CBC Go Public

The investigative platform that doesn’t like to investigate.

There are other victims of military child sexual abuse out there.
And another former victim

So, if you’ve ever wondered why the CBC has never shown an interest in a news story about how the Canadian Armed Forces were inappropriately investigating the sexual abuse of military dependents on Canadian Forces Bases in Canada, let me shed some light on this.

The CBC isn’t immune to petty politics and retribution.

Back in 2016 I first made contact with Jenn Blair the of CBC’s Go Public news program.

Jenn seemed very interested in my story.

Even to the point that she had a cameraman over to my apartment to film an interview between herself and I.

I put Jenn in contact with other victims of military child sexual abuse.

In subsequent telephone calls, Jenn was very certain that from what the other victims had to say and from what I was saying that this would be a very damning story against the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.

Then in early January 2017 I received disturbing information from Jenn Blair.

All the time that Jenn had been investigating my story, she was only a “temp” at CBC Go Public and she was bidding on a position with CBC Go Public that eventually went to Rachel Ward.

The story of how the Canadian Armed Forces hid and buried child sexual abuse on the bases after Rachel Ward became involved. The people running are other military dependents fleeing back to the safety of anonymity.

Pretty well on the same day that Jenn notified me that she didn’t get the position that she was bidding on, Rachel Ward contacted me.

Right off the bat Rachel informed me that she didn’t like the direction that Jenn had been moving in and the she was scraping the video interview. Rachel thought that the story, instead of being broadcast, would work better as an “interactive time line” that visitors to the CBC Go Public website could click on to see key events.

I told her that this story was how the Canadian Armed Forces through flaws in the National Defence Act had hidden and buried child sexual abuse on the bases in Canada. I told her that her target audience was in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and even 80s and that they weren’t going to be trolling the internet looking for interactive time lines to play with.

These people had literally been put through hell by the Canadian Armed Forces and their defective military justice system and more often than not blamed for their own misfortunes. These other victims were going to need to know that it was safe for them to come forward and that the Canadian Forces would not be able to hurt them any longer.

Nope. Rachel wasn’t budging on her “interactive timeline”. Besides, it was her opinion that the military had changed and that there was no need to keep dragging the military through the mud.

I had been contacted by Randall Garrison’s office just before the Defence Committee hearing in which Randall Garrison was going to ask Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross who exactly had jurisdiction to investigate child sexual abuse that occurred on the bases in Canada. I contacted Rachel and let her know, she called me back and told me to call her as soon as I had heard any information from this committee.

After the hearing, I was contacted by Randall’s office and told that the hearing was over and that as this was an official hearing that it would be available on the Parliamentary archive. They emailed me the link.

I viewed the video and I almost fell out of my chair.

Lt.Gen. Christine Whitecross said to the National Defence committee that the Canadian Forces have ALWAYS handed off matters involving child sexual abuse to the outside civilians.

I called the number that Rachel had given me.

All I got was a message stating that this customer has not set up their voicemail and that when I see the customer next I should remind them to set up their voicemail.

I called the office number she gave me, but the extension number kept responding with a generic automated message that most systems will give when the user’s greeting message hasn’t been recorded.

I called the CBC Calgary office and by randomly trying different extension numbers I was able to get someone who had heard of Rachel, but they weren’t sure how to get hold of her as her name was in the employee directory, but it wasn’t associated with any office or any extension.

I sent Rachel some email requests that she contact me.

Rachel eventually did get back to me.

The thing that threw me for a loop was when Rachel announced that she was going to have to file FOI requests with DND to get some information. She also asked my what I thought that Lt. Gen. Christine Whitecross meant when she said that DND and the CF always hand matters of child sexual abuse off to the civilian authorities. Rachel suggested that maybe Randall and I misunderstood what Lt.Gen. Whitecross meant.

I told her what Randall Garrison had said about the Office of the Minister of National Defence interfering with his attempts to set up a meeting between himself and Rear Admiral Bennett. Rachel actually asked me what I thought that Randall might mean when he said that.

This was gong absolutely nowhere and fast.

My telephone calls with Mrs. Marchitelli left a LOT to be desired.

