Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Part 2 of my email conversation with Gloria Galloway

This is a continuation of my email conversation with Gloria Galloway of the Globe and Mail.

Again, like yesterday, my original comments are underlined, Gloria Galloway's responses are in italics.

4) Historically, the military justice system has had some very serious and very detrimental flaws which can have some very serious repercussions in the modern day. (see legislative summary LS-311E).

So yes, there have been problems with the military justice system historically. But we don’t have proof of new problems or ongoing problems that exist today. We have conjecture about why the CFNIS did what it did. But we also have MPCC saying they did a great job. And yes, I know you say the commissioner did not have access to all the information. But he does not complain about that is his report. If he did, that would be a story, perhaps. But he seems to think he has a good understanding of the facts and draws his conclusions from them. A lot of the things you say the investigators left out of the documents provided to the MPCC relate to your interaction with McRae. But your complaint was not against McRae. It was against *********. And McRae was dead by the time the CFNIS finished their investigation. You are also concerned that they misled you on Peter’s age – and yes, that might have resulted in a more serious charge. But you say getting him charged is not your main focus at this point. And I too have trouble seeing how bringing him to justice for stuff he did when he was 14 is helpful to society, or even to you. I am not sure that the fact that a 14 year old got away with raping a kid all those years ago is a news story. And even though I believe you 100 per cent, we can’t write that without some kind of proof and the CFNIS, as shoddy as you believe their investigation to have been, did not come up with proof. So we could be in deep trouble if we wrote that without more proof that the investigators did not have access to.

Gloria Galloway interviewed MPCC Chairman Glenn Stannard just before he stepped down as the chairman of the MPCC.
This is the link to the interview:

One comment that Mr. Stannard made to Gloria Galloway was that the MPCC didn't have the operational guidelines for the Canadian Forces Military Police and therefore don't know how the Canadian Forces Military Police operate and therefore during reviews it didn't know what documents that it should be requesting.

---Begin Quote---
"Meanwhile, the commission is being denied access to the complete set of orders and procedures that dictate how members of the military police are supposed to do their jobs – information that would seem critical to a commission that determines whether military police officers are acting appropriately.

Mr. Stannard said he raised the issue with former defence minister Rob Nicholson and also with Jason Kenney, who currently has the portfolio, but, so far, his request for the documents has not been met.

In cases where the commission is investigating an allegation against the military police, the chair may ask for the small segment of the orders that apply to the specific details of the case. But, without the full set of orders, the commission may not even know what to request.

"I believe as an oversight body we're entitled to have a set of the MP orders and procedures," Mr. Stannard said. "I think it's absurd that we can't have a set of orders. I think it's ridiculous. I really do.""
---End Quote----

I should point out that I've had conversations with the office of the Canadian Forces Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has expressed great concern with the Military Police Complaints Commission and has tried to have the CF Ombudsman's office take over the oversight of the military police as the Ombudsman has powers that the MPCC doesn't.

This is the opening paragraph from the Ombudsman's view of the MPCC:

"Wasteful or Inefficient Oversight.

If civilian oversight is not undertaken properly, it can be unproductive, even counterproductive. I say this with respect to those working with the Military Police Complaints Commission or the CF Grievance Board or the grievance process generally. These institutions have come to epitomize how ineffective and overly bureaucratic complaints mechanisms can become."

Not very confidence inspiring, now is it?

The Ombudsman briefly touches on how the MPCC functions and that it is basically just reviewing the decisions of the Provost Marshal.

The MPCC can also investigate "interference complaints", however as the Ombudsman notes:

"There are also problems with the nature of the MPCC’s mandate. One of the more serious interference complaints, an allegation that the chain of command impeded Military Police Officers who were attempting to interview unit members who had been involved in an accident, had to be declined because the complainant had  “neither conducted nor directly supervised the investigation.” Moreover, while it does its best to address systemic issues,  the MPCC is not well equipped to do so. It deals only with “complaints” and does not possess the kind of authority a classical ombudsman has to conduct own-motion or systemic investigations. Its primary focus is necessarily on adjudicating whether a complaint has merit."

I did explain to Gloria that there are two different manners in which the MPCC oversees the Canadian Forces Military Police Group.

One is a review, the other is an inquiry.

During a review, the MPCC is not allowed to subpoena documents from the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, nor can it subpoena witnesses. And when the MPCC conducts interviews during reviews, the interviews are not conducted under oath. Basically, during a review, the Military Police Complaints Commission is just rubber stamping the final report of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

When one makes a complaint to the MPCC, the complaint is first redirected to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. The CFPM delegates internal staff to review their own branch, i.e. the CFNIS. This internal staff can then assemble a case which demonstrates to the MPCC that the CFNIS did everything by the book. This internal Provost Marshal staff will also decide which documents are forwarded to the MPCC and which documents are not forwarded to the MPCC.

