Well, here’s something that might come as a surprise to some people, but it doesn’t come as a surprise to me.
There were about 19,000 claims submitted for compensation.
If 40% of claimants were men that’s 7,600 men. And trust me men, especially in a military environment, are NOT going to be all that willing to come forward out of fear that others will judge them as being weak or of being a homosexual.
And if one sexual abuser in the Canadian Armed Forces had five or six victims that 7,600 sexually abused men could quickly become 45,600 men. And I don’t really want to think about the total number of men that were sexually abused by other men in the Canadian Armed Forces. According to some stats, over 90% of sexual assault victims never report their assaults.
I’ve known about this since 2014 when L’Actualite ran an exposé on sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces. Part of this exposé looked at male-on-male sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces. This exposé was stripped from the English version of this article that ran in Maclean’s magazine.
Male-on-male sexual abuse was frequently used to shame other members into compliance or to humiliate members that had “caused trouble” or used to blackmail a member into silence least his coworkers, friends, and family discover that he had participated in anal intercourse.
And I have absolutely no doubt that many male children living on the bases were subjected to this “discipline” in the household.
If a member of the Canadian Armed Forces is willing to force anal intercourse on a fellow adult member or if a member of the Canadian Forces is willing to force another adult member to perform fellatio on him in order to teach the other member a lesson or to change the other member’s non-conforming behaviour, you can bet that this type of behaviour found its way back into the PMQs on base.
Almost every type of discipline these men were taught would find its way back into the homes on base.
Once you engage in the military life, it’s almost impossible to separate and segregate the military life, the military training, and the military discipline from the home life.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are many a male military dependent that have some rather fucked up hazy memories from way back then. After all, it’s not like these male members were engaging in routine homosexual activities. They would just use male-on-male as a disciplinary tool.
It might have happened once.
It might have happened twice.
But I would be more than willing to believe that if it happened once or twice, that this would have been buried in the dark recesses of one’s mind.
Especially if it happened on a military base.
Who are you going to tell?
Who is going to believe you?
Are you really going to risk having your serving parent booted from the military?
Are you really going to endure the wrath of your serving parent if they found out that you tried to rat them out to the military police?
Sure does raise some interesting questions, doesn’t it?
Maybe this is one of the reason why the Canadian Armed Forces refuse to investigate historical child sexual abuse.
Maybe this is one of the reasons that some former serving parents are always telling their kids to forget about the past and to let sleeping dogs lie. Even if the serving parent in question didn’t abuse their own kids, were they aware of other service members that abused their own kids? Hard to keep secrets during an investigation, isn’t it? Might be best to just deny anything and everything, right?
Yesterday I received a phone call from my lawyer who is representing me in my class action against the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.
The Department of Justice has responded and has agreed to take the matter before a case management judge.
My lawyer expects the judge to agree to allow this matter to proceed as a class action.
This should occur around October.
If everything goes as planned, the real action will start in the spring of 2022.
This case won’t be a slam dunk.
You can bet that the Department of Justice, the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence, and the office of the Minister of National Defence will do everything in their power to portray myself and all of the other class members as money hungry liars out to squeeze the poor military for a quick buck.
The Department of Justice will also do everything in their power to keep this matter hushed. My matter only deals with Captain Father Angus McRae who served on four different Canadian Forces Base and Stations from 1973 until 1980. At the time the Canadian Forces had over 60 defence establishments in Canada. Each with its own Catholic chapel. Granted, not all chaplains were sexually attracted to children. But let’s say that 10 to 15 percent of all military chaplains molested children during their service careers between the 1950s and 1998. That’s potentially a lot of sexually abused children. And that’s potentially a lot of other class action lawsuits.
How many members of the Canadian Armed Forces involved with the Catholic Chapels am I aware of that were investigated for sexually abusing children?
Captain Father Angus McRae; Brigadier General Roger Bazin; Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan.
Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan was the member of the Canadian Forces who had been booted out of the military in 1985 for molesting a group of early teens on CFB Gagetown. The problem with Sullivan is that he was being actively investigated in the 1970s for molesting young boys in the Ottawa area when he was involved with the Boy Scouts. How did Sullivan join the military if he had been under investigation? Your guess is as good as mine. Sullivan was convicted and sentenced to prison in 2019 for molesting the kids in the 1970s. The Ontario Crown prosecutor knew nothing about Sullivan’s conviction in a court martial for the molestation of the teens on CFB Gagetown. Sullivan’s convictions in 1984 were removed from his service record by the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada due to technicalities with the case, not because he was innocent.
How many other child molesters joined the Canadian Armed Forces bypassing the military’s obviously lax background checks?
Alexander Kalichuk comes to mind.
Military children whom had been sexually abused on base by either service personal or other military dependents had to depend on a defective “disciplinary ” system for justice. A system that had some very horrific flaws. These children would sometimes end up in the care of the Canadian Forces military social workers much like I did.
In my case it turns out that the Chain of Command on CFB Namao decided to not call in the RCMP because amongst other issues, they believed that my babysitter, P.S., was only 12 years old in 1980. P.S. was born in June of 1965.
And don’t forget, rank very much carries a lot of privilege in an organization such as the Canadian Armed Forces. No private or corporal is going to make allegations against a master warrant officer for molesting their kid. No master corporal or sergeant is going to make allegations against a captain or lieutenant colonel for molesting their kid. No commanding officer is going to allow a “flirtatious or promiscuous” 12 year old to ruin the military career of his outstanding master warrant office. And these were all well documented flaws known to exist prior to major amendments to the National Defence Act which occurred in December of 1998.
How many military parents would have allowed their male children to be involved with any child sexual abuse investigation if it meant that their son or sons were going to be tarred with the brush of “homosexuality”? That’s what the Canadian Armed Forces termed male child sexual abuse to be when the abuser was also a male. “Acts of homosexuality “. It also didn’t help the matter much the the Criminal Code offence of “Buggery” (anal intercourse) was considered to be a victimless offence with both parties equally to blame.
With the military police unwilling to investigate my matter, and with the civilian police unwilling to investigate my matter, and with my care at the hands of the military social worker burnt into my mind, and with my father’s opinions of the abuse burnt into my mind, I kept my mouth shut until 2011.
How many other former military dependents kept quiet over the years? I’d say there’s quite a few. I have spoken personally with some former dependents who are still terrified all these years later of anyone discovering that they had been sexually abused on base. Sadly, all of this silence has worked to the advantage of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence.
When my father was interviewed by the CFNIS in 2011 he gave a statement to the CFNIS that was so devoid of reality that it wasn’t funny. Was he coached or coaxed into giving his statement? Did the Canadian Forces threaten his pension or his medical plan? Did he make a deal with the military back in 1980 that in trade for his silence in the P.S. / McRae matter that he’d receive a favour in kind? Is that why his statement is so easily torn asunder by various legal records? And let’s be clear, he didn’t just make one or two misstatements. He practically gave the CFNIS everything they would’ve asked for.
Fred Cunningham was very concerned in 2011 that I not tell anyone what he had told me. He seemed to be implying that there would be very serious consequences if anyone found out what he had told me.
So, it turns out that Minister Sajjan not only refused to allow the Canadian Forces Ombudsman to investigate complaints against General Jonathan Vance, but Sajjan also started to avoid communication with the Office of the Ombudsman.
What is really disappointing about this whole sad affair is that it illustrates how much power is concentrated in the hands of the Minister of National Defence.
The Government of Canada often trumpets the “independence” of the Canadian Forces Ombudsman, however it’s becoming readily apparent that the Ombudsman is under the direct control of the Minister of National Defence.
The Ombudsman may be independent of the chain of command and the management within the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, but they are firmly on the leash of the Minister of National Defence.
The Ombudsman acts solely on the Minister’s behalf and reports directly to and is accountable to the Minister of National Defence.
This is the same Minister of National Defence that seems to have an intense desire to hide and bury any type of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Forces. As I said in a previous posting, we’re very lucky that Sajjan wasn’t the Minister of National Defence when Stephanie Raymonde went public with her matter in 2014. I don’t think that Sajjan would have acknowledged the matter nor would Sajjan have called for an Independent Review as was conducted by Madame Marie Deschamps.
How are investigations by the Canadian Forces Ombudsman commenced?
According to Section 4(a), the Minister of National Defence can give a written directive to the Canadian Forces Ombudsman. This would be similar to when the former cadets from the grenade incident at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier asked former conservative Minister of National Defence Rob Nicholson to look at their issue even though the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence had no legal obligation to these former cadets.
According to Section 4(b), the Ombudsman can undertake an investigation AFTER informing the Minister of National Defence of their intention to do so. And as we’ve heard recently, Minister Sajjan would not allow the former Canadian Forces Ombudsman to look into allegation made against former Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance. Minister Sajjan would also not authorize the Canadian Forces Ombudsman to review the matters surrounding the 1980 court martial of Canadian Forces officer and serial child molester Captain Father Angus McRae.
What are the difference between Nicholson and Sajjan?
Nicholson was a lawyer before he entered politics. Nicholson had absolutely no connection to the Canadian Armed Forces and therefore in the matter of the grenade incident Nicholson would have been more inclined to do what was right as opposed to lifting the corner of the carpet and sweeping things under.
Sajjan on the other hand has been involved with the Canadian Forces since back in the early ’90s. He was also a member of the Vancouver Police Department. The VPD were the police department that allowed the Pickton murders to occur due to their absolute lack of concern for the women who were going missing from the downtown east side. I was a victim of a mugging in ’95. The VPD officer that was investigating the matter was sure that I was to blame as I must have been trying to pick a guy up. It’s not far fetched to say that police in general have a very wary eye towards “victims” and treat them as part of the problem.