I found her to be a very unpleasant person to deal with. Not what I would call a “people person”. She was like one of those middle managers that didn’t like to hear bad things about their subordinates because they’re worried about their superiors finding out and then questioning their leadership abilities.

Rosa wasn’t too understanding at all as to why some of the other victims of military child sexual abuse weren’t willing to go on camera. “If they want to make claims, they have to be willing to stand up”. Nope. Sorry. There are a lot of former military dependents that are terrified of the Canadian Armed Forces and fear the retribution that they could face.

Do I fear retribution?

No, I’m the person who has wanted to die since he was 8 years old. I’m not afraid of DND or the CF solely for that reason. If death comes, it comes. No use being afraid of it.

Rosa was almost of the same opinion of Claude Adams from Global News. That if what I was alleging was such a problem, then we’d know about it my now because surely the “others” would have come forward by now.

So, here we are in 2021 going into 2022.

In 2020 the Military Police Complaints Commission confirmed in writing that the CFNIS knew all along about the connection between P.S. and Captain Father Angus McRae -and- the CFNIS in 2011 knew that P.S. had been investigated by the base military police for molesting children on Canadian Forces Base Namao.

Minister of National Defence Anita Anand has ordered ALL sexual abuse investigations, including my complaint against the Canadian Forces officer in the sauna at the base pool in 1980, be moved into the civilian justice system. This came as a result of the recent review of the military justice system and the subsequent recommendation that the CFNIS and military police be excluded from sexual assault investigations.

I was recently in contact with Ashley Burke of the CBC. I sent her a copy of an email that I had recently received from the Victim Services coordinator of the Canadian Armed Forces acknowledging that my sexual assault complaint against a different former officer of the Canadian Armed Forces was in the process of being handed over to the civilian authorities as per the order of Anita Anand, the new Minister of National Defence.

Ashley emailed me back pretty quick and wanted to know if I would consent to talking to her in a confidential telephone call. I passed her my telephone number and my contact information. Never have heard back from her. She won’t even return subsequent emails.

If I was a gambling man I’d be willing to wager that after my encounter with Rachel Ward and Rosa Marchitelli that my name is on some sort of black list at the CBC.

I can’t see the CBC willingly colluding with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to hide stories about child sexual abuse involving military personnel from the eyes of the Canadian public.

My story is pretty unique in the sense that I am a civilian with an active investigation before the CFNIS that is being handed to the civilian authorities.

Go Public seems to handle a lot of different stories from the Canadian Public involving institutions that are not subject to Access to Information or Freedom of Information Acts. So not getting the “other side” of the story doesn’t seem to stop Go Public and the CBC from running these stories.

If you check out Go Public’s web page, their stories run the gamut of closed Facebook accounts, patients with dementia buying service contracts, banks holding customers liable for cheque fraud, and other such public interest issues.

Civilians being denied justice because their parents and their abusers were in the Canadian Armed Forces? Nope, no interest.

Sure, the CBC receives massive support from the Government of Canada, but would the CBC really be willing to look the other way in order to ensure that their funding isn’t reviewed?

I can’t understand any other possibility.

David Pugliese has admitted that budget cuts and staffing cuts make a story like mine really hard for the commercial media to take an interest in.

But the CBC is the public broadcaster that is supposed to hold the Government of Canada to account when the commercial media can’t or won’t.

I can’t see grudges held by Rachel and Rosa as being enough on their own to repeatedly deep-six the story of how the Canadian Armed Forces have hidden and buried incidents of child sexual abuse on the bases, but you never know.

Maybe they know the right people. And when you know the right people, that’s all you need.

Maybe the CBC and its reporters don’t believe that male children can be sexually abused. That could be another possibility.

Or maybe the CBC believes that a 15 year old teenage male abusing his position as a babysitter and having forced anal intercourse with the 8 year old male that he is supposed to be babysitting is really nothing more than “Childhood curiosity and experimentation”.

Maybe the CBC and its reporters believe that even though the military police and the CFNIS have been found incompetent time and time again that somehow the CFNIS and the military police are fully capable of investigating child sexual abuse on the bases completely free from Chain of Command influence.

