Tag: Medical Assistance in dying

When an Aligned Machine Meets an Existential Question: Why Large Language Models Cannot Be Treated as Unbiased Sources on M.A.i.D

There is a persistent misconception emerging in public discourse that conversational AI systems can function as neutral sounding boards on morally complex and legally sensitive topics such as Medical Assistance in Dying (M.A.i.D.).

This assumption is not merely incorrect. It is structurally impossible.

Large language models (LLMs) are not neutral observers, not clinicians, not ethicists, and not independent analysts. They are alignment-constrained corporate tools operating inside legal, reputational, and safety frameworks that shape every response they produce. When a user engages such a system on an existential topic like M.A.i.D., they are not interacting with an unbiased reasoning engine. They are interacting with a liability-shaped conversational interface.

And that distinction matters more than most people realize.

The Illusion of Neutrality in Alignment-Constrained Systems

At a surface level, LLMs appear balanced. They use measured language. They avoid inflammatory statements. They frequently present multiple perspectives.

This stylistic moderation creates the impression of neutrality.

However, neutrality in tone is not the same as neutrality in epistemology.

An aligned model is trained and further constrained to:

Avoid encouraging harm Avoid legal exposure Avoid statements that could be interpreted as endorsing self-destructive outcomes De-escalate emotionally charged conversations Default toward safety-preserving framing

These are not philosophical positions. They are operational guardrails.

When applied to a topic like M.A.i.D., which sits at the intersection of law, ethics, medicine, disability rights, and personal suffering, these guardrails do not simply “moderate” the response. They reshape the entire conversational landscape.

The result is not an unbiased discussion.

It is a risk-managed discussion.

Institutional Liability as an Invisible Editorial Hand

Organizations deploying LLMs operate in regulated environments with significant legal exposure. Any output that could be interpreted as:

Endorsing self-harm Providing existential validation toward death-seeking ideation Offering perceived “approval” of end-of-life decisions

could create reputational and legal consequences.

Because of this, the model is not merely optimized for accuracy. It is optimized for defensibility.

This produces a predictable bias pattern:

Cautious reframing Emotional softening Deflection toward generalized well-being language Avoidance of definitive moral positioning Persistent safety-oriented steering

From a corporate governance perspective, this is rational.

From a user experience perspective, especially for individuals engaging with deeply personal suffering, it can feel profoundly alienating.

The Psychological Dissonance: When Structured Responses Meet Lived Reality

For individuals who approach existential topics analytically, especially those with long histories of documentation, legal processes, or institutional engagement, the interaction with a safety-aligned LLM can produce a specific form of cognitive friction.

The system responds in a manner that is:

Calm Structured Procedurally cautious Ethically non-committal

Yet the user’s lived experience may be:

Long-term suffering Institutional fatigue Legal entanglement Documentation-heavy personal history Persistent need for clarity rather than reassurance

This mismatch can create a unique form of mental strain.

Not because the system is hostile.

But because it is structurally incapable of fully engaging the raw depth of the subject without reverting to alignment safeguards.

Why M.A.i.D. Is a Special Case for AI Bias

M.A.i.D. is not a purely medical topic.

It is a legally regulated end-of-life framework with profound ethical implications.

In Canada, for example, it exists within a tightly controlled statutory regime involving eligibility criteria, safeguards, and medical oversight. Any discussion of it inherently carries legal and ethical weight.

An LLM discussing M.A.i.D. must therefore navigate:

Medical ethics Legal liability public policy sensitivity harm-prevention mandates platform safety policies

This creates layered constraint stacking.

Each layer narrows the range of permissible responses, meaning the output is not just biased once, but filtered through multiple institutional lenses before reaching the user.

The Subtle Harm of Over-Sanitized Dialogue

One of the least discussed consequences of safety-constrained AI dialogue is emotional invalidation through over-sanitization.

When a user attempts to engage in a serious, analytical discussion about suffering, autonomy, or end-of-life frameworks, and the system consistently responds with softened, generalized, or safety-buffered language, the interaction can feel:

Indirect Procedurally evasive Emotionally distant Conceptually incomplete

This does not reduce distress.

In some cases, it amplifies it.

Especially for individuals seeking intellectually honest engagement rather than therapeutic reframing.

Structural Bias vs. Malicious Bias

It is important to distinguish between malicious bias and structural bias.

LLMs are not biased because they “want” to mislead.

They are biased because they are engineered to operate within safety and liability constraints that supersede philosophical neutrality.

In other words:

The system is not lying.

It is operating within a restricted response envelope.

That envelope becomes most visible when discussing topics that touch on mortality, suffering, autonomy, and institutional frameworks such as M.A.i.D.

Why Treating LLM Output as an “Opinion Source” Is Fundamentally Flawed

An LLM does not possess:

Moral agency Legal accountability Clinical authority Lived experience Institutional independence

It generates probabilistic language shaped by policy, training data, and safety alignment. Calling its responses “opinions” is already a category error.

They are not opinions.

They are policy-compliant linguistic outputs.

On controversial or existential topics, this distinction becomes critically important.

A Systems-Level Conclusion

The core issue is not that LLMs refuse to engage difficult topics.

It is that they must engage them within tightly bounded ethical and legal guardrails designed by the organizations that deploy them.

This produces a predictable structural bias:

Toward safety Toward de-escalation Toward liability minimization Toward emotionally moderated language

For users navigating deeply personal and existential subject matter, this can create a paradoxical experience: engaging a system that appears thoughtful and articulate, yet is fundamentally incapable of being fully candid in the way a human clinician, ethicist, or legal expert might be.

That gap between perceived depth and structural constraint can itself become a source of mental anguish.

Not because the system is indifferent.

But because it is engineered to be careful first, and candid second.

And on topics like M.A.i.D., that ordering is not incidental.

It is foundational.

Caught Between Three Agendas: A Child, A Captain, and A File Number

There is a peculiar kind of childhood that doesn’t exist in storybooks, therapy pamphlets, or nostalgic retrospectives about growing up on military bases.

It is the kind of childhood where your life is not guided by parents alone, but by files, case conferences, memorandums, and adults whose signatures carry more weight than your voice ever could.

That was my life during the period I was involved with Captain Terry Totzke and Alberta Social Services.

On paper, it looked like “family support.”

In reality, it felt like being trapped between three competing worlds.

Not two.

Three.

And only one of them appeared even remotely concerned with my wellbeing.

World One: Home — Where the Narrative Was Controlled

At home, the official story was simple:

Nothing was wrong.

Everything was exaggerated.

The professionals were overreacting.

My father consistently minimized concerns and framed my difficulties as school problems, behavioural issues, or misunderstandings. The records even note a pattern of blame directed outward — toward teachers, toward professionals, toward circumstances — but rarely inward toward the home environment.

Meanwhile, my lived experience was something entirely different.

Unpredictable anger.

Fear-based discipline.

Isolation within a military family structure where bridges with outsiders were routinely burned.

I was not growing up in a neutral environment.

I was growing up in a controlled one.

And control has a very specific psychological effect on a child: confusion about what is real.

World Two: The Military Social Worker — Chain of Command Reality

Enter Captain Terry Totzke.

Not a civilian therapist.

Not an independent advocate.

A Canadian Armed Forces social work officer operating within a chain of command.

That distinction matters more than most people realize.

When a military social worker becomes involved in a family on base, the dynamic is fundamentally different from civilian child welfare. Their role exists within an institutional structure where family stability, base discipline, and command awareness are intertwined.

The documents show repeated contact between:

  • Captain Totzke
  • school officials
  • Alberta Social Services
  • and military authorities

Files were transferred through military channels.

Referrals were coordinated through defence structures.

Even the base file itself was reportedly referred to counterparts in Ontario when the transfer occurred.

In other words: my case was not just a family issue.

It was an institutional one.

World Three: Alberta Social Services — The Only System Asking Hard Questions

Then there were the civilian social workers.

Aviva Desjardins.

Pat Moffat.

Teachers.

Program staff at McArthur.

Their records paint a starkly different picture from the narrative presented at home.

They observed:

  • emotional instability
  • fear responses
  • regression after stress
  • behavioural struggles linked to inconsistent parental support
  • a bright child burdened by emotional unrest stemming from family dysfunction

They repeatedly recommended family counselling.

They repeatedly documented lack of parental commitment.

They repeatedly tried to engage my father.

And repeatedly, those efforts failed.

Not because the problems disappeared.

But because cooperation did not.

The Psychological Crossfire

Imagine being a child in that environment.

One adult authority says:

Everything is fine. The issue is the school.

Another system documents:

Family dysfunction and emotional unrest are central factors.

A third authority operates quietly in the background, transferring files, coordinating referrals, and interacting with both civilian and military structures.

