I recently came across an interesting item related to my father.
I have some FOIs to file, and hopefully the records do verify that this was my father and not someone else with the same name that my father went by and with an age that could easily be his.
It also occured in the same province that he lived in during the exact same time frame as the incident.
But it sure would explain a lot about my father and why he was more akin to align with the rule breakers as opposed to those too terrified to break the rules.
This decision creates several practical problems for Canada.:
Certification survives. The appeal is dismissed except for aggregate general damages, and the class action remains certified. That is the big result. The Court confirms certification of the claim as a class action.
Canada lost on the “secondary victim” framing. Canada tried to split victims into “direct victims” of McRae and people who were directly abused by P.S. rather than McRae himself. The Court rejected that framing, saying it wrongly assumes victims of P.S. could not also be victims of McRae.
The Court accepted multiple legal pathways. The Court said the pleadings can support liability for torts other than direct sexual abuse by McRae himself, including assault through threats or intimidating conduct, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and possible joint tortfeasor liability where McRae facilitated abuse by others.
The direct negligence issue is legally interesting. This is probably Canada’s best SCC angle. The Court openly notes uncertainty about whether the federal Crown can be directly liable in negligence under s. 3 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, then says it is not plain and obvious the claim cannot succeed.
Punitive damages remain alive as a common issue. That matters. The Court says punitive damages focus on the defendant’s conduct, not each individual class member’s damages, and finds “some basis in fact” for the claim that military officials had knowledge of abuse and failed to prevent it.
At the end of the day I fully expect the Crown to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This case is far too institutionally dangerous for the Government of Canada to let it move forward without fighting at every available stage.
The Crown will try to argue that they should not be held responsible due to language in the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The problem with this, though, is that the circumstances around the abuse on the base were not typical.
Captain McRae was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was recruited, vetted, hired, and trained by the Canadian Armed Forces.
Colonel Daniel Edward Munro was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was recruited, vetted, hired, and trained by the Canadian Armed Forces.
Colonel Daniel Edward Munro had full command over all members of the Canadian Armed Forces working and residing on Canadian Forces Base Edmonton. Captain Father Angus McRae was his direct subordinate.
Due to the structure of the Chain of Command pre-1998, Colonel Daniel Edward Munro had full command authority over the personnel of the base military police and the Canadian Forces Special Investigation Unit detachment at CFB Edmonton.
Due to Colonel Daniel Edward Munro’s position as Captain McRae’s commanding officer, Munro not only influenced the scope of the investigation brought against McRae, but also exercised command authority within the pre-1998 military justice structure, including authority affecting which service charges proceeded and which did not.
Captain Terry Totzke, my military social worker, was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was recruited, vetted, hired, and trained by the Canadian Armed Forces.
My father, Master Corporal Richard Wayne Gill, was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was recruited, vetted, hired, and trained by the Canadian Armed Forces.
My father, being of a junior rank, was subordinate to all of the command structure involved with the investigation of Captain McRae.
My father, again being of a junior rank, was not in a position to question Captain Terry Totzke’s treatment of me or his opinion of me.
It is unclear who decided not to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with the actions of the babysitter, but whoever made that decision would likely have been operating within the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence.
The PMQs and all parts of the base were part of a defence establishment, and the base military police and the CFSIU were responsible for security and law enforcement on the base.
Civilians living on defence establishments at the time were subject to the Defence Establishment Trespass Regulations. This would include P.S. Dependants living on a defence establishment were also subject to military-controlled authority, including arrest or removal in circumstances governed by those regulations.
Under the Defence Establishment Trespass Regulations, the Crown, the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Department of National Defence had authority to remove a civilian suspected of committing a Criminal Code offence from the defence establishment, including the PMQs.
The Canadian Armed Forces had legal authority under the National Defence Act to deal with many Criminal Code offences, with the exception of murder, manslaughter, and rape, through their own “separate but parallel” justice system. Because of that authority, the Canadian Armed Forces also had an innate responsibility to ensure that victims of criminal offences committed on defence establishments were protected, especially when those offences were committed by their own members.
The three-year-time-bar that existed prior to 1998, along with the military’s assertion of primary jurisdiction for Criminal Code offences committed on defence establishments by members subject to the Code of Service Discipline, could interfere with a former military dependant’s ability to seek justice.
The summary investigation flaw that existed prior to 1998 may make it legally impossible to bring charges against a former service member who committed sexual assaults against children if that person’s commanding officer had in fact dismissed those charges prior to 1998.
The Canadian Armed Forces had a very parochial view of male-on-male sexual abuse and treated this abuse as “acts of homosexuality.”
The legal structure was one problem. The culture sitting on top of that structure was another.
The Canadian Armed Forces had a very derogatory opinion of homosexuals and viewed homosexuality as a mental illness, even though the civilian world had already begun moving away from these small-minded and prejudicial opinions.
Because of these views, there may have been a very real drive within the Canadian Armed Forces for commanding officers to minimize instances of homosexuality on their bases, and for parents of sexually abused children to minimize or downplay instances of male-on-male sexual assault, lest other members of the Canadian Armed Forces question their parenting skills or their own sexuality.
No matter how determined the Government of Canada is to compare the sexual abuse of children on Canadian Armed Forces bases to children being sexually abused in many civilian organizations, the company town that existed within the perimeter fences offered very little in the way for children to seek justice independent of the wishes of the chain of command.
There was another layer to this that ordinary civilian institutions did not have. The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence operated inside a federal secrecy culture shaped by the former Official Secrets Act, now the Security of Information Act. Civilian organizations can hide behind bureaucracy, settlements, reputation management, and poor recordkeeping. But military institutions also had classification practices, command discipline, national-defence language, and secrecy obligations that could make historical events much harder for victims, families, journalists, and even later investigators to reconstruct.