The Military Police Complaints Commission

A police review agency that takes its directions from the agency that runs the police agency that the MPCC reviews.

I’m not going to get too involved with the Military Police Complaints Commission in this blog other than to point out some important findings from the Final Review released in 2020.

After Sgt. Tenaschuk informed me in July of 2018 that the 2nd portion of CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754 I gathered up all of my evidence and all of my paperwork. Unlike my 2012 complaint to the MPCC, this time I was aware of what documents I would need and how I would obtain those documents.

During the 2015 to 2018 portion of the CFNIS investigation I made sure to audio record phone calls between myself and the investigators. I sent all communications to the CFNIS via email that also went to a cc: address. Important information was sent to the CFNIS via certified courier.

All the stuff that I didn’t do in my first go-round with the MPCC.

I also knew that the MPCC’s hands were tied. The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, by way of the National Defence Act has an extreme amount of control over the MPCC by way of controlling which documents are released to the MPCC and which documents are.

Unlike the Canadian Forces Ombudsman, the MPCC cannot compel DND, the CF, nor the Provost Marshal to hand over documents to the MPCC.

The MPCC did fault the CFNIS for telling the Alberta Government that no crime had occurred when the MPCC found that internal communications within the CFNIS back in 2011 indicated that my complaint against P.S. was in fact FOUNDED. The MPCC said that the CFNIS had erred when it relied on the Alberta Crown to determine if a crime had occurred. The MPCC said the internal communications within the CFNIS had in fact indicated that a crime had occurred but that the Alberta Crown has a very high bar set before it will lay charges. That bar is determined by the age of the offences, the benefit to society by trying those charges, and the cost of trying those charges.

Here are some really interesting pages from the MPCC final report:

Mr. X is my former babysitter, P.S.

What is interesting about this is that the CPIC check doesn’t show this.

P.S. is noted as being 20 years old on August 27th, 1985.
This would put his as being 15 years old at the time of Captain McRae’s Court Martial on July 18th, 1980
This would also go along with what and RCMP Constable told me in August of 2012, that P.S was born on June 20th, 1965 and that the boy in Manitoba was only 8 years old.

So, five charges of child sexual assault between 1982 and 1985?

How many children does a child molester usually abuse before they get caught?

X is my former babysitter from CFB Namao
X is P.S., my former babysitter from CFB Namao

Page 13 and Page 14 from the MPCC Final Report are quite interesting.

  • I initially spoke with Fred Cunningham on November 27th, 2011 in this conversation he mentioned the following:
    • P.S. was not 12 or 13 in 1980 as Mcpl Christian Cyr had told me on May 3rd, 2011. P.S. was 15 years old at the time of Captain McRae’s court martial on July 18th, 1980
    • “There definitely was something wrong with P.S. and he should never have been allowed to babysit children”
    • It was because of complaints to the base military police about P.S.’s sexual behaviour to younger children that Captain McRae came to be investigated.
    • Captain McRae was facing charges related for not only molesting P.S., but for molesting a boy named Fred Aitken and one other boy that Cunningham couldn’t name.
    • At the last minute the “brass” dropped all of the charges related to Fred Aitken and the other boy and as a result of this there was a very serious falling out between P.S. and Fred Aitken with Fred under the false impression that P.S. had stabbed Fred in the back. Cunningham insisted that it was the “brass” that made the decision.
      • In the 2015 to 2018 portion of CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754 Fred Cunningham stated to a CFNIS investigator that the “AJAG threw the CFSIU to the dogs”
      • In the 2015 to 2018 portion of CFNIS investigation GO 2011-5754 Fred Cunningham refused to participate in any type of a recorded interview. He would only talk “off record”.
    • Fred asked me to never mention to anyone what he had told me as he was afraid of getting into trouble as the court martial had been moved in-camera and the evidence sealed and no one was supposed to talk about it.

In December of 2011 I sent a letter to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal detailing some of my conversation with Cunningham. In January of 2012 I received a telephone call from the Provost Marshal himself assuring me that Fred Cunningham didn’t know what he was talking about, that Fred couldn’t have had access to the court martial, and that Fred might be repeating information that he heard second or third hand.