Sajjan was also a member of the Canadian Forces reserves and did numerous tours overseas in the ’90s and ’00s. He’s a military man through and through. And if there’s one thing that Sajjan is not going to do is he’s not going to shit in the bed that he sleeps in. Men like Sajjan are the reason why the military justice system progressively went off the rails right from the work go back in the ’50s when Canada had it’s first National Defence Act which allowed for the military police and the CFSIU to look after criminal matter “in-house”. It took the murder and subsequent cover up of Shidone Arone in Somalia to expose just how corrupt the military justice system was. It wasn’t that the military justice system was inherently evil. It’s that the military justice system was being administered by men who (a) didn’t want to rock the boat, (b) didn’t want to be the one to piss on the Canadian Forces, and (c) didn’t want questions asked about their leadership abilities.
“That Lonely Section Of Hell” is a book by former VPD detective Lori Shenher. In this book she describes the toxic environment that existed within the Vancouver Police Department during the 1990s and into the 2000’s.
“The Somalia Experience in Strategic Perspective : Implications for the Military in a Free and Democratic Society” and “Independence in the Prosecution of Offences in the Canadian Forces : Military Policing and Prosecutorial Discretion” are two books that are required reading if one wishes to understand just how dysfunctional the military justice system was during the lead up to the Somalia fiasco.
So, who can avail themselves to the Canadian Forces Ombudsman?
Under section 12 (f), I have the right to make a complaint to the Canadian Forces Ombudsman. My father was a member of the Regular force at the time of the Captain McRae child sexual abuse fiasco on CFB Namao. We lived in housing on a Defence Establishment which at the time of the fiasco was directly owned and administered by the Department of National Defence. Access to this Defence Establishment was controlled and limited to persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline or their guests. Captain Father Angus McRae was a member of the Regular Force and was also residing on the Defence Establishment in housing provided to him by the Canadian Forces. Security and policing services were also provided by persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline. And finally the prosecution of Captain McRae was also conducted by persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
Of course, there are limitations to what the Ombudsman can investigate:
Section 14 (a), section 14(b), and section 14(e) would all seem to indicate that the Ombudsman could not investigate what occurred on Canadian Forces Base Namao between May12th, 1980 and July 18th, 1980.
However, I haven’t asked the Ombudsman to redo the investigation of Captain Father Angus McRae that commenced on May 12th 1980 at the request of base security officer Captain David Pilling. Nor have I asked the Ombudsman to reopen the court martial of Captain Father Angus McRae.
We know that the Canadian Forces knew that Captain McRae was molesting numerous children on the base at the rectory and that he was using alcohol to do so. We also know that Captain McRae abused and groomed his altar boy P.S. and was using P.S. to bring younger children over to the chapel for McRae to abuse.
What I have asked the Canadian Forces Ombudsman to investigate is how the decision to prosecute Captain Father Angus McRae for “acts of homosexuality” may have negatively affected the lives of his victims. I know this fixation on “homosexuality” is why I spent 1-1/2 years receiving “conversion therapy” at the hands of the Canadian Forces social worker that I was placed under the care of when I was 9 years old. I also asked the Canadian Forces Ombudsman to look at how the sweeping of the victims under the rug would have also affected the lives of the victims. None of these asks would have run afoul of 14(a) and 14(b).
14(e) isn’t a signifiant issue to overcome either. In 2010 Minister of National Defence Rob Nicholson asked the CF Ombudsman to review the 1974 CFB Valcartier Grenade incident even though the event occurred 24 years before the date specified in 14(e) and legally the Canadian Armed Forces was not responsible for these children on a Defence Establishment.
So, why doesn’t Harjit Sajjan want the Canadian Forces Ombudsman to review the 1980 investigation and court martial of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae?
I think that Sajjan doesn’t want the Canadian public to discover that children living on Canadian Forces bases were not safe from child predators wearing the uniform of the Canadian Forces. I also think that Sajjan doesn’t want the Canadian public to discover just how truly horrifically flawed and out of control the military justice system was. Sajjan more than likely doesn’t want the Canadian public to know that male children living on the bases who were sexually abused by members of the Canadian Forces were considered to be “homosexual” and were given counselling by the military. Sajjan probably also doesn’t want the Canadian public to find out that some people committed suicide due to the way the military handled this matter. And more importantly, Sajjan doesn’t want other childhood victims coming forward with their tales of abuse at the hands of Canadian Forces personnel on the various different bases in Canada.
Right now, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence have been able to keep a very tight lid on this. However, if the Ombudsman conducts one publicized investigation, I have no doubt that this will lead to far many more complaints. And more complaints leads to civil actions. And this will not do.
Think back to the matter of Donald Jospeh Sullivan who in late 2019 was convicted and sentenced to court for molesting boys in the Ottawa area in the 1970s when he was involved with Scouts Canada. Donald was under investigation by the Ottawa Police Service in the ’70s after the OPS started to receive complaints. Donald disappeared. The OPS couldn’t find him. Turns out that Donald Joseph Sullivan had enlisted into the Canadian Armed Forces. That’s how low the bar was for the Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Armed Forces were hiring people that were the subject of police investigations. Sure, the Canadian Armed Forces more than likely had no idea that they were hiring a child molester. But still, there obviously wasn’t that deep of a back ground check performed. How many other men slipped into the military like Sullivan only to find themselves with easy access to children. Children that moved from base to base frequently. Children that weren’t likely to say anything least they be seen as liars or troublemakers.
Child sexual abuse in th Canadian Armed Forces is a matter that the Canadian Forces Ombudsman should be able to investigate.
The fact that Sajjan won’t allow the Ombudsman to do so speaks volumes about what is already known in the halls of 101 Colonel By Drive.
There’s the ongoing saga of Gordon Stuckless from Maple Leaf Gardens in the ’80s who to this day is still facing more charges as more adults keep coming forward.
There’s also the curious case of Kenneth Estabrooks from St. John, New Brunswick. Mr. Estabrooks died in the early 2000’s. After his death, numerous people came forward with complaints that Mr. Estabrooks had abused them while they were in his custody in the juvenile detention system.
The City of St. John hired a private investigator to look into these complaints. The investigator came to the conclusion that Estabrooks had in fact sexually abused well over 260 children that had been placed into his care.
Even though Estabrooks is long since dead, the city is facing numerous lawsuits and in fact is facing a class action lawsuit.
So, why would the CFNIS make such a big deal about the fact that the abuses I reported occured from 1978 to 1980.
It’s obvious that smaller civilian police departments without the budgets or the manpower of the Canadian Armed Forces have absolutely no problem bringing charges.
If I had to guess, I would assume that the risk or potential for civil actions arising out of the actions of former employees of the Department of National Defence plays a major role in determining whether or not charges will be laid.
Again, the investigators with the CFNIS are still subject to the Chain of Command. There is no language in the National Defence Act which exempts investigators with the CFNIS from section 83 of the National Defence Act.
Yes, the CFNIS and the CFNIS investigators are supposed to be independent of the Chain of Command. But, there is no language in the National Defence Act that exempts the Provost Marshal, the Military Police Group, or the CFNIS from the Chain of Command.
A simplified outline of the Chain of Command in the CFNIS hierarchy is :
Minister of National Defence -> Chief of Defence Staff -> Vice Chief of Defence Staff -> Provost Marshal -> Commanding Officer CFNIS -> Regional Commanding Officer CFNIS -> CFNIS investigator.
In March of 2001, when my former babysitter, Mr. P.S. sued Angus Alexander McRae, P.S. was obligated to sue the Minister of Defence as at the time McRae abused P.S., McRae was a member of the regular force.
The Canadian Forces did accept legal liability for the abuse that P.S. had endured at the hands of Captain McRae on Canadian Forces Base Namao.
At the time of my Federal Court appeal in October of 2013, I didn’t have access to the Department of Justice paperwork from when the Department of Justice defended the Canadian Forces in P.S.’s civil action.
However, now that I have that paperwork, I know that a settlement was reached.
If the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had brought charges against P.S. for the abuse he committed against myself, my brother, P.G., M.O., and the other 25 children that McRae and P.S. were known to have abused on CFB Namao from 1978 to 1980, this would have opened up a civil action Pandora’s box.
So, how will my matter with the “man in the sauna” conclude?
Well, first off the only witness to the abuse in the sauna was P.S..
Depending on how the CFNIS approach P.S., he may or may not be willing to talk.
Under the current Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, I can’t see the CFNIS being permitted to approach P.S. as a witness.
In 2011, when the CFNIS became aware of the direct connection between P.S., Captain McRae, and 5 distinct visits that P.S. had taken me on over to the chapel, the CFNIS outright refused to change the scope of the investigation from investigating P.S. as the main suspect to investigating P.S. as another victim of Captain McRae who had used P.S. to bring young children over to the chapel for McRae to abuse.
In the current investigation of the man in the sauna, it is apparent that whoever this man was used P.S.. Therefore P.S. is not a suspect in this investigation, nor should he be considered a suspect.
However, I have no doubt in my mind that the CFNIS will not be permitted to approach P.S. as a witness.
The CFNIS will approach P.S. in a manner guaranteed to make sure that he is as uncooperative as possible.
This way, when this investigation concluded, the CFNIS can shrug their shoulders and say “We tried, but 40 years is a long time, there’s nothing we could do” thereby ensuring that no civil actions can be brought against the Canadian Forces.
On Thursday July 30th, 2020 I was interviewed again by the CFNIS Western Region.
This interview was for the “man in the sauna”
We’ll see how this plays out.
I have an idea of who the man in the sauna was.