A civilian church, school, or youth organization could try to bury a scandal. A military institution could bury a scandal inside a command structure, a security classification system, a military police file, and a culture where speaking outside the institution could be treated as disloyalty or worse.
Back in August 2011, during a telephone conversation with Master Corporal Robert Jon Hancock, P.S. stated that “anything he had been involved in as a youth had already been handled by the military.”
That statement begs an obvious question: if the military was willing to “handle things” for someone who had multiple convictions for child sexual abuse before his nineteenth birthday, why was the military not equally willing to handle things for the victims of McRae and P.S.?
Yes, I understand that P.S. was also a victim of McRae. But P.S. was not only a victim. He also inflicted sexual, mental, and physical abuse upon us. He also took us to the rectory at the chapel, where Captain Father Angus McRae was present, and where we were given wine or some other sickly-sweet drink which was no doubt to ensure that we’d never have memories of the abuse.
That is not a minor detail. If the military treated P.S.’s conduct as something that had already been “handled,” then the question becomes: handled for whom? Handled for P.S.? Handled for McRae? Handled for the chain of command? Or handled for the children who were actually harmed?
It is important to remember that this was not the RCMP, the Edmonton Police Service, or the Vancouver Police Department conducting an outside investigation into a closed military world. This was the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service — a military police organization operating inside the same institution whose historical conduct was at issue.
CFNIS investigators may perform policing functions, but they are also members of the Canadian Armed Forces. They operate within a military structure, a military culture, and a military chain of command. That matters when the investigation concerns abuse on a defence establishment, historical military police knowledge, military chaplaincy, military housing, military social work, military command decisions, and potential Crown liability.
So when P.S. stated that anything he had been involved in as a youth had already been “handled by the military,” the obvious question is not simply what he meant. The obvious question is whether CFNIS, in 2011, was truly investigating something new — or whether it was walking back into an old institutional containment system.
With Louise Arbour now appointed as Canada’s next Governor General, one of her most important recommendations on military sexual misconduct has returned to the centre of Canadian public life. Through Bill C-11, the Liberal government is moving to remove the Canadian Armed Forces’ authority to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, transferring that responsibility to the civilian justice system.
I am waiting to hear whether “Criminal Code sexual offences” will include historical child sexual offences that were never called sexual assault.
If you have followed my blog for any length of time you know the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code of Canada both contain language so vague that the snowbirds could fly wing-tip to wing-tip through the gaps.
This is not theoretical. On November 4, 2021, then-Minister of National Defence Anita Anand accepted Louise Arbour’s interim recommendation that sexual assaults and other Criminal Code offences of a sexual nature should be referred to civilian authorities. At the time, CFNIS had an active investigation into my complaint against retired Brigadier-General Roger Bazin. CFNIS refused to transfer the matter to civilian police on the basis that the possible 1980-era offences were not “sexual assault.” Their position was that sexual assault did not exist as a charge in 1980, while offences such as indecent assault and gross indecency did. Therefore, they treated the matter as outside Minister Anand’s transfer direction.
From 1950 until the 1985 Criminal Code transition, the National Defence Act excluded murder, manslaughter, and rape from trial by service tribunal when committed in Canada. And if you thought that “Rape” covered all sexual assaults against anyone, you’d be sadly mistaken.
Rape didn’t cover the following criminal code offences:
s. 146(1) Sexual Intercourse with female under 14
s. 146(2) Sexual Intercourse with female of previously chaste character age 14 to 16
s. 147 Attempted Sexual Intercourse with female under 14
s. 148 Sexual intercourse with “feeble-minded”
s. 149 Indecent Assault on female
s. 153 Sexual Intercourse with stepdaughter or female ward.
s. 155 Buggery
s. 156 Indecent Assault on male (often interpreted through a “homosexuality” lens by police, military, and social-work culture of the period)
s. 157 Gross Indecency (often interpreted through a “homosexuality” lens by police, military, and social-work culture of the period)
In the legal culture of the 1970s and early 1980s, Criminal Code ss. 155, 156, and 157 were not formally the offence of “homosexuality,” but they were commonly associated with male homosexual conduct, male sexual deviance, and “morals” policing. In institutional practice, that meant allegations involving male victims or male-male sexual conduct could be misread through a homosexuality lens rather than a child-protection or sexual-assault lens.
From 1985 until 1998, the National Defence Act excluded s. 271 sexual assault from trial by service tribunal when committed in Canada.
s. 271 Sexual Assault didn’t cover the following criminal code offences:
s. 151 Sexual interference under the age threshold
s. 152 Invitation to Sexual Touching
s. 153 Sexual Exploitation
s. 155 Incest
s. 160 Bestiality involving a child.
s. 170 Parent or Guardian procuring sexual activity
s. 171 Householder permitting prohibited sexual activity
s. 172 Corrupting children
s. 173(2) Exposure to person under age threshold
I asked ChatGPT what the key distinctions were between s. 271 and s. 151 – s. 173 were. This is what ChatGPT replied with.
The key distinction is this: sexual assault was the broad assault-based offence. Child-specific offences worked differently. Some required touching. Some required only invitation. Some targeted adults who procured, permitted, enabled, or exposed children to sexual activity. If the CAF only transfers files labelled “sexual assault,” then entire categories of child sexual offending can disappear into a jurisdictional crack.