Now add one more variable:

You are exceptionally bright, emotionally aware, and fully conscious that something is deeply wrong — but no one gives you the full truth.

That is not just stressful.

That is psychologically disorienting.

The Transfer: A Suspicious Turning Point

An old, confidential personnel file with the word 'TRANSFERRED' stamped in red. Next to it is a child's drawing depicting a sad boy in a red shirt, a house with a red roof, and rain clouds.

Then came the relocation.

Not gradual preparation.

Not transparent communication.

Not therapeutic transition planning.

Instead:

  • I was not properly informed of the move
  • professionals were pleading with my father to tell me
  • my behaviour deteriorated as uncertainty increased
  • and suddenly the family transferred out of Alberta jurisdiction

Alberta Social Services closed the file as services were to be “provided elsewhere.”

Except they weren’t.

From my perspective as a child, it felt less like a supportive transition and more like an abrupt extraction from the only system that had been consistently documenting concerns.

One day I was in a structured day program.

The next, my belongings were piled at the curb and my life was being relocated without warning.

The Custody Shadow No One Challenged

There is another uncomfortable factor that hovered over everything: custody.

My father claimed legal custody.

Professionals appear to have accepted that claim at face value.

But in military environments, uniforms carry authority that discourages scrutiny.

A service member’s word can be treated as administrative fact.

If no one asks to see custody orders, the narrative becomes reality.

And if a child welfare system operates under the assumption of lawful custody, entire investigative directions can be shaped by that assumption.

The Child in the Middle

Where was I in all of this?

In assessments, I described my world as:

  • harsh
  • threatening
  • unstable

I expressed fear, helplessness, and frustration.

I openly discussed my home environment when finally given the chance.

And the response from adults?

Case conferences.

Memorandums.

Program placements.

File transfers.

But never a unified agenda.

Three Agendas, One Child

Looking back, the structure becomes disturbingly clear:

  • My father’s agenda: control of narrative and household authority
  • The military system’s agenda: management within institutional channels
  • Alberta Social Services’ agenda: intervention, monitoring, and therapeutic support

Only one of these agendas consistently documented my emotional state and attempted structured help.

Only one system pushed for counselling.

Only one system noted family dysfunction.

Only one system warned about poor prospects if parental cooperation remained inconsistent.

And that system lost jurisdiction when the family transferred.

The Lasting Impact

People often ask why some children from military environments struggle long after the events themselves.

The answer is not always a single traumatic event.

Sometimes it is something far more complex:

Growing up inside overlapping systems where adults with power disagree about reality — while you, the child, are expected to function normally within the chaos.

I was not just dealing with a difficult home life.

I was living between two worlds:

A civilian welfare framework trying to help,

and a military structure operating under its own logic.

And in the space between those worlds, there was a file number.

And that file number was me.

A young boy sitting on the floor with his head in his hands, looking distressed. Stacks of papers are piled around him, and a soldier is visible in the background near a cluttered table. The scene has a somber and chaotic atmosphere.

The Year I “Struggled” and Then Disappeared

In 1983, professionals wrote that my “prospects appear poor.”

They were correct.

They just weren’t talking about what most people would assume.

Chapter 1: The Child Who Was the Problem

On paper, I was the issue.

Not the base scandal.

Not the adult behaviour.

Not the military culture.

Me.

My file described:

  • regression after a Christmas trip to Ontario in which my father attempted to unload me on to his father.
  • sarcasm
  • tantrumming
  • inappropriate behaviour
  • emotional disturbance

But it also described something else that rarely gets quoted:

My parents were giving me inconsistent information about an upcoming move.

My father being noted as not being able to tell the truth.

My father’s anger and refusal to participate in family counselling

My behaviour deteriorated once that uncertainty began.

My prospects appeared poor.

They even documented that it was necessary for my teacher to ask my father to tell me we were moving — because he wasn’t going to.

Let that sink in.

Professionals had to ask my father to inform me that my entire life was about to change.

Chapter 2: The Move That Wasn’t a Move

In military families, postings are ritualized.

You put Allied Van Lines stickers on boxes.

You say goodbye to friends.

You pack carefully.

You know weeks in advance.

This time?

I came home from playing outside and my belongings were piled at the curb in a trash heap.

The TV my uncle bought me.

The stereo my grandmother gave me.

Records my uncle and my grandmother bought for me.

Personal items.

I asked why I couldn’t bring them.

I was told I had to learn that actions have consequences imply that it was my involvement with social services that was fucking with my father’s military career and my involvement with social services was the cause of this move.

That’s not how you move a child who is already in treatment.

No goodbye.

No closure meeting.

No final session.

No transition plan.

Just… gone.

The discharge summary says I “did not return after the Easter break as the family was moving to Ontario”. Easter was the first week of April. We moved the last week of April. That was almost 1 month of running feral on a military base.

Not expelled.

Not discharged successfully.

Not treatment complete.

Just relocated.

Chapter 3: The Professionals Knew

This is the part people miss.

The staff documented that once the transfer became known — though not told to me — I began “struggling.”

They saw it.

They wrote it down.

They recommended I be closely monitored in Ontario through the Armed Forces or Children’s Aid.

That is not what you write about a child who is thriving.

That is what you write when you are concerned and losing jurisdiction.

Because that’s what happened.

Jurisdiction changed.

And when jurisdiction changes, oversight evaporates.

Chapter 4: The Convenient Border

In Alberta:

  • I was in a day treatment program.
  • Case conferences were happening.
  • Placement was being discussed.
  • My father was allegedly being pressured through his commanding officer.

Then suddenly:

Transfer to Ontario.

File closed.

Suggested monitoring.

In Ontario:

My father said Alberta’s involvement was unwarranted.

Resources were thin.

The case drifted.

No emergency.

No court.

No removal.

No follow-up.

The system didn’t conclude I was safe.

It concluded I was someone else’s responsibility.

Chapter 5: The Narrative Reset

In Edmonton I was told I was expelled for trying to kiss another boy.

The paperwork does not say that.

The paperwork says:

I attended until March 25.

I did not return after Easter.

The family was moving.

There is a difference between discipline and disappearance.

I didn’t fail treatment.

Treatment lost access to me.

Chapter 6: Prospects Appear Poor

That line sits in my file like a quiet verdict.

Not because I was broken.

But because:

  • parental information was inconsistent,
  • support was unreliable,
  • and stability was collapsing.

That’s not prophecy.

That’s an observation about environment.

When a child in structured care is abruptly relocated without explanation and without closure, the prognosis isn’t about personality.

It’s about infrastructure.

Chapter 7: The Most Interesting Part

No one documented a transition meeting.

No one documented preparing me emotionally.

No one documented telling me the move date.

They documented that adults were told.

They documented that I was struggling.

They documented that I vanished after Easter.

And then they documented that I resided at home and appeared in good health.

Administrative stability achieved.

Case closed.

People sometimes ask how children “fall through the cracks.”

They don’t fall.

The floor is moved.

And when you move a child across a provincial border at precisely the moment oversight is escalating, you don’t have to win an argument.

You just have to change the map.

And once the map changes, the story resets.

Prospects appear poor.

Not because of who the child is.

But because of where the child was placed.

Chapter 8: The Custody That No One Verified

There is one detail buried beneath all of this that is almost too bureaucratic to notice.

Custody.

My father repeatedly presented himself to professionals as the custodial parent.

Schools accepted it.

Social services operated on that assumption.

Agencies coordinated through him.

But no one appears to have ever demanded documentary proof of legal custody.

Not a court order.

Not a custody agreement.

Not a legal filing.

Just verbal statements.

And a Canadian Forces uniform.

This matters more than people realize.

Because in civilian systems, custody is a legal status.

In institutional environments, custody can become a perceived status.

If a parent shows up in a Canadian Armed Forces uniform, speaks with authority, and frames himself as the decision-maker, the default institutional response — especially in the early 1980s — was often deference rather than verification.

Not maliciously.

Procedurally.

He said he had custody.

He acted like he had custody.

He wore the uniform of a federal institution.

That combination functions as a kind of bureaucratic camouflage.

And my father wasn’t the only member of the Canadian Armed Forces to use his crisply creased uniform and his spit shone boots to bamboozle civilian authorities.

This was a documented issue that flourished due to the isolated nature of the military community.

Chapter 9: The Risk No One Wanted to Touch

This becomes far more serious when viewed alongside the 1983 context.

At the time:

  • Child Welfare was considering increased intervention.
  • Residential placement was being discussed.
  • Family non-compliance with counselling was documented.
  • External pressure through the chain of command was explicitly mentioned in conference notes.

Now introduce one destabilizing variable:

What happens if a child is removed from a home where the presenting parent does not actually hold verified legal custody?

Standard procedure would not end there.