A name was mentioned in Canadian Forces Special Investigation Unit investigation DS 120-10-80. This name has had previous charges related to sexual acts with underage children.
This man was sent from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa specifically to help Captain McRae deal with his affairs during the CFSIU investigation DS-120-10-80.
But sadly, there seemed to be quite a few perverts on Canadian Forces Base Namao / Canadian Forces Base Griesbach back in the ’70s and ’80s.
In addition to Corporal Larry King who had been tried in civilian court in 1980 for raping a 16 year old girl on CFB Griesbach, and in addition to P.S. who had molested numerous children in 1979 and 1980 as well as a 9 year old boy in 1985 on CFB Namao, there was a man at the rec centre who had exposed himself to some young girls at the base rec centre. And then there was another man from CFB Griesbach who had exposed himself to a young girl over at one of the malls just on the other side of 97th Street.
With the exception of P.S., was the man in the sauna one of these men?
How many other pedophiles were on CFB Namao / CFB Edmonton in the ’70s and ’80s?
Sadly, the only witness to this whole event is none other than P.S.
Will P.S. talk?
I don’t see why he would. He was allowed to play the role of the “innocent angle” all those years ago. And from the looks of it, the Canadian Forces are more than willing to allow P.S. to continue on in this role.
OPP Det Sgt. Jim Smythe was able to get Canadian Armed Forces officer Colonel Russell Williams to confess to the murders and rapes that Williams had committed.
At the time, the OPP had very little to go on other than some matching tire treads and some boot prints. Those on their own weren’t enough to indicate that Williams had done sweet bugger all.
Opp Det. Sgt. Jim Smythe basically let Williams talk himself into his own arrest.
What deals did the Canadian Forces and the Department of Justice reach when they settled out of court with P.S. in November of 2008?
Again, who knows.
But remember, our government has often agreed to bad deals.
Karla Holmolka is walking the streets and Paul Bernardo is rotting away in prison.
I’m not saying that Paul, should be free.
I’m saying that Karla should have been sentenced to a very lenghty sentence as well.
She supplied the animal tranquilizers.
She administered the animal tranquilizers.
She killed the girls.
But the Clown Prosecutors and the Attorney General decided that it was better to make a deal with her (the infamous Deal With The Devil), than it would be to lose the case against Paul Bernardo.
After all, Paul had to be the worst of the two, right?
In 2011, when contacted at home by Mcpl Hancock, P.S. told Mcpl Hancock that “anything he had been involved in as a youth has already been handled by the military”.
Was this another “Deal with the Devil”?
Did the Canadian Armed Forces, the Provost Marshal, the office of the Minister of National Defence, or even the Attorney General of Canada make a deal with Mr. P.S.?
During the interview, I read a fairly long statement.
This statement was very detailed.
In 2011, my statement was very specific. It only related to the abuse that I endured at the hands of P.S. from late fall 1978 until the spring when someone discovered him buggering me in his bedroom. My statement also included all of the abuse that I saw P.S. committ against my brother as well as the abuse he committed against four other children.
My stupidity lay in the fact that I didn’t describe my home life.
Because I didn’t describe my home life right off the bat, my father was able to substitute his own fantasry for reality.
Whether my father had some help in shaping his fantasy is anyone’s guess. But my father’s version of reality simply didn’t match the social service records and other records that I came into possession later.
The sad thing about the 2011 CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754, is that once the CFNIS had what they wanted, they ran with it, even after I provided my foster care records, my Alberta Social Service records, my Children Aid Society of Toronto Records, PEI Family Court Records, the CFNIS still absolutely refused to admit that they fucked up the case pretty bad.
After all, if the Government of Canada had made a deal with P.S. related to his out of court settlement relating to the matter of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae, the government wouldn’t reneg on that deal, would they?
Sure, the MPCC gave the CFNIS a gold star in 2013.
However, during the 2012 – 2013 MPCC review, the MPCC shared absolutely none of the documents with me that the Provost Marshal had provided to the MPCC. This meant of course that I was unable to raise my concerns with any of the numerous flaws with the 2011 CFNIS investigation, such as Mcpl Cyr’s faulty transcription of what I told him on May 3rd, 2011, my father’s obviously distorted reality, or the fact that the CFNIS refused to look at the connection between P.S. and Captain McRae, or the fact that the CFNIS refused to consider what the Alberta Social Service records and the Children Aid Society of Toronto, or the IWK Children’s Hospital had to say about my father.
Yes, I did go to Federal Court. However almost all of the documents that I had submitted to the MPCC were struck from the hearing as this was considered “new evidence”. Basically, you can’t introduce “new evidence” into your hearing for judicial review if it wasn’t before the tribunal you wish to have reviewed. However, as you have no idea of what is in front of the tribunal, you have no idea of what to introduce.
It’s a vicious Catch-22 that seems to have been designed like that on purpose.
So, we’ll have to wait and see how this one plays out.
Yes, the CFNIS and the Canadian Forces allowed me to have Earl Ray Stevens. But Earl represented absolutely no risk of liability to the Canadian Forces or the Federal Government.
The same cannot be said about P.S., nor can the same be said about the “man in the sauna”
Remember, under the National Defence Act, there is absolutely no exception to section 83 of the National Defence Act for members of the CFNIS.
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.
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.
Why would the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service be instructed to conduct such a weak investigation into the criminal actions of P.S. which P.S. committed on CFB Namao between June 20th, 1979 and June of 1980?
It’s not like P.S. would see any serious form of punishment if he were to have been charged in the present day for the crimes he had committed while he was subject to the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
P.S. was born on June 20th, 1965. As of June 20th, 1979 P.S. would have been fully culpable for any Criminal Code offence that he had committed. This would have included having had any type of sexual relation with a minor under the age of 12. The fact that he was acting as the babysitter for many of these children would have compounded his problems. The law at the time would not have looked to kindly upon him for having anal and vaginal intercourse with children as young as four years of age or demanding oral sex from those same children.
The Juvenile Delinquents Act was in force from 1908 until April 2nd, 1984. Prior to the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908, children of any age were treated similar to adults. In Ontario in 1850 a nine year old boy was sentenced to hang for the murder of a four year old girl. Children were often sent to prison for petty crimes. And while awaiting trial, children were often housed in the same cells as adults.
The goal of the Juvenile Delinquents Act was reformation instead of incarceration. It was thought that the child could become a productive member of society if they simply received the proper manner of reformation. Typically this would have been accomplished by counselling, or in the more serious cases, “reform school” otherwise known as “industrial school”.
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act children who reached the day of their 14th birthday could be found guilty of committing Criminal Code offences. Actually, children as young as seven could be found guilty so long as the police and prosecutor could convince the courts that the child ought to have known right from wrong.
The actual age limits of the Juvenile Delinquents Act are set by the Criminal Code of Canada.
The above simply means that a 14 year old hasn’t reached 14 years of age until the expiration of their birthday anniversary. A child would be 13 years old until the day of their 14th birthday has been fully completed.
The upper age limit of the Juvenile Delinquents Act was set by the Juvenile Delinquents Act itself.
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, children as young as 14 could still be executed, but to do so their case would have had to have been moved to adult court. Steven Truscott serves as an example of this. At the age of 14 Steven Truscott had been sentenced to hang for the murder of Lynne Harper. A conviction that was very dubious in nature considering the presence of Royal Canadian Air Force Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk.
However, in the case of P.S., I don’t think that he would have faced any serious sanctions under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
When I spoke with Fred Cunningham on November 27th, 2011, he stated that during the Captain McRae investigation that the “brass” prevented both the CFSIU and the base military police from calling in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with P.S. for the crimes he had committed between June 20th, 1979 and June of 1980.
Who this brass is is anyone’s guess.
According to the findings of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry, base commanders were known to have an undue amount of influence over military police and CFSIU investigations. And in the case of Captain Father Angus McRae, the base commander was Captain McRae’s commanding officer.
Who was the base commander?
According to the Department of National Defence, <retired>Colonel Dan Munro was the base commander of Canadian Forces Base Namao at the time. The Canadian Armed Forces have also confirmed that <retired>Colonel Dan Munro was Captain McRae’s immediate superior.
What information could <retired>Colonel Dan Munro shed on the events and decisions of 1980? No one knows at this point in time as Sgt Damon Tenaschuk’s legal advisor in Ottawa would not allow Munro to be investigated due to the 3-year time bar that existed prior to 1998.
It must be remembered though that base commanders have to follow the orders of their superiors.
Without speaking to anyone associated with the Canadian Forces senior leadership from back then, I don’t think we will ever know the true reasons as to why the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were never called in to deal with P.S..
I have one very damning hypothesis supported by not only the actions of the Canadian Forces moving Captain McRae’s court martial “in-camera”, but also by curious language contained within the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
A summary conviction requires far less evidence for a conviction to be secured than an indictable offence. Captain McRae was charged and convicted for committing “Acts of Homosexuality” with P.S.. As P.S. was 14 years of age as of June 20th, 1979, P.S. could have been charged and convicted for committing sexual acts against children between the ages of 4 and 12 had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been informed of his deviant behaviour. This meant that Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae would have more than likely been found guilty upon summary conviction in Juvenile Delinquents Court of having contributed to the delinquency that P.S. was exhibiting when P.S. molested the children for which he would have been convicted had someone not prevented the RCMP from being called in.
Why was this done?
Was this done to protect P.S.?
From what I’ve been told by some of the former brats that lived on the base at the time, due to the number of children that P.S. abused there were plans afoot in the Junior Ranks mess to lynch P.S..
By not handing P.S. over to the RCMP for investigation, did the Canadian Forces chain of command believe that they were diffusing a bad situation.