Back on November 4th, 2021 then Minister of National Defence Anita Anand instructed all current sexual assault investigations and prosecutions to be handed over to the civilian justice system.
The CFNIS at the time had an active investigation into my complaint against retired Brigadier General Roger Bazin to ascertain if he was the man in the sauna that the babysitter took me to meet in order to pleasure the man in the sauna.
The CFNIS refused to hand this matter over to the civilian police citing that the offences that Bazin could potentially be charged with didn’t meet the definition of “Sexual Assault” as sexual assault didn’t exist in 1980, but that Indecent Assault and Gross Indecency were criminal code offences at the time of the alleged offence and therefore this matter was outside of Minister Anand’s instructions.
I asked ChatGPT the following question:
The Liberal Government of Canada just announced that they will formally remove ALL responsibility for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault from the Canadian Armed Forces and mandate that all sexual assault involving the Canadian Armed Forces be handled by civilian police.
As you know, the Canadian Armed Forces often investigated and prosecuted child sexual assault because rape typically wasn’t a crime that applied to children, nor did post 1983 sexual assault.
Do you believe that the Canadian Armed Forces will willingly hand over crimes involving children, especially pre-1998 crimes to the civilian system?
ChatGPT analyzed the question and came back with this response:
My honest read: not willingly, not cleanly, and not without pressure
Based on the current Bill C-11 material and the MPCC’s own concern about past transfer failures, I would not assume the CAF/CFNIS will naturally and generously hand over every file involving children — especially old, pre-1998 files — unless the statute, ministerial direction, civilian police demand, disclosure rules, and outside oversight make the transfer unavoidable.
That does not mean every individual investigator will act in bad faith. It means the institutional incentive structure still favours control. 🧱
What the new reform appears to do
Bill C-11 is aimed at removing CAF investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada and giving civilian authorities exclusive jurisdiction for those offences. DND’s own Bill C-11 material says this implements part of Arbour’s recommendation that Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from CAF jurisdiction and prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts, with civilian police investigating in Canada “at the earliest opportunity.”
DND’s Arbour-response report is even broader in wording. It says all sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code, including historical sexual offences, alleged to have been perpetrated by a current or former CAF member, should be referred to civilian authorities. It also says civilian authorities should exercise investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over all sexual offences by CAF members.
That wording matters because it does not just say “modern sexual assault under s. 271.” It says:
sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code, including historical sexual offences
That should include child-specific sexual offences, at least in principle.
But here’s the trap: “sexual assault” is too narrow
You are right to flag the category problem.
Historically, especially before and around the 1983 reforms, many child sexual offences were not labelled “sexual assault.” They could be framed as:
Era
Possible legal label
Pre-1983 / 1970 Code
indecent assault on female, indecent assault on male, buggery, gross indecency, sexual intercourse with female under 14, sexual intercourse with stepdaughter/ward, parent/guardian procuring defilement, householder permitting defilement
Post-1983 / 1985 Code
sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, parent/guardian procuring sexual activity, householder permitting prohibited sexual activity, corrupting children, exposure
So if the transfer rule is interpreted as only “sexual assault”, then old child sexual abuse files can fall into a crack.
But if it is interpreted as “Criminal Code sexual offences” or “criminal offences of a sexual nature”, then the net is much wider. Bill C-11/DND materials use the wider language in key places.
Why I would not trust voluntary handover
The MPCC has already identified the exact kind of institutional problem you are worried about.
In a 2023 public-interest-investigation decision, the MPCC described a complaint alleging that a ministerial direction to transfer sexual misconduct investigations from military police to civilian police was not implemented by the CFPM. The MPCC noted a disparity between Minister Anand’s 2021 direction, Minister Blair’s later statement that it was not intended that half of sexual assault files remain with military investigators, and the CFPM approach of involving victims in transfer decisions. The MPCC said this raised questions about civilian control of military policing.
That is the smoke coming out of the second-storey window.
It shows the problem is not theoretical. There has already been a fight over whether the military police actually implemented the transfer direction fully.
The especially difficult category: historic pre-1998 child cases
Pre-1998 matters are the most vulnerable to institutional slipperiness because they can be argued into several boxes:
Possible CAF/CFNIS argument
Why it matters
“This is historical and evidentiary.”
Civilian police may be reluctant unless records are complete.
“This was handled under military justice at the time.”
CAF may try to treat old records as military justice history, not fresh civilian criminal evidence.
“The suspect was subject to the Code of Service Discipline.”
They may frame it as a service-tribunal legacy issue.
“The offence label was not sexual assault.”
Child-specific or old sexual offences could be miscategorized.
CAF can keep practical control if the handoff is incomplete.
“Records are archived, classified, privileged, or subject to privacy limits.”
Disclosure becomes the bottleneck.
That last point is the big one. Jurisdiction on paper is one thing. Possession of records is another.
If CFNIS/DND still controls the old investigative files, notebooks, witness lists, Crown briefs, command correspondence, charge-screening records, and court martial material, then civilian jurisdiction can be starved at the source.
So would they hand over child files willingly?
My answer: only the files they are forced to define as transferable
I would expect easier handover where the case is:
recent,
clearly labelled sexual assault,
committed in Canada,
involving a CAF member,
already known to civilian authorities,
not embarrassing to historical command structures,
not tied to old military justice decisions.
I would expect more resistance, confusion, or narrowing where the case is:
pre-1998,
child-specific,
labelled under old offences,
tied to military dependants,
tied to PMQs/base institutions,
tied to chaplains, social workers, MPs, or command decisions,
connected to previous CFNIS/MPCC failures,
dependent on old CFSIU/CFNIS files.
