Tag: Anita Anand

When “Direction” Isn’t Direction: My 2022 CFNIS Complaint and the MPCC’s 2024 Transfer Collapse

How a historical sexual abuse file exposed the gap between public promises, military police discretion, and civilian oversight

In February 2022, I wrote to Canada’s Minister of National Defence, Anita Anand, asking a simple question:

Why was the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service refusing to transfer my historical sexual assault complaint to civilian authorities?

At the time, Canadians had been told that sexual misconduct investigations in the Canadian Armed Forces were being moved out of the military justice system and into the civilian justice system. That public message mattered. It was supposed to mean something. It was supposed to represent a change in direction after years of reports, scandals, reviews, and institutional failures.

But in my case, the message I received was very different.

I had been informed by CFNIS Victim Services that my complaint of sexual assault against retired Canadian Armed Forces officer Brigadier General Roger Bazin would not be handed over to civilian authorities. I had not been given a proper explanation by Sgt. David Winship of CFNIS Western Region. So I wrote to the Minister directly and asked why CFNIS was holding onto a historical matter involving alleged sexual assault of a civilian minor.  

Two years later, the Military Police Complaints Commission would open a public interest investigation into a broader version of the same issue: whether the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal had failed to implement ministerial direction to transfer sexual offence investigations to civilian police.

Then the whole thing collapsed.

Not because the issue was unimportant.

Not because the concern was imaginary.

Not because the MPCC found that the military police policy made sense.

It collapsed because the Minister of National Defence later told the MPCC that neither he nor his predecessor had actually issued such direction to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.  

That distinction matters.

Because if there was no actual direction, then what exactly had Canadians been told?

And if there was no actual direction, what exactly were victims supposed to rely on?

The Arbour recommendation was clear

Madame Louise Arbour’s recommendation was not complicated.

Sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature, including historical sexual offences alleged to have been committed by current or former CAF members, should be referred to civilian authorities. Investigations already underway by CFNIS should be transferred to civilian police unless they were near completion. Charges, in all cases, should proceed in civilian court.

That was the idea.

Remove these cases from the military system.

Remove the conflict.

Remove the appearance that the institution was still controlling investigations that could expose the institution itself.

But my experience showed something different.

I had been interviewed by CFNIS at Vancouver Police Department headquarters on July 30, 2020, in relation to what I described in my own calendar record as the “sauna man” matter.  

A few days later, on August 10, 2020, I sent Sgt. Winship and MCpl Brady examples of decades-old sexual assault cases that had still resulted in civilian criminal charges. I wanted CFNIS to understand that “forty years” did not automatically mean impossible. I also specifically flagged the concern that the pre-1998 National Defence Act three-year time bar could become an obstacle. Sgt. Winship replied that they would “take a look at those.”  

So this was not a concern I invented after the file stalled.

CFNIS was alerted to the limitation issue from the beginning.

The pre-1998 National Defence Act problem

The problem I raised with Minister Anand was not simply that CFNIS had failed to update me.

The problem was deeper.

Before Bill C-25 amended the National Defence Act in 1998, the Code of Service Discipline contained a three-year limitation period for trying service offences, subject to certain exceptions. That mattered because Criminal Code offences could be incorporated into the military justice system as service offences.

In my February 11, 2022 letter, I pointed directly to Legislative Summary LS-311E and the Bill C-25 amendment that removed the three-year limitation period for service offences, replacing it with the applicable Criminal Code limitation periods for civilian criminal offences.  

The problem, as I framed it, was that Bill C-25 did not appear to retroactively undo the damage caused by the old three-year time bar.

That left a brutal question:

What happened to civilian children on Canadian Forces bases who were abused by people subject to the Code of Service Discipline before 1998?

If the military system claimed jurisdiction back then, and if the military system’s limitation period expired, did those children lose practical access to justice through no fault of their own?

That was the question I put before the Minister.

And it was not theoretical.

I specifically asked Minister Anand to speak to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal to determine why my case — involving the alleged sexual assault of a civilian minor — had not been handed over to civilian authorities like other sexual assault matters within the military justice system.  

My MPCC complaint came first

On February 8, 2022, I filed a Military Police Complaints Commission conduct complaint concerning Sgt. David Winship.

In that complaint, I stated that I had been contacted by CFNIS Victim Services in November 2021 and told that, due to recent decisions by Minister Anand, my case was more than likely being handed over to civilian authorities. I then stated that on January 19, 2022, I was contacted again and informed that, for some unknown reason, my case was not going to be handed over to civilian authorities.  