Or, was there something else afoot in the decision to not call in the RCMP to deal with P.S..
I think this had everything to do with legal liability.
Had P.S. been handed over to the RCMP, and had the RCMP charged P.S. for the sexual acts he had committed with children as young as four years of age, and had the Crown prosecuted P.S. and secured convictions, Captain McRae could have been summarily convicted in Juvenile Delinquents Court for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
By convicting Captain McRae of contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, being the employer of Captain McRae, could have been found liable for the actions of their employee.
In 2011, when I made my complaint to the Edmonton Police Service Angus McRae was alive and well.
The Canadian Forces knew right from the start of the connection between P.S. and Angus McRae.
The Canadian Forces knew that if the CFNIS brought charges against P.S., these charges would have to be brought under the Juvenile Delinquents Act as P.S. had committed these offences while the Juvenile Delinquents Act was in power.
This means that Angus McRae could also be charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act for contributing to the Delinquency of a minor.
The fact that Angus McRae died over three months after the start of the investigation into my complaint against P.S. is of little concern as Angus McRae plead guilty before a courts martial on July 18th, 1980 to having committed “Acts of Homosexuality” with P.S..
In November of 2008 the Canadian Forces Director of Claims and Civil Litigation accepted General Legal Liability for the personal damages P.S. suffered at the hands of Angus McRae while Angus McRae held the rank of Captain and was an employee of the Canadian Forces.
I think what the Canadian Forces have feared all along is the liability.
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the concept of an adult being responsible for the delinquency of a minor was well established.
This one fact alone poses a problem for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Even though Angus McRae had been mentally incompetent since June of 2007 and obviously couldn’t be prosecuted, DND and the CF had a problem.
McRae already plead guilty of his own free will on July 18th, 1980.
Captain McRae admitted to committing the exact same offences against P.S., that P.S. in turn committed against us much younger children. Acts such as Indecent Assault( sexual touching of the private areas), Gross Indecency(non-penetrating sexual acts between males, i.e. masturbation), and Buggery( anal intercourse).
So as long as P.S. had at least been charged, with or without a conviction, a civil action could have been commenced against the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
And considering that Canadian laws at the time provided the ability to hold an adult responsible for the delinquency of a minor, I think that the victims of P.S. and McRae would have had success in obtaining compensation in court.
For further proof of the issue of liability, look no further than the matter of Earl Ray Stevens, the commissioner from my time when I was enrolled with the Sea Cadets at the Denison Armouries in North York, Ontario.
I was first interviewed by the CFNIS on April 11th, 2017 at the Vancouver Police Department Headquarters. By June the CFNIS had handed the case over to a detective with the Toronto Police Service. Through June and July I had some telephone conversations with this detective.
On August 14th, 2017 I was informed by the Toronto Police Service that Earl Ray Stevens had been arrested and charged with 6 counts of Sexual Assault.
On August 21st and 22nd 2018 I participated in the preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing the Crown Prosecutor laid out the charges against Earl. Earl’s defence attorney was allowed to examine me and ask me questions. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing the justice overseeing the preliminary hearing ruled that there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
Unfortunately Earl died of bladder cancer before we could get to trial.
So, why did the Canadian Forces allow me to get Earl and not Peter.
Again, it’s liability.
The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence are not legally responsible for cadets, even if those cadets are participating in a cadet parade night in a building that is owned and operated by the Department of National Defence.
If you want proof of this, look no further than the cadets from CFB Valcartier in 1974.
In 1974 a group of army cadets were at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier for their summer training course. One day the cadets were in one of the barracks receiving safety training for live munitions. This was not so they could handle live munitions, but so that when they were out on the training ranges, they could recognize live munitions and safely stay away from them.
The instructor for the course, a Captain with the regular forces, brought a case of dummy grenades into the class. Amongst the dummy grenades was an actual live grenade. To this day, no one has ever established how the live grenade got into the class. According to witness testimony, one of the boys picked up the real grenade and asked the instructor if the grenade was real, the instructor assured the cadet that the grenade was not real. The cadet then pulled the pin out of the grenade and released the fuse handle while holding on to the grenade. The cadet and 5 other boys between the ages of 13 and 15 were killed immediately when the grenade exploded. 155 other cadets that were in the room suffered various physical and mental injuries.
It wasn’t until March of 2017 that the Department of National Defence agreed to compensate the families of the boys who had been killed by offering each family $100,000.00. The survivors or their families will be eligible for $42,000.00. They will also be allowed to apply for up to an additional $310,000.00 for pain and suffering.
For forty years the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces fought paying the families any manner of compensation even though the deaths and injuries were caused by a military grenade, on a military base, while a bunch of children between the ages of 13 to 18 were under the control of a member of the regular forces.
Under no circumstance would I ever be able to seek compensation from the Department of National Defence for the abuse I endured at the hands of Earl Ray Stevens.
To further insulate the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence from any type of civil action is the fact that Earl Ray Stevens was not an employee of either the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. Earl Ray Stevens worked for an outside contractor that provided security services at the Denison Armouries.
The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence could allow me to have Earl Ray Stevens as Earl Ray Stevens presented absolutely no legal risk to either the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces.
P.S. is a problem for the Canadian Armed Forces.
P.S. is a path of direct liability.
In 2008, the Department of National Defence admitted to full legal liability for the personal injuries that P.S. suffered at the hands of Captain McRae.
The Department of National Defence paid P.S. compensation.
On July 18th 1980, in Court Martial CM62, Canadian Armed Forces Officer Captain Father Angus McRae plead guilty to all of the charges that he had been charged with in relation to the crimes he had perpetrated against P.S.
The Juvenile Delinquents Act at the time said that adults could be held directly responsible for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Whether or not Angus McRae is alive or dead is a moot point.
Yes, he cannot be charged criminally.
However, Angus McRae already plead guilty.
The victims of P.S. only needed P.S. to be charged and convicted for the door of civil liability to be flung wide open.
This is something that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces were not going to allow.
If the Canadian Forces could be held liable in a civil damages trial for the matter of Captain McRae, how many other victims of sexual assault on the many different bases would also be able to sue?
P.S. isn’t some random guy that I picked out of the phone book. I suffered for over a year at his hands, as did my brother, and four other kids that I know of.
P.S. had his first criminal conviction for child molestation just four years after he had been caught buggering me in his bedroom in May of 1980. In 1984 P.S. was charged and convicted with molesting an eight-year-old boy on a Canadian Forces Base in Manitoba.
In 1985, after his family had been posted back to CFB Edmonton from CFB Petawawa, he was arrested and charged with molesting a nine-year-old boy on CFB Namao. As a result of this the Canadian Forces kicked P.S. off the base. J.S., the father of P.S. rented P.S. an apartment in the west end of Edmonton. P.S. lured a thirteen-year-old newspaper boy into his apartment and molested the boy. In August of 1985 P.S. was convicted on both counts.
According to an RCMP constable who had run a CPIC check on P.S., P.S. had many more charges between 1985 and 2000. Most charges were for sexual assaults, some charges were for assault, and a few charges were for robbery. Most charges ended up with convictions, and some charges were stayed or dismissed.
So, when Petty Officer Morris told me on November 4th, 2011 that the CFNIS just couldn’t find anything to indicate that P.S. was capable of the crimes that I had accused him of, I immediately knew there was something else at play.
That something at play was the desire to avoid liability.
No charges against P.S. = no connection to Captain McRae.
No connection to Captain McRae = No liability for the Canadian Force or DND.
And this is one of the many “conflict of interest” scenarios that should have seen the CFNIS recuse themselves from this matter. The CFNIS, as per Canadian Forces Provost Marshal policy CFMP 2120-4-0, should have offered this matter to the outside civilian authorities having jurisdiction.
P.S. was at the time of the commissions of his crimes from June 20th, 1979 onward, a civilian with absolutely no connection to the Canadian Forces.
CFPM Directive 2120-4-0 clearly stipulates that these matters are to be offered to the outside civilian agencies first.
The CFNIS didn’t do that for investigation GO 2011-5754.
The CFNIS did however follow this proceedure in the matter of Earl Stevens when they offered the case to the Toronto Police Service and the TPS accepted the case.
Liability is what it all boils down to.
It has nothing to do with protecting P.S.
P.S. would have faced almost nothing in consequences as he would have had to be dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Any loss of liberty, P.S. has already endured as a result of his convictions from 1984 onward.
The only agency with anything to lose is the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.
And it just so happens that the police agency that would have to bring charges against P.S. just also happens to be within the chain of command of the organization that would suffer civil action should charges be brought against P.S.
Not really too much independence from the Canadian Forces chain of command, is there.
The VCDS is the Vice Chief of Defence Staff.
The CFPM is the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal
The CO CFNIS is the commanding officer for the entire CFNIS division.
The CFNIS Regional Commanders are the Officers Commanding for the different divisions such as CFNIS Pacific Region, CFNIS Western Region, CFNIS Central Region, etc.
The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff reports directly to the Chief of Defence Staff.
The Chief of Defence Staff in turn reports directly to the Minister of National Defence.
In total the CFNIS investigator is 5 steps removed from the Minister of National Defence.
Section 83 of the National Defence Act states that all subordinates must obey the lawful commands of their superiors.
You can hopefully understand why I think something stinks about this whole matter.
If somebody wanted to initiate a civil action for damages they endured at the hands of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, they’d have to name the Minister of National Defence.
Here is the request for payment after the Department of National Defence agreed to accept General Legal Liability for the personal damages that P.S. endured.
Shortly after this request being issued the lawyer for P.S. filed a motion for a discontinuance.