That is not me being dramatic. That is how bureaucracies defend themselves: not usually by saying “no” loudly, but by defining the problem narrowly enough that the awkward parts fall outside the box.
The key phrase to watch
The reform must not be allowed to mean only:
“sexual assault.”
The phrase that matters is:
“all Criminal Code offences of a sexual nature, including historical child sexual offences, regardless of whether the historical charge label was rape, indecent assault, gross indecency, buggery, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, procuring, permitting, or another child-specific sexual offence.”
That is the language that closes the loophole.
Bottom line
Do I believe the CAF will willingly hand over historic child sexual offence files, especially pre-1998 ones?
No. Not as a matter of institutional instinct.
I believe they will hand over what the law, civilian police, courts, ministers, journalists, survivors, and oversight bodies make impossible to keep.
The reform is important. But without explicit language covering historical child sexual offences and mandatory disclosure of related military records, the CAF can still hide behind classification, offence labels, jurisdictional history, and “that was not technically sexual assault” nonsense.
That is the loophole. And that is where I would keep hammering.
Well, it looks like Roger Bazin will never have to own up to anything he may have done in the past. And sadly, that probably was not because of any great cunning or scheming on his part. Some of it likely had to do with the flaws in the pre-1998 National Defence Act. But some of it also appears to have had to do with the incompetence of the CFNIS.
Roger Bazin died on May 2nd, 2026
Roger however had some skeletons from his military days. In June of 2009 the CFNIS launched an investigation into Bazin.
And the complaint made against Bazin in June of 2009 wasn’t the only allegation that had ever been made against Bazin. In the early 2000’s a $24,000.00 payment was made to the family of a teen that had made allegations against Bazin.
Remember that all of this was before the reviews of the military justice system by Madame Marie Deschamps and Madame Louise Arbour, both of whom found the military police and the CFNIS incapable of conducting proper sexual assault investigations.
I had made my own complaint against Roger Bazin in 2020.
This had to do with Roger Bazin having been dispatched from Ottawa to assist Captain Father Angus McRae with his affairs during the investigation and subsequent courts martial.
During the same period of time that Roger Bazin was on Canadian Forces Base Namao, the babysitter intercepted me in the change room at the base swimming pool and took me into the men’s sauna. Inside the sauna was an adult man I did not know. What happened there became part of the complaint I later made to CFNIS
I then performed oral on the guy until he was just about to ejaculate.
I never saw the man after that.
The CFNIS investigator who took my statement later interviewed Bazin. According to what I was told, Bazin denied being the adult man from the sauna incident. But he also apparently told the investigator that there were other matters he had been worried about being investigated for..
And no, the CFNIS made absolutely no attempt to talk to the babysitter to see if the babysitter would identify who that man was that he provided me to in 1980.
Roger Bazin died without ever having to fully answer, in public, for the allegations that followed him out of his military career and into old age. That is not proof that every allegation against him could have resulted in a conviction. But it is proof of something much uglier: when military institutions delay, deflect, minimize, or mishandle sexual abuse complaints, time becomes the accomplice. Witnesses die. Records disappear. Jurisdiction becomes a fog machine. And by the time anyone finally admits that the system failed, the person who should have had to answer the questions is already gone. Bazin did not need to defeat the system. The system appears to have defeated accountability for him.
I can’t remember when exactly it occurred, but an Edmonton police officer came to grandma’s apartment during the summer of 1985.
The officer came into grandma’s apartment and talked to Scott and I by ourselves.
I can’t remember what exactly the officer was asking, but I do remember that he said that he had to see both my brother and I in person to make sure that we were okay.
Okay from what?
He wouldn’t say.
At the end of the summer Scott and I flew back to Toronto from Edmonton.
Richard picked us up from the airport.
He didn’t say a single thing. He just picked up our luggage and loaded it in the back of the Mustang and then we drove back to our PMQ on CFB Downsview.
As we were driving up Keele street and approaching the base Richard told Scott and I that when we got back home we’d have to wait in the dining room and wait for the military police to come talk to us.
When we got back on Stanley Green Park and into the PMQ we sat down at the dining room table.
The instant I sat down I noticed that something wasn’t right.
Sue’s dining room furniture was all wobbly.
This is furniture that you didn’t drag as you sat in it. And you sure as hell didn’t sit at this table unless you were eating.
Over half of Richard’s National Geographic magazines were missing.
The windows in the dining room were all new. The glazing putty was fresh and unpainted. I could see that there had been some large holes repaired in all of the dining room walls.
I snuck a quick peek into the living room.
All the windows had brand new glass.
Sue’s drapes were missing and replaced with the standard military issued roll shutters.
Sue’s stereo looked like it had been through hell and back.
Richard’s aircraft models were all missing.
Two military police officers arrived.
Both MPs came into the PMQ and instructed Richard and Sue to step outside while the MPs talked to my brother and I.
The military police asked Scott and I if the Edmonton Police Officer told us anything when he paid us a visit.
The MPs started receiving frantic calls from occupants of the other PMQs with reports of Richard throwing furniture through the windows and screaming and yelling.
The military police said that when they attended the PMQ neither Richard or Sue would explain where Scott and I were. The MPs said that they were concerned about the welfare of Scott and I as the neighbours had told the MPs about the way Richard treated Scott and I.
According to the MPs it took three military police officers to bring Richard under control on the evening of the dispute.
The amount of damage done to the PMQ was substantial.
The MPs asked Scott and I if we knew any reason for the dispute.
I don’t think Scott or I said anything to the MPs, but for Richard and Sue to snipe at each other or to slam doors and huff away from each other was nothing out of the ordinary.
