Alternate for the CIC

[badpup]

Sorry. If you ain't willing to do the training, then you shouldn't be wearing the uniform. PRes officers do their full officer training, and they have civvie jobs too. What makes the CIC any different in that they should not have to make the time commitment to do their officer training IF they want that nice little commissioning scroll? The point here is, why should they hold a commission when a) there is no need, and b) they do NOT earn it. In the military, having to earn your rank/qualification/respect is everything. Two officers, one CIC and one Reg/PRes, both holding the same commission does not seem fair. One person had to bust their butt to earn that scroll, the other had spend ten hard days away from his job to get it handed to them.

The point being discussed here is that they should not have the commission because they SHOULD NOT be CF officers due to the level of training they recieve.

Basically, if the CIC does the same training and adheres to the same standards that everyone else in the Officer corps has to do, then I have no problem with them holding a commission. However, this is not feasible and makes little sense, so therefore we should (again, like the Brits and like the Americans) have some sort of special cadre of 'sudo-officers' to run cadets. They earn special commissions that apply only to cadets, not to the rest of the CF. They are then basically on the same level as cadets, civilians in a uniform and paid during the summer.

Where do I sign?, my point is I as well as many others are willing to train to a higher level, and one missed point also, that many have been trained to that level, In my own experience with an un-named Air Cadet Squadron 3 CIC Officers were retired Reg Force 1 a flight instructor, 1 a navigator, the 3rd a fighter pilot. a fourth person was a former Airborne NCO, not to mention the Civilian Instructors employed 1 also former Airforce NCO, 1 firearms expert, and a flight school instructor.
I would certainly attend Courses and training of that level were it readily available, as would many others. There has been changes to what a CIC officer is trained for, and many others are also likely in the works.

 

[combat_medic]

As we hold CIC officers to the same level of accountability and demand the same responsibility as from reserve officers, then should we not give them the same recognition?

I would contend that we, in fact, do not hold CIC officers as accountable for their actions as Res/Reg officers. I have seen a lot of problems or disagreements slide with CICs because they just don't know better, or don't have the training. Fair enough, 10 days is pretty poor, but then they should not be getting the commission. If they are not being held to the same standards, are not doing the same training, and are not doing the same job, they should not get the same recognition.

My proposed alternatives:

1.  Make the CIC full fledged members of the CF. Have them meet all the same entry standards as all other officers - undergrad degree, fitness, citizenship, background checks, medical etc.. Perhaps even have an NCM classification for those wishing to participate who do not have post-secondary. Have them complete a basic training similar to that the padres take - military training sans weapons or tactical field stuff, but add in the administration skills necessary to be a cadet leader.

Benefits - remove the gulf between cadet officers and the remainder of the CF. Everyone meets the same standards, everyone can do the same job.
Drawbacks - less people able to compete with the raised standards

2. Remove the commission entirely, or adopt a special classification for the CIC, similar to that of the Canadian Rangers. An entity of the CF, but it's own entity. Remove any confusion about CIC authority over Res/Reg soldiers, and make a clear and obvious distinction between cadet officers, and CF officers. I think the Rangers are an excellent example of this - still a valid and useful component of the CF, but no possibility of confusion about rank, commision, or authorities.

Benefits - reduce animosity over CICs having the Queen's commission, regulates authorities and jurisdictions, allows CIC to continue to develop their own training and standards without a requirement to meet CF standards
Drawbacks - Possible resentment over losing the commission

3. Have the cadet movement be a DND-funded civilian organization. The CICs would not be in uniform, would not hold a rank, but would be paid, in the same scale that CIs are paid currently.

Benefits - Reduce training time and budgetary constraints & ability to work outside of CF regulations
Drawbacks - Possibility of an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude toward the cadet movement, or a cut in funding.

 

[Duke]

Combat_Medic,

I fully support your proposed Option # 1.  I agree with it not just because I would meet all of the criteria for a Reserve Officer's Commission, even at 47 years old (G2!). I agree with it because CIC officers should be 'deployable'. Not necessarily for overseas duty, but here in Canada.

Why not make Cadet Training a primary duty and some other specialty/trade a secondary duty.