I’m still really curious as to what is was that the military “handled” for P.S.. But in the end, I don’t believe that this was the reason the CFNIS in 2011 conducted such a laughable investigation.
I believe that the reason the CFNIS conducted such a soft investigation in 2011 was due to a chain of command desire to prevent further settlement payments to in the matter of P.S. & Captain Father Angus McRae.
I believe that the 2015 restart of the 2011 CFNIS investigation was just a worthless “Dog and Pony show” to try to put a positive spin on what had been a really bad investigation.
And I honestly believe that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence are very well aware of the problems they were having with the Catholic Clergy on the bases in Canada. Hence why in the 1980s they shut down the rectories on all the bases.
And if liability wasn’t a concern, what’s this about then?
If you think that the Canadian Forces made it harder to obtain baptismal records because they want to “respect the Federal Privacy Act and to alleviate identity fraud”, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell to you. If you can’t prove that you were baptized in the Catholic faith, then it’s even harder for you to prove that you had any legitimate reason to be at the base chapel.
As I was reading through the August 13th, 2019 newspaper story from the Ottawa Citizen detailing the investigation that lead to the prosecution of Donald Joseph Sullivan for sexually abusing numerous children in the 1970s I couldn’t help but think back to a comment that was made by Alberta Crown Prosecutor Jon Werbicki when he declined to allow charges to be brought against an already multi-time convicted child molester.
The person that I made allegations against in March of 2011 wasn’t someone without any form of criminal record. P.S. had been arrested, prosecuted and convicted in Manitoba in 1984 for molesting an 8 year old boy. P.S. was then arrested and charged in the spring of 1985 for molesting a 9 year old boy on Canadian Forces Base Namao. P.S. was arrested and charged a short while later for molesting a 13 year old newspaper boy in Edmonton, AB. P.S. was convicted in August of 1985 for the crimes committed against both the 9 year old and the 13 year old.
P.S. had numerous convictions from 1985 until 2000 for various crimes including sexual assaults. His records are easily available though CPIC
As I said, it wasn’t like I made allegations against some random rube off the street.
Alberta Crown Prosecutor Jon Werbicki actually said in his Crown Legal Review that he had submitted back to Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock on Tuesday November 1st @ 13:43 “The fact that no complaint was made to any party or a person in authority after <P.S.> moved away is very significant”.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, my father at the time practically lived in a bottle of rum. A psychologist hired by Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Terry Totzke in October of 1980 to evaluate my family found that I was terrified of my father. This same psychologist also found that my father accepted no responsibility for his family; blamed others, including his own mother, for problems with the family; expected others to solve his problems for him. My grandmother, who lived with us until the summer of 1981, wasn’t much better. She drank. A lot. She also had a temper that rivaled my father’s. My stepmother blamed my grandmother’s drinking for enabling my father’s drinking. This may be true to a point as my father started to dry out after his mother left our house. However I don’t believe my grandmother’s drinking caused my father’s drinking. They both drank for very different reasons.
All of the issues with my family were laid out very succinctly in my foster care records which were given to the CFNIS in August of 2011, but which the CFNIS declined to include in their investigation. My foster care records did not offer any support to the narrative that the CFNIS were running with during this investigation, so they dropped it. However, the Alberta Crown was made aware of these reports, and still chose to stand by Werbicki’s determination that it was very significant that I didn’t tell anyone back then about the abuse.
When I made my complaint against Earl Ray Stevens, not once did the Ontario Crown chastize me for not having told anyone back when the assaults were happening. The Ontario Crown seems to realize that sexually abused children often keep their mouths shut.
The one thing the Ontario crown was concerned about was the possibility of Earl Ray Steven’s defence raising the issue of consent. When I was being abused by Earl, I was over the age of consent.
Donald Joseph Sullivan, in his position as a Scout Leader, abused numerous children during the 1970s. According to the Ottawa Citizen, he somehow escaped prosecution as an adult during the 1970s for the crimes he committed as a Scout Leader.
According to the Ottawa Citizen, in June of 2018 the Ottawa Police launched an investigation into Donald Joseph Sullivan for crimes that he had committed during the 1970s.
At no time did the Ontario Crown chastise the victims for not telling a “party or a person” of the abuse after Sullivan left Ontario and joined the Canadian Armed Forces where he’d end up molesting more children.
And one other interesting thing. The Ottawa Police went looking for more victims.
During my March 31st 2011 interview with CFNIS investigator Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock, I told Mr. Hancock that in addition to my brother and I, that I was aware of 4 other children that P.S. had molested. The CFNIS in 2011 deemed that it wasn’t relevant to look for more victims. I would learn in 2018 that even though other victims had come forward, such as P.G., the CFNIS brass decided that the existence of other victims would not be disclosed to the Crown as these other victims didn’t directly witness my abuse.
It’s almost as if the CFNIS are doing everything in their power to control the decision of the Crown.
Now, it must be pointed out that my father did in fact know about P.S.. Anytime anything went wrong in our house, I was blamed by my father for what I had allowed the babysitter to do. Captain Terry Totzke, the Canadian Forces military social worker that I was placed in the care of as a result of the “homosexual tendencies” I exhibited by having sexual relations with P.S. on CFB Namao obviously knew about the abuse.
Should I cut Jon Werbicki some slack?
The simple answer is no, and I don’t really care how upset his boss Orest Yereniuk becomes.
It’s common knowledge that the Canadian Forces Military Police and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service have a less than stellar record when it comes to serious criminal investigations. The Fynes Public Interest Hearing and the Final Report of the External Review Authority speak to this. For the Alberta Crown to feign ignorance about the incompetence of the CFNIS beggars belief.
Even former Minister of National Defence and current Alberta premier decried the “incompetence” of the military police. And this was for an CFNIS investigation which shared numerous investigators and senior officers with the investigation into my complaints against P.S..
The incompetence of the Canadian Forces Military Police was well documented during the Somalia Inquiry.
Basically, the CFNIS would have trouble investigating their way out of a wide open field.
If I was a provincial Crown Prosecutor, I’d want anything brought to me by the CFMPG, the CFMP, or the CFNIS to be vetted and double checked by an outside civilian police agency.
And the way I look at it, if the Crown of any province is willing to put blind faith into any police agency no matter how questionable the record of the police agency is then the Crown deserves to wear its horrific and hurtful decisions.
Is there anything else that would cause the Alberta Crown to decline to press charges?
Mr. P.S. lives in Fort Erie, Ontario. I live in the lower mainland of British Columbia, the crimes occurred on a military base in Alberta. Guess who’s picking up the costs for this?
On top of this, P.S. would have to be prosecuted under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Which means that he’d get bugger all for a sentence, but at least all of the victims of P.S. would be eligible to claim for damages.
And also, there’s the fact Alberta’s legendary tightness of the purse-strings created a court system that was so under funded for so long that a case like mine would have lingered at the bottom of the priority list.
And then of course, the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling that says that a trial must occur within 18 months for a provincial court trial and 30 months for a more serious case heard in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench means that the Alberta Crown would be even less inclined to prosecute an older case like mine, often citing irrelevant b.s. as an excuse as opposed to just coming right out and saying that the cost isn’t worth it.
And what this creates is a warped justice system where people who were sexually abused as children in Ontario can receive justice, and people who were sexually abused as children in Alberta get told to not worry their pretty little heads.
Both Captain Father Angus McRae and Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan were involved with the Catholic church. And both were molesting children. And both had their matters dealt with by military courts martial, and both were sentenced by their respective courts martial panels, and both had their sentences drastically cut by the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.
And then of course there’s the curious matter of retired Canadian Armed Forces officer Brigadier General Roger Bazin. Bazin was involved with a cash pay off to a teen that he had inappropriate sexual relations with after Bazin had retired from the Canadian Forces. Then in 2010, Bazin is arrested and charged with committing sexual acts involving a child from Canadian Forces base Borden when Bazin was a chaplain on the base with the rank of Captain.
I came to know about the Sullivan matter back in July of 2012 when I had some communications with a person familiar with the military justice system.
As I said previously, I had Googled Sullivan’s name back in 2012, and I came up with no hits.
I recently was looking over the Sullivan files again as I have another reporter interested in the story of how DND and the CF used their flawed and separate justice system to hide child sexual abuse on the bases in Canada.
When I re-read this file I decided to Google Donald’s name again. This is how I learnt about Donald’s conviction and sentencing in August and September of 2019.
And yes, it has since been confirmed that Scout Leader Sullivan and Canadian Forces Corporal Sullivan are the same person.
From my collection of CMAC files, I know that Private Brian Thomas Clabby committed four counts of Gross Indecency and abduction while he was stationed at CFB Lahr in Germany.
Corporal Joseph David Thomas committed two acts of gross indecency on October 4th and 5th of 1985 in Germany and one indecent act between the months of October 1983 and June 1984 when he had sexual relations with a female under the age of 14 in Nanaimo, BC . Note that he wasn’t charged with “rape” for having sex with a female. He was charged with an “indecent” act. This allowed the Canadian Forces to keep this matter out of the civilian courts.
How many other cases similar to these are there?
If I were to postulate, I’d say hundreds, if not thousands.
One of the problems with the Canadian Forces which was mentioned both in a report that looked at spousal abuse within the military community and a Macleans magazine article entitled “CFB Gagetown Rape Controversy”, is that the military had a penchant for moving the trouble makers around from one base to another in the hopes that the problem would go away with a change in the scenery.
Another problem that the Canadian Forces had back in my day is that charges could be plead into other charges, and as Madame Marie Deschamps stated in her final report, only upon careful review of the charge sheet would one be able to determine that the original charges were related to sexual assaults.
