investigation in 1980, this press release makes no mention that Captain McRae was convicted for committing homosexual acts with teenage boys.
We know from the findings of the External Review which was conducted by Madame Marie Deschamps that the Canadian Forces never really took sexual assaults seriously, let alone accusations of sexual assault. So I have to chuckle at the insistence in the press release that the military “takes all allegations of sexual assault very seriously”.
They forget to mention that Captain McRae was sentenced to four years in prison, but that his sentence kept getting cut down to the point he actually served less than ten months total.
The Canadian Forces also forgot to mention that Captain McRae had gone on to molest more children after he left the Canadian Forces.
I’m going to talk a little bit about the flaws in the National Defence Act that existed prior to 1985. Specifically how the National Defence Act played with the average Canadian’s lack of understanding about the criminal code.
I’ve frequently been told that I’m wrong. I’ve been told that the Canadian Armed Forces could never court martial a service member for sexual assaults committed against a child. I’ve been told that the military couldn’t conduct a service tribunal for the crimes of “Murder, Manslaughter, and Rape” prior to 1985.
Well, there’s a problem with that. The problem is that rape was never a crime that could apply to males. Rape was a crime that could only apply to females:
There you have it. Rape is when a male has “sexual intercourse” with a female person who is not his wife. That automatically rules out males having sex with other males. It is also worth mentioning that when underage females were involved, the preferred charges were often Section 149 “Indecent Assault on a female”, or Section 146 “Sexual Intercourse with female under 14”.
What this means is that so long as the charge was not “Rape”, the military could conduct a service tribunal. This means that the Canadian Armed Forces could conduct a service tribunal for the offences indicated in sections 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, and 157 of the 1970 Criminal Code of Canada. And this criminal code was in place up to 1985. That means that the Canadian Forces had from 1950 until 1985 to conduct service tribunals for sexual crimes against children.
How many of these service tribunals did the Canadian Forces conduct? Your guess is as good as mine. It would appear that the record keeping system for criminal convictions prior to 1998 leaves a lot to be desired.
How many of these charges actually made it to a service tribunal? Again, your guess is as good as mine as prior to November 1997, the commanding officer of the accused could dismiss any charge that had been brought against their subordinate.
How many of these offences couldn’t be prosecuted due to the arbitrary 3-year time bar that the National Defence Act placed upon service offences? Remember, section 120 of the National Defence Act made Criminal Code matters into Service Offences, so the 3 -year time bar did place a “statute of limitations” on Criminal Code matters that did not have a “statute of limitations”. Again, we’ll probably never know. The Minister of National Defence could call an inquiry if he so chose to. But I really don’t think the Minister of National Defence really wants to open that Pandora’s box.
What’s also not clear to me is when someone comes forward with a complaint of child sexual abuse from back in the ’70s for example and claims that they were molested on base by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Section 55(1) of the 1970 National Defence Act defines persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline. Section 55(2) states that a person who committed a crime while they were subject to the Code of Service Discipline continues to be liable for having committed a service offence even after they’ve left the military. Does this mean that the rules of the National Defence Act that were in place at the time also apply. Does that mean that Section 59 of the National Defence Act prevents the prosecution of historical child sexual assault matters?
Charges other than rape.
Sex with an underage female:
Section 146 is clearly not “Rape”. I believe that this would be called the “jail bait law”. I can only wonder how many times the Canadian Forces conducted a service tribunal for this crime. Notice that this is the charge for having “Sexual Intercourse” with a female child under the age of 14. This covers any age under the age of 14.
Section 146(2) is what we’d call “slut shaming” in the modern day. Basically what Criminal Code s. 146(2) is stating is that if a man has sex with a virgin between the ages of 14 and 16, he has committed an indictable offence and can be sent to prison for up to 5 years. This also seems to imply that if the girl isn’t a virgin, then he hasn’t committed a crime at all.
Section 146(3) further states that the prosecutor has to show that the accused is MORE to blame than the girl otherwise the court can find the accused not guilty. I can see a lot of commanding officers using Section 146(3) in determining to not allow charges to proceed against their subordinate.
Section 148 of the 1970 Criminal Code is interesting. What exactly defines an idiot, imbecile, or for that matter “feeble-minded”?
From my experience, there were a lot of stepfamilies on base. How many times acts contrary to section 153 were committed on base is again anyone’s guess.
Regina vs. Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan.
or how the CMAC straight up said that the Canadian Forces could conduct service tribunals for some forms of gross indecency.
Donald Joseph Sullivan was recently just convicted for crimes against numerous children that he committed during the 1970s when he was a boy scout leader in Ottawa area of Ontario. For some reason, the police never busted his ass in the ’70s. Donald disappeared from the Ottawa area and fell off the radar of the police for some reason.