Perhaps model it on the 'old' cadet system, where actual trades (Driver etc) were learned by cadets. Why not have a system in place to train Jr SAR Techs, Junior First Aiders (medics?) and even Junior Drivers (age requirements notwithstanding!). To do this you would have to acquire and train CIC officers to be able to lead/train at this level and more importantly attract and train NCMs to directly lead tomorrow's leaders. Doing this type of training would (or should) not violate the UN Resolution on child soldiers.

The money for the cadet program is already there, why not spend it in a more effective manner?

Being on the inside, I have seen my share of 'good' and 'bad' CIC officers. The good ones tend to be great the others, well....

I would be cautious though about branding the majority of CIC Officers as slugs based on your experience at a summer camp. Remember that many CIC types do have work or family commitments that preclude working at a summer camp!

I was at Borden last summer when the Medics were in town for their anniversary bash and certainly wouldn't brand Medics as slugs based on some of the things that a couple of misguided MED branch types did.


Duke

 

[badpup]

Slight problem with #2
In that the commission is identical to that of Regular, and PRes Officers.
It may be resigned by the member, or stripped with cause, it can not be unilaterally removed without cause.
My scroll signed 20 years ago is still as valid today as it was then, I can still do military time for military crime though I am not a current serving member of the CIC.

 

[mz589]

Where do I sign?, my point is I as well as many others are willing to train to a higher level, and one missed point also, that many have been trained to that level, In my own experience with an un-named Air Cadet Squadron 3 CIC Officers were retired Reg Force 1 a flight instructor, 1 a navigator, the 3rd a fighter pilot. a fourth person was a former Airborne NCO, not to mention the Civilian Instructors employed 1 also former Airforce NCO, 1 firearms expert, and a flight school instructor.
I would certainly attend Courses and training of that level were it readily available, as would many others. There has been changes to what a CIC officer is trained for, and many others are also likely in the works.

This raises a very good point. A lot of the criticism being levied seems to be because some CIC Officers couldn't meet medical requirements and so forth. But how many CF members are there out there that have run Flying Schools or are Transport Canada certified Flight Examaniners or have enough hours on type to fly the tow planes for Air Cadet Squadrons?

Not many I'll bet.

I've met CIC  Officers that were all of the aforementioned. The skills they possessed are not easy to find so perhaps that is why the decision was made to offer commissions to CIC officers. As for the looser requirements medically and academically, would it make sense to turn down a civilian flight school instructor because he doesn't have a University degree?

I think alot of it has to do with eniticing the types of individuals that are needed to join the program to begin with.

 

[goodform]

Too whom it may concern,
I agree that many things "slide" because of an officer being in the CIC. But when push comes to shove, I would rather be told I am doing something not congruent with SOPs, and be corrected. It is wrong to let this unacceptable behavior continue, seeing as CIC officers do hold a commission and are as legally accountable as all other officers in the CF to the Code of Service Discipline (In those 10 days candidates get a breifing on military law and that little book, "The Code of Service Discipline and Me") . I'm not sure how to go about it as I've no specific examples in mind or personal ones to draw from, but letting things that deal with professionalism, and possibly legal implications "slide" is no right. I remember being a C/WO at summer camp and having a Regular Force infantry M/Cpl tell me in a very firm, yet subtle way that I had used the wrong tone of voice when speaking to a cadet who just needed to get his headdress. If something can be, and most definately if it should be corrected, I would want people say something. We all know how to be professional about, and if necessary completely direct about the things we see that need fixing.

So all alternatives to the CIC, physical fitness (I agree that better fitness is needed, I worked at Whitehorse Cadet Camp last summer and we had trouble finding enough fit bodies for an adventure race), and other requirements aside, and to everyone out there, let us fix what we have and what we can. I like reading a lot of the things on Army.ca, but only so many of the plans made here can be acted upon instantly.

Lastly, I hope I've not offended anyone, I don't want to be part of any point, counter-point or as it seems at times, thrust, counter-thrust!  :-[ ;D

 

[Infanteer]

I fully support your proposed Option # 1.   I agree with it not just because I would meet all of the criteria for a Reserve Officer's Commission, even at 47 years old (G2!). I agree with it because CIC officers should be 'deployable'. Not necessarily for overseas duty, but here in Canada.

I like this idea Duke.   In keeping CIC relevent to military requirements, it leaves Canada with a "backdoor" in case, by a long shot, Canada needs to mobilize.   Although CIC would be quite aware that the chances of them being picked up and put into a regular Army function were slim, they would be concious of the requirement (and be forced to maintain some semblance of preparedness) that if we needed qualified people, they would be the first pool we would look to for leadership to be put into the breach.