That is the key.

This was February 2022.

The broader MPCC public interest investigation into the transfer issue would not happen until 2024.

So when MPCC 2023-084 later examined whether sexual offence files had been properly transferred to civilian police, my case-specific complaint had already raised the same practical problem two years earlier.

The MPCC acknowledged receipt of my complaint on February 14, 2022 and assigned it file number MPCC 2022-006 (Bees). But the MPCC did not investigate it directly at that stage. Under subsection 250.26(1) of the National Defence Act, conduct complaints are dealt with by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal in the first instance. So my complaint was forwarded to the CFPM.  

In plain English:

A complaint about CFNIS handling was sent first to the military police leadership structure.

That may have followed the statute.

But it also demonstrates the structural problem.

The same system whose decisions were being challenged got first control over the response.

The informal resolution route

In April 2022, Canadian Forces Military Police Group Professional Standards wrote to me advising that Sgt. Winship had agreed to an Informal Resolution. The letter stated that if informal resolution succeeded, the details had to be set out in writing and agreed to by both the complainant and the subject of the complaint. If it did not resolve the matter, the file would proceed to a Professional Standards Investigation.  

That letter matters because it confirms the complaint was not merely theoretical. It entered the formal military police complaint process.

But again, the structural issue remains.

The central issue was not simply whether Sgt. Winship had been polite enough, responsive enough, or communicative enough.

The central issue was this:

Why was CFNIS retaining a historical sexual assault-related file that appeared to fall within the very category of cases the public had been told were moving to civilian police?

And if CFNIS was retaining it because the old National Defence Act created a military justice limitation problem, then that was not merely an individual complaint.

That was a systemic problem.

Then came MPCC 2023-084

In January 2024, the MPCC decided to conduct a public interest investigation into a complaint alleging that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal had failed to implement ministerial direction to transfer sexual misconduct investigations to the civilian justice system.

The MPCC cited several reasons why the matter was serious.

The issue involved the head of the military police. It raised systemic concerns. It involved public reporting. It raised questions about civilian control of military policing. And it involved the broader question of what “victim-centric” meant when deciding whether sexual offence files should be transferred to civilian police.  

The MPCC had good reason to take the issue seriously.

The public record appeared to suggest that direction had been given.

Minister Anand had publicly said she accepted Arbour’s recommendations. The December 2022 report to Parliament said Military Police were directed to review ongoing files and transfer them where possible. Minister Blair later said the government had not intended for half the files to remain with military investigators.  

But then, on January 23, 2024, the MPCC received new information from the Minister of National Defence.

The Minister stated that neither he nor his predecessor had issued direction to the CFPM regarding the transfer of files involving criminal offences of a sexual nature.  

That changed everything.

On February 6, 2024, the MPCC terminated the public interest investigation. The Commission concluded that without confirmed ministerial direction, there was no basis to find that the CFPM had failed to comply with such direction.  

That is where the bureaucratic trap door opened.

The public message versus the legal reality

The MPCC’s 2024 decision exposes a serious gap between public messaging and enforceable direction.

Publicly, Canadians were told that the Arbour recommendation had been accepted.

Publicly, Canadians were told sexual misconduct investigations were being moved to the civilian system.

Publicly, victims could reasonably believe that the military police were no longer supposed to be holding onto these files.

But legally, when the MPCC tried to investigate whether the CFPM had failed to follow ministerial direction, the Minister said there had been no such direction.

That is not a small technicality.

That is the whole issue.

Because if public statements are not operational direction, then public statements do not protect victims.

If reports to Parliament do not amount to binding instruction, then reports to Parliament do not control CFNIS conduct.

If a Minister says a recommendation has been accepted, but no enforceable direction is issued to the Provost Marshal, then the military police may still retain practical control over the very cases the public thought were being removed from military control.

That is not transparency.

That is fog.

The MPCC still criticized the policy

The MPCC did not say the CFPM’s policy was fine.

Quite the opposite.

Even after terminating the investigation, the MPCC Chairperson stated that it was difficult to reconcile Madame Arbour’s recommendations with the CFPM’s decision not to transfer every file involving criminal offences of a sexual nature to civilian police. The Chairperson also found it puzzling that the CFPM referenced Arbour’s recommendation while implementing directions that contradicted it.  

The MPCC also criticized the policy’s use of the term “victim-centric, trauma-informed,” stating that it was insufficient to simply use that language without written considerations explaining why and how the approach was victim-centred and trauma-informed. The Chairperson concluded that, in its current form, the policy did not meet that threshold and placed an unfair burden on victims.  