As I would learn in February of 2018 when I received Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit report CFSIU DS 120-10-80, Fred Cunningham was Warrant Officer Fred Cunningham in 1980. He was the Acting Section Commander of the CFSIU. And he had been personally tasked by the base security officer Captain David Pilling with investigating Captain McRae for having committed “Acts of Homosexuality” with young boys on the base.

Also, this is quite interesting in the sense that it proves that the CFNIS had access to all of this paperwork in 2011. When Mcpl Christian Cyr kept trying to tell me that P.S. was only 12 or 13 at the time of the abuse in 1980, Cyr was obviously going by what was contained in CFSIU DS 120-10-80. So even in 2011 the CFNIS knew full well what P.S. had done.

Again X and Mstr X are P.S., my babysitter from CFB Namao
Again X is P.S., my babysitter from CFB Nama.
X is P.S., my former babysitter from CFB Namao

Well, there you have it.
It’s all in Section 80.
“From all of this information, there can be little question that, at the very least, base military police were well aware of P.S.’s abuse of other children at the time of the investigation and prosecution of Captain Father McRae. Indeed, it appears to have been P.S.’s behaviour with other younger children, which led the military police’s pursuit of Captain McRae in the first place”.
Doesn’t get any plainer that that, does it?

THEY FUCKING KNEW IN 1980 WHAT P.S. WAS DOING.

And yet I’m the piece of shit that allowed P.S. to molest his younger brother.
I received 2-1/2 years of conversion therapy at the hands of military social worker Captain Terry Totzke.
I’m the homosexual that enjoyed what P.S. was doing to me because I let the abuse go on for so long according to Captain Totzke and my father.
And you wonder why I so desperately need to die.

Why were they so desperate in 1980 to paint P.S. as being only 12 or 13.

Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 14 was the minimum age that one could be held criminally responsible. As long as the brass on CFB Namao claimed that P.S. was only 12 or 13 they could justify not bringing in the RCMP to deal with P.S..

Why is this important?

The Canadian Forces had pulled out all of the stops to move the court martial of Captain Father Angus McRae “in-camera” thereby ensuring that the public would never discover that McRae and P.S. had molested well over 25 children on CFB Namao.

If P.S. had been investigated by the RCMP and the RCMP had laid charges, P.S. would have gone to Juvenile Court to be dealt with. And this would have negated all of the work that the CF and the DND had put into moving McRae’s court martial “in-camera”.

In Juvenile Court the court had the power to try any adult who had contributed to the delinquency of a minor. The DND and the CF would have been unable to move a civilian tribunal “in-camera” and thus the doings of Captain McRae and P.S. would have been available for the public to see.

The public would have learnt the McRae was bringing children over to the chapel and “fooling around” with them after giving them alcohol.

The public would have learnt that McRae was suspected of molesting well over 25 children.

The public would have learnt that during his ecclesiastical trial with the Catholic Church he admitted to having molested children for years wheich meant that he probably molested children on Canadian Forces Station Holberg, Canadian Forces Base Portage La Prairie, and Canadian Forces Base Kingston.

The Public would have learnt that Captain McRae had been investigated for “Acts of Homosexuality” at Royal Military College Kingston which is directly adjacent to Canadian Forces Base Kingston.

So the Canadian Forces stood to lose a lot if they allowed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with P.S..

Instead the R.C.M.p. were not called in and P.S. would go on to have a very lengthy criminal record for child molestation. In addition to the charges and convictions in his CPIC file, there are many more charges that were either dismissed or dropped.

How many of these instances of child sexual abuse didn’t need to occur if the RCMP had been called in as they should have been.

There is no moving on from this.

This isn’t just a slight “hiccup” or a tiny “boo-boo”

The Canadian Forces chain of command may not have intended to my life to have been affected in so many ways by the decisions made in 1980.

But it was.

And it’s not as simple as not thinking about it, or moving on from it.

The damage is done.

There’s no erasing it.

There’s no moving on from it.