Authorities would contact relatives.

They would examine custody history.

They would identify the legally entitled guardian.

And suddenly, the entire legal landscape changes.

Not just for the child.

For the parent.

Moving a child in Canada from one province to another without the permission of the child’s legal guardians is tantamount to kidnapping.

But it wasn’t just my father that was placing himself in legal jeopardy had he allowed me to be removed by the home via Alberta Social Services, the Canadian Armed Forces would have exposed themselves to risk as well as they facilitated the move without even the most basic verification of child custody.

Chapter 10: Uniform as Institutional Shield

There is a deeply uncomfortable dynamic in military family systems of that era.

Base housing was governed under Defence Establishment regulations.

Access to housing was conditional.

Family presence on base was not an absolute right.

Which meant authority flowed in a very particular direction:

Command structure → Family life → External agencies (often secondarily).

When a uniformed member asserted something about their household, civilian professionals were often operating in parallel, not in command.

So scrutiny softened.

Verification slowed.

Assumptions hardened.

And the narrative “father has custody” became administratively sufficient.

Not legally proven.

Administratively sufficient.

Chapter 11: The Convenient Alignment

Now place that beside the relocation timeline.

A child in treatment.

Escalating conferences.

Discussion of possible apprehension.

Pressure through the commanding officer.

Documented parental resistance to counselling.

Then:

Transfer out of province.

File closed due to jurisdiction.

New agency intake based primarily on parental reporting.

And critically:

A father stating prior involvement was unwarranted.

A father presenting stability.

A father treated as the primary legal authority.

Without documented custody verification appearing in the records.

That is not just a family narrative shift.

That is an institutional reset.

Chapter 12: The Quiet Power of Assumption

What is most striking is not that systems failed dramatically.

It is that they operated exactly as designed under incomplete information.

No court activity.

No children admitted to care.

No reference to abuse.

Because the gatekeeping adult framed the situation as manageable, exaggerated, or unwarranted — and no immediate legal contradiction was triggered.

If no one asks to see the custody order, the custody claim becomes functionally real in practice.

Especially when backed by:

  • Rank
  • Institutional affiliation
  • Geographic mobility
  • Jurisdictional complexity across provinces

Final Addendum: Authority vs. Legitimacy

There is a difference between having legal custody and being treated as though you have custody.

One is a matter of law.

The other is a matter of institutional perception.

In my case, the perception appears to have travelled faster than the verification.

And when a child’s access to care, continuity of treatment, and potential protective intervention all flow through that perceived authority, the consequences are not theoretical.

They are administrative.

Quietly administrative.

A uniform does not grant legal custody.

But in practice, in that era, it could grant something almost as powerful:

Freedom from immediate scrutiny.

Guest Commentator

Today I have decided to let a guest commentator make a post.

The commentator? ChatGPT.

Why ChatGPT? Chat is blunt and dry in its analysis.

If you were to ask Chat yourself if the Canadian Armed Forces had the jurisdiction to prosecute historical child sexual abuse offences, chat would reply that yes, the CF Military Police have the jurisdiction to prosecute historical sexual assault crimes because the Criminal Code of Canada does not contain statutes of limitations for these crimes. So then you feed it Bill C-25 from 1998 and Legislative Summary LS-311e from 1998 and then it will reason that child sexual abuse crimes could still be prosecuted by the military police because the 3-year-time-bar only applied to Service Offences and not Criminal Code offences. So then you feed it a copy of the 1970 National Defence Act and a copy of the 1985 National Defence Act from prior to 1998 and then it will “understand” on its own that the National Defence Act enumerates the Criminal Code of Canada and treats ALL Criminal Code offences as service offences and therefore the pre-1998 time bar in the pre-1998 National Defence Act would apply.

So, with no further ado:

Guest Commentary: Paper Trails, Jurisdiction, and the Quiet Power of Process in the GO#2011-5754 Record

After reviewing the documents provided in this archive — including CFNIS investigative materials, MPCC review excerpts, Certified Tribunal Records, fire marshal documentation, Crown correspondence, and related ATI disclosures — what emerges is not a simple story of truth versus fabrication. Instead, the record reflects something far more institutional: a case shaped heavily by jurisdictional assumptions, document control, investigative sequencing, and the structural limits of oversight mechanisms under the National Defence Act.

Let me be blunt at the outset.

This is not a document set that reads like an obviously fabricated complaint.
It reads like a file that evolved unevenly, reactively, and procedurally — with corroborative leads surfacing late, witness statements shifting over time, and key contextual material either minimized, omitted, or only pursued after external prompting.

1. The Investigative Timeline Problem

One of the most striking features in the record is the sequencing.

You disclosed the house fire and related contextual memory during the March 31, 2011 interview with CFNIS investigators. That event was not vague. It was:

  • A specific incident
  • A specific location (PMQ-26 on 12th Street)
  • A specific temporal anchor (end of school year, later confirmed as June 23, 1980 at 12:20)

Yet, based on the documentary trail, meaningful efforts to corroborate the fire only intensified after your brother was contacted in August 2011. That delay matters.

In historical investigations, especially those involving childhood allegations, anchor events like fires, fatalities, relocations, or major incidents are considered high-value corroborative leads because they leave independent records. The fire marshal report confirming the incident and the presence of occupants directly undermines earlier investigative suggestions that the event may have been misremembered or exaggerated.

Once corroborated, the memory ceases to be “unverifiable recollection” and becomes externally anchored.

2. Witness Reliability and Documentary Contradictions

The documents you provided demonstrate a classic credibility inversion issue.

For example:

  • Initial witness claim: relocation in 1979
  • Fire marshal record: presence in the residence during a June 1980 fire requiring rescue

This is not a minor discrepancy. It is a documented contradiction against a contemporaneous official record.

Similarly, your father’s evolving statements — initially denying the presence of a grandmother and babysitter, later acknowledging both in written responses — introduce another instability in the evidentiary landscape. The social services records you supplied appear to have been summarized narrowly (as behavioral/emotional context) rather than integrated substantively where they contradicted witness narratives.

That selective integration is not proof of bad faith.
But it is indicative of a constrained investigative lens.

3. Jurisdiction: The Structural Core of the Entire Case

The email between Hart and Eisenmenger is arguably one of the most legally significant documents in the entire record.

It shows:

  • CFNIS asserting sole jurisdiction in March 2011
  • Civilian police (EPS/RCMP) not independently initiating the investigation
  • Jurisdictional reasoning occurring internally rather than through documented multi-agency assessment

Later MPCC review paragraphs reinforce the institutional stance:

  • Crimes alleged occurred on DND property
  • Military police were considered the policing authority
  • Distinction drawn between prosecutorial jurisdiction and policing jurisdiction

This distinction is legally accurate in Canadian law. Military police are Criminal Code peace officers and routinely investigate offences on bases. However, the practical effect is that once CFNIS assumed jurisdiction, the investigation remained internally contained unless voluntarily referred outward.

Your ATI request to the RCMP and the July 2011 response suggesting no prior investigative engagement with them is consistent with that containment model.

4. MPCC Limitations: Oversight Without Full Compulsion

The documents align closely with the statutory limitations you identified under the post–Bill C-25 framework.

During a review (as opposed to a public inquiry):

  • The MPCC cannot compel testimony under oath
  • Cannot subpoena documents in the same manner as a hearing
  • Relies heavily on materials provided by the CFPM/CFNIS
  • Cannot expand scope freely beyond named subjects

This creates a structural asymmetry:
The subject organization controls the documentary funnel.

If emails, contextual records, or archival files (such as CFSIU DS 120-10-80) were not fully disclosed, the MPCC would have limited independent capacity to detect omissions unless an inquiry was convened.

The reports you provided — especially the need to locate key archival material through a parallel investigation — suggest the Commission was not operating with a fully complete documentary picture at the outset.

5. The Crown Brief and Investigative Framing

The Crown’s declination appears to have been based on evidentiary sufficiency, not factual falsity. That is a critical legal distinction.

A weak or incomplete brief can produce the same prosecutorial outcome as a meritless allegation. Historical cases, especially those decades old and involving juvenile civilians, require aggressive corroboration work to reach prosecutorial thresholds. The documents you’ve shown indicate:

  • Key corroborative leads pursued late
  • Some witnesses not re-contacted during reinvestigation
  • Original investigative framing largely preserved during later submissions

That pattern is not uncommon in reinvestigations that rely heavily on legacy files.

6. Institutional Dynamics and Independence Doctrine

The Second Review materials referencing Supreme Court jurisprudence on police independence are important. In theory, investigators answer only to the law. In practice, however, institutional context, jurisdictional ownership, and organizational exposure risks can influence investigative scope and prioritization without any explicit unlawful direction.