That part is important.

The MPCC could not continue the investigation because the legal hook disappeared.

But the Commission still recognized the policy problem.

In other words:

The oversight body could see the smoke.

It just no longer had the jurisdictional fire alarm it needed.

Why my 2022 complaint matters now

My February 2022 complaint and letter to Minister Anand matter because they show the problem was not abstract.

I was not writing in 2024 after reading media coverage.

I was not reacting after the MPCC public interest investigation became public.

I was raising the issue in real time, in early 2022, after being told that my own historical sexual-assault-related file would not be transferred to civilian authorities.

My case showed the practical problem before the MPCC’s broader 2024 decision exposed the legal one.

The sequence matters:

First, a victim is told his file will not be transferred.

Then he asks CFNIS and the Minister why.

Then his MPCC complaint is routed back to the CFPM for first-instance handling.

Then, two years later, the MPCC tries to investigate the broader transfer issue.

Then the Minister says there was never an actual direction.

That is not a clean accountability system.

That is a system where every piece can point to another piece.

CFNIS can say it is following policy.

The CFPM can say transfer depends on process.

The Minister can say no direction was issued.

The MPCC can say it cannot investigate failure to comply with a direction that did not exist.

And the victim is left standing there, holding the file.

The real question

The real question is not whether the words “victim-centric” appear in a policy.

The real question is whether the system actually removes institutional conflict from sexual offence investigations.

In historical cases involving Canadian Forces bases, military dependants, and persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline, the conflict is obvious.

The Canadian Forces may have been the employer.

The Canadian Forces may have controlled the base.

The Canadian Forces may have controlled the historical records.

The Canadian Forces may have controlled the military police.

The Canadian Forces may have controlled the military justice process.

And decades later, CFNIS may still be the body deciding what happens to the complaint.

That is not independence in any meaningful sense.

That is institutional self-navigation.

Conclusion: direction should mean direction

If the Government of Canada tells the public that sexual misconduct investigations are being moved to civilian police, then that commitment should exist as more than a press statement, a tweet, or a line in a report.

It should exist as actual direction.

It should be written.

It should be traceable.

It should be enforceable.

And oversight bodies should not be left trying to determine whether public political commitments were ever converted into operational reality.

My 2022 complaint shows what happens in the gap between promise and direction.

A historical sexual assault-related file stays with CFNIS.

The complainant asks why.

The complaint goes back through the CFPM structure.

The policy language says “victim-centric.”

But the actual process leaves the victim carrying the burden of figuring out what the system is doing, why it is doing it, and whether anyone outside that system has the power to intervene.

That is not victim-centred.

That is bureaucracy wearing a trauma-informed nametag.

And it is exactly why these files should never have been left in military hands in the first place.

Historical Child Sexual Offences and Military Justice: A Critical Look

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:

EraPossible legal label
Pre-1983 / 1970 Codeindecent 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 Codesexual 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 argumentWhy 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.
“Civilian police declined / lack jurisdiction / lack records.”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.

What is my dream job?

Daily writing prompt
What’s your dream job?
View all responses

to have a dream job, I suppose one would have to have dreams.

And dreams are something that I’ve never had, at least not for a long while.

Growing up, especially in the aftermath of Canadian Forces Base Namao, my only dreams were to die. To die and have my father blamed for my death. That was about my only dream.

I always had dreams of Richard going off to prison for a very long time

When we lived on Canadian Forces Base Downsview in Ontario, my father and my stepmother used to use Canada’s Wonderland as “Richard’s and Sue’s Discount Babysitting Service”, or at least that’s what Scott called it.

Back when Wonderland first opened up, and I think for the first season or two, it had introductory unlimited access and unlimited rides for $29.95. Richard and Sue would drop

I used to dream that I’d get kidnapped from Canada’s Wonderland, that I’d get murdered, and that my body would then be found by a hiker in the woods. And that after identifying my skeleton, the police would go talk to Richard, and Richard would lie, and lie, and lie, and that he’d eventually fess up and that the judge would sentence him to prison with extra time added on for his lies.

But, that never happened.

I’m now 54 years old, and I still dream and ponder about how life would have worked out for Richard if I had been kidnapped and killed.

So far as dream job goes, I’ve never had a dream job.