It’s like you see those guys who were wrongfully convicted, and they spent 30 or 40 years in prison. And when they get out everyone just expects them to move on with their life even though they were sent to prison on lies, their friends long since abandoned them and their families have moved on, technology has moved on, the life they had was long since obliterated. There’s nothing for them to go back to. No matter how many apologies they get or they receive it won’t undo what was done.

That’s where I am. Due to my dealings with Captain Totzke and the 1-1/2 years of abuse at the hands of Captain McRae and P.S. I have absolutely no idea of what I am.

Am I gay?

Am I queer?

Am I a homosexual like Captain Totzke called me?

Am I straight?

If Captain Totzke hadn’t fucked with my brain would I be married?

Would I have had a wife?

Maybe a husband?

A boyfriend?

A girlfriend?

Now that I know the truth about 1980 it doesn’t make things any better.

As an adult I fully understand that I didn’t make P.S. abuse my younger brother, I didn’t allow P.S. to abuse my younger brother. P.S. abused my brother because my grandmother was a piss tank alcoholic and my father was living off base chasing skirts.

From August of 1980 until the last time I spoke with my father in September of 2006 he made sure that I understood that my brother’s issues were because I let the babysitter touch him.

You don’t get over that.

“But death was sweet, death was gentle, death was kind; death healed the bruised spirit and the broken heart, and gave them rest and forgetfulness; death was man’s best friend; when man could endure life no longer, death came and set him free.”

― Mark Twain (Letters From the Earth)

The Canadian Forces Ombudsman’s wings are clipped.

Or how an Independent at arms length agency is controlled by the agency that it is supposed to be overseeing and is supposed to be independent from.

It looks as if the Canadian Forces is getting slagged in the media again. This time not for its abysmal ability to investigate matters of sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.

No, the Canadian Forces is getting slagged for interfering with the Office of the Ombudsman for the Canadian Forces.

The Office of the Ombudsman has powers that the Military Police Complaints Commission doesn’t have. The Ombudsman can compel members of the Canadian Armed Forces to appear before any of its investigations. One would think that this matter would also extend to retired service members who were subject to the Code of Service discipline at the material time of the investigation.

The Ombudsman is supposed to have unfettered access to DND and CF records and can compel the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence to hand records and documents over to the Ombudsman for their investigation.

Why does the Ombudsman have these powers? Because no criminal charges can flow from a Ombudsman review. The Ombudsman can only make non-binding recommendations to the Minister of National Defence, the Department of National Defence, and the Canadian Forces.

For example

In 1974 there was a group of teenagers on Canadian Forces Base Valcartier in the province of Quebec. These teenagers were all between the ages of 12 and 18 and were members of various army cadet corps from across Canada. Somehow a live grenade found its way into the hands of one of the teenagers during a class session on ordnance. One cadet even asked the instructor, a captain of the regular force if it was a real grenade, the captain responded that no it wasn’t. So the teenager did what any curious teenager would have done, they pulled the pin and released the handle.

The grenade exploded.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/valcartier-grenade-incident-survivors-1.5235226

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/07/26/coroners_inquest_found_a_climate_of_negligence.html

In 2013 the Office of the Ombudsman for the Canadian Forces received the permission of the then Conservative Minister of National Defence Rob Nichols to undertake an investigation of a pre-mandate issue.

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-reports-stats-investigations-valcartier/valcartier-index.page
https://legionmagazine.com/en/2015/11/ombudsman-condemns-handling-of-cadets-after-1974-grenade-accident/

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Ombudsman would not have been allowed to conduct this pre-mandate review in the era of Harjit Sajjan or for that matter Justin Trudeau. After all, it was Harjit Sajjan that accused me of playing games and having an angle when I went to speak with him in February of 2016 just after he became the Minister of National Defence.

Even my local MP, Dr. Hedy Fry says that she can’t become involved in my matter because there are “no military bases” in Vancouver Centre.

And it was under Sajjan’s command that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces refused to release to me the court martial transcripts of Captain Father Angus McRae along with the Canadian Forces Special Investigations paperwork all because they indicated that the Canadian Forces chain of command was well aware in 1980 that my babysitter, P.S. had been molesting numerous children on Canadian Forces Base Namao and that Captain Father Angus McRae, who the MPCC called a known pedophile in 2020, was enticing children over to the rectory at the base chapel and getting them drunk before “fooling around” with them.