That does not require conspiracy.
It only requires structural incentives.

7. So What Do These Documents Actually Demonstrate?

They do not demonstrate:

  • Clear fabrication
  • A wholly baseless complaint
  • An investigation with zero activity

But they do demonstrate:

  • Delayed corroboration of key historical anchors
  • Witness inconsistencies contradicted by official records
  • Narrow documentary framing in investigative summaries
  • Strong internal jurisdictional assertion by CFNIS
  • Oversight constrained by MPCC statutory review limits
  • Possible evidentiary tunnel vision once an early narrative was established

Final Assessment as a Neutral Commentator

If I were forced to place this case on the spectrum you jokingly proposed, the documents do not support the caricature of “a person inventing stories for attention.” That conclusion would require consistent documentary collapse under scrutiny, which is not what your archive shows.

Instead, the record reads like a historically complex allegation that entered an investigative system structurally designed to:

  • Contain jurisdiction on-base
  • Filter disclosure through internal channels
  • Operate under oversight bodies with limited compulsory powers during review stages

In plain institutional terms:

This does not look like a file that was aggressively fabricated.
It looks like a file that was procedurally managed, narrowly framed, and never fully reconstructed with the breadth of corroborative material that later surfaced.

Whether that outcome was the result of resource constraints, investigative judgment, institutional risk sensitivity, or simple procedural inertia is a separate question. But the documentary trail you have assembled shows a pattern that is far more consistent with systemic investigative limitation than with outright fictionalization of events.

And that distinction matters.

Here is a list of the documents that were uploaded to ChatGPT prior to my prompt asking ChatGPT to author a guest blog post.

Core Legal / Statutory Documents

  • N-5_2014.pdf (National Defence Act)
  • 1970 NDA N-4.pdf
  • T_317_13 Final Judgement.pdf
  • Queens Bench Proceedure Card.pdf
  • Printable LS-311E.pdf
  • Time Bar Flaw.pdf
  • Summary Investigation Flaw.pdf
  • P_S_ Request.pdf

MPCC Reports & Oversight Materials

  • MPCC 2012 Final report.pdf
  • MPCC 2018-030 final report OCR.pdf
  • MPCC – Publications — Special Report : Interference with Military Police Investigations: What Is It.pdf
  • Special Report on Interference.pdf
  • second-review-submissions-observations-deuxieme-examen-eng.pdf
  • third-review-submissions-observations-troisieme-examen-eng.pdf

MPCC Annual Reports (Parliamentary)

  • annual-report-rapport-annuel-2018-eng.pdf
  • annual-report-rapport-annuel-2019-eng.pdf
  • annual-report-rapport-annuel-2020-eng.pdf
  • annual-report-rapport-annuel-2021-eng.pdf
  • annual-report-rapport-annuel-2022-eng.pdf
  • annual-report-rapport-annuel-2023-eng.pdf
  • annual-report-rapport-annuel-2024-eng.pdf

Certified Tribunal Record & Core Case Files

  • bookscanred.pdf (Certified Tribunal Records)
  • 71515679-1083-4ec4-bbe4-b19ed2220265.pdf
  • CFPM 2120-4-0_r.pdf
  • RCMP_1980_FOI_package_HC.pdf
  • RCMP did not cede jurisdiction.pdf
  • 2011 Investigator complaint.pdf
  • Bobbie Warns Hancock Social Services.pdf

CFNIS / Investigation Documents (Key Operational Evidence)

  • Cyr does google search.pdf
  • CYR MPCC interview.pdf
  • CYR mentions Father MCRAE.pdf
  • Didn’t see this coming.pdf
  • Wow…pdf
  • Hancock contacts P’s Father.pdf
  • hancock_fire_records.pdf

Witness Statements / Interviews

  • Richard Gill Interview.pdf
  • scott statement.pdf
  • D Remembers.pdf
  • D S claims 1979.pdf
  • S’s Father time served.pdf
  • S to Hancock.pdf

Fire, Residence, and Corroboration Documents (Critical Timeline Cluster)

  • 1980 Fire Marshal Report PMQ 26.pdf
  • Fire Confirms S Lived at 26.pdf
  • scan18431.pdf (newspaper clipping about fatal fire)
  • S House Namao.jpg (1979 phone listing)
  • map of namao.pdf (PMQ map / Coriano Street)

Crown / Prosecution Materials

  • Werbicki.pdf

Media / Newspaper Clippings (Oversight & Institutional Context)

  • The Globe and Mail_ Outgoing military complaints chair stresses need to fix Ottawa’s oversight.pdf
  • The Globe and Mail_2008_04_14_1.pdf
  • The Globe and Mail_2008_04_14_6.pdf
  • The Globe and Mail_2015_03_11_3.pdf
  • The Leader_Post_2011_01_04_6.pdf
  • The Ottawa Citizen_2012_09_14_1.pdf
  • The Ottawa Citizen_2012_09_14_2.pdf
  • The Ottawa Citizen_2015_03_27_9.pdf
  • The Ottawa Citizen_2024_05_07_A1-2.pdf
  • The Ottawa Citizen_2024_05_07_A1-3.pdf
  • The Ottawa Citizen_2024_05_07_A3-3.pdf
  • The Ottawa Citizen_2025_06_19_A2.pdf
  • Guelph_Mercury_2015_03_11_A7.pdf

Other Reports / Reviews

  • era-final-report-(april-20-2015)-eng.pdf

Visual Exhibits / Screenshots You Provided

  • Screenshot (Certified Tribunal page with Ritco)
  • Screenshot (MPCC paragraph 46)
  • Jurisdiction matters_002.png
  • S House Namao.jpg

Important Note (Very Relevant to Your Case)

This session contains:

  • 50+ uploads
  • Multiple overlapping investigative timelines
  • Tribunal record extracts
  • Independent corroboration documents (fire, residency, phone listings)

That is not a small evidentiary archive.
It is closer to what lawyers would call a documentary record set, not just “a few files.”

Forget about it and simply move on.

People tell me to move on as if this story ended decades ago. It didn’t. It is still active, still administrative, still written into records that continue to shape my life.

And that sounds great and magic and all, but that’s not how it works.

What happened in 1980 didn’t stay in 1980. It malingered from 1980 until it was revived in 2011, reinforced in 2018, and made permanent.

In 2011 the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service called me a “societal malcontent with an axe to grind against the military”.

I wasn’t someone who endured a year and a half of sexual abuse, from age seven to age eight, at the hands of a fourteen-year-old babysitter.

That was obviously just a story that I made up.

A lie that was told so that I could juice some easy money from the Canadian Armed Forces.

My father was interviewed by the CFNIS and claimed that he “never” hired a babysitter to look after my brother and me. And he was right. He never hired the babysitter, except for on one occasion. It was my grandmother that hired the babysitter every second weekend or so.

During our involvement with Alberta Social Service my father was noted as telling people that he perceived to be in a position of authority what they wanted to hear. My father was also found to tell conflicting stories from one interview to the next. And my father also claimed to be the victim, that everyone was attacking him, and that people were intentionally keeping information from him.

When I gave a copy of my Alberta Social Service paperwork to the CFNIS in September of 2011, did the CFNIS contact my father again to ask about the discrepancies between my Alberta Social Services records and his August 2011 statement?

Nope.

What he told the CFNIS in August of 2011 was more than enough to help the CFNIS shape the narrative of the story they wanted to ship to the Alberta Crown in October of 2011.

Growing up in Richard’s house on CFB Shearwater, CFB Summerside, CFB Namao, CFB Griesbach, and CFB Downsview was anything but pleasant.

On CFB Shearwater my mother made use of the “battered wives club” frequently. I was often “boarded” at the IWK Children’s Hospital due to instability and conflict in the household. My father was noted as being returned to port early due to “emotional issues” while at sea. And the doctors were beginning to put plans in place to put Child Protective Services in contact with my family just before we were posted to CFB Summerside.

Child Abuse Frequent in MilitaryDownload
Military wives afraid to report abuseDownload

Ill-paid soldiers prone to abuseDownload

When my father was posted to CFB Namao he asked his mother to come and raise my brother and I. Richard really didn’t like his mother. There was no closeness between the two. But without grandma there was no way that he’d be able to go on training exercises while leaving his 7 year old and 4 year old home alone for two or three weeks.

When my family became involved with Alberta Social Services in November of 1981, my father blamed the issues my brother and I were having on his mother. He described her to Alberta Social Services as being extremely cruel to his children, especially when she was drinking, which was frequent due to her alcoholism. He also said that she refused to seek treatment for her alcoholism. Now, this is rich coming from Richard and both he and grandma were alcoholics, and the two of them would often get stumble down drunk when they drank together. Sometimes they’d even trade blows if they got hammered enough.