The reason that Donald Joseph Sullivan fell of the radar of the Ottawa police in the ’70s is that he joined the Canadian Armed Forces. Donald went on to have some involvement with the Catholic church on CFB Gagetown, and that’s where he met most of his teenaged victims.
The above section is from the Court Martial Appeal Court ruling when Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan appealed his courts martial sentence for molesting four boys all over the age of consent on Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, in New Brunswick. One of Mr. Sullivan’s arguements was whether or not the Canadian Forces had the right to conduct a service tribunal for the crimes of “Gross Indecency”.
The finding of the CMAC explains how the Canadian Forces could conduct a service tribunal for sexual crimes involving children
Gross Indecency is an interesting charge. There is no clear definition of what Gross Indecency is other than it typically referred to any type of sexual relations between two males that did not involve Buggery. Rarely was the charge of Gross Indecency ever used in any type of heterosexual encounter. Gross Indecency included: Masturbation of the other person; Oral Sex; Kissing; Fondling.
The Age of Consent.
As the CMAC ruling in the Regina vs. Donald Joseph Sullivan matter shows, the appearance of consent determined whether or not the Canadian Armed Forces could conduct a service tribunal for sexual assaults against children.
As section 140 of the Criminal Code of Canada stated, a person under the age of 14 cannot consent to sexual relations. Section 146 is “Sexual intercourse with female under fourteen”; Section 149 is “Indecent Assault on Female”; Section 156 is “Indecent Assault on Male”
What is “Indecent Assault”? Believe it or not, but just like Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault isn’t clearly defined in the Criminal Code. Best examples I can think of would be touching someone’s genitals without their consent, rubbing against someone for sexual gratification, groping someone for sexual gratification, of just plain touching anyone anywhere on their body in a sexual manner.
One thing that I’ve learnt from the Captain Father Angus McRae matter is that the “brass” reduced the number of charges brought against Captain McRae to only the charges involving P.S. who was apparently the only victim at the time who was over the age of 14 at the time of the CFSIU investigation of Captain McRae. The other victims of Captain McRae, F.A., and S.O., were 13 years of age when McRae was investigated by Warrant Officer Fred Cunningham of the CFSIU.
The CMAC ruling in the Donald Joseph Sullivan matter makes it very clear as to why the Canadian Forces would have dropped all of the charges against Captain McRae except for the charges related to P.S..
If the Canadian Forces had insisted on charging Captain McRae with crimes that he had committed against children under the age of 14, the Canadian Forces would have lost the right to have conducted a service tribunal. And by losing the right to have conducted a service tribunal, Captain McRae’s exploits would have been dealt with in the public courts where the Canadian Forces wouldn’t have been able to”throw a wall of secrecy” around the proceedings.
Even in the matter of Regina vs. Donald Joseph Sullivan, all of the boys he was charged with molesting are all 14 years of age and older. You’re telling me that there were no boys under the age of 14 on CFB Gagetown? Was Mr. Sullivan checking birth certificates to ensure that he wasn’t messing around with a 12 year old or even an older looking 11 year old?
I don’t know about you, but I’m really kinda curious to know how many times the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence limited charges to those involving only children above the age of consent to ensure that these matters were dealt with in a service tribunal as opposed to in the civilian justice system.
When I spoke to Fred Cunningham back on November 27th, 2011 he said that the base military police tried to call in the RCMP to deal with P.S., but the the “brass” wouldn’t allow for that.
If you remember from my earlier posts, unlike what Lt. Col. Gilles Sansterre tried telling me in January of 2012, Fred Cunningham wasn’t just some schmuck telling me incorrect 2nd hand news. Warrant Officer Fred R. Cunningham was the acting section commander of the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit at CFB Edmonton, and as I would learn from CFSIU investigation report DS-120-10-80, W/O Cunningham had been not only tasked by the base security officer, Captain David Pilling, with investigating Captain McRae, W/O Cunningham had also been involved in the interrogation and arrest of Captain McRae.
Both Fred Cunningham in 2011 and J.S. in 2015 stated that the whole investigation into Captain McRae came about because of the base military police being alerted to the fact that P.S. was having sex with young children on the base and that other parents had complained.
I have established that P.S. was born on June 20th, 1965. This was verified by an RCMP officer as well as two newspaper articles. One newspaper article was from August 1985 which said that P.S. was 20 years old. Another newspaper article from February 2015 stated that P.S. was 49 years old. If his birthday is in June of the year, both of those ages work out with 1965 being his birth year.
