A few people have recently contacted me and asked what it would take for me to ever consider not applying for Medical Assistance in Dying.
This is a very odd question.
Not because of the idea of trading apologies for giving up my desire to die.
But because of who those apologies would have to come from—and the fact that any such apologies would be absolutely meaningless.
Back in 2012, when I started looking for lawyers to help me deal with the matter that occurred on Canadian Forces Base Namao when I was a kid, one of the things I was repeatedly told was that using a lawsuit to seek an apology would be pointless. Any apology offered by anyone working for the CAF, the DND, or the federal Government of Canada would be meaningless. The government does not understand the concept of apologizing. It is a faceless, soulless organization that does not grasp the idea—or the weight—of a heartfelt apology.
A modern-day Chief of the Defence Staff could offer an apology, but it would still be meaningless. They would simply be following orders from the Minister of National Defence.
And besides, the Canadian Armed Forces have made its position very clear, it will not under any circumstance admit that things went off the rails in 1980.
Between 1978 and 1980, at least 25 children were sexually assaulted on Canadian Forces Base Namao by Captain Father Angus McRae, a member of the Regular Force. Captain McRae had already been investigated in 1974 for molesting children while posted to the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. While there may not have been children enrolled at RMC itself, the college is directly adjacent to Canadian Forces Base Kingston. McRae was also suspected of having sexual involvement with a teenage boy at Canadian Forces Station Holberg on Vancouver Island immediately prior to his posting to CFB Namao in August 1978.
McRae was almost certainly moved to CFB Namao for two reasons. First, the military prison for Western Command was located at Canadian Forces Base Griesbach, and CFB Namao and CFB Griesbach together constituted CFB Edmonton. Second—and more significantly—the military police shack at Namao was positioned such that the Catholic chapel, and especially the rectory attached to it, were directly visible from the MP detachment.
The fact that McRae was investigated in 1974 for committing what were described at the time as “acts of homosexuality” at CFB Kingston and was not removed from the military demonstrates a clear failure by his commanding officer to act appropriately.
The fact that McRae was known to have engaged with a teenage boy at CFS Holberg and was again not expelled from the military shows another failure—this time by his commanding officer at Holberg.
Then there is the fact that McRae was able to molest more than 25 children on CFB Namao while operating in direct view of the military police detachment. During his defence, counsel from the Judge Advocate General’s office attempted to portray Warrant Officer Frederick R. Cunningham as having a personal grudge against McRae—one allegedly carried over to the CFSIU when Cunningham transferred there from base military police duties. Was this grudge real or imagined? And if it was real, was it born of anger at McRae for having deceived everyone? How many military police officers from CFB Namao owe apologies to the children who were abused because they failed to pay attention to what McRae was doing?
Colonel Daniel Munro, the Base Commander of CFB Namao, not only had the authority to determine the scope and breadth of the investigation into his subordinate, Captain McRae, but also the responsibility to decide which charges would proceed to tribunal and which would be dismissed.
Then there is Captain Totzke. Yes, he was likely “just following orders” when he acted as a roadblock that prevented me from receiving psychiatric care and therapy for the mental injuries I sustained at CFB Namao as a result of the sexual abuse that occurred from the fall of 1978 through the spring of 1980. But he had choices. He could have refused those orders. He could have gone against them. He could even have left the military in protest. Instead, he chose to be a good soldier.
Then there is my father. Once he learned what had happened, he could have left the Canadian Forces and entered civilian life to protect his children from military leadership. Instead, he too chose to be a good soldier—to keep quiet, not raise a fuss, and follow orders. He is dead now. There will be no apology from him.
Then there is the CFNIS in 2011. They were in possession of the 1980 CFSIU paperwork, yet they chose not to use its contents to advance the 2011 investigation. They clearly chose their military careers—and the protection of the infallible image of the Canadian Armed Forces—over the truth. They could offer apologies, but those apologies would also be meaningless.
The Provost Marshal could offer apologies for withholding the 1980 CFSIU paperwork from the MPCC in 2012, and for controlling the material released in order to steer the outcome of the MPCC review. But can anyone seriously place faith in an apology that means nothing? If the Canadian Armed Forces had any genuine interest in truth or honesty, the Provost Marshal would have ensured that all of the 2011 CFNIS materials were provided to the MPCC—not just carefully selected snippets designed to manufacture a narrative.
In 2014, I laid out exactly what had happened in Federal Court. Counsel for the Military Police Complaints Commission was fully aware of the MPCC’s limitations and the fact that the Provost Marshal could easily dictate the outcome of an MPCC investigation by controlling what information was disclosed—secure in the knowledge that the MPCC cannot subpoena documents or administer oaths. She knew exactly what the Provost Marshal and the CFNIS had done. Yet she chose her career within the Department of Justice over actual justice, and fought my application for judicial review not on the merits of my evidence, but on the basis that I was introducing evidence the Provost Marshal had deliberately withheld from the MPCC. She could have done the right thing. Instead, she chose the easy paycheque.
There are many apologies owed.
But none of them would mean anything.
Apologies have meaning when someone is apologizing for harm done without intention or malice and the apology isn’t seen as being forced.
When decisions are made deliberately—to hide, obstruct, and take the easy way out—apologies mean absolutely nothing at all.
And besides, it would not be fair for me to accept apologies on behalf of the other 25 children who were abused by Captain McRae and by his altar boy, who later went on to have a lengthy career molesting children on other Canadian Forces bases—now would it?
Beeshive 