I wanted to join the Canadian Forces when I was younger, but that never went anywhere due to the recruiting centre “obtaining some information” about me that indicated that I was an unsuitable candidate for service. I think this had to do with Captain Totzke’s paperwork being in my father’s service file, which would have been available for the recruiting service.

I’m probably lucky that I was never enlisted in the Canadian Forces. I don’t really know how well my psyche would have held up in an environment where the truth isn’t based upon reality but is instead based upon the whims and desires of the chain of command.

If I had enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces I’d probably have to have hidden so deeply in the closet that I’d be somewhere in Narnia.

Working in bowling centres was never what I’d call a dream job. But seeing as how I brought skills to bowling centres that most bowling centres wouldn’t be able to afford, I was always afforded a lot of leeway. I don’t know how well me being trans and going on hormones would have been tolerated at some of the centres, but other centres would have been okay.

There was one guy I worked for in Vancouver. He owned an electronics installation company. He started the company with money that he got from his parents. He couldn’t understand why I just didn’t get some money from my parents and start something up that I liked to do.

Two problems with that. There was never going to be any money from my father, or my stepmother, or my real mother. I don’t blame Sue. I didn’t burst forth from her crotch. Richard? Yeah, fuck no. His responsibility to my brother and I ended when he ejaculated. My mother? Richard having the military chuck her out of the military housing on Summerside destroyed her and turned her into a husk of herself, especially with Richard’s bullshit about her just abandoning the family and running of with a guy named Gus from the P.P.C.L.I..

People often ask me why I’m so leery about guys like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, or the various others I’ve known in my life that often portray themselves as self made and living the lives that they lead after years and years of hard work.

I worked under a general manager once who only got his job because his father knew one of the board members of the company. His business degrees were worth less than used toilet paper. His managerial skills consisted of overt threats and convincing people that other people were out to get their jobs. Yes, this manager ended up getting replaced, but not before numerous people who had been with the company for years up and quit. Of course, as fate would have it for the well connected, he ended up failing into a job with more pay and more prestige.

I had a co-worker that wasn’t all that bright, caused far more harm than good, but as he didn’t have crippling depression and debilitating anxiety he could glad-hand his way into positions that he didn’t belong in.

It’s as they say, if you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit.

If it wasn’t for Errol Musk and his involvement with emerald mining, especially being compensated with roughage that he could then process and keep the proceeds from, Elon wouldn’t have been able to jet set from South Africa to Canada and then into America. According to Errol, any time that Kimbal or Elon needed money for anything, the safe was wide open. If it wasn’t for Maye Musk being Canadian, there would have been no back door for Musk to entre America through.

Musk didn’t found Paypal.

Musk didn’t found Tesla.

Musk did assemble SpaceX, but without SpaceX being awarded a multi-billion dollar contract from NASA for flights to resupply the International Space Station, SpaceX would never have become anything. What’s even more amazing about SpaceX is that it received its first contract with NASA without even having a rocket ready to go.

Jeff Bezos nearly lost everything in the early ’90s with his early attempt at a being a book reseller on the early Internet. Luckily for Jeff, a near 1/4 million dollar loan that his parents facilitated kept him from insolvency and allowed him to start what became Amazon. And now Amazon both via patents and just the sheer magnitude of his empire, Bezos can prevent any and all competition.

William Henry Gates the 3rd is NOT the plucky little guy that started from nothing. The Gates family is a well established and well monied Seattle family going back generations. Bill Gates and Paul Allen both went to the same exclusive school in Seattle. Their respective families were able to get them access time on mainframe computers where they could hone their programming skills. This was at a time when access to mainframes was about $1,000.00/hr. This was before the advent of home computers.

Bills mother was a socialite who hung out with the wives of board member of IBM. This was at a time when IBM was looking to release a personal computer. IBM had the hardware, but they didn’t have an operating system. However it happened, Bill’s mother found out from a wife of an IBM board member, and Bill’s mother told Bill.

Bill Gates then did what any kid with access to easy money did, he bought a licence from a small company in Seattle called the Seattle Computer Company for their product called “Quick and Dirty DOS”, rebranded the QD-DOS as Microsoft DOS and sold a lot of units of this new “MS-DOS” to IBM, and quickly pissed off the Seattle Computer company.

Did I mention that Bill had one of the most influential Seattle lawyers as a father and the founder of the Seattle First National Bank was his grandfather?

Donald Trump is the ultimate Nepotism Baby. Donald would be nothing if it wasn’t for the real estate empire that his father built in New York city. This empire was built from tax payer dollars that were paid to Fred Trump by the US Govt. to build housing for American troops returning from WWII. The fact that the Trumps are even in America is solely due to the fact that when Friedrich Drumpf immigrated to America, immigration requirements were almost non-existent. Friedrich Drumpf immigrated to America he only to avoid a prison sentence in his home country of Bavaria which he was given for failing to enlist for compulsory military service. Friedrich also had no proper documentation when he came to America as Bavaria had stripped him of his citizenship. If Friedrich Drumpf were to try to immigrate to America today he would be refused entry.

Fred Trump was one of the most reviled slumlords in American history. The many scams of the Trumps are far too numerous to list here, but they are publicly available for review.

Needless to say that Donald wouldn’t have reached where he is today if it wasn’t for his family’s money.

Almost everyone in a position of influence these days got there solely due to family money.

This isn’t to say that I would have had a happy life if I had family money, but having family money opens up a lot of doors for a person.

I’ve had co-workers that fell into good positions in life solely due family money or family connections.

And quite honestly I do get rather sick and tired of people telling me that if I wasn’t such a lazy asshole and such a whiny crybaby that I could have simply applied myself and I could have easily been something.

A lot of what the world is these days is people using their family capital to build their personal wealth and empire. And once they build that wealth, they use every means at their disposal to prevent challengers. Microsoft, Apple, etc. don’t own thousands upon thousands of unused patents for no reason at all.

But having family money early on would have allowed me to go to school, maybe to have travelled when I was younger. Maybe bought a house. And afforded myself the ability to have recovered from the trauma of CFB Namao, of my grandmother, of my father, and of Captain Terry Totzke.

Maybe then I could have discovered what a “dream job” was.

When I was 10 years old I was given an IQ test as part of a psychiatric evaluation by my civilian social workers in an attempt to ascertain what the fuck was going on in my brain.

136 +/- 6 was the result of my test.

At work I’m reviled by everyone there.

Every attempt that I make to bring my section into the modern era is met with heavy resistance. Almost every initiative that I’ve tried to institute to ensure compliance with the Safety Standards Act just meets with more stubborn resistance.

I know that I shouldn’t be here.

But power engineering was the only way that a “poor” like me could get into a union position that would protect me and allow me to move out of the life of poverty that the Canadian Armed Forces and my father had assigned me to.

I thought that power engineering was my ticket to the future, but then I very quickly realized that power engineering is just to ensure that there is a warm body in the plant so that mgmt. can assure Tech Safety BC that they are meeting the requirement to have a warm body in the seat as required.

And that’s it.

Nothing more than glorified plunger jockeys.

Yes, I know that I’m too smart for my position and that my knowledge and my abilities intimidate other people.

Yes, I know that I am a complete asshole for not teaching people how to do what I do because I do it so easy.

Yes, I can troubleshoot computer networking issues. But it’s not because I received special training. I just read the books and read the manuals.

I don’t like computers. I don’t play computer games. I don’t edit videos. I don’t make music.

But I can RTFM ( Read The Fucking Manual).

I am also not afraid to call or email tech support for guidance.

It seems like anything that I do at work unleashes the rage of my co-workers.

Run a fibre optic network between the Generator Control system in Phase II over to the Burrard Building power house to eliminate a long standing communication issue with the 600 volt breakers in the Burrard Building?

“Why the fuck is that asshole sticking his fucking business into this, why doesn’t he fuck off and stay in his own lane?”. “The Fuck is wrong with him, the asshole isn’t a licenced electrician so he shouldn’t be touching any of this fucking shit!”

Troubleshoot a long standing communication issue with the Phase II Delayed Vital MODbus network?

“Is he even fucking certified to work on this? What if he destroys a breaker?”

They may think that I don’t hear them, but I hear them.

Their voices, and their sideway glances, and the conversations behind closed doors are easily overheard.

These are the things that I’ve heard all of my life.

“Bobbie’s just trying to make me look bad”

“Bobbie’s just hiding this knowledge from me. If it was easy for a moron like him to learn then he should be able to teach me. Sure, I don’t like computers, I don’t even own one, but he should be able to teach me how to set-up a MODbus to IP gateway ’cause if Bobbie can do it how fucking hard can it be?

“If he wants to work with networking or electronics, why the fuck isn’t he taking a diploma course?”

People have asked why I’m not going to the new hospital even though I was involved on the design committee for the new site.

There were two individuals in particular that went to every extent possible to make sure that I understood that my presence was not wanted on the committee and that I was to stay in my own lane and that anything that I had to say was limited to my power engineer certificate and that anything that I had to say beyond this was not going to be accepted.

These two persons in particular, well there’s a third, but I don’t have to deal with him, made sure that I understood what my place was and that freaks like me aren’t welcome in their new state-of-the-art playhouse.

Get a diploma?

Get a certificate?

Fuck, I don’t even want to get out of bed, how the fuck am I supposed to have enough strength to overcome my daemons and get a fucking diploma or a certificate?

And besides, I’m not fucking 18 years old, or even 24 years old.

I’m 54 fucking years old.

No savings, no real estate, no fucking nothing.

So no, there is no dream job.

There’s just the fucking eternal hell of knowing that I’ll never have the opportunities that should have been mine. That certain assholes will always dangle these opportunities in front of my eyes to ensure that I know that they know what I’ll never have.

p.s.

There was a study that that looked at the outcomes of children with high IQs. It was started in the 1920s in California by the father of the modern IQ test, Lewis Terman. These children were traced all throughout their lives. What surprised Lewis Terman 30 years into this study was that his hypothesis that IQ levels were hereditary was wrong, the parents of the children with high IQs that went on to have better incomes had higher educations, had better jobs, lower divorce rates, and more books in the household. Almost all of the kids that came from poor families with lower education levels and lower expectations of their children ended up as “failures” of no significance that “wasted” their talents.

My biggest fear

My biggest fear is the assessment process……..

A lawyer and a Minister

Yesterday I read a tweet from a lawyer that I follow on Twitter.

He was giving praise to Anita Anand, the former minister of National Defence.

I just wonder what this lawyer would have to say about Anita if he knew that she turned a blind eye to the subject of military child sexual abuse.

Monday July 24 2023

I think there are two main reasons as to why the CFNIS refused to bring any type of charge against the babysitter in 2011.

The Summary Investigation Flaw, and the Three Year Time Bar.

Both of these flaws were removed from the National Defence Act in 1998 with the passing of Bill C-25.

These two flaws would have conspired to prevent the CFNIS from laying charges against Captain McRae.

However, the babysitter wouldn’t have enjoyed the protection of the National Defence act and he could be charged for his crimes.

And this would have been a public relations nightmare for the Canadian Forces. Imagine not being able to charge the man that was ultimately responsible for destroying so many young lives on so many bases, where as his teenaged accomplice could be charged.

The brave members of the military

This is the type of response that I’ve encountered when trying to obtain help with the topic of child sexual abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces.

When I started off on this journey back in 2011 I was shortly thereafter given the name of a lawyer from Ontario who had experience taking on the Catholic Church and reaching settlements with the church to compensate the victims of child sexual abuse committed by members of the Catholic Clergy.

This lawyer wouldn’t commit to helping me in my matter.

Why not?

As it turns out he was a member of the Canadian Forces reserves.

I guess he didn’t want to make a bad name for himself in the reserves.

This wasn’t the only lawyer to balk at getting involved with thus matter.

There were three ex-jags who now practice military law in private practice.

Nope. Child sexual abuse in the Canadian Forces was something they were not getting themselves involved with.

Anyways…… time for yet another video.

CBC – discrimination and bias be thy name.

Well, no one will ever convince me any differently now.

If I had a vagina between my legs and the other kids from CFB Namao had vaginas between their legs it’s very, very obvious that the CBC and most other Canadian media would have handled our story and the story of the more than 25 male children from Canadian Forces Base Namao a lot differently.

And as per Captain McRae’s court martial transcripts, and as per his signed confession during his ecclesiastical trial in front of the Archdiocese of Edmonton, Captain McRae molested kids not only on Canadian Forces Base Namao, but also on Canadian Forces Station Holberg, Canadian Forces Base Portage La Prairie, and Canadian Forces Base Kingston.

As it is, the CBC’s outright refusal to look at the events surrounding Captain Father Angus McRae and his 15 year old accomplice shows that the CBC doesn’t consider male child sexual assault to be as serious or as damaging as female sexual assault.

I’ve been dealing with the CBC since 2012.

The only person at the CBC to have shown the slightest in interest was Jenn Blair.

Jenn had a camera operator over to my place to record an interview.

What I didn’t know and what I hadn’t been told was that Jenn was temporary.

Shortly after the interview Jenn was replaced by Rachel Ward.

Rachel scrapped the entire interview. She had an idea. Her idea was that instead of a televised news story, my story could be told via a “timeline” that would be on the CBC Go Public website that people could click on if they were interested.