In all of the bases that McRae was posted to, how many kids did he diddle there?
How many kids did Sullivan really molest?
How many kids did Sullivan, McRae, and even Bazin molest that never reported their abuse because the children were posted off to another base when their serving parent was reassigned?
How many children of junior rank members were molested by officers and in turn kept their mouths shut because they knew that a Captain or a Colonel far outranked a Corporal?
If you were a kid just arriving at a new base, and you wanted to fit in, you sure as hell weren’t going to tell anyone what the creepy perv at the previous base had done to you. And then after awhile, you don’t say anything out of fear of being blamed for the perv molesting other kids because you didn’t say anything.
In 1973, Captain Angus McRae was investigated for committing “acts of homosexuality” at CFB Kingston.
In 1980 Captain Angus McRae was investigated again for committing “acts of homosexuality”, but this time he was convicted. Much like in the Sullivan matter though, McRae appealed his sentence to the CMAC and had his sentence grossly reduced.
So, it’s clearly obvious that the Canadian Armed Forces considered male on male child sexual abuse to be “acts of homosexuality”.
There were other sketchy service members in the past.
Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk comes to mind. Three weeks before Lynne Harper was murdered in 1959, Sgt. Alexander E. Kalichuk was arrested and charged by the Ontario Provincial Police for trying to lure three young girls into his car. The charges were dismissed, but the judge gave Kalichuk a warning regarding his behaviour.
Around the date of Lynne Harper’s disappearance, Kalichuk’s probation officer advised RCAF officials that Kalichuk was involved in another incident of indecent exposure.
And as it turns out, Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk was also a suspect in the disappearance and death of 5-year-old Susan Cadieux from London, Ontario.
Former Canadian Armed Forces officer and base commander, Colonel Russell Williams liked them on the young side. What wasn’t made too well known during his trial is that most of the underwear that he stole belonged to adolescent girls. And as if that wasn’t enough, he also had a sizable kiddie porn collection on his computer.
And don’t forget, but there’s the report from former Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, Colonel Tim Grubb, that indicated that the Canadian Forces has a noticeably higher incidence of child sexual crimes than the civilian world. The Canadian Forces tried to downplay this by claiming that the higher incidence rate is due to a higher rate of reporting.
Here’s the interesting story of Sergeant David Rodwell who was chatting in an internet forum geared towards persons interested incest with someone he believed was a mother with a 3 year-old daughter. Problem was the person Mr. Rodwell was chatting with was a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Rodwell made arrangements to go to the states to have sex with this 3-year-old.
But yes, please tell me how children were safe and secure on the bases.
And, as it turns out, the Canadian Forces can’t properly track sexual assaults.
And it shouldn’t go without mention, but the Canadian Forces do seem to have is a much higher “unfounded” rate when it comes to sexual assault investigations.
For the Canadian Forces, time is its best friend.
All DND and the CF have to do is to wait out for another 20 or 30 years for all of us who grew up on the bases during the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s’, and ’80s to die off.
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”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Trying to define the jurisdiction of the CFNIS and the military police is about as easy as trying to nail jello to the wall. Sadly, this is more to do with the failure of Parliament to close the holes in the National Defence Act than anything else.
In 1987, the Crown of Canada took a man by the name of John Patrick Nolan to the Supreme Court to try to have his lower court appeal overturned.
The Crown argued that military police are “Peace Officers” and therefore can arrest anyone at anytime. The Supreme Court squashed that.
In the Supreme Court of Canada case Regina v. Nolan, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that the Canadian Forces military police are not a secondary civilian police force and have no jurisdiction over civilians except for when enforcing regulations that specifically apply to civilians located on Defence Establishments. I have attached a copy of Regina v. Nolan below.
Some key points of Regina v. Nolan are this. ” The military policeman had no authority under s. 2(f)(i) of the Code to demand that the accused provide a breathalyzer sample. That section, which prescribes that “peace officer” includes “officers and men of the Canadian Forces who are appointed for the purposes of section 134 of the National Defence Act “, does not extend the authority of military police to act as “peace officers” throughout a province and in relation to all residents of a province, duplicating the role and function of the civil police. Section 2 of the Code serves only to grant additional powers to enforce the criminal law to persons who must otherwise operate within the limits of their statutory or common law sources of authority. In the case of military policemen, the purposes of s. 134 are clear: the section provides that they may exercise authority over persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline. That is the full extent of the grant of power. Section 2 (f)(i) must be construed, therefore, as extending to persons appointed for the purposes of s. 134 of the National Defence Act the additional authority to enforce the Criminal Code , but only in relation to persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline. “ -and- ” The authority to demand that the accused provide a breathalyzer sample can be derived in this case, however, from the definition of “peace officer” in s. 2(f)(ii) of the Code. Section 2 (f)(ii) establishes that “officers and men” of the Canadian Forces are peace officers when “employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and men performing them have the powers of peace officers”. Under s. 22.01(2) of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of s. 2(f)(ii) of the Code, military policemen have the powers of peace officers when they perform any lawful duties “as a result of a specific order or established military custom or practice” when those duties are related to certain matters including the maintenance and protection of law and order and the protection of property or persons. Here, the officer had authority under the Government Property Traffic Regulations to enforce the applicable speed limits against a civilian driving on the base and, having stopped him for the purposes of enforcing the speed limit, the officer derived further authority from s. 28(1) of the Defence Establishment Trespass Regulations. This section, which applies to persons not subject to the Code of Service Discipline, prescribes that a military policeman is “authorized to arrest without warrant any person found committing any criminal offence … on or with respect to any defence establishment or whom on reasonable and probable ground he believes to have committed such offence . . . .” A military police officer who has clear statutory authority to enforce the law and who is sent out on a patrol on a base is abiding by “established military practice” in fulfilling his role by attempting to enforce the law and he meets the conditions imposed by s. 22.01(2). Therefore, when s. 22.01(2) of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces is read with s. 28(1) of the Defence Establishment Trespass Regulations, the arresting officer was a peace officer within the meaning of s. 2(f)(ii) of the Code and he was entitled to invoke the statutory authorization of s. 235(1) of the Code. The fact that the accused was arrested outside the military base did not deprive the military policeman of his authority. Given the instantaneous police warning to the accused to stop his vehicle and the detention immediately outside the gates of the base, there was such a clear nexus between the offence committed on the base and the detention off the base that the military police retained their status and authority as peace officers. “
Long story short, the military police only have jurisdiction over civilians when they are enforcing very specific regulations. Those two regulations are the Defence Establishment Trespass Regulation and the Government Property Traffic Regulation.
The following document is one of many that would seem to throw a monkey wrench into the workings of the military justice system so far as it having jurisdiction over civilians.
Here, the Canadian Forces are admitting that they don’t have jurisdiction over all civilian offences committed by civilians on Defence Establishments. For the CFNIS to claim jurisdiction over a civilian for having committed a criminal code offence on a Defence Establishment, the CFNIS would have to have arrested the civilian within a certain period of time after the offence occured, and within a certain distance from the base. Mr. P.S. molested me from 1978 until 1980 on CFB Namao which is just north of Edmonton. Mr. P.S. currently resides in Fort Erie, Ontario. The distance between Edmonton Garrison, AB and Fort Erie, ON is 2786 km. I think that 30 years and 3k km is stretching CFNIS jursidiction to the extreme.
Another interesting document that casts doubts on the arrest jurisdiction of the CFNIS is the following from CFPM 2120-4-0. This document originated in 1998, just after the creation of the CFNIS. This document was re-issued to all bases and units in 2006.
Pretty Straightforward, right? Wrong. In December of 2015, when I realized that RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban was not going to be involved in the second phase of the investigation into my complaint against Mr. P.S., and that he was stepping aside to let the CFNIS run their show, I filed a complaint with the “Civilian And Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”. The CCC-RCMP found in favour of the RCMP. But for a rather interesting reason.
Basically, unless the CFNIS offer an investigation to the outside civilian authorities having jurisdiction, the RCMP cannot insist that the CFNIS hand over the investigation.
On February 9th, 2015, I had a telephone conversation with Lt. Col. David Antonyshyn of the Office of the Judge Advocate General. In this conversation Mr. Antonyshyn stated that “domestic matters that occur within the PMQs” are always pushed to the outside civilian authorities. Mr. Antonyshyn also stated that the CFNIS do not have sole jurisdiction on the bases for Criminal Code matters, they have at most concurrent jurisdiction.
In 2014, Madame Marie Deschamps was tasked with reviewing the military police, including the CFNIS, to see how they were dealing with sexual assaults amongst service members. Her report was very damning of the defective military justice system. More importantly, her report was accepted by the Chief of Defence staff as being valid and true.
The full report of the External Review Authority is available here:
Even though Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross insists that matters involving children and cadets (12 to 18 year olds) are handed off to the outside civilian authorities, and even though CFAO 2120-4-0 says that offences in which the offender is a civilian will be “offered” to the outside civilian authorities, and even though Madame Marie Deschamps stated in her review that offences involving civilians are referred to the outside civilian justice system, and even though Lt. Col. David Antonyshyn states that domestic matters are always handed off to the outside civilian authorities, the CFNIS in my case held on to jurisdiction in a matter of a civilian teenager sexually abusing a civilian child.
This problem arises due to the loosey-goosey language in the National Defence Act. The National Defence Act says who the military police have jurisdiction over. However, the National Defence Act does not state who the military police do not have jurisdiction over.
And that’s a very dangerous precedent.
Basically, the CFNIS chain of command can choose on a case by case basis who they have jurisdiction over and who they don’t have jurisdiction over.
And that leads to the possibility of all sorts of political interference.