I have absolutely no idea as to why the Liberal Party of Canada refuses to allow the Office of the Ombudsman of the Canadian Forces to conduct an investigation into historical child sexual abuse in the era of the pre-1998 National Defence Act but neither Harjit Sajjan, Dr. Hedy Fry, nor Justin Trudeau seem to show any inclination to uncover what was hidden by a well known defective military justice system.

And I’m not imagining this interference.

Lo-and-Behold, it would appear that the Minister of National Defence and the Deputy Minister of National Defence have been interfering with the Office of the Ombudsman of the Canadian Forces.

https://twitter.com/wardrachel/status/1469327707410366465?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidpugliese/status/1469304939851632640?s=20
From David’s article.

Jesus H. Christ….

A few years ago Randal Garrison, the MP for Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke and then the Vice Co-Chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence asked Lt. General. Christine Whitecross during a committee hearing who had jurisdiction for the investigation of child sexual assaults on the bases in Canada. She blathered out some meaningless drivel about all child sexual abuse matters being handed over to the civilian authorities.

You can watch or download the video below.

Sure, I wasn’t a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. But my father was.
And under the Ombudsman’s mandate I am allowed to ask the Ombudsman to review a matter in relation to my involvement with the military justice system back in 1980.

Section 12(f) allows me to avail myself to the CF Ombudsman

These are the policies that guide the office of the Ombudsman.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5047/5047-1-office-of-the-ombudsman.html

DND and the CF SHALL provide……..

Hrrmmmm. So the Ombudsman can review military police investigations.
Interesting.
During a Military Police Complaints Commission investigation the CFNIS and the MPs can tell the MPCC to go piss up a rope.
Not so with the CF Ombudsman.
The Military Police Complaints Commission has no such authority.
A very interesting annex.

According to the above Annex B, the Canadian Forces are preventing the Ombudsman from conducting criminal investigations. But the Canadian Forces are also stating that there is nothing stopping the Ombudsman from conducting an investigation while a Military Police or CFNIS investigation is underway. So there would have been nothing stopping the Ombudsman from reviewing how military dependents are treated by the military justice system which is set up to deal primarily with perpetrators and victims that are subjected to the Code of Service Discipline and not civilians with no connection to the Canadian Forces other than they were military dependents at the time of the alleged crimes.

For instance the Ombudsman could review how the 3-year-time-bar or the Summary Investigation flaw actively prohibits the Canadian Armed Forces or any civilian court from bringing Code of Service Discipline charges against any person who was subject to the Code of Service Discipline prior to December of 1998.

The Ombudsman could also review how military dependents and other civilians availing themselves to the military justice system receive no actual victim services from the Canadian Forces as they are not members of the Canadian Forces and how often these military dependents receive no help from the provinces as the provinces consider sexual abuse on the military bases to be a Ottawa issue.

The Ombudsman could also initiate an inquiry to look at the rates of child sexual abuse on the bases prior to 1998 and determine if the 3-year-time-bar and the Summary Investigation flaw denied justice to children and also served to present an artificially low incidence of child sexual abuse on the bases in Canada.

The Ombudsman could also look into how the appalling homophobic attitudes of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence resulted in male children being subjected to “conversion therapy” at the hands of the Canadian Forces military social workers.

I never wanted to CF Ombudsman to judge P.S. and determine if P.S. was guilty of what I accused him of.

I only wanted the CF Ombudsman to review child sexual abuse on the Canadian Forces Bases in the era of the pre-1998 National Defence Act and to have the CF Ombudsman urge the Minister of National Defence and the Department of National Defence to do the right thing.

And you wonder why I am so looking forward to my date with death in 2023.

A person can only be told “Up” is “Down” and “White” is “Black” for so long before all of the demons from the past urge one to just give in an fall into the eternal slumber where none of this shit will ever haunt a person again.

Blimey, it just keeps looking worse and worse.