The military police told us that if Richard ever lost his temper again that we should get out of the PMQ by any means possible. Even if we had to jump from the second story, just get out of the PMQ.
We should call the MP shack and have the MPs dispatched to the PMQ right away. But they cautioned us against from calling from inside our PMQ, that we should go to a neighbour’s PMQ and call the military police from there.
The MPs also cautioned us against calling the Toronto Police as this would waste time as the Toronto Police couldn’t just come on to the base without themselves going through the military police.
At the end of the meeting, the two MPs gave Scott and I each a pair of business cards with the number for the MP shack. They also made sure that we watched at they put a sticker on the kitchen telephone of CFB Downsview emergency contact phone numbers.
After the MPs left, Richard came in and told us to put our clothes away and to go outside and play.
Neither he nor Sue ever talked about this.
I found out much later in life that the military police never informed the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto about the domestic dispute. At the time the CAST had a file open on my family. My family had been assessed as a low risk case due to my father’s insistence that everything in the PMQ was okay.
I cannot prove motive from memory alone. But the practical effect was clear: the matter stayed inside the military policing system, while the civilian child-protection agency with an open file on my family was apparently left uninformed.
Life in the PMQ patches was a lot more rough and brisk than it was in civvy land.
What we accepted as normal inside the chain-link perimeter of the PMQs was not normal at all. The military police knew enough to warn two children how to escape their own home, but not enough — or not openly enough — to bring civilian child protection into the room.
I had been asleep for maybe an hour on the evening of August 13th, 2024 when I received a knock at the door.
Two VPD constables were here on a “Next-of-Kin” visit at the request of a constable from the Edmonton Police Service.
One constable asked me if I had any idea as to why they were here. I said that it had to be a death in my family. I said that with my father deceased since 2017, my uncle deceased since 2010, that it had to be either my mother or my brother.
The same constable asked me what my brother’s name was and what his birthdate was. So I told him. He then said that he was sorry to inform me but my brother had been found badly decomposed in his apartment.
The constables left the contact information for the police constable in Edmonton that was looking after this case. I contacted her and she gave me information on how to contact the coroner to make arrangements for Scott’s body as the EPS hadn’t been able to find anyone else.
In talking with the caretaker it turns out that Scott had been receiving Ketamine Infusion Treatments at the University of Alberta for the major depression and anxiety that he had been suffering as a result of the events of both Canadian Forces Base Namao and growing up in Richard’s dysfunctional military household. The caretaker had mentioned that Scott had moved up from the infusion treatments at the UofA, to snorting Ketamine, to injecting Ketamine.
It wasn’t until a couple of weeks later that I remembered Scott had actually mentioned these treatments to me in some text messages.
And this was literally the last communications that I ever had with Scott:
After Richard died in 2017 I think Scott had received some inheritance from Richard’s estate. I can only assume this as I was never contacted or received anything from Richard’s estate. I can’t come up with any other answer as to how he amassed enough money to buy condominium.
According to Scott, by late 2023 he had sold the condo at a loss and was instead renting the condo as an apartment from the new owners.
I had placed his sim card into my phone as the second sim so that I could receive text messages and phone calls to his number.
Nobody called on his phone line.
The only people sending him text messages were Telus, Bell Canada, CIBC, VISA, Mastercard, Walmart, his hosting services, and his domain name providers looking to have overdue debts paid off.
I made every effort to send his creditors his “Certificate of Cremation” and a letter attesting that Scott had no will, no estate, and no way to investigate if he had assets as there was no executor appointed for his estate. And I was not going to blow $10k in court fees for the pleasure of becoming his executor.
As mentioned, Scott had become addicted to ketamine.
It appears that he started off down the road of ketamine as a result of his major depression and his severe anxiety.
I don’t think Scott put any serious thought into how the evets of Canadian Forces Base Namao had harmed him until 2020 when the Deaprtment of National Defence finally released the 1980 Court Martial transcripts along with the 1980 CFSIU investigation of Captain McRae.
When this became a media story in late 2020 Scott and I still hadn’t talked since Richard stuck his hand into Scott’s brain back in 2013 the day before I went into my federal court hearing.
But seeing the newspaper stories, and seeing that the whole affair from 1978 to 1980 was so much fucking larger than me “allowing” the babysitter to molest Scott, must have rattled Scott’s cage.
Seeing the truth come out, and not having Richard alive to put his spin all over it must have really done something to him.
The coroner would only state that Scott’s death was due to a ruputred spleen.
Since about age age 10 Scott had been suffering from Grand Mal seizures.
Then there’s the fact that there was a fresh needle found on his computer desk.
It appears that he stood up from his computer desk, stood up as if to go to the washroom or maybe the kitchen, and dropped right there.
Was he too caresless with his ketamine dosage?
Did he have a final Grand Mal Seizure.
Or did he decide that what he was going through just wasn’t worth it anymore and he decided to take that one final shot?
We’ll never know.
On October 3rd, 2013 just prior to me heading into Federal Court Scott started bombarding my Facebook pages with all sorts of allegations about what I let the babysitter do to him, or how I encouraged the babysitter to do things to him, and how I could have stopped the babysitter if I wanted to.
A quick check of Scott’s Facebook page showed that Richard had paid him a visit the night before, and this was after Scott refused to talk to Richard or Sue since 2008 when he refused to attend the funeral of the son of one of Sue’s friends that Scott used to hang around with when he was younger.
November 29th, 2013 is the last time I had any communications with Scott until late 2020 when the DND finally released the court martial transcripts and the 1980 CFSIU investigation paperwork.