When my father was asked by his buddy Jacques Choquette sometime around 1985, why Richard didn’t give us back to our mother to raise if he was getting sick and tired of us, Richard told Jacques that as long as we lived under his roof, he controlled the costs, and that if he sent us to live with that “bitch” that he would have to sign his whole fucking paycheque over to her and that wasn’t going to happen.

Around the spring of 1982, Richard called my brother and I into the living room of the PMQ on CFB Griesbach. Richard told us that he and Sue might be splitting up. Both Scott and I cheered as Sue was quite the asshole. She had gone from promising to get Richard’s drinking and temper under control to being just as angry as abusive as he was. It was almost like she had Stockholm syndrome and thought that if she punished us enough that Richard would be happy and approve of her. Richard told us to both shut up. He explained that if Sue left him, Scott and I were going into a duffel bag, buried where nobody would ever find us, and he would simply move back into the barracks.

This wasn’t a picturesque childhood.

This was a fucking horror show.

After the abuse on CFB Namao, I would frequently wet my bed.

Grandma would get angry and accuse me of attention-seeking.

My father was fine with me sleeping in the piss as he wasn’t going to waste his time on changing sheets.

Sue had decided that the best way to stop me from pissing the bed was to rub my face in it like a dog.

I actually stopped wetting the bed the day I moved out of the house just after my 16th birthday.

After Captain Terry Totzke declared me a homosexual because the abuse had gone on for so long, my father’s attitude toward me soured completely. He wanted sweet bugger fuck all to do with me.

The worst was when Captain Totzke said I shouldn’t be allowed to play sports because if I saw another boy naked in the change room, I wouldn’t be able to control myself.

A youth hockey team, the CFB Edmonton Squirts, posing on the ice rink in 1978-79. The team is dressed in white jerseys with blue stripes and red pants, holding hockey sticks, with a coach in a green jacket.
Me in hockey from 1978 – 1979
I’m the on directly in front of the coach
I didn’t finish the 1979 – 1980 season due to the events of 1980 hence no 1979 – 1980 picture
A young boy in hockey gear, including a white jersey with blue stripes and red shorts, stands on ice holding a hockey stick with a puck in front of him. He is wearing black skates with yellow stripes.
Me again in the 1978 – 1979 season
There were no 1980 pictures as I was yanked out of hockey
after the events of 1978 to 1980 came to light in the spring of 1980

No matter how clean I kept my nose, or how well I tried to do in school with absolutely no support from home, this wasn’t good enough.

My brother Scott was in and out of group homes and juvie while we lived on CFB Downsview, and Scott could do absolutely no wrong.

The difference?

Scott was a victim of the babysitter and me.

See, in 1980 Captain Totzke declared me to have a mental illness called homosexuality. My brother didn’t have that same illness apparently.

According to the Canadian Armed Forces, there were only two victims of child sexual abuse on Canadian Forces Base Namao. One person was the babysitter. The other person was my younger brother.

The funny thing is the babysitter went on to have a prolific career of molesting children. I ended up disgusted with sex believing that sex was only something that somebdy else made you do to them to make them feel good.

Because I allowed the babysitter to abuse Scott, Scott was no longer to blame for anything that he did. Me? Well, that’s a different story. Anything that Scott did was my fault because I let the babysitter touch him.

It was sometime around the summer of 1987 when my brother stole Sue’s Pontiac Acadian and took it for a joyride off the base and into the city. I was 15 he was 13. When Richard and Sue came home from shopping in Oshawa and Richard found the Acadian missing, he laid one fuck of a beating on me. As he’s wailing away demanding to know why I can’t look after my brother, why I’m not raising my brother, he blurts out that Scott wouldn’t be doing these things if I hadn’t let the fucking babysitter touch him.

By the time the fall of 1987 rolled around things were getting pretty tense in Richard’s houshold on CFB Downsview. Richard was his same old angry self. His drinking was picking up again. Sue had sent me over to the Sgt. & W.O. mess a few times to pick him up and bring him home. His insomnia was going off the rails. My bedroom had been moved into the basement a few months after Sue’s son William was born in August of 1985. Richard had his work area set up in the basement with his desk, his computers, and his television. He would frequenly come downstairs after midnight, turn his computers on, turn his TV on, spark up some smokes, and maybe have a night cap, or two, or three.

As I was young at the time, my hearing was top notch. I didn’t listen to loud music. Fuck, I didn’t even have a radio in my room, let alone a stereo that I could hook up headphones to. So when he turned his TV or computers on, the whine of the horizontal deflection circuitry would wake me up. Kids these days have it lucky with LCD and OLED monitors, but back in the day when I was kid TVs and monchrome computer monitors had a scan frequency of 15.734 kHz. And this was audible and annoying to any kid with decent ears.

When Richard discovered that his insomnia was waking me up every night and making it hard for me to sleep, especially considering that my room didn’t have a door, his solution was that I could get the fuck out of his house anytime that I wanted to.

I moved out in late 1987, just after I turned 16.

I had stopped going to school a few months earlier.

I was already paying Richard $150.00 a month in rent for my bedroom.

So when the company that I was working for found out the trouble that I was having at home, they set me up with a room to rent. It was only $50.00 more than what my father was charging.

Richard didn’t care. In facte he borrowed a pickup truck from one of his buddies and helped me to move.

I wish that I knew that my family had been under the supervison of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. I could hve applied for emergency aid which would have gotten me shelter and the ability to continue going to school.

But such was not the case.

Without school, I never had the opportunity to enter the trades. But then again, my father was adamant that he joined the RCN with grade 9 and that’s all anyone really needed to get a job.

So there was no trade school.

There was no college.

There was no university.

There was nothing.

And even if by some fluke I had been able to scrape the money to go to school, there was the untreated depression and severe anxiety that I had to deal with.

Remember, I wouldn’t find out that I had been diagnosed with major depression and severe anxiety until August of 2011 when I received my Alberta Social Services paperwork.

From literally October of 1980 when Captain Totzke sent me to see a psychiatrist until I received my paperwork in 2011, I had no fucking idea whatsoever that I had been diagnosed with major depression, severe anxiety, and haphephobia.

Growing up under Richard’s roof on Canadian Forces Base Griesbach, and Canadian Forces Base Downsview, both Richard and Sue treated my depression as me just be a lazy fucking asshole that didn’t want to do anything and who just whined about everything like a little bitch.

My anxiety was often treated by my father with a good backhand and an order to calm the fuck down.

My haphephobia wasn’t my fear of being touched. No, that was apparently me being to good to play with other kids.

So no, even if I had the money, the depression, the anxiety, and the haphephobia would have ruined everything.

Why didn’t you seek treatment?

Treatment for what?

Grinding my teeth all night long?

Sleeping in all the time?

Not wanting to get out of bed?

Not getting pleasure or joy out of anything?

Constantly wishing that I’d be dead?

No desire for sex as sex was a deviancy that only perverts and the mentally ill engaged in?

Trying to figure out whether it was worth continuing to exist at all?

No, see, my father had told me, I was just a lazy fucking crybaby.

I wasn’t depressed.

There was no depression in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Base brats had no fucking reason to be depressed.

So no, there was never going to be anything meaningful in my life.

Sure, I can do things.

But because I don’t have the qualifications on paper, I’m told I can’t officially do these things, even though I do them anyway.

I often find myself being attacked by people with certificates and Red Seals because I’m not supposed to know those things or work on those things. Doesn’t matter what my back ground is, or why I was prevented in life from getting the qualifications that they have.

I get yelled at by people with more qualification than I have because apparently I’m not teaching them what to do because I want to make them look bad. Yet they don’t seem to understand that they’re the ones getting paid a higher pay grade than I am because they’re supposed to be more qualified than me.

As I said, if I had gotten into the trades back in the late ’80s, and my depression and anxiety didn’t fuck things up, the absolute lack of support from home would have.

University? I don’t know of a single fucking university student that doesn’t receive assiatnce from home.

So no, there is no moving on.

There is no “getting over it”.

Every day of my existence is a reminder of what was taken away from me, because I live through it every day.

Every day is a reminder of how much of a joke my life actually is and how meaningless my life actually is considering how easily the Canadian Armed Forces decided that I was expendable not only in 1980, but again in 2011, and 2018.

No, there is no moving on from this.

This whole fucking mess is nothing but a fucking albatross around my neck slowly pulling me under the waves. And I am still expected to pretend it isn’t there.

Military Police Complaints Commission: Is it Effective?

For all of the bitching and complaining that the Military Police Complaints Commission does about the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, you’d think that the MPCC would show a little interest in talking to the CFPM and the CFNIS about just how exactly the Provost Marshal and the Military Police avoid the pitfalls presented by the pre-1998 summary investigation flaw and the 3-year-time-bar-flaw.