Rachel just wasn’t that interested.

I told Rachel about MP Randall Garrison, who was the co-chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on National Defence, and that he had agreed to ask Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross during a Standing Committee hearing, who was responsible for investigating matters of child sexual abuse on the bases in Canada.

Rachel told me to call her as soon as I found out.

Randall’s office called me the moment the hearings had concluded to let me know that Randall had asked the question and that I needed to watch the video of the hearings.

Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross said during the hearing that matters of child sexual abuse are always handed off to the outside civilian authorities. So why were the Canadian Forces National Investigations Service and the Provost Marshal so hellbent on retaining a 35 year old child sexual abuse matter?

So, as per Rachel’s instructions I called her. Got a message saying that the subscriber hadn’t set up their voicemail. I called the Calgary office number that she had called me from. No answer, no voice mail. So I dialled some random numbers by changing the last two digits. End up getting some guy from a video booth. He couldn’t say that he had heard of Rachel, but he checked the internal directory for me. Nope, her name wasn’t showing up. He ended up transferring me to a woman who said she thought that Rachel worked out of the Calgary studio, but that she didn’t really have a landline.

Rachel called a few days later in a huff wanting to know what was so important. I told her that Randall had asked the question about jurisdiction of the military police for child sexual abuse matter and that Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross had said that the the military police always hand child sexual abuse matters to the outside civilian authorities.

“Look, just because he said that is what she said doesn’t mean that is what she actually said”.

I told her that this was an official session of the Standing Committee on National Defence, that it had been video recorded, and that it was available to view on Parliament’s website.

“I’m busy with other stories right now, I can’t just drop everything that I’m doing to deal with your story”.

I didn’t want to believe it at the time, but I do believe it now.

Had I had a vagina between my legs, the media would have been tripping over themselves to look at child sexual abuse on the Canadian Forces Bases in Canada.

As it is, I have a penis between my legs. And everyone knows, especially the CBC, that people with penises between their legs can’t be sexually abused, they can only be sexual abusers. Because a person with a penis between their legs can’t get pregnant from a sexual assault it’s not really a sexual assault, now is it?

It’s just like what Captain Terry Totzke said to me back in 1980. An 8 year old boy being penetrated by a 15 year old boy and also being abused by a 50 something year old military chaplain happened because I had a mental illness called “homosexuality”. If I didn’t have “homosexuality”, then it wouldn’t have happened.

Realizing that Canadian media was not ever going to be interested in this story I contacted the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)

The ICIJ put me in contact with a member named Frederic Zalac.

Frederic as it turned out is a reporter with the CBC.

Not interested in the slightest. No criminal charges. I didn’t have the names of the other victims.

And now I have 100% irrefutable proof that the CBC deals with sexual assaults differently depending on the junk between a victim’s legs.

“CBC Investigates”.

Well fuck me gently.

The CBC told me time and time again that without criminal charges, there would be no story. That without statements from other victims willing to go on camera, there would be no story. That I had to find the other victims.

Well, in my case the military justice system wasn’t able to find any evidence to indicate the babysitter was capable of what I accused him of. This even though as it turns out the CFNIS in 2011 had the 1980 CFSIU investigation paperwork and the 1980 Court Martial transcripts that indicate that it was very well known by the base military police, the CFSIU, and the court martial panel, what the babysitter had been doing to young children on base and that it was this molestation of young children on the base that resulted in the prosecution of Captain McRae.

Could the military police be in conflict of interest?

Two retired Supreme Court of Canada justices seem to think so.

An initial investigation…… The CBC had the ability to track a victim down without even knowing their name, but the CBC tells me they can’t investigate my story because tracking names isn’t their job.

Bobbie, unless the other victims are willing to go on the record, this story isn’t going to go too far.

I guess that women are more delicate than men and that men in today’s “macho” society are supposed to be okay with having their names associated with what was until recently considered to be “acts of homosexuality”.

Yep, that’s what it was called back in 1980 when a 50 something year old officer of the Canadian Armed Forces and his teenaged accomplice are investigated for sexually assaulting young prepubescent boys. “Acts of homosexuality”. That’s why I got my conversion therapy from Captain Totzke. That’s why Captain Totzke was adamant that I was a homosexual.

I know where the man who was not only my babysitter, but who was also the accomplice who took me to the chapel to be abused by captain McRae, and who subsequently pimped me out to some random stranger in the sauna at the base swimming pool. He lives in Fort Erie Ontario.