At no time during the review by the Provost Marshal is the complainant ever contacted or is the complainant allowed to review the notes, occurrence reports or other documents from the CFNIS investigation.

So, in my matter, I didn't realize that the CFNIS had scrubbed almost every mention of Canadian Forces Officer Captain Father Angus McRae from the investigation file. This I wouldn't find out until I filed for judicial review. And by that time it was too late.

The documents that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal assembles are then sent to the Military Police Complaints Commission for "review". Unless the MPCC sees something extremely obvious, the MPCC applies its rubber stamp to the findings of the Provost Marshal.

A Military Police Complaints Commission inquiry is a nightmare for the CFNIS and the Provost Marshal. During an inquiry, the complainant is provided with the funds to obtain a lawyer. The complainant can subpoena documents from the Provost Marshal, the complainant can therefore review the investigation to see where the investigation went off the rails, and during an inquiry all statements made to the MPCC or the lawyer for the complainant are taken under oath. This is why Ottawa lawyer for the Fynnes family was able to decimate the CFNIS for the screwed up investigation into the suicide death of Corporal Stuart Langridge.

"A lot of the things you say the investigators left out of the documents provided to the MPCC relate to your interaction with McRae. But your complaint was not against McRae. It was against *********. And McRae was dead by the time the CFNIS finished their investigation. "

As explained to Gloria Galloway, Angus McRae was alive and well at the start of the investigation. The CFNIS knew full well of the connection between Mr. P.S. and Captain McRae. The CFNIS would have been able to keep this fact to themselves had it not been for MCpl Cyr slipping up on May 3rd, 2011 and asking me if I was aware of the base chaplain having been arrested for molesting children during the same time period I made my complaint against Mr. P.S.. There was absolutely nothing at this point stopping the CFNIS from investigating Mr. P.S. and changing the scope of the investigation so that Angus McRae was now the primary suspect. This type of redirect happens frequently in the criminal justice system. However, the Canadian Forces, due to the civil lawsuit launched against them by Mr. P.S. in March of 2001, may have had their own financial incentives for not wishing to redirect their investigation to focus on Angus McRae.

"I am not sure that the fact that a 14 year old got away with raping a kid all those years ago is a news story. And even though I believe you 100 per cent, we can’t write that without some kind of proof and the CFNIS, as shoddy as you believe their investigation to have been, did not come up with proof."
One of the concerns that RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban had when he reviewed the 2011 CFNIS investigation, was that the CFNIS made no effort to track down the other victims that I had made mention of during my interview in March of 2011. Without going back to watch my interview, I think I mentioned that in addition to myself and my brother, I was aware of four other boys between the ages of 5 to 8 and one girl about 6 that Mr. P.S. had molested on many occasions. In the summer of 2012, when I made contact with James Paluck, who was also another victim of Mr. P.S., we came up with a total of 12 to 15 children from CFB Namao that had been molested by Mr. P.S. from the years of 1978 to 1980. And I've already explained to Gloria that under the Criminal Code of Canada as it was at the time, BOYS CAN'T BE RAPED. That's how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces got away with keeping the sexual assault of male children on the bases out of the public eye. The CF were prohibited from conducting a court martial for the crimes of Murder, Manslaughter, or Rape. However, seeing as how boys couldn't be raped, the military was okay in conducting a court martial for the crimes of buggery, or gross indecency.

Still, by having Mr. P.S. brought to justice, this would be a small step towards allowing those of us who were swept under the rug by the defective military justice system in 1980 and who were then screwed over by the military social workers, to move on with their lives. I know of three victims of Mr. P.S. tfor which the abuse had a very detrimental effect on their lives. Why does Mr. P.S. get to be the innocent angel while the rest of us were treated like filthy perverts even though we were literally half of Mr. P.S.'s age at the time?

I can only wish that one day in Canada that we will have investigative journalism where reporters aren't afraid to ask questions and where editors aren't afraid of offending advertisers.

Anyways, that enough for today.
Next blog posting I will continue on with the email between myself and Gloria Galloway.

1 comment:

  1. I hear what you are saying about the differences in the way that government officials have different ways for different means i.e. no rules are implemented for rape against boys because the Canadian Forces would then have to admit rape is occurring. How would this appear in a macho military? But as far as gender goes, I don't believe that sexual abuse has boundaries, rape is rape, sexual assault and abuses are the same. They won't listen to me either. We go from injury to insult.