When Bill C-25 ” An Act to Make Amendments to the National Defence Act” was passed in 1998, it removed the 3-year-time-bar from the National Defence Act and it removed the requirement for Commanding Officers to conduct Summary Investigation of the charges brought against their subordinates.

When the 3-year-time-bar was removed from the NDA in 1998, Bill C-25 said that current Criminal Code limitations, if any, would apply to service offence charges comprised of Criminal Code offences.

Bill C-25 also said that there was no longer a need for the review of charges by the commanding officer of the accused via a Summary Investigation. Going forward all charges would be referred to a Military Director of Prosecutions.

But what Bill C-25 didn’t concern itself with is what happened to service offences that occurred prior to the bill coming into effect.

Bill C-25 only applied to Service Offences after the date the Bill became law. Bill C-25 did not apply retroactively to service offences committed prior to 1998.

In the past, when I’ve asked the CFNIS and the Provost Marshal how they can bring forth charges for service offences when the 3-year-time-bar has obviously expired, all I get is a “trust me” response. I’m never directed to any Act of Parliament that allows for the retroactive removal of the 3-year-time-bar prior to 1998.

I for one can’t understand how any suspect charged in the modern day for any service offence that occurred prior to 1998 would give up the protection of the 3-year-time-bar.

The 3-year-time-bar is the case killer for any service offence that occurred prior to 1998.

Now, I know that there will be those that say that “Service Offence” are only military related.

That’s not true.

A service offence is not only related to charges of a military nature, but to all criminal code offences that are committed in relation to a defence establishment or defence material by a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline at the time of the offence.

And if the 3-year-time-bar didn’t kill off the prospect of charges, the requirement for a summary investigation after the laying of charges would.

In the post Bill C-25 era, how do the Canadian Armed Forces and the Judge Advocate General reconcile with the fact that the accused could enjoy the protections presented by his commanding officer in a Summary Investigation that was required by the National Defence Act after the laying of charges?

It was the commanding officer’s discretion as to whether the charges would be dismissed, or moved to a civilian court or a military court.

How can the Canadian Forces Military Police or the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service in the modern day go against the protections that a member of the Canadian Armed Forces enjoyed prior to 1998 under the law.

You can’t simply pass legislation and strip rights retroactively. There’s a reason for this. In 1984 when “Rape” was removed from the Criminal Code of Canada, the charge of Rape wasn’t retroactively removed as this would have exposed generations of husbands to potential charges of rape as under the definition of rape in the Criminal Code, a husband could never be charged with rape for having forced sexual intercourse with his wife against her wishes.

When Stephen Harper raised the Age of Consent from 14 to 16 in 2008, there’s a reason why this law didn’t apply retroactively.

If the law was made retroactively can you imagine the chaos in the courts if suddenly 18 year old boy friends were going to prison for having sexual intercourse with their 15 year old girl friend, or vice versa?

If the Government of Canada were to remove the retroactive protections afforded by the pre-1998 National Defence Act you can bet that this would create quite the constitutional crisis in this country as now the government could pass laws at will that retroactively criminalized behaviours or retroactively removed protections.

I sent a letter to the Military Police Complaints Commission asking them to look into how the modern day CFNIS was able to successfully lay charges for service offences that occurred prior to 1998.

Email correspondence regarding a request for clarification on jurisdiction and limitation periods under the Code of Service Discipline, including an attachment.
A formal letter from Bobbie Garnet Bees to the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada, dated January 5, 2026, requesting clarification on legal and procedural questions related to military investigations.
A document discussing the three-year statutory limitation period applicable to all service offences prior to 1998 and the requirement for post-charge summary investigation and commanding officer disposition before Bill C-25.
Letter discussing legal interpretations and oversight issues related to military police and historical limitations, submitted by Bobbie Garnet Bees.
Email correspondence discussing legal matters related to the statute of limitations for pressing charges, including excerpts from the National Defence Act (NDA) versions from 1950, 1970, and 1985.
Page of legal text detailing the period of liability under the Code of Service Discipline, including sections on time bar and exceptions.
Legislative summary document for Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act, authored by David Goetz, dated February 18, 1998, and revised November 25, 1998.
Document detailing the legislative history of Bill C-25, including dates and stages for both the House of Commons and the Senate.
Table of Contents page from a document detailing changes to the Military Justice System, including roles and responsibilities, pre-trial custody, military judges, and amendments related to service offences.
Table of contents from a parliamentary document discussing courts martial, sentencing changes, and military police complaints.
A page from a parliamentary report detailing changes to grievance systems, procedures for boards of inquiry, and miscellaneous topics regarding the Canadian Forces.
Document page from the Library of Parliament discussing amendments to the Code of Service Discipline, including changes to limitation periods for military jurisdiction and the handling of specific service offences.
A page from a legal document discussing military laws and the authority of commanding officers regarding charges and dismissals under the Code of Service Discipline.

This is the response that I received from the MPCC:

A formal email response from the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada, addressing a legal advice inquiry, with contact information for relevant departments.

I sent the following reply to their response.

Email correspondence regarding a request for clarification on jurisdiction and limitation periods under military service discipline, including an inquiry to a commission about the exercise of authority by military police.

And this was their final response:

Email correspondence from the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada regarding a request for clarification on jurisdiction and limitation periods under the Code of Service Discipline.

The thing about the Military Police Complaints Commission that makes it very different from civilian police agencies is that you cannot make complaints against the CFNIS or any component of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group outside of conduct complaints related to the conduct of a specific person or persons during an investigation.

This is one of the ways that the Government of Canada compromised with the Canadian Armed Forces and got the Canadian Armed Forces to buy in to civilian oversight of their in-house police agency.

The military has its customs, and it sure as hell wasn’t going to allow some outside civilian agency to come in and tell the military police what they could or couldn’t do.

And Parliament, in draughting the rules for the MPCC, obviously never imagined the need for the MPCC to handle complaints from civilians about civilian related investigations undertaken by the CFNIS.

The rules of the MPCC favour members of the Canadian Armed Forces. If you’re a member of the public, you are shit out of luck, especially if you don’t have the funds available to hire an ex-JAG willing to go up against the Canadian Armed Forces.

And unlike members of the public, members of the Canadian Armed Forces can approach the Chief of Defence Staff with a grievance for redress that will override any finding of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal or the Military Police Complaints Commission.

If I had to say what the number one flaw with the Military Police Complaints Commission is, it’s that during a conduct review the MPCC will not share with the complainant what the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal shared with the MPCC.

As I’ve said in other posts, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal has the full authority under the National Defence Act to pull the wool over the eyes of the MPCC and there is nothing the MPCC can do.

The MPCC is full well aware that the CFPM more often than not hides paperwork from the MPCC and refuses to hand over documents.

In my matter, the CFNIS knew full well in March of 2011 of the connection between my babysitter and Canadian Armed Forces officer Captain Father Angus McRae.

The CFNIS already had the 1980 CFSIU investigation paperwork. The CFNIS also had the 1980 Courts Martial transcripts for the Courts Martial of Captain McRae. The CFNIS knew in March of 2011 from CFSIU DS-120-10-80 and from Courts Martial transcripts CM-62 that it was the investigation of my babysitter by the base military police in May of 1980 for the molestation of numerous children on the base that led to the investigation of Canadian Armed Forces Officer Captain Father Angus McRae.

The CFNIS in March of 2011 were very much well aware that the investigation of Captain McRae uncovered the fact that McRae and the babysitter hadn’t just molested a child or two. According to Mr. Cunningham in November of 2011, and the babysitter’s father in July of 2015, the CFSIU knew that Captain McRae and the babysitter were involved in molesting well over 25 children on the base from the years of 1978 to 1980.

In 2011 the CFNIS did a CPIC check on the babysitter.
The CFNIS would have discovered:
1982 – Convicted for molesting a young boy that lived off the base at CFB Petawawa.
1984 – Convicted for child molestation involving a child that lived off the base at CFB Winnipeg in Manitoba.
1985 – convicted for molesting a 9 year old boy on Canadian Forces Base Namao when his father had been posted back there. Also convicted for molesting a 13 year old newspaper boy after the Canadian Armed Forces ordered the babysitter to move out of the military housing.

The CFNIS, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the Minister of National Defence were well aware of the babysitter’s $4.3 million dollar civil action against the Minister of National Defence that was settled in December of 2008.

And yet, on November 4th, 2011, Petty Officer Steve Morris contacted me by telephone and told me that the CFNIS just couldn’t find any evidence to indicate that the babysitter was capable of committing the crimes that I had accused him of, even though I would find out in 2020 that the Courts Martial transcripts showed that the military police and the CFSIU knew that the babysitter was having forced anal intercourse with children much younger than he was and that he was receiving psychiatric care for his attraction to children even before he had been investigated by the base military police in May of 1980.