These are the last communications that I ever had with Scott.
June 28 2024June 28 2024July 29 2024
So yeah, to me it looks like Scott crashed into a wall.
Depression, anxiety, trauma from sexual abuse, trauma from living in a dysfunctional military family, suffering sexual abuse at the hands of members of the Canadian Armed Forces such as Captain Angus McRae and his agent, being lied to by the Canadian Armed Forces and members of the Canadian Armed Forces like our father Warrant Officer Richard Wayne Gill. Having your welbeing interferred with by other members of the Canadian Armed Forces like Captain Terry Totzke.
I was in Iceland from June 19th, 2023 until June 30th.
This was supposed to have been a bucket list thing, but unfortunately the federal government delayed Medical Assistance in Dying until March 17th, 2024.
When I landed at KEF this was the first time I had ever walked across the tarmac to catch a shuttle bus to get to the terminal. Turns out that because Reykjavik is a mid-flight stop for lots of flights going on to the UK or Europe it’s faster and easier to bring the planes close to the terminal on the apron, but not to pull up to a gate. That way once we’re on the shuttle bus and our luggage is off loaded, the plane can just power up and taxi out and take off right away.
Customs was fun going through. I don’t think the Icelandic customs agent has seen too many people with full facial tattoos.
Reykjavik is a nice walkable city.
Lots of things to just wander around aimlessly and look at.
2023 Trip to Iceland
I don’t know what the story was with this burnt out VW Van, but someone prettied it up with a flower pot of flowers.
2023 Trip to Iceland
This was as dark as it gets in Iceland around the summer solstice.
Iceland is funny in the sense that you can wake up, look out the window, see a clear sky, and five minutes later there’s a downpour, and five minutes after that it’s windy, and then it’s back to sun.
2023 Trip to Iceland
This picture was taken at about 01:00.
Taxes are high, but the streets are very clean as compared to anywhere in Canada. And they don’t have anywhere near the homeless problem that Canada has. It’s not that they don’t have unemployed or mentally ill, it’s that they take care of them. And yes, they have a drug problem like everywhere else, but their problem isn’t on public display.
When you have a healthy tax base you have healthy social programs. Low income housing is all over the place, but it’s well looked after. There are treatment facilities and housing for drug users. And for a small city like Reykjavik, they have a very decent public transit system.
Their bicycle path network and their walking paths are well done.
Expenses weren’t that horrendous. The Canadian penny is almost at par with the Icelandic Krona. That may sound odd, but 100 Krona equals 1 dollar Canadian. 1000 Krona equals 10 dollars Canadian. A large pizza listed at 1875 Krona is literally only $18.75 CDN.
Heating is interesting.
Almost every house and business in Reykjavik is heated by a closed loop water system that is heated by the heat energy provided by the close proximity to the magma under Iceland. The water isn’t heated directly by the magma. The natural hot springs are. Massive heat exchangers take energy from the hot springs and transfer it to the water in the heating water loop. This loop is circulated all of the city.
Now, the truth.
Was this some spiritual trip that awakened something inside of me?
Nope.
It was nice going to Iceland and being left alone.
La Vérité sortant du puits armée de son martinet pour châtier l’humanité(English: Truth coming from the well armed with her whip to chastise humanity) is an 1896 painting by the French artist Jean-Léon Gérôme.
The lies and misinformation surrounding Medical Assistance in Dying are quite stunning. And these lies prove one of the most significant downsides of the Internet is that lies, bullshit, and paranoia circulate much faster than the truth.
And when the truth doesn’t suit their narratives, they just scream “Do Your Research”. And when someone does their research their response is often “Sheep! Do you believe everything they tell you?!?!?”
The most recent bullshit flying around the interwebs is that M.A.i.D. is the number #1 cause of death in Canada.
Here, from Stats Canada, are the leading causes of death from 2016 until 2023.
What must be remembered is that Medical Assistance in Dying is NOT the cause of death. It’s the mechanism. The cause of death is always the underlying disease.
From 2016 to 2023 there were about 663,600 deaths due to Cancer in Canada.
~65 – 70% of M.A.i.D. procedures are cancer-related
-but-
Only ~4 – 5% percent of terminal cancer patients seek M.A.i.D.
Stage 3 or Stage 4 cancer is not something that I would wish upon my worst enemy. And it should come as no surprise that the majority of M.A.i.D. procedures currently being performed are for patients with Stage 3 or Stage 4 cancer.
Why “Do Your Research” Isn’t About Research
It’s tempting to dismiss anti-intellectual movements as simple ignorance. That’s comforting—but it’s wrong.
What we’re seeing is a convergence of forces.
For many, these beliefs are tied to identity. Changing their mind isn’t just updating a fact—it’s risking their place in a community. Facts become secondary to belonging. Certainty becomes more valuable than accuracy.
Layered on top of that is a very human need for control. The modern world is complex, uncertain, and often frightening. Conspiracy thinking offers something simple: clear answers, clear villains, and the illusion of understanding. It trades nuance for emotional stability.
There’s also a deep and, at times, justified mistrust of institutions. Governments have lied. Corporations have failed. That history becomes a lens through which everything is viewed—even when the conclusion no longer fits the evidence.
But it doesn’t stop there.
Social media amplifies the loudest, most extreme voices. Echo chambers reinforce beliefs until they feel self-evident. And within that environment, a smaller but significant group of actors—grifters, influencers, opportunists—learn that outrage is profitable. Confusion becomes currency.
Not everyone shouting “Do your research” is acting in bad faith. Most are trying to make sense of a complicated world using the wrong tools.
But some are.
And the result is what we see now: a system where noise is rewarded, doubt is weaponized, and the appearance of confidence is mistaken for truth.
The Fear of Death.
One of the most powerful drivers of opposition to M.A.i.D. is fear—specifically, the fear of death and the belief that death represents failure.
For many people, death isn’t seen as a natural conclusion to life, but as something to be resisted at all costs. That perspective is often reinforced by deeply held beliefs about what comes after death, whether that’s an afterlife, reincarnation, or some form of continued existence.
Those beliefs can provide comfort, and for many, they do. But they are still beliefs—personal frameworks used to make sense of something fundamentally unknown.
When those beliefs become the basis for decisions about how others should live—or die—the conversation shifts. It moves away from the lived reality of the person who is suffering and toward a set of assumptions that cannot be proven or shared by everyone.
What we do know is this: when the brain ceases to function, the person as we understand them—their thoughts, memories, and consciousness—is gone.
And for some, facing that reality leads not to fear, but to a desire for control over how their life ends, especially in the presence of severe and irreversible suffering.
When the Debate Isn’t Just Ours
Canada’s conversation around Medical Assistance in Dying (M.A.i.D.) is often framed as a purely domestic issue—one rooted in Canadian law, Canadian values, and Canadian lived experience.
But that framing is becoming harder to maintain.
In recent years, there has been growing concern about the role of foreign influence in shaping public policy debates, particularly where those debates intersect with deeply held moral or religious beliefs. The M.A.i.D. conversation is no exception.
South of the border, the United States has seen a resurgence of politically active evangelical movements, many of which are closely tied to broader currents of Christian nationalism. These movements are not confined by geography. They are well-funded, highly organized, and increasingly international in scope.
That matters, because advocacy does not stop at the border.
Ideas, messaging strategies, and—critically—funding can and do move across jurisdictions. Organizations that oppose assisted dying on religious or ideological grounds often operate within networks that extend beyond Canada, drawing on shared resources, coordinated campaigns, and in some cases, financial support originating outside the country.
This does not mean that all opposition to M.A.i.D. in Canada is foreign-driven. It isn’t. Many Canadians oppose M.A.i.D. for their own reasons, and those views deserve to be part of the conversation.
But it does raise an important question:
To what extent is a Canadian policy debate being shaped by external actors with different legal frameworks, cultural contexts, and political objectives?
The concern is not belief. People are entitled to their beliefs, whether they are rooted in religion, philosophy, or personal experience.
The concern is influence.
When well-funded networks with explicit ideological goals engage in cross-border advocacy, the line between domestic discourse and imported agenda begins to blur. Messaging that originates in one country—where legal and social conditions are different—can be transplanted into another, often without that context being made clear.
In the case of M.A.i.D., that matters because the stakes are deeply personal. This is not an abstract policy question. It is about how Canadians choose to navigate suffering, autonomy, and the end of life within their own legal and healthcare systems.
If that conversation is being shaped—directly or indirectly—by movements that do not operate within those same systems, then transparency becomes essential.
Canadians should be able to understand not only the arguments being made, but where those arguments are coming from, who is funding them, and what broader objectives they may serve.
Well, it’s less than a year now until Canada legalizes Medical Assistance in Dying when Mental Illness is the Sole Underlying Medical Condition.
That is unless government chickens out at the last moment and delays M.A.i.D. MI-SUMC again out of fear of the religious right in this country.
M.A.i.D. where mental illness is the sole underlying condition was originally set to be legalized on March 17, 2023. At the last minute, it was delayed to March 17, 2024, and then again in February 2024, pushed further to March 17, 2027.
Both times M.A.i.D. MI-SUMC was delayed because those who think that everyone should live their lives as per the dictates of their holy teachings managed to push narratives about abuse of the system and loss of safeguards that don’t reflect how the law actually operates.
If your religion says that you shouldn’t obtain M.A.i.D., then don’t obtain M.A.i.D. It’s that plain and simple.
No M.A.i.D. for you! Suffering is next to godliness!
It’s the same thing when your religion says for you to not eat shellfish, don’t eat shellfish. And if your religion is against gay marriage, then don’t marry your spouse of the same gender.
What I choose to do with my life is my decision and my decision alone.
I am not here for your personal comfort.
I am not here for you to score brownie points with your religious daddy figure.
It is not my job to keep trying mental health treatment after mental health treatment designed to show me how to hide my mental trauma so that you can feel comfortable about yourself.
Y’all had your chance to help back in 1980.
But instead you let the Canadian Armed Forces, the Archdiocese of Edmonton and their respective disciplinary systems handle Captain Father Angus McRae while all of his victims, with the exception of his accomplice, were swept under the rug to suffer in silence.
We only get one chance at this life. There are no do-overs. There isn’t a second time around. There is no lake of fire to burn in for eternity. There are no heavenly clouds to float on playing harps.
Sticking around for another 15 to 20 years is of no benefit to me.
If I want to die, that’s a calamity.
If society says that it’s okay for me to die for the convenience of others, then that’s okay.
If I got run over by a drunk driver tomorrow, there would be no great outcry of anguish. Nobody would be calling for significant restrictions on car drivers while driving while intoxicated. It’s a “free society”.
If I die in a plane crash due to some middle manager saving pennies by cutting back on the lubrication schedule for jackscrews, I don’t get to start over.
Existing for another 15 to 20 years just allows me to continue suffering from untreated depression, anxiety, and the non-stop memories of the horrors of CFB Namao and the aftermath just don’t really appeal to me.
How misused language in modern reporting erases the reality of Canada’s pre-1985 sexual offence laws — and who they failed.
One of the most dangerous habits in modern crime reporting is the casual misuse of legal terms—followed by a refusal to correct them when challenged.
Recently, CTV news ran a story about the release of Darren Scott Ray from prison on a three-day pass.
The story mentions how Darren was convicted of “raping” Darren Pepin.
Sexual assault, especially sexual assault that results in murder, is horrific, but attaching the wrong labels can actually do more harm than good.
Rape only existed as a Criminal Code offence up to 1984. Rape was a very specific offence that primarily applied to intercourse with females where lack of consent had to be proven.
Also, you’ll note that a male could only be charged with rape so long as the victim wasn’t his wife.
Section 143 only dealt with females and it only dealt with consent. Rape was the preferred charge in instances where force, threats, or deception were used to obtain sexual intercourse with a female who was not the suspect’s wife. Under the old law it was assumed that when a wife made her wedding vows, she was giving permanent consent to sexual intercourse whenever her husband desired it.
Prior to 2008, the age of consent was 14. And under the pre-1985 criminal code rape wasn’t the only charge that could be applied.
Section 146 (1) and Section 146 (2) define sexual intercourse of any type with a female under the age of 16 as being a criminal code offence, unless the girl was the man’s wife.
Section 146(2) introduced the concept of ‘previously chaste character,’ meaning prosecution depended on whether the complainant was considered ‘chaste’—a deeply problematic and now-discredited legal standard, and Section 142 (3) provided evidentiary avenues that allowed the defence to shift blame onto the complainant.
Charges under Sections 143, 144, 145 and 146 could be brought against an accused with section 146 serving as a sort of backup catch-all should the Crown fail to prove offences under sections 143, 144, and 145.
The maximum sentence for “Rape” was life imprisonment and a whipping.
The maximum sentence for “Sexual intercourse with female under 14” was life imprisonment and a whipping.
The maximum sentence for “Sexual intercourse with a ‘chaste’ female between the ages of 14 and 16” was 5 years in prison with no provision for whipping.
In 1983–1984, the offence of ‘rape’ was removed from the Criminal Code and replaced with a gender-neutral framework of sexual assault offences—marking a fundamental shift in how the law recognized victims.
Rape was replaced by the offence of ‘sexual assault’. However, there remained other offences that were not classified as ‘sexual assault’, and these offences not only applied specifically to children, but also sidestepped the inability of the Canadian Armed Forces to hold a service tribunal for Murder, Manslaughter, and Sexual Assault.
Section 151 is sexual interference and applies specifically to victims under the age of 14 -no specified gender for the victim.
Section 152 is invitation to sexual touching and applies to crimes committed against victims under the age of 14 – no specified gender for the victim.
Section 153(1) is sexual exploitation and applies to crimes committed against “young victims” by a person in a position of trust or authority.
Section 153(2) defines a “young person” as any person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years, gender not specified.
Section 155(1) is Incest.
Section 159(1) deals with Anal Intercourse.
Section 160(1) is committing the act of bestiality in the presence of a person under the age of fourteen, or incites a person under the age of fourteen to commit bestiality – no specified gender for the victim
The following sections are those classified as ‘sexual assault’ and from 1985 until 1998 the Canadian Armed Forces could not hold a service tribunal for these offences.
Section 271 is sexual assault – no specified gender for the victim
Section 272 is sexual assault with a weapon, threatens a third party, or causes bodily harm, again no specified gender for the victim
Section 273 is aggravated sexual assault. And again, gender is not specified.
Why does this matter? Because words have real-world implications.
When the wrong legal label is applied, it doesn’t just distort history—it obscures how the law actually operated.
I have had to deal with people who were utterly convinced that the Canadian Armed Forces could not have subjected Captain McRae to a court martial for sexual offences involving children as the Canadian Armed Forces were prohibited from holding a service tribunal (summary trial or court martial proceeding) for the criminal code offence of “rape”.
Under the pre-1985 Criminal Code: Boys could not be raped. Rape was defined as a crime against females. That was the law.
And what charges was the military precluded from conducting a service tribunal for?
But there were alternative routes for prosecution involving females under the age of 16.
All the commanding officer of the accused had to do during the prescribed summary investigation was to dismiss the rape charge(s) that had been brought against their subordinate while allowing charges under sections 146(1), 146(2), 150(1), and 153(1) to proceed to court martial proceedings.
s.146(1) Sexual Intercourse with Female under 14
s.146(2) Sexual Intercourse with Female 14 to 16
s.150(1) Incest
s.153(1) Sexual Intercourse with Step-Daughter or Foster Daughter
s.155. Buggery
s.156 Indecent Assault of Male
s.157 Gross Indecency
Sections 155, 156, and 157 always applied to sexual crimes involving male children. This meant that the Canadian Armed Forces could keep these in house and try them through the military justice system. There was almost no opportunity for sexually abused male children to have their matters heard in civilian courts.
One of the most troubling aspects of the pre-1998 National Defence Act was that prosecutorial functions within the military justice system were exercised by officers within the chain of command, rather than independent civilian Crown prosecutors, raising serious concerns about legal expertise and independence.
Legislative Summary LS-311E (1998)
Now I have a much better understanding as to why the DOJ, the DND, and the CAF are fighting against the sexually abused victims of one of their officers.
This is not about a single case. It raises a far more uncomfortable question: how often did commanding officers quietly redirect or narrow charges in ways that limited accountability?
And once you understand how the law actually worked, the question is no longer whether this could happen—but how often it did.
Because if that happened more than once, the issue isn’t individual failure—it’s systemic design.
