The complainant made two separate but related MP conduct complaints regarding the actions of MPs in respect of his alleged sexual abuse on a military base in Canada when he was a child in 1978-80. The first complaint concerns the conduct of a Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) investigation into the complainant’s historical sexual abuse allegations. The second complaint pertains to the conduct of MP members on the base at the time of the alleged offences in question. In respect of the first complaint, the complainant alleged: that the CFNIS members conducted an incomplete investigation; that this incompleteness was deliberate on the part of the MPs and intended to shield DND from possible civil liability arising from the complainant’s abuse; and that the CFNIS did not have jurisdiction to investigate in the first place because, at the time of the alleged offences: the CFNIS did not exist, and the CF did not have jurisdiction to prosecute offences of sexual assault committed within Canada.
The Commission’s review revealed the CFNIS members in fact went to considerable lengths, given the circumstances of the then over 30-year old case, to pursue the complainant’s criminal allegations. While charges ultimately were not laid against the alleged perpetrator, the MPs did attempt to interview key witnesses and made various efforts to locate other possible witnesses. In the end, the MPs produced a Crown brief which they referred to the local prosecutor’s office for a legal review. Moreover, in their brief to the prosecutor, the MPs expressed the conclusion that their investigation revealed evidence to support charges. However, the prosecutor in the case recommended against charges due to inherent weaknesses in the available evidence.
The Commission found all the complainant’s allegations in his first complaint to be unsubstantiated.
With respect to the second complaint, regarding the failure of the subject MPs in 1980 to involve local civilian police to investigate sexual assaults involving civilians on the base, the Commission determined it could not address this complaint as it related to MP conduct which occurred prior to the coming into force of the Commission’s enabling legislation in 1999.
- Date modified: