The Three Year Time Bar

Another hideous flaw in the pre-1998 National Defence Act

In 1998, another flaw was removed from the National Defence Act.

This flaw in a way was even more hideous than the Summary Investigation that I talked about in a previous blog entry.

The problem with the 3-year-time-bar is that it prohibited the laying of charges more than 3 years after the date of the alleged Service Offence.

You’ll remember from the previous post that the National Defence Act enumerates Criminal Code offences as Service Offences. As such crimes such as Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery were service offences that could be tried by Service Tribunal. This is why Captain McRae was tried in a military court martial for committing “Acts of Homosexuality” such as “Gross Indecency”, “Indecent Assault”, “Buggery” with boys under the age of 15 on Canada Forces Base Namao.

The interesting thing about this 3-year-time-bar is that it applies to ALL service offences prior to 1998.

Also, even if a member of the Canadian Armed Forces is currently retired and no longer subject to the Code of Service Discipline, if the member was subject to the Code of Service discipline when they sexually abused a child on a military base they would still enjoy all of the rights that the National Defence Act bestowed upon the service member at the time of the offence.

What this means is that even if the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service were to find the man from the sauna who Peter provided me to for the purposes of oral sex this man could never be charged if he was a member of the Canadian Forces regular force in 1980.

If this man by some small miracle is a civilian with no connection to the Canadian Armed Forces and was never subject to the Code of Service Discipline, then he could be charged under the criminal code.

Don’t believe me?

In 2017, in a telephone call with Sergeant Damon Tenaschuk of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Pacific Region, I asked Mr. Tenaschuk if he could try to talk to Colonel Dan Munro. I thought that this would be a simple matter seeing as how Sgt. Tenaschuk was on CFB Esquimalt just outside of Victoria, BC and Daniel Edward Munro lived in a suburb of Victoria, BC.

Instead, I received the following email from Sgt. Tenaschuk:

So there you have it.

The three year time bar is real, and it affects all Service Offence and all Criminal Code matters that occurred prior to 1998.

All I had asked for was for Sgt. Tenaschuk to talk to Daniel Edward Munro to see if Daniel had improperly bent the rules when he preferred the charges that Captain McRae faced in court martial and dismissed the other charges.

For Tenaschuk’s legal officer to say right of the bat that the 3-year-time-bar would prevent the laying of charges makes me wonder how many Canadian Forces personnel got away with Service Offences / Criminal Code offences prior to 1998.

Anyone who was subject to the Code of Service Discipline prior to 1998, and who sexually abused a child on a defence establishment, will NEVER face their accuser in court. Their victim will NEVER receive justice.

And this suits the Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence staff just fine. As it stands right now, you don’t hear anything about children being sexually abused on military bases by military personnel from the pre-1998 days. And as it turns out this isn’t because no child was ever sexually abused on base. It’s because if these kids didn’t report their crimes within the period of three years they would never be able to report their crimes..

In 2010, charges were brought against retired Brigadier General Roger Bazin. He was accused of sexually abusing a child on Canadian Forces Base Borden in the early 1970s. The matter made it so far as court, and then suddenly everything was dropped. No explanation was ever made to the media as to why the charges were dropped. You’d think that if the Crown has just smeared someone’s name through the media that they’d be obligated to explain to the public why the charges were dropped at the last minute.

No lawyer in the media claiming “my client has been vindicated”. Nothing. Radio Silence.

In my matter, Captain Father Angus McRae was alive until May 20th, 2011.

The investigation into my complaint started on March 5th, 2011.

The CFNIS knew about the connection between my babysitter, Peter, and Captain Angus McRae right from the get-go.

This means that the JAG, the Provost Marshal, and the CFNIS were aware at the start of the investigation that even if they were able to arrest Peter, that they’d never be able to charge Captain Father Angus McRae. This must have posed quite the dilemma for the Canadian Forces.

They had the CFSIU paperwork from 1980. They knew what Peter had been doing.

But they also knew that they would never be able to charge Angus McRae.

This would be quite the scandal, no?

When the CFNIS started the investigation in March of 2011, they couldn’t have possibly known that Captain McRae would have been about to die. They would have had to structure the investigation with the knowledge that Angus McRae was alive.

Anyways, here’s what Legislative Summary LS-311E had to say about the 3-year-time-bar-flaw.

These are the PDF pages of the images above.

This is LS-311E (1998) in its entirety.

Daniel, what did you do?

What did you do that the Judge Advocate General won’t allow an officer of the Canadian Forces Special Investigation Unit to talk to you about the events that occurred on your base from May of 1980 until July of 1980?

Can you actually sleep with this on your conscience?

Or do you rest well at night know that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence will cover your ass, not because you’re a great guy, but because if they uncover something unsavoury from Canadian Forces Base Namao that this will snowball into unsavoury events on many of the other Canadian Forces Bases where men such as yourself were able to hide things that had occurred on the bases that you were commanding.

How many kids did commanding officer bury on the bases?

Only time will tell.

This just keeps getting more and more interesting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-survivors-cases-closed-during-crisis-1.6274844

Interesting isn’t it.

This is exactly what the CFNIS and the MPCC told me in 2013.

P.S. didn’t want to speak to the investigators, so that was it – there was nothing the CFNIS could do.

And as my brother would say, you can’t force someone to talk to the police. If you talk to the police you only incriminate yourself. If the police had enough evidence they’d go to the Crown and get an arrest warrant.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-survivors-cases-closed-during-crisis-1.6274844

One interesting thing that I did learn though is that if police have evidence to show that someone has committed similar offences in the same relative period of time the police can provide that evidence to the Crown in order to persuade the Crown to allow charges to be laid.

The Military Police Complaints Commission stated in the 2020 findings that the CFNIS had in their possession the CFSIU investigation paperwork from May and June of 1980 as well as the July 18th, 1980 CM62 court martial transcripts.

What did the CFSIU investigation and the CM62 court martial transcripts indicate?

They indicated the following:

  • P.S. had taken a group of young boys into the Horseshoe Forest, P.S. had the boys to drop their pants. P.S. then removed his erect penis from his pants, spit on his penis, and penetrated a 10 year old boy.
  • There were complaints from parents on the base about P.S.’s sexual behaviour with younger children. This is what initiated the investigation of Captain McRae.
  • P.S. was already receiving psychological treatment for his attraction to young children.
  • P.S. was arrested and convicted in 1982 for molesting a young boy in a town just north of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa where his father had been stationed. P.S. would have been either 16 or 17 depending if this occurred prior to June 20th or after June 20th.
  • P.S. was arrested and convicted in 1984 for molesting an eight year old boy in Manitoba in relation to an unnamed Canadian Forces Base there.
  • In the spring of 1985 P.S. was arrested and charged with molesting a 9 year old boy on Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, as a result of this P.S. was kicked off the base by the Canadian Armed Forces.
  • P.S.’s father rented P.S. in the west side of Edmonton. P.S. lured a 13 year old newspaper boy into his apartment and molested him on a few occasions.
  • In August of 1985 P.S. was convicted of molesting both the 9 year old and the 13 year old.

Why didn’t the CFNIS pass this information on to the Crown?

The fact of the matter is the chain of command above the CFNIS did not want charges brought against P.S. as this would only open up a festering wound that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have kept a bandaid on for the last 40 years.

If the CFNIS had provided the Crown with enough evidence to indicate that P.S. was in fact KNOWN to have been molesting children and if the Crown had approved charges against P.S. this would have exposed the Canadian Armed Forces to the fallout that would have resulted from the Canadian public learning the truth about what had transpired on CFB Namao from 1978 to 1980 and that the Canadian Forces had sacrificed the lives of numerous children/adults in favour of keeping a hideous secret out of the public eye.