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, P.S. would have been criminally liable for any criminal code offence that he committed as of the day of his 14th birthday. Remember how desperate Sgt. Christian Cyr was to get me to believe that P.S. was only 13 when he was found buggering me in the spring of 1980? That wasn’t accidental. Anyone who hadn’t yet attained the day of their 14th birthday could not be held criminally responsible for their criminal code offences.
Why did the “brass” not want the base military police calling in the RCMP to deal with P.S.? It wasn’t because they felt sorry for P.S.. It was something much more devious and sinister.
Back when I started on this journey in 2012 I thought that it was possible that P.S. never got in trouble becuase his father had rank. And by rank I mean captain and above. As it turns out, J.S. was only a Sgt.in 1980. That wasn’t nearly high enough to get much in the way of a favour out of the chain of command.
All that J.S. being a Sgt in 1980 meant is that when P.S. beat me up behind the rec centre in the spring of 1980 and told me that his father outranked my father and that if I told anyone about what P.S. had done to me sexually that his father would have mine thrown out of the military, he wasn’t completely full of bluster. I’m sure that Sgt. J.S. could have caused problems for Cpl. Gill if he wanted too.
The Canadian Forces had a problem on their hands. And they wanted it to go away with as little public knowledge as possible.
Captain McRae was apparently the first person with an officer’s rank in the military that had been convicted of “homosexual acts” with children. Think about that for a minute. We’re not talking about some lowly corporal who had sex with the neighbour’s 13-year old daughter while he was drunk. No. We’re talking about a Captain molesting over 25 male children on a secure defence establishment.
You can bet your bottom dollar that NDHQ in Ottawa was calling the shots and was deciding what would happen.
The Canadian Forces had three reasons in the National Defence Act that would allow them to move a courts martial “in-camera” and out of the public eye.
Reason 1: Public Safety. Reason 2: Defence. Reason 3: Public Morals.
None of these reasons involve protecting the identities of the children. As can be seen from this snippet of Donald Joseph Sullivan’s CMAC appeal, the courts can easily protect the identities of the victims by simply removing all identifying information.
So, what does this have to do with the “brass” not allowing the RCMP to be called in to deal with P.S.?
If the RCMP had arrested and charged P.S. with molesting the number of children that he did, he would have been dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This would have posed a very significant problem for the Canadian Forces and their goal of keeping the details of Captain McRae’s crimes out of the public eye.
And yes, the Criminal Code of Canada that was in force at the time said that those who had attained their 14th birthday could be convicted of an offence. It should also be noted that the prosecution of children under the age of 14 wasn’t impossible, just the prosecution had to prove that the child was “competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong”.
Section 33 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act makes it a crime for any adult to contribute to the delinquency of a minor.
The adult who was responsible for the delinquency of a minor could be fined and sentenced by the Juvenile courts. This in turn meant that any details that didn’t directly identfy P.S. could be made public. And this is specifically what DND didn’t want. The Canadian Forces and DND wanted none of this to be made public.
The Juvenile Delinquents Act only required the name and other means of identifying the child be withheld from publication.
The Canadian Forces would have been pilloried in the eye of the public had the press learnt that a 50 something year old officer in the Canadian Armed Forces was not only committing “homosexual acts” with boys as young as 6 on the base, the public would have been equally appalled to learn that Captain McRae had been “training” P.S. in the fine art of child molestation.
And then there’s the whole question of the “working” relationship between P.S. and Captain McRae. I can clearly remember 5 different visits in which P.S. took me over to the base chapel to see Captain McRae, or ‘father’ as my grandmother would allow me to call him. These visits always occurred on days when P.S. wasn’t babysitting. P.S. would usually find me playing somewhere on base and insist that I come to the chapel with him. On one of these occasions, I had been with my father as my father worked on his motorcycle at the storage unit by the telephone exchange.
P.S. came right up to my father asked my father if my father wanted P.S. to look after me. My father told me to go with P.S. on this visit.
I just thought of something as I typed this. Is this why Richard feigned ignorance about P.S. whenever anyone asked him about what happened on CFB Namao?
When the whole Captain Father Angus McRae fiasco blew up in June of 1980, did my father realize what he had done?
This would have been quite the thing to admit, that you sent your own son over to visit with a kiddie diddler. It would have been very hard for my father to have not known about this. CFB Namao was an isolated community north of Edmonton. 25 children had been molested by McRae. An untold number of children had been molested by P.S.. P.S. getting caught molesting children is what triggered the investigation into McRae. Everyone on that base would have known something.