The man who was my primary abuser has a extensive criminal record involving children:
1982 – charged and convicted for molesting a young boy north of CFB Petawawa
1984 – charged and convicted for molesting an 8 year old boy around CFB Winnipeg.
1985 – charge and convicted for molesting a 9 year old boy on CFB Namao and a 13 year old newspaper boy in the west side of Edmonton.
1986 – 2000 Various charges from Buggery to Assault and Robbery.
2015 – 2x sexual assault, 1X forcible confinement

But Bobbie, we can’t just contact this guy and make accusations against him! That wouldn’t be right!

According to retired warrant officer Frederic R. Cunningham, “the brass” wouldn’t allow the Canadian Forces Special Investigation unit nor the Canadian Forces Military Police to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with the babysitter. In May of 1980 the investigators with the CFSIU were told to lie about the age of the babysitter and record that he was only 12 years old. The babysitter was born on June 20th, 1965.

I wasn’t “slut shamed”. I was “homosexual shamed”. I received 2-1/2 years of conversion therapy from Captain Terry Totzke for the homosexuality I had exhibited when I frequently had sex with the babysitter.

Yes, for the 1 millionth time, I understand that CFAO 19-20 would not have applied directly to me as I was not a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. However, my social worker, military officer Captain Terry Totzke would have been very well aware of this. His training as provided by the Canadian Forces would have trained him and instructed him that males having sexual intercourse with other males was wrong and was ultimately a sign of an underlying mental illness. The fact that I was an 8 year old boy with nary a hair between his legs didn’t make a difference. I had allowed a boy twice my age, and on more than one occasion , to put his fingers and his penis into my ass. It doesn’t get more homosexual than that.

I met a couple of other victims via the face book groups. But most people who had a rough life growing up on base stay away from the base brat groups. If it wasn’t for me wanting to seek justice for what had happened on CFB Namao from 1978 until 1980 and then on CFB Griesbach from 1980 until 1983 I never would have joined facebook.

Advocating for change within the defence community is a non-starter as the defence community won’t even acknowledge this. In 2016 during a meeting with then Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan, Minister Sajjan accused me of “playing games” and “having an angle” insinuating that I was just trying to score some easy money from the military.

I had sent communications to current Minister of National Defence Anita Anand. I’ve never received any response. Not even after the Military Police Complaints Commission released their report in 2020 that found ample evidence that the CFNIS in 2011 knew about the babysitter’s criminal history on CFB Namao as the CFNIS had the 1980 CFSIU and 1980 Court Martial transcripts.

There is no support available for former former military dependants who were sexually abused on base and then fucked over by the defective military justice system. The DND and the CAF have no legal obligations to military dependents living on defence establishments, no matter the source of their injuries.

Civilian support services just roll their eyes when you try to explain what happened on the bases. The provinces in general consider what happened on base to be a federal matter, not a provincial matter.

An investigative podcast and two feature stories, man I wish I was this lucky.

People often wonder if I really want to undergo M.A.i.D.. or if I’m just claiming to want to do so as a means of getting attention.

I grew up in a dysfunctional military family in which my father used his postings to stay one step ahead of provincial social services.

I was sexually abused for 1-1/2 years starting at age 7.

From age 9 to age 11 I received what amounted to “conversion therapy” from a Canadian Forces military social worker.

As this social worker was a captain and my father was a master corporal my father placed special emphasis on what this social worker had to say.

I was raised by a grandmother who had survived Indian residential school and had the emotional damage and the alcoholism that came with having gone through Indian Residential School.

My father was just as emotionally damaged as his mother and was a piss-tank alcoholic just like his mother.

My father, unable and unwilling to accept responsibility for his two sons being sexually abused in his house while being raised by his own mother blamed me instead for the abuse my younger brother went through.

Even though just months after the abuse came to a screeching halt I had been diagnosed with major depression, severe anxiety, haphephobia, and an intense fear of men, Captain Totzke never seemed to follow through with treatments for me.

According to my social service records, when Alberta Social Services wanted to pull me from my father’s home and place me into residential care or foster care, Captain Totzke appears to have helped with my father obtaining a posting out of the jurisdiction of Alberta.

I was left to suffer all alone for all of these years with gender confusion, fear of sex, fear of men, untreated major depression, untreated severe anxiety, haphephobia, etc.

Yes, I really do want to undergo M.A.i.D..

There’s nothing left to fix.

I’m tired, my brain is burnt out, and it really is time to go.

What Drives me in this matter?

I really might get my wish

And I feel so relieved.