Instead, in my matter the CFNIS just threw their hands up and said that P.S. didn’t want to talk to them so there was little they could do.

That’s what you call “bullshit”.

Beyond a doubt the CFNIS knew what P.S. had been up to. The CFNIS had all of the paperwork and they had his criminal record.

The CFNIS had two options.

(a) The CFNIS could have gone to the Crown with all of the evidence to show that P.S. wasn’t suspected of molesting children, P.S. was a confirmed child molester. The CFNIS could have then arrested him, brought him in to talk, and at least got the truth about what had happened back then even if it resulted in nothing more than symbolic charges.

-or-

(b) The CFNIS could have approached the case in a totally different manner. The CFNIS could have approached P.S. as a victim of Captain McRae whom was obviously molesting children as a direct result of Captain McRae’s grooming, instructions, and directions.

The problem with either option (a) or option (b) is that they exposed the office of the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to multiple civil actions which would have none the less resulted in very negative media coverage.

This is why the CFNIS were not allowed to bring any type of charge or even to treat P.S. like a witness. The Chain of Command made the decision and their subordinates did as they were told. The past was going to stay in the past where it had been buried in 1980.

I can fully see the CFNIS still doing this. And remember, it’s not that the investigators are in on this duplicity. The order only has to be given to senior officers within the Provost Marshal or the CFNIS chain of command. Once the investigation has been shaped by the chain of command, the investigators never have a chance no matter how good their intentions are.

I think tis is one reason why various CFNIS investigators, “the good ones” made sure to share pertinent Information with me and made sure that I knew what documents to request via FOI and ATI requests.

And talking about moving cases out in to the civilian world, the CFNIS are in the process of handing their investigation of my complaint related to the man in the sauna.

This is in relation to the investigation looking at the man in the sauna that P.S. provided me to for the purpose of providing oral sex to the man.

I have a very good idea of who the man in the sauna was / is.

In the spring of 1980 a very specific major was sent from Ottawa to Canadian Forces Base Edmonton to assist Captain McRae with his affairs during the investigation and subsequent court martial.

This major was involved with the Canadian Forces Chaplaincy branch.

In the spring of 1980 I would have been 8 years old.

This would have been in the period of time between me having been caught being buggered by P.S. in the bedroom of his family’s PMQ and the house fire at his PMQ on June 23rd, 1980.

I had been swimming at the base pool. I was about to get changed when P.S. came over to me and coerced me to go to the sauna.

In the sauna was a man sitting in the far side. The man asked P.S. if I was really as good as P.S. said that I was. The man opened his towel and held his erect penis and motioned me to come over.

If I had to hazard a guess I would say that I had performed oral sex on P.S. at least two dozen times from the fall of 1978 until the spring of 1980. And this isn’t including the older boys that P.S would often hang out with.

So I put the man’s penis in my mouth and I played with his balls.

He stopped me just before he ejaculated.

I never saw this man again.

Now, if this man is who I think it is he would have known about P.S. and the affinity that P.S. had for children. He would have known that P.S. was the reason Captain McRae was in trouble. Was he trying to “blackmail” P.S. by getting P.S. to do something as horrible as pimping out an eight year old?

Or, seeing as how this man was a member of the Catholic church just as his subordinate Captain McRae was, did he have a thing for young children. If he knew the details of what P.S. and Captain McRae had been doing on the base, then he would have known that P.S. had been bringing children over to the rectory for Captain McRae and P.S. to molest. So maybe he knew that P.S. could supply him with fresh young meat.

And it’s not like the man I have accused is squeaky clean. This man has had his own troubles with the sexual molestation of children over the years.

Anyways, it remains to be seen how badly the CFNIS screwed up this investigation.

And you wonder why I am seriously considering medical assistance in dying in March of 2023 when it becomes legal for psychiatric issues. There’s only so much shit that one person can keep locked inside their skulls before it all becomes toxic. And no, seeking MAiD does not make me weak. Others who have been involved with the Captain Father Angus McRae have attempted suicide, have committed suicide, and have had mental health issues that have plagued them for their lives. And to have the Canadian Armed Forces do everything in their power to deny us our freedom from the torment associated with the events from CFB Namao is beyond the pale.

And here’s hoping that the media will pay attention to military dependents who were sexually abused on defence establishments by persons who were subjected to the Code of Service Discipline. We are stuck in a world of grey between the civilian justice system and the military justice system, between the provinces and between Ottawa.

If you’re keeping tally, I’ve blown a major, more than likely been buggered by a captain while drunk on wine, pleasured my 14 year old babysitter on numerous occasions, blew an enlisted guy on CFB Griesbach. And this was all before I turned 11.

It’s no wonder I hate sex.

Duuuurrrrrpppppp

The polite way of saying “No Shit Sherlock!”

I know that the National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders may be rather dry and boring reads. But everyone should at least have some basic familiarity with these acts as they are the corner stones of a separate and parallel justice system that exists in this country.

From Twitter

https://twitter.com/JacquesGallant/status/1466739412595793921?s=20

As my father would often say to me “I’m going to make this very fucking crystal clear to you”. The Provost Marshal can’t take a piss without permission from their superiors up the Chain of Command. There is absolutely no way that the Provost Marshal will ever be able to investigate persons of a superior rank without the support of someone else higher up the chain of command hierarchy.

This is the Canadian Armed Forces, not your local police department.

These members are all “Soldiers first, police officers second”.

Rank is paramount.

Yes, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence will prattle on uselessly about how the Provost Marshal and the CFNIS are at arms-length from the Chain of Command and can’t be influenced by the Chain of Command.

BULL

FUCKING

SHIT

There is absolutely no language in the National Defence Act that enshrines this imaginary independence just as there is no language in the National Defence Act that requires the military police to hand off child sexual assault investigations to the civilian police even though there are administrative orders and policy guidelines that say just that. As I’ve learnt over the last eleven years, if it isn’t in the National Defence Act or the Queen’s Regulations and Orders then it means absolutely nothing.

This is the link for the current National Defence Act:

https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/index.html

If you read through this you will see that there is absolutely nothing in there that officially places the Provost Marshal, the investigators within the CFNIS, or even the investigators within the military police outside of the Chain of Command.

So what does the Provost Marshal do?:

https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#docCont

Further down the same page there’s a very interesting part of the National Defence Act that says that the Vice Chief of Defence Staff may INSTRUCT the Provost Marshal on ANY investigation.

Pretty fucked up, eh?

So, the Vice Chief of Defence Staff can instruct the Provost Marshal on ANY investigation, and the Provost Marshal is supposed to make these instructions available to the public, that is unless the Provost Marshal (no doubt on order from the VCDS) decides that it would not be in the “best interests of the administration of justice” to make these instructions available to the public.

Here’s an interesting section of the National Defence Act that applies to every and ALL members of the Canadian Armed Forces including members of the military police, members of the CFNIS, and even the Provost Marshal. There are NO exceptions written or implied to this section.

https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-7.html#h-375455

There’s a reason it says “lawful” and not “legal”

The term “lawful” still causes a lot of issues today. How is a subordinate supposed to know the legal validity of an order issued by a superior? There is no language contained within the National Defence Act that allows for a subordinate to ask the Judge Advocate General to provide legal opinion of a “lawful” command.

What this results in is a police department that is of very limited independence. This is a concern that the Military Police Complaints Commission has raised before in its submissions to the External Review of the Amendments to the National Defence Act.

And I truly and honestly believe that this lack of independence is what sank my complaint against P.S..

In 2020 the Military Police Complaints Commission revealed that the CFNIS had the CFSIU investigation paperwork and the July 18th, 1980 court martial transcripts in their possession which indicated that P.S. was known to the base military police, the CFSIU, and the Judge Advocate General as having sexually abused numerous children on Canadian Forces Base Namao. It was this abuse that lead to the investigation of Captain McRae and the discovery that Captain McRae had been luring children over to the base chapel and giving them alcohol prior to “fooling around with them”. In this paperwork was also McRae’s admission to his ecclesiastical trial that he had been sexually abusing children for years. So this covers his postings at CFB Kingston, CFB Portage La Prairie, CFS Holberg, and of course CFB Namao.

According to the MPCC in 2020 the CFNIS were aware that P.S. was arrested and convicted for molesting a young child in a town just north of CFB Petawawa in 1982, that P.S. was arrested and convicted for molesting a young boy in Manitoba in 1984, that P.S. was arrested and convicted for molesting a 9 year old boy on CFB Edmonton in 1985 when his family had been returned there, and that P.S. was arrested and convicted for molesting a young teen just after he had been kicked out of the military family housing on CFB Edmonton.

I have absolutely no doubt that it was a chain of command decision to not allow the CFNIS to bring charges against P.S.. And this wasn’t to protect P.S. so much as it was to protect the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence from humiliation.

As the MPCC have said in their submissions to the External Review, investigators with the CFNIS won’t even know that the chain of command has interfered with their investigation if the interference occurs high enough up the chain of command.

How do I think the Chain of Command interfered with the CFNIS investigation into my complaint against P.S.?

  • When the CFNIS took my complaint away from the EPS in March of 2011 I have no doubt that when they entered the name of P____ S________ into the SAMPIS database an alert came up instructing the CFNIS to refer this matter to the Provost Marshal or to the office of the Judge Advocate General for instruction.
  • Angus McRae was still alive at the commencement of the investigation. Angus McRae didn’t die until May 20th, 2011. This posed a very serious problem for the CFNIS. Due to the 3-year-time-bar as well as the Summary Investigation flaws that existed in the pre-1998 National Defence Act, charges could never be brought against Angus McRae no matter what the investigation uncovered while P.S. could be charged. The 3-year-time-bar and the Summary Investigation Flaw applied to service offences. Service offences included but were not limited to “Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, Buggery, Sexual Intercourse with Female under 14, Sexual Intercourse with Female 14 to 16, Sexual Intercourse with stepdaughter or ward, Incest”
  • When I was interviewed by Mcpl. Hancock on March 31st, 2011 he kept asking me if there was anything else that I wanted to talk about, anything at all. As the MPCC said, the CFNIS had the CFSIU paperwork and the Court Martial transcripts in their possession during the investigation. I have no doubt that Hancock was instructed to “go fish” and see if he could find out what I knew or remembered about the Captain McRae court martial.
  • On May 3rd, 2011 Mcpl Cyr contacted me and tried relentlessly to get me to believe that P.S. was only 12 or 13 years old when he had been caught buggering me in the spring of 1980. The CFNIS knew exactly how old P.S. was as they had access to the CFSIU investigation paperwork and the July 18th, 1980 Court Martial transcripts. P.S. was born on June 20th, 1965. He was 14 years old in the spring of 1980 when he was caught buggering me. He was old enough under the Juvenile Delinquents Act to be charged with Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery. By insisting to me that P.S. was only 12 or 13 the CFNIS were trying to get me to believe that there was no way to legally bring charges against P.S..
  • On May 3rd, 2011 Mcpl Cyr also let slip about Captain McRae. If the CFNIS didn’t have the CFSIU paperwork or the July 18 1980 Court Martial transcripts already in their possession, how would Mcpl Cyr have known about a then 30 year ols court martial? I told Cyr about the 5 visits, what we’d do when P.S. took me over to see McRae, and that I have no recollection after P.S. and McRae would give me a tumbler of “sickly sweet grape juice”. I’d learn in 2020 that the military police and the CFSIU knew in 1980 that McRae was taking children to the rectory at the chapel and giving them alcohol.
  • On May 4th, 2011 Mcpl Cyr contacted me and told me the chapel never had a rectory, that the chapel that I indicated to him in a “google snapshot” of the base was a different chapel from when I lived on the base, that when I lived on the base the chapel was in a completely different place and that the padre lived off base.. Why was he so intent on proving that there was no connection between myself, P.S., and Captain McRae.
  • I would find out in 2013 that the CFNIS had scrubbed any and all mentions of Captain Father Angus McRae from the investigation paperwork.
  • There’s my father’s dubious statement given to the CFNIS which excludes any mention of the fact that my grandmother was living in our PMQ and was actively raising my brother and I. The CFNIS needed to ensure that P.S. could not be linked to my brother and I in a position of authority, such as having been our babysitter. If it had been established that P.S. had been acting in a position of authority over my brother and I and that P.S. sis in fact use this authority to abuse my brother and I this would have posed problems for him. Did my father give the statement he gave to cover his own ass, or did he give the statement he gave because he had been coerced? Forgetting about grandma is a pretty significant faux-pas.