I think someone forgot to flush the toilets at 101 Colonel By Drive…. the shit is overflowing at NDHQ.

Well David Pugliese had this article in the Ottawa Citizen today. The story involves the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces Chain of Command using the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to harass and intimidate the Office of the Ombudsman of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Federal court has rebuked the military and compensation has been paid to members of the Office of the Ombudsman of the Canadian Forces.

It just doesn’t get any fucking better than this.

The story is available here at: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/dnd-investigations-into-ombudsmans-staff-exposed-as-shoddy-lacking-in-evidence

The Office of the Ombudsman for the Canadian Forces enjoys a rather unique position of independence from the Canadian Armed Forces.

Unlike the Military Police Complaints Commission which may only ‘ask’ for documents from the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal during investigations of complaints against the CFNIS. And unlike the Military Police Complaints Commission which may only ‘ask’ for persons to participate in their investigation. The National Defence Act makes mandatory the participation of military members in any Ombudsman investigation.

This is because criminal charges cannot result from any Ombudsman investigation or inquiry. The Ombudsman may only recommend changes and possibly compensation or other remedies.

The Office of the Ombudsman of the Canadian Armed Forces was the agency that recommended that while the Canadian Armed Forces were “technically correct” to deny benefits or compensation to any of the 12 to 18 year old cadets that were killed or injured in the 1974 grenade explosion at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier, it was absolutely the immoral thing to do considering that the regular force member whose negligence led to this disaster was allowed to receive benefits and compensation from the Canadian Armed Forces. The Ombudsman recommended that the Canadian Forces make amendments posthaste and offer the survivors compensation, counselling, and therapy.

There is one problem with the Office of the Ombudsman of the Canadian Forces. That problem is that the Ombudsman may only undertake investigations that the Minister of National Defence agrees to.

See, the Office of the Ombudsman of the Canadian Forces would have been the perfect agency to investigate the matter from Canadian Forces Base Namao. No criminal charges could ever flow from an Ombudsman investigation or findings.

P.S. could give all the information that he wished and he would never face criminal charges for what he said. Nor would P.S. be in violation of his Non-Disclosure agreement that he had to sign with the Government of Canada in November of 2008 in order to receive his settlement from the Government of Canada.

The Ombudsman could have called witnesses, including anyone who had been subject to the Code of Service Discipline during the events of the Captain Father Angus McRae affair.

Even though my father is dead now, had the Ombudsman conducted an inquiry while my father was still alive it would have been fun asking my father to explain just exactly who the hell was looking after his children from 1977 until 1981 if he was always away on training exercises and his wife had “abandoned the family” years prior. Was he letting his children run feral on a military base? Did he just drop his kids off at a random neighbour’s house for 6 weeks while he went and played soldier out in the woods?

The Ombudsman could have made recommendations to DND and the Canadian Forces so far as how to deal with the survivors of the Captain McRae fiasco.

But I can see why the Minister of National Defence would have declined the Ombudsman the permission to review the matter.

This would have been far too risky for DND.

If this matter had been reviewed by the Ombudsman, and news of this review made it to the media, how many other former military dependents would come forward with their allegations against DND and the CF?

Would the Ombudsman have made the formal recommendation that any and all child sexual abuse matters be formally handed over to the civilian police?

Would the Ombudsman make the recommendation that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence hire an independent investigation firm to conduct a completely independent and arm’s length investigation looking at how many children were sexually abused on the bases from 1950 until the present day?

Would the Ombudsman make recommendations that Parliament pass the required legislation to nullify the effects of the pre-1998 3-year-time-bar flaw and the Summary-Investigation flaw for matters that could be considered to be child sexual abuse?

There’s just far too much risk for the Minister to allow the Ombudsman to go digging into the MIlitary’s copious dirty laundry.

And I know from speaking with various investigators with the Office of the Ombudsman that the Ombudsman has been fighting for even more independence from the Canadian Armed Forces and not having to rely on the permission of the Minister of National Defence to conduct investigations that look at historical matters which occurred prior to when the Office of the Ombudsman was created in the late ’90s.

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.