The visits to McRae were almost identical. We’d play board games for a short while. We might watch some TV or listen to some records. Then Captain McRae would tell P.S. to get the grape juice. That’s what he called it, “grape juice”. I always remember it as being really sickly sweet. Sickly sweet grape juice. Almost like really sweet cough medicine. I never remember anything after this. I always remember becoming “aware” at other places on the base, usually the rec centre. On one of these occasions somebody called my grandmother to come and get me. She was furious. She wanted me to tell her who the kids were that gave me the alcohol. I was terrified. If you ever saw my grandmother in one of her rages, you’d understand. She then accused me of stealing her booze. She must have counted her flats of beer and her empties a few times before she realized that I didn’t take her beer.
In a way I’m thankful for the “grape juice” or as James Paluck informed me, the “Manischewitz wine”. I can’t honestly remember anything from the visits to the chapel and what occurred after the wine. I know I had rectal bleeding back then, and I had always assumed that was from P.S.. But yeah, I’d have to be pretty fucking naive to think that nothing was occurring in the rectory attached to the chapel when I was in the presence of two prolific kiddie diddlers.
I remember a good dozen times in the year and a half that P.S. was our babysitter in which he abused me and my brother together down in the basement on our uncle Doug’s cot. P.S. wasn’t subtle in his abuse either. He could get quite physical. I guess he was taking everything that Captain McRae was doing to him out on us. He almost always molested my brother and I together as it was easier for him to keep an eye on the two of us least one of us go off and babble to someone else about what P.S. was doing. P.S. loved digital penetration. I know he attempted anal with me a few times and actually succeeded on the day we were caught in his bedroom.
I saw P.S. have intercourse with a girl younger than I was. All I really remember about her is she wore a white dress, and had blond hair in pig tails. I would have been between 7 and 8 at the time. P.S. would have been older than his 14th birthday. P.S. had her over by the curling club and the Canex. She really didn’t want to be there. I wasn’t with P.S. that day. It was summer time. I think I was heading over to the arena for who knows what reasons. They were behind the Canex building towards the arena. She screamed. I still cringe thinking about that. There were four other boys I was aware of that P.S. abused. I didn’t know them that well. One kid left the base in the summer of 1979. I don’t know where his father was posted to. One of the other boys arrived in the summer of 1979. One of the other boys were long term on that base. All I remember about this last boy is that he was in my Red Cross swimming classes at the base pool. My family was punted off that base in October of 1980. No matter how hard I try, I can’t remember their names.
And Captain McRae wasn’t the only adult that P.S. was involved with on CFB Namao. As I described to Sgt. Tenaschuk during the 2015 to 2018 portion of CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754, P.S. had cornered me at one of the public swims at the base pool. P.S. directed me into the sauna. There was an older man in the sauna sitting at the far end. P.S. escorted me over and told this man what my name was. This older man smiled at me and he put his hand on my shoulder and said that I was really cute. He asked me if I knew how to give a good blow job. P.S. replied that I was a really good. P.S. then went over and stood watch at the door. All I really remember about this old guy is he was a little on the pudgy side and he had a very close shaved white beard. I gave this man the blow job he wanted. As I’m typing this, I’m actually amazed at how many blowjobs I gave out on that base.
Guy with white beard = 1; P.S. = alot; Captain McRae = only P.S. would know.
Another former dependant from CFB Namao contacted me in the summer of 2012. James had his own list of names of children that P.S. had abused.
So, it’s quite clear that we’re not talking about P.S. inappropriately touching a single kid out of “childhood curiosity and experimentation”. He had access to numerous children under the age of 10 on that base. P.S. definitely should have been prosecuted. He would have probably received the help that he so desperately needed. But, I digress.
From what both retired Warrant Officer Fred Cunningham and Sgt. J.S. have stated, there were well over 25 children from CFB Namao that were caught up in the McRae / P.S. affair. I spoke to the younger brother of a trio of boys from the same family. Two boys were in the Canadian Forces later in life. The eldest boy never joined. The eldest boy killed himself just a few years ago. The younger brother blames the sexual abuse on CFB Namao and their dealings with the military social worker when their family was posted to CFB Borden in Ontario. I’m just wondering how many other kids involved with the Captain McRae child sex scandal from CFB Namao committed suicide or had lingering problems not only from the abuse but from the manner in which the military dealt with the victims.
6 – 9 is far short of 25. But you have to realize that Captain McRae was being investigated for “Acts of Homosexuality” by the dread CFSIU. The CFSIU were responsible for enforcing CFAO 19-20
If you were a service member of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1980, would you want it to be known that your son was participating in “Acts of Homosexuality”? Nope, didn’t think so. So, I think a lot of serving parents wouldn’t let their kids be interviewed by the CFSIU out of fear of their sons being listed as being engaged in homosexual behaviour.
So, back to the question posed at the start of this post.
Q: Why weren’t the Queen’s Cowboys called in?
A: Fear of the public discovering that DND and the CF couldn’t protect children living on the bases in Canada.