Why would the Chain of Command interfere with the CFNIS investigation of KNOWN serial child sexual abusers (McRae and P.S.)?

My guess would be to avoid public humiliation, public scrutiny, and financial risk.

To this day the Canadian public and the Canadian media are oblivious for the most part to the fact that children lived on the various Canadian Forces Bases in Canada. These children were sometimes sexually abused by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Due to transfers, and flaws in the National Defence Act, bringing charges would often prove very hard to do.

In the matter of Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae, captain McRae was known by the Canadian Armed Forces to have molested well over 25 children on Canadian Forces Base Namao. The Canadian Armed Forces are also aware that during the court martial of Captain McRae in July of 1980 evidence was admitted that indicated that Captain McRae had sexually abused children for years.

During the Captain McRae court martial McRae’s defence counsel tried to use P.S.’s habit of sexually abusing children, as well as his recent psychiatric treatments to help him deal with his predisposition to sexually abuse children, as a means to discredit his testimony against Captain McRae.

For just about 40 years now the Canadian Forces have been able to keep this matter firmly under the rug. And the Canadian Forces are happy and content to keep it there.

I know of two persons who have committed suicide as a result of the CFB Namao child sexual abuse scandal.

I know of two persons who have attempted suicide as a result of the CFB Namao child sexual abuse scandal.

I know of others who have carried the scars of that abuse into their adult lives.

I am certain that I was not the only male child from Canadian Forces Base Namao to receive military “conversion therapy” as a result of the “homosexuality” that I had exhibited as a result of my abuse at the hands of P.S. and Captain McRae.

Also, I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister of National Defence, the Department of National Defence, and the Canadian Armed Forces do not want the Canadian public to discover that historical sexual crimes against children cannot be prosecuted against former service members due to the 3-year-time-bar and the Summary Investigation flaws that existed prior to 1998.

But I think the most significant reason as to why the CFNIS was instructed to run such a laughable investigation into my complaint against P.S. was that the Office of the Minister of National Defence wanted to avoid civil liability for the actions of their members on secure defence establishments for which the Canadian Forces owed a duty of security to those persons living on secured defence establishments.

If the CFNIS had been allowed to bring charges against P.S., how many of the other 25 children that P.S. and Captain McRae molested would have been allowed to bring civil actions against the Crown for damages for the abuse that occurred on a secure defence establishment in a building owned by the Canadian Forces which was orchestrated by an active officer of the Canadian Armed Forces regular forces?

I’m happy that the Minister of National Defence has moved all sexual assault investigations out into the civilian police. But not even the civilian police will be able to overcome the 3-year-time-bar or the Summary Investigation flaw.

And the civilian police will still run into the problem of trying to access the service records of members of the Canadian Forces who are under investigation for sexual assaults.

But yeah, there never was any independence of the Provost Marshal from the Chain of Command. Anyone who believed that the military police, the CFNIS, or the Provost Marshal from free from Chain of Command influence needs to come back to the world of reality.