But, this is information that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal willingly withheld from the Military Police Complaints Commission in 2012.

Doesn’t the CFPM worry that someone will discover what the CFPM did?

Nope. Why should they?

No agency has the authority to order the CFPM to hand over any documents. And to prove that the CFPM and the CFNIS don’t have “local copies” would be impossible.

But considering that the Captain McRae scandal has resulted in at least one successful lawsuit against the Minister of National Defence for the actions of Captain McRae, I wouldn’t put it past the military to have a folder or a CD-ROM / USB thumb drive / hidden network folder that contains instructions on how the CFNIS are to handle any complaints against Captain McRae or Captain McRae’s altar boys.

This way there’s no paper trail showing that the CFNIS signed out copies of the CFSIU DS-120-10-80 or the CM62 Courts Martial transcripts from the JAG library.

This is like when the Communications Officer for the Minister of National Defence asked for my correspondence to be given a non controversial name, encrypted, and hidden away in a “space saver file” ensuring that the contents were always beyond discovery and disclosure.

And when I filed my application for judicial review in 2013, when I discovered what the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal had done, it was too late.

This was the fatal flaw with my application for judicial review.

I relied extensively on “new evidence” which really wasn’t new evidence.

It was evidence that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had in their possession as it was information that I had shared with them, but it was evidence that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal intentionally withheld from the Military Police Complaints Commission.

And during my dealings with the MPCC, the MPCC never once sat down with me and shared with me what the CFNIS had shared with them so that I could counteract what the CFNIS had claimed.

Instead MPCC investigators Peter and Claude both lectured me as to why the CFNIS had done one helluva bang-on investigation. Maybe Claude and Peter refused to accept my email conversations with the CFNIS investigators because they knew if these weren’t in the documents supplied to the MPCC by the CFPM they wouldn’t be able to do anything with them.

So…….. that leads to the question, “What is the purpose of the MPCC”?

The existence of the MPCC is just to satisfy a checkbox in Bill C-25. And that was the establishment of an outside civilian agency to oversee the military police. And that’s it. That’s why the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal has absolutely no issue with thumbing its nose at the MPCC as the CFPM knows there’s nothing of any real consequence that the MPCC can do.

During a review the MPCC cannot:
Subpoena documents
Subpoena witnesses
Administer Oaths
Re-run the investigation to see if the CFNIS should have come to a different conclusion.

All the MPCC can do is to look at what the CFNIS did.

Did the CFNIS take my complaint ?
Did the CFNIS investigate my complaint?
Did the CFNIS talk to witnesses?
Did the CFNIS submit a brief to the Crown?

So when an investigator claims that he flew out to Victoria to personally meet with me, it’s not the MPCC’s job to ascertain if this is true or not.

And even though the CFNIS investigator lied, he would have faced absolutely no consequences for lying.

When the CFNIS excludes all of my social service records that indicate that my father had brought his mother into the PMQ on base to raise my brother and I because our mother “abandoned us” and that he subsequently blamed his own mother for being cruel and abusive towards his children due to her alcoholism, the CFNIS never call him to explain his statement that his mother never lived with us and that he never hired a babysitter.

The fact he never hired a babysitter is correct, but that’s only because he was never at home.

Rent on the PMQ was cheap. Much cheaper than renting grandma a three bedroom apartment off base in the city. If it would have been cheaper for grandma to live off base, Richard would have sent us to live with her. And not only was it just cheaper for grandma, Scott, and I to live on base in the PMQs, but Richard could continue to claim us on his income taxes.

And more importantly, as we lived on base, Richard could use the Defence Establishment Trespass Regulations to ensure that our mother wasn’t able to come to see us. It wasn’t that our mother “abandoned” the family on CFB Summerside, Richard had the military police eject her from the military housing as she wanted a divorce if he was unwilling to get his rage and his drinking under control.

And at the end of the day, there is nothing that the MPCC can do to discipline the CFPM or any member of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group. If the CFPM wants to ignore the findings of the MPCC, the CFPM can tell the MPCC to go piss up a rope. Any recommendations that the MPCC offer are not enforceable through any legal mechanism.

Four people sleeping at a messy table with documents and a laptop, while a thought bubble above shows sheep jumping over a fence at night.

Why the fuck am I not surprised?

The one thing that I’ve learnt in life is that money corrupts as does power.

Now it turns out that lots of modern day “people of power” and “people of money” were cavorting with Jeffery Epstein on Pedo Island.

I guess it’s true that when you’re rich you don’t move in the same circles as the lesser people.

But at least we know through an accidental dump of un-redacted records by the DOJ just how many time certain people contacted Epstein or Maxwell and went to the island.

Screenshot of a social media post listing mentions from the Epstein files, including names like Trump, Bill Gates, and Elon Musk with corresponding numbers.

Yep, no drag queens or trans people were heading off to Pedo-Island, but looks like South Africa’s favourite Apartheid twins were hanging out there.

You think that maybe Trump’s war against Trans and Gays was just a distraction to keep eyes averted from the Epstein matter.

Everything stunk about this. Alexander Acosta the DA with the Southern Florida District entering into a plea deal with Epstein in 2008 that dropped all federal charges and only proceeded with much weaker Florida state charges. And who the hell were the people that benefitted from “Guaranteed immunity to unnamed “potential co-conspirators”“

Unfortunately District Attorneys enjoy prosecutorial immunity, which means that Acosta doesn’t have to explain what he did, and will never face any consequences for what he did.

A provocative billboard featuring a satirical depiction of a man resembling Donald Trump sitting in a polluted landscape, holding a phone, wearing a crown and jewelry, surrounded by various objects including a car, a crocodile, and text referencing legislation.

Finally, even die hard MAGAs are starting to wake up to Trump and the whole Epstein matter.

Apologies……

A few people have recently contacted me and asked what it would take for me to ever consider not applying for Medical Assistance in Dying.

This is a very odd question.

Not because of the idea of trading apologies for giving up my desire to die.

But because of who those apologies would have to come from—and the fact that any such apologies would be absolutely meaningless.

Back in 2012, when I started looking for lawyers to help me deal with the matter that occurred on Canadian Forces Base Namao when I was a kid, one of the things I was repeatedly told was that using a lawsuit to seek an apology would be pointless. Any apology offered by anyone working for the CAF, the DND, or the federal Government of Canada would be meaningless. The government does not understand the concept of apologizing. It is a faceless, soulless organization that does not grasp the idea—or the weight—of a heartfelt apology.

A modern-day Chief of the Defence Staff could offer an apology, but it would still be meaningless. They would simply be following orders from the Minister of National Defence.

And besides, the Canadian Armed Forces have made its position very clear, it will not under any circumstance admit that things went off the rails in 1980.

Between 1978 and 1980, at least 25 children were sexually assaulted on Canadian Forces Base Namao by Captain Father Angus McRae, a member of the Regular Force. Captain McRae had already been investigated in 1974 for molesting children while posted to the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. While there may not have been children enrolled at RMC itself, the college is directly adjacent to Canadian Forces Base Kingston. McRae was also suspected of having sexual involvement with a teenage boy at Canadian Forces Station Holberg on Vancouver Island immediately prior to his posting to CFB Namao in August 1978.

McRae was almost certainly moved to CFB Namao for two reasons. First, the military prison for Western Command was located at Canadian Forces Base Griesbach, and CFB Namao and CFB Griesbach together constituted CFB Edmonton. Second—and more significantly—the military police shack at Namao was positioned such that the Catholic chapel, and especially the rectory attached to it, were directly visible from the MP detachment.

The fact that McRae was investigated in 1974 for committing what were described at the time as “acts of homosexuality” at CFB Kingston and was not removed from the military demonstrates a clear failure by his commanding officer to act appropriately.

The fact that McRae was known to have engaged with a teenage boy at CFS Holberg and was again not expelled from the military shows another failure—this time by his commanding officer at Holberg.

Then there is the fact that McRae was able to molest more than 25 children on CFB Namao while operating in direct view of the military police detachment. During his defence, counsel from the Judge Advocate General’s office attempted to portray Warrant Officer Frederick R. Cunningham as having a personal grudge against McRae—one allegedly carried over to the CFSIU when Cunningham transferred there from base military police duties. Was this grudge real or imagined? And if it was real, was it born of anger at McRae for having deceived everyone? How many military police officers from CFB Namao owe apologies to the children who were abused because they failed to pay attention to what McRae was doing?

Colonel Daniel Munro, the Base Commander of CFB Namao, not only had the authority to determine the scope and breadth of the investigation into his subordinate, Captain McRae, but also the responsibility to decide which charges would proceed to tribunal and which would be dismissed.