I’ll be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that had Mr. P.S. not been anointed the sole victim of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae in July of 1980, and had Mr. P.S. not gone on to sue the Office of the Minister of National Defence in March of 2001, and had the Office of the Minister of National Defence in November of 2008 not accepted General Legal Liability for the personal injuries that Mr. P.S. suffered at the hands of a Canadian Forces officer, I firmly believe that the CFNIS would have handed my matter off to the RCMP in Morinville.
However, as the Office of the Minister of National Defence accepted General Legal Liability and admitted that the sexual abuse that Mr. P.S. endured caused him personal injuries, it could be argued that those personal injuries suffered by Mr. P.S. caused Mr. P.S. to act out his abuse on younger children living on Canadian Forces Base Namao. Therefore, a matter like this would have possibly exposed the Office of the Minister of National Defence to further civil legal action brought forth by the numerous other victims of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae.
So, it should be of no surprise to anyone, that the CFNIS would have kept this investigation away from the civilian authorities. After all, the civilian authorities have no fealty to the Office of the Minister of National Defence.
Remember, there has to be a reason why the CFNIS edited a statement that was given to them by Mr. P.S. in 2011.
Now, compare what Mr. P.S. stated to Sgt. Hancock with what Sgt. Hancock in turn submitted to the Alberta Crown.
I wonder why CFNIS investigator Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock felt the need for the Alberta Crown to not know that Mr. P.S. considers that the military has handled things for him.
And I don’t know about you, but I’m really curious to know just what exactly the military handled for Mr. P.S., who is a multi-time convicted child molester. And more importantly, why is the military handling things for child molesters?
One of the most signifcant examples of “Conflict of Interest” that I have ever seen is having the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigating crimes that could cause the Office of the Minister of National Defence to suffer civil actions.
Much as when Mr. P.S. sued Angus McRae in March of 2001, anyone who wants to initiate a civil action against a person who had sexually abused them while the abuser was subject to the Code of Service Discipline would also be required to sue the Office of the Minister of National Defence.
Granted, I can’t recall any sexual abuse at the hands of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae. However, that’s more a function of the alcohol that Captain McRae had his altar boy, Mr. P.S. give to me on the five distinct visits to McRae’s living quarters at the base chapel.
We know from the findings of the Fynes Public Interest Hearings that the investigators with the CFNIS do not run their own investigations. The chain of command within the CFNIS determine the scope and breadth of any particular CFNIS investigation.
This is one of the reason why you never hear of investigators within the CFNIS making “interference” complaints to the Military Police Complaints Commission. There can be no interference with a CFNIS investigation. CFNIS investigation do not belong to the investigator. Investigations that fall within the CFNIS mandate are always designed by the chain of command within the CFNIS.
Around 2016, Sgt Damon Tenaschuk told me he was about to submit a brief to the Alberta Crown. Sgt. Tenaschuk asked me if I thought he had done enough. I asked him if he had found other victims or witnesses. He said that he had not. So I asked him about running a Crime Stoppers appeal. He said to me that he would have to speak with his commanding officer to see if his C/O thought that this would be okay to do.
When Mr. P.G. made himself known to me as another victim of Mr. P.S., I passed his name on to Sgt, Damon Tenaschuk. Sgt. Tenaschuk informed me that CFNIS chain of command had decided that Mr. P.G.’s statement would be a separate complaint from mine and that my investigation would not contain any statement from Mr. P.G..
So, as you can see, it is the chain of command that runs the CFNIS investigations and not the CFNIS investigators. The CFNIS investigators are nothing more than “meat puppets” that dance as per their master’s wishes.
Much is made about the apparent “independence” of the CFNIS from local chain of command interference. However, the investigators within the CFNIS as well as the officers within the CFNIS hierarchy are all still subject to section 83 of the National Defence Act.
Section 83 of the National Defence Act sounds like a perfect reason as to why someone should just go along with the game plan and not make waves. And no, there are no exemptions from section 83. Section 83 applies to every person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline all the way from the Chief of Defence Staff all the way down to a fresh new baby faced recruit.
One thing that I am almost certain of now, is that due to the sheer number of children that Captain Father Angus McRae and his altar boy Mr. P.S.. molested on Canadian Forces Base Namao, I don’t think I’m anywhere near the first person to have ever brought a complaint against Mr. P.S..
Mr. P.S. had criminal convictions going back to 1985.
In the summer of 2012, I had made acquaintances with an RCMP constable from the Morinville Detachment in Edmonton. This Constable was the one who told me Mr. P.S.’s date of birth was June 20th, 1965. This was the first hint I had that the CFNIS were being far less than truthful with me when Sgt. Cyr tried to tell me that Mr. P.S. was only 13 years old in 1980. Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, a person under the age of 14 could not be tried for Criminal Code offences.
The RCMP constable that I had dealt with also ran a CPIC check on Mr. P.S.. The constable wouldn’t tell me any exact details from the CPIC check other than that in addition to the charges and convictions mentioned in the newspaper article, that Mr P.S. had numerous more convictions between 1985 and 2000. Some but not all the convictions were for child sexual assault. Now, what if these charges and convictions in the ’90s weren’t for “current” sexual assaults? What if this was other kids from CFB Namao coming forward with complaints against Mr. P.S. for what he had done on CFB Namao.
On January 14, 2000, Mr. P.S. tried to commit suicide. What if Mr. P.S.’s suicide attempt was due to the fact that he knew he was never going to be able to escape what he had done on CFB Namao? Both the 3-year time bar flaw and the summary investigation flaw meant that Captain Father Angus McRae could never be held responsible for what had occurred on CFB Namao from 1978 until 1980. However, as Mr. P.S. was not subject to the Code of Service Discipline, he could be held responsible for what had happened on CFB Namao, regardless of the fact that Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae may have forced or induced Mr. P.S. to act the way he did on CFB Namao from 1978 until 1980.
That I think would drive anyone to the point of suicide.
It is apparent now that the CFNIS knew right from the word go of the connection between Mr. P.S. and Captain Father Angus McRae.
When I was interviewed by Sgt. Robert Jon Hancock in March of 2011, he asked me some peculiar questions during the video interview that didn’t make sense at the time. When Sgt. Christian Cyr contacted me on May 3rd, 2011 and told me that Mr. P.S. was only 13 years old in the spring of 1980 he was trying to set me up to believe that Mr. P.S. was too young at the time of the sexual offences to have charges brought against him. And if Sgt. Cyr had just shut his damn mouth at the time, I might have believed him. But Sgt. Cyr had to be a dumbass and he had to mention Captain Father Angus McRae being arrested for molesting children on the base. It was at that point that I knew something was going wrong with the investigation.
Then on July 18th, 2011 during a telephone conversation between myself and Master Warrant Officer Terry Eisenmenger, MWO Eisenmenger told me that his investigators couldn’t find any evidence that Mr. P.S. had committed the crimes that I had accused him of and that this case was going no where due to a complete lack of evidence. It was interesting when I made my application for Judicial Review in 2013 and I received the certified tribunal records, I discovered that when I spoke to MWO Eisenmenger, the CFNIS hadn’t yet talked to any other victims or even tried to contact Mr. P.S. at that point in time.
All of this tells me that the CFNIS are well aware of who Mr. P.S. is. And I have no doubt in my mind that the CFNIS are well aware of the $4.3 million dollar civil action that Mr. P.S. brought against the Minister of National Defence in March of 2001.
I also have no doubt that the CFNIS are well aware that the Office of the Minister of National Defence accepted Legal Liability for the personal injuries that Mr. P.S. suffered at the hands of Captain McRae.
I have the Department of Justice paperwork from when the DOJ represented the Minister of National Defence in this matter. Most of it is blanked out. But it is safe to say that in convincing Mr. P.S. to settle out of court, the Office of the Minister of National Defence agreed to certain terms favourable to Mr. P.S.. I can only wonder if one of these terms is that the Office of the Minister of National Defence agreed to ensure that Mr. P.S. would no longer face any “harassment” related to his actions on CFB Namao in the years of 1978 until 1980. I know this sounds crazy, but there’s the conversation that Mr. P.S. had with CFNIS investigator Sgt. Damon Tenaschuk in August of 2011.
What exactly was Mr. P.S. talking about when he said that anything he had been involved in as a youth “had already been handled by the military”. Is Mr. P.S. referring to the terms of his out of court settlement with the Minister of National Defence? If the CFNIS were to have brought charges against Mr. P.S., and this broke the terms of the out of court settlement agreement, would this allow Mr. P.S. to take further action against the Minister of National Defence hence the comment “a lawyer would be handling that”?
What’s very interesting is that the CFNIS scrubbed the line “anything he had been involved in as a youth had already been handled by the military” from the Crown Brief that was submitted to the Alberta Crown both in 2011 and in 2018.
Besides that fact that Sgt. Damon Tenaschuk basically resubmitted the 2011 CFNIS investigation Crown Brief to the Alberta Crown again in 2018, it’s rather intersting that the CFNIS thought there was a need to remove the comment about the military “handling things” for Mr. P.S.
The sad thing is, it looks as if the Alberta Crown doesn’t know, or doesn’t care that it was fed a load of B.S.
And this brings me right back around to the issue of Conflict of Interest.
The CFNIS were well aware of the history of Mr. P.S., and in doing a CPIC check on Mr. P.S., they would have discovered that they were dealing with a sexual predator that had a thing for young children.
Yes, these past convictions from 1984 onward don’t necessarily prove that Mr. P.S. sexually abused me, my brother, and 4 other children that I knew he abused on a regular basis. However, these past convictions do prove that Mr. P.S. is deserving of a thorough investigation. An investigation that would be more deeper and detailed than someone who had a CPIC record check that came back negative for any criminal interactions.
What this does tell me though is that the CFNIS investigation was influenced by chain of command authority in such a manner as to ensure that Mr. P.S. was never again charged for any crime that he committed on Canadian Forces Base Namao after the date of his 14th birthday on June 2oth, 1979.
The only question is this.
Was this decision made so as not to break any covenant agreed to in the out of court settlement between Mr. P.S. and the Office of the Minister of National Defence, or was this decision not to charge Mr. P.S. made solely to ensure that the chain of liability between the Office of the Minister of National Defence and the victims of both Mr. P.S. and Captain McRae remains severed?
Remember, the Office of the Minister of National Defence did accept General Legal Liability for the personal injuries that Mr. P.S. suffered at the hands of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae. Now that the Office of the Minister of National Defence has accepted liability for the abuse Mr. P.S. suffered, how hard would it be for the victims of Mr. P.S. to also make claims of liability against the Office of the Minister of National Defence? If there had been criminal convictions brought against Mr. P.S., claims of civil liability would be rather elementary to establish in court. Without criminal convictions brought against Mr. P.S., suing the Office of the Minister of National Defence would be a fruitless endeavour as the Office of the Minister could argue that no crime occurred.
And the Minister just happens to be ultimately in charge of the police force that would possibly subject his own office to civil liability.
And this is why I believe that this whole investigation from the word “Go” has been a classic textbook example of what a conflict of interest looks like.
One of two horrific flaws in the pre-1998 National Defence Act.
Before I go too far into the details of what happened on Canadian Forces Base Namao in the years of 1978 until 1980, I’m going to first examine two historical flaws in the National Defence Act that greatly impact the ability of the Canadian Forces to investigate historical child sexual abuse that occurred on the military bases in Canada prior to 1998. These flaws may actually interfere with modern day CFNIS investigations.
1998 is an important year in that this was when Parliament passed Bill C-25 “An Act to make Amendments to the National Defence Act”. Legislative Summary LS-311E accompanied Bill C-25.
Per the Library of Parliament web page: Legislative Summaries Legislative Summaries are non-partisan, concise analyses of bills. They are prepared for government bills concerning new initiatives or changes to existing legislation and for significant private members’ bills and Senate public bills.
In layman’s terms, a Legislative Summary is a detailed overview of the contents contained within a Bill without all of the legalese that goes along with a Bill.
I became aware of LS-311E and Bill C-25 quite by accident in April of 2014. I forget exactly what I had been searching for at the Law Library at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, but I came across Legislative Summary LS-311E.
This section of LS-311E talks about removing the “3-year” time bar from the National Defence Act.
This is what the time bar actually looked like in the 1985 National Defence Act.
This is what the time bar looked like in the 1970 National Defence Act.
And this is what the time bar looked like in the 1950 National Defence Act.
Subsection 2 relates to Mutiny, Desertion, AWOL, or any service offence for which the punishment was death.
What are “Service Offences?” Service Offences include Offences Punishable by Ordinary Law, which in simple terms means criminal code offences.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, indictable offences have no statute of limitations. However, the National Defence Act, via Section 60 from 1950 until 1970, and Section 59 from 1970 until 1998, placed a three year statute of limitations on ALL Criminal Code of Canada matters that were enumerated into the National Defence Act by Section 130.
This means that offences such as Gross Indecency(157-1970), Indecent Assault(156-1970), Buggery(155-1970), Sexual Interference(151-1985), Invitation to Sexual Touching(152-1985), Sexual Exploitation(153-1985) which have no statute of limitations under the Criminal Code of Canada, do in fact have a statute of limitations under the pre-1998 National Defence Act.
From 1950 until 1985, the Canadian Forces could not hold a service tribunal for the crimes of Murder, Manslaughter, and Rape. And from 1985 until 1998, the Canadian Forces could not hold a service tribunal for the crimes of Murder, Manslaughter, and Sexual Assault.
It must be pointed out that in the pre-1985 Criminal Code of Canada, Rape was a crime that could only be committed against females. Males could never be the victim of rape under the pre-1985 Criminal Code of Canada. Even at that, Rape was rarely the preferred charge when a female child was sexually assaulted. This means that the Canadian Forces could hold service tribunals for the crimes of Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery. And this also meant that the 3-year time bar applied to these crimes.
Sexual Assault(271), Sexual Assault with a Weapon(272), and Aggravated Sexual Assault(273) in the 1985 Criminal Code of Canada are completely separate charges from Sexual Interference(151), Invitation to Sexual Touching(152), and Sexual Exploitation(153). This means that while the Canadian Forces may have been precluded from conducting a service tribunal for Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault with a Weapon, and Aggravated Sexual Assault, there was absolutely nothing preventing the Canadian Forces from holding a service tribunal for the crimes of Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, and Sexual Exploitation. The problem with this is that the three year time bar applies to all pre-1998 instances of Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, and Sexual Exploitation, which all just happen to be offences that apply only to child victims.
And I know that this 3-year time bar actually impacts the ability of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to conduct modern day investigations.
I had asked Mr. Tenaschuk about the possibility of investigating the former base commander of Canadian Forces Base Namao to see whether or not he committed the offence of “obstruction of justice” during the investigation of his immediate subordinate, Captain Father Angus McRae.
“Obstruction of Justice” is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.
The response that I received from Mr. Tenaschuk confirms that basically any criminal code offence that occurred on a base in Canada prior to 1998 cannot be investigated due to the 3-year time bar that applies to ALL service offences which occurred prior to 1998.
I recently watched a Netflix series called “Unbelievable”. This is a must watch program if you’re ever interested in just how badly the police themselves can screw up an investigation.
The story starts off in August of 2008 when an 18 year old woman named “Marie” makes a report to the Lynnwood Police Department that she had been raped. The police investigators in this matter screwed up the investigation from the start. They hounded “Marie”, they intimidated “Marie”, they made “Marie” repeat her story over and over all the while picking her story apart due to what they considered to be “inconsistencies”. The investigating officers placed special emphasis upon the statements of two of “Marie’s” former foster parents who thought that “Marie” wasn’t behaving like someone who had just been raped. In the end, “Marie” was coerced into admitting that she made the whole story up. The Lynnwood Police charged “Marie” with making a “False Report” In March of 2009 she was fined $500 by the courts and sentenced to probation, and ordered to attend counselling.
It wouldn’t be until February of 2011 that “Marie” was proved to have not lied at all. The FBI along with two Colorado police detectives from two different Colorado police departments arrested a man named Marc O’Leary. Upon searching his house for evidence, the police found a hard drive that contained pictures of “Marie” the night she had been raped and photographed by Marc O’Leary.
The two Lynnwood Police sergeants that had originally coerced “Marie” into admitting that she lied faced no repercussions. The City of Lynnwood did however refund “Marie” her $500 fine. “Marie” later settled out of court with the city for $150k.
How did this happen? I wish I knew. But, from my personal experience, this happens quite frequently. Police quite frequently start investigations with preconceived biases already floating around inside of their skulls.
In my case, I have no doubt in my mind that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service was well aware of who my abuser was, I have no doubt in my mind that the CFNIS knew about my abuser’s lengthy criminal record with numerous charges and convictions for sexual crimes involving children, I also have no doubt that the CFNIS knew of the direct connection between Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae, and my abuser, Mr. P.S.
Much like in “Marie’s” matter, my care giver at the time I was being abused gave the CFNIS in 2011 a false statement. Why’d he give the CFNIS a false statement? My Alberta Social Service paperwork from my childhood contained a report from a psychologist that had been hired by the Canadian Forces in October of 1980 to evaluate my family. This psychologist found that my father accepted no responsibility for his family, blamed others for problems with his family, expected others to solve his problems for him. My child case workers noted that my father often told conflicting stories from one session to the next, and that he often told people in positions of authority what they wanted to hear.
I honestly don’t remember much of my father from before we were posted to Canadian Forces Base Downsview in the spring of 1983. Prior to us living on CFB Downsview, my father was usually frequently away on training exercises or missions with the Canadian Forces. I know that on CFB Shearwater, he was frequently away. He was also away frequently when we lived on CFB Summerside. After my mother left in the spring of 1977, my father asked his mother to move in with us and raise my brother and I. When my grandmother moved back to Edmonton in the spring of 1978, my father received a compassionate posting to CFB Namao to be near his mother. Upon our arrival at CFB Namao, grandma and her husband moved into the house on base to again raise my brother and I. My father was infrequently home.
I think my father told the CFNIS investigators what they wanted to hear because he didn’t want to own up to the fact that it was his own alcoholic mother that he had brought into the house to raise his kids hired the babysitter that would end up molesting his sons for over a year and a half.
I also think that my father still bore some shame for the way that he would stand aside while I was psychologically traumatized in his presence by Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Terry Totzke. My father never once stood up to Captain Totzke. Sadly, my father seemed to absorb Captain Totzke’s ideas, and my father brought those ideas into our house on CFB Greisbach. I’ll talk more about Captain Totzke in a later post.
When I had my first frank talk with my father back in 2006 about Mr. P.S. and what he had done to me and my brother, my father wasn’t shocked. In fact my father had named Mr. P.S.. My father implored me to understand that he had nothing to do with the hiring of Mr. P.S. and that hiring Mr. P.S. had been my grandmother’s fault and that she was to blame.
I think my father’s statement played right into the hands of the chain of command within the CFNIS as when I spoke with Master Warrant Officer Terry Eisenmenger on July 18th, 2011, he stated that the CFNIS couldn’t find any evidence to corroborate my complaint against Mr. P.S. and that it looked as if my complaint was groundless and without merit.