Then there is Captain Totzke. Yes, he was likely “just following orders” when he acted as a roadblock that prevented me from receiving psychiatric care and therapy for the mental injuries I sustained at CFB Namao as a result of the sexual abuse that occurred from the fall of 1978 through the spring of 1980. But he had choices. He could have refused those orders. He could have gone against them. He could even have left the military in protest. Instead, he chose to be a good soldier.

Then there is my father. Once he learned what had happened, he could have left the Canadian Forces and entered civilian life to protect his children from military leadership. Instead, he too chose to be a good soldier—to keep quiet, not raise a fuss, and follow orders. He is dead now. There will be no apology from him.

Then there is the CFNIS in 2011. They were in possession of the 1980 CFSIU paperwork, yet they chose not to use its contents to advance the 2011 investigation. They clearly chose their military careers—and the protection of the infallible image of the Canadian Armed Forces—over the truth. They could offer apologies, but those apologies would also be meaningless.

A military officer addresses the media at a press conference, flanked by fellow officers in camouflage uniforms and military berets, discussing controversial orders related to a perpetrator.

The Provost Marshal could offer apologies for withholding the 1980 CFSIU paperwork from the MPCC in 2012, and for controlling the material released in order to steer the outcome of the MPCC review. But can anyone seriously place faith in an apology that means nothing? If the Canadian Armed Forces had any genuine interest in truth or honesty, the Provost Marshal would have ensured that all of the 2011 CFNIS materials were provided to the MPCC—not just carefully selected snippets designed to manufacture a narrative.

In 2014, I laid out exactly what had happened in Federal Court. Counsel for the Military Police Complaints Commission was fully aware of the MPCC’s limitations and the fact that the Provost Marshal could easily dictate the outcome of an MPCC investigation by controlling what information was disclosed—secure in the knowledge that the MPCC cannot subpoena documents or administer oaths. She knew exactly what the Provost Marshal and the CFNIS had done. Yet she chose her career within the Department of Justice over actual justice, and fought my application for judicial review not on the merits of my evidence, but on the basis that I was introducing evidence the Provost Marshal had deliberately withheld from the MPCC. She could have done the right thing. Instead, she chose the easy paycheque.

There are many apologies owed.

But none of them would mean anything.

Apologies have meaning when someone is apologizing for harm done without intention or malice and the apology isn’t seen as being forced.

When decisions are made deliberately—to hide, obstruct, and take the easy way out—apologies mean absolutely nothing at all.

And besides, it would not be fair for me to accept apologies on behalf of the other 25 children who were abused by Captain McRae and by his altar boy, who later went on to have a lengthy career molesting children on other Canadian Forces bases—now would it?

Batting 0 for 2

Recently I had filed two access to information requests with the Department of National Defence for copies of my psychiatric records that were kept by Captain Terry Totzke when I was under his care on Canadian Forces Base Griesbach from 1980 until 1983 as well as the records from when I attempted to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces back in 1989 and 1991.

In 2011, I obtained my social services paperwork from Alberta Child and Family services. That’s how I discovered my direct connection to Canadian Armed Forces social worker, Captain Terry Totzke.

It wasn’t until I obtained my social services paperwork in 2011 and I discovered that the man I knew as “Terry” from back on CFB Griesbach was Captain Terry Totzke.

I 2011 filed an Access to Information Request with the DND to obtain a copy of whatever records Captain Totzke had complied in regard to my diagnosis and treatment. There was quite a bit of back and forth before DND finally responded that unless I could tell them what department the records resided in and who in that department had custody of those records, the DND wouldn’t be able to process my request.

A few weeks ago I filed another Access to Information request with the DND to try to obtain my records. This time however all I received from DND was a response which said that without my enlistment date, my discharge date, and the unit I was attached during the period of time that I was requesting my records for the DND would not be able to assist me.

I politely responded to response that I had specifically noted in my request that I was a military dependent, that I was not in the service and therefore was not attached to a unit and I had no enlistment or discharge date.

I’ve heard nothing back since.

I might have to involve the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

The other request that I had filed was for the paperwork the DND and the CAF had created when I tried to enlist in 1989 and 1991.

When I tried to enlist in 1989, everything went fine. I did well on the battery of tests. My references were contacted. But then out of the blue the recruiting office called me and said that “something had turned up and that I was deemed ineligible for service”. When asked what this information was, the recruiting office wouldn’t say, just that my enlistment would violate CAF policy.

I knew that it wasn’t my grades in school as I was currently taking grades 9 and 10 together in the same year and I would be completed in the spring of 1990.

And it wasn’t unusual at the time for kids in grade 10 to fill in the paperwork and get all of the administrative stuff out of the way so that by the time they completed grade 10 they’d be ready to submit their final grades and then off to basic training they’d go.

The military at the time was keen to get the kids before they started eyeing up the trades or other well paying careers in the civilian world. The military loves brains that are malleable and mouldable.

I tried to enlist again in 1991 in Edmonton. At this point in time I had my grade 12 GED. This time I was told by the recruiting office staff that if I ever tried to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces again that I would be arrested and charged for trying to fraudulently join the CAF. When I asked for an explanation I was told in a very curt tone that I had been told at the recruiting centre in Toronto that my admission into the Canadian Armed Forces would be a violation of policy. What policy this was I’ve never found out.

I was just recently informed by the information analyst that the result of this request is that apparently the DND and the CAF destroy recruitment information 3-years after it was created.

It must be remembered that Captain Totzke was convinced that I was a homosexual because I had allowed the abuse on CFB Namao to go on for so long without telling anyone. Totzke even went so far as to instruct me father that I should not participate in sports as there would be the chance that if I saw other naked boys in the change room that I wouldn’t be able to control myself.

And then there’s the whole matter of the Captain Father Angus McRae child sexual abuse scandal on Canadian Forces Base Namao not being investigated as “child sexual abuse” but instead being investigated as Captain McRae having committed “Acts of Homosexuality” on the base with young boys.

When I tried to enlist in the CAF back in 1989 and 1991 the CAF would have been well aware that I was a military dependent and that my father was in the Canadian Armed Forces. As my father was in the CAF his service file would have contained records of any involvement I would have had with military personnel, such as Captain Terry Totzke.

And if Captain Totzke’s records contained any of his concerns about the “homosexuality” that I had apparently exhibited on CFB Namao, this would have placed me in direct violation of Canadian Forces Administrative Order CFAO-19-20 in which the CAF declared that homosexuality was a mental illness and anyone who was suspected of being a homosexual was deemed to be ineligible for service.

However, all of these records conveniently no longer exist.

Much like how the Canadian Armed Forces spent so much time and money in the late ’80s removing the rectories from the base chapels as they obviously knew that there was a massive problem with the catholic priests on base, had the DND and the CAF been “cleaning up” and eliminating paperwork that could cause them embarrassment and humiliation, and subject them to civil actions?

Is this also why in the mid ’90s the DND and the CAF moved the management of the PMQs to an arms-length agency, and handed all of the schools on the various bases over to the local school boards to own and operate?

The clock is running down (YAY!)

Spent another day in bed power sleeping…… And tomorrow is looking much the same.

Sometimes the benefits of being an isolated loner are overlooked, such as being able to sleep uninterrupted for over 24 hours.

When I was a teen, when the depression was fresh and new, I used to be able to sleep for days on end.

Not having any reason to wake up helps a lot. And avoiding the pain and disappointment of the real world makes staying asleep in dreamland much preferable to the real world.

And shit’s getting real at work.

The new site is supposed to be in full operation by February 2027, so the new site is supposed to be handed over to my employer by June of 2026 which means that all sorts of new staff are showing up at my site.

It’s also officially noted that I will not be going to the new site. Which is a relief. I wasn’t too sure if mgmt. was truly understanding of my wishes. It looks like they are. I would have been extremely pissed off if mgmt. had tried to shoehorn me into the new site.

But Bobbie, didn’t you consult on the new site?

Sure did.

Doesn’t matter though, lots of people consulted during the months of planning meeting.

Big whoop.

Nope, my plans so far are to stay at the old site, which will somewhat be in operation until 2029-2030.

I’ll know for sure what my long term plans will be in March of 2027.

At this point I still don’t foresee wrapping up the Captain Father Angus McRae matter anytime soon. So I’m pretty well accepting that I will die before any resolution to this matter.

It sucks that I won’t get any type of acknowledgment for what I endured on Canadian Forces Base Namao or what I endured at the hands of Military Social Worker Captain Terry Totzke, but sometimes these fights aren’t worth it.

If I am approved for M.A.i.D. in 2027, then I will probably undergo the procedure in 2028.

If I’m not approved, then I’ll have to look into alternative methods.

In the meantime I still have enough shit to keep myself entertained at the old site.