As well, if required to maintain some level of standards and competency, it could be assumed that the CIC could step up and fulfill certain administrative/non-combat roles within a Homeland Defence framework.

I'm not sure how it would work administratively, but perhaps the CIC could become Officer's of the Supplementary Reserve List, fulfilling a role as a third-line "pool" of Army leadership behind the first-line professional Army (the Regs) and the second-line stand-by Forces (The Reserves).

Amazing, I think that this thread may be pulled from the dung-heap.

Good job.

Infanteer

 

[Burrows]

The rangers are different from the CIC ....

 

[McG]

I would contend that we, in fact, do not hold CIC officers as accountable for their actions as Res/Reg officers.

The CIC are charged with the safety & protection of the children under them.  I would expect that we hold them to the same level of accountability as any other officer.  If this is not happening, then it must start to happen.

If they are not being held to the same standards, are not doing the same training, and are not doing the same job, they should not get the same recognition.

The infantry officer does not do the same job as a pilot or MARS officer, yet somehow you won't argue that one of these does not deserve the commission for not doing the same job.

They go through the same training and must meet the same standards as all other CF officers. Same commission should equal same standards. But, this is not possible and not totally necessary.  

Right, so reserve officers also go through shorter training.  By your arguments, they have no right holding the same commission as the regular force.  Have I read you correctly?

The idea of making them Supplemtary Reserve Officers is interesting, get the CIC out of the PRes category (which I believe they are in now, I could be wrong) and into one that is more appropriate for them.

You are wrong.  PRes, SupRes, CIC, and Rangers are all separate components of the reserve force.

 

[Burrows]

Thank you MCG for clarifying.  Can we please try and remain civil?

 

[qjdb]

What many people may tend to forget is that with their civvie jobs, the CIC members may have unique skills that could be applied to the CF in a necessary scenario. For example, engineers (electrical, mechanical etc), air traffic control, pilots, firefighting, policing etc. Using this 'option 1' could, as you stated, provide for a pool of officers that coule be useful if needed.

What some other people may tend to forget is that those CIC officers who are also members of the RCMP would not be able to be on the Supp-Res List (or whatever this list would be called) or at least they would have to have the rules changed once again.   The rules were already changed to allow RCMP members to become CIC Officers, under the understanding that they would never get called up, and have to serve the same master (federal government) in two different capacities at the same time.

This of course, does not 'matter' to members of, say, the Vancouver Police, or the Ontario Prov Police, who are also members of the CIC, as the federal requirement would take precedence over the Provincial or Municipal.

I know the CIC officer who was one of the leaders of this rule change (have known him for over 15 years now) and after hearing of some of the struggle that he had to go through to get the rules changed that little bit, I don't think that it would be happening again.   And you can bet that if the RCMP / CIC members were not in the system, that the average capability of the CIC would be even lower than some of you feel it is currently.   I, personally, know of at least 7 current or former RCMP / CIC 'combination' members (1 new OCdt, 3 Lt, 1 Capt, 1 Maj, and 1 LtCol).   And that is just in my little circle, in British Columbia, and I have only been in for a few years, so I am sure that there are PLENTY more across the country.   And of all of those, I can't think of any that are 'overweight, fat slobs, who are on power-trips', they would be awesome officers in any branch of the CF (with appropriate trade-specific training).   And you know what?   I don't think that any of them have a Master's Degree, either.

The idea is great in the abstract, and I would fully support it if it came to fruition, but, because of this difficulty, I don't see it flying at all.

My $0.02

Quentin

(edited for typo that I missed the first time)

 

[combat_medic]

McG, I hate to correct you, but the CIC is actually a sub-component of the PRes, not a component unto itself. The Reserves are comprised of the PRes, SupRes, and Rangers.

The infantry officer does not do the same job as a pilot or MARS officer, yet somehow you won't argue that one of these does not deserve the commission for not doing the same job.

But they have to meet the same entry standards, must be physically fit, must have a post-secondary degree, must be medically fit, and all have to pass the basic officer qualification.

Right, so reserve officers also go through shorter training.  By your arguments, they have no right holding the same commission as the regular force.  Have I read you correctly?

See above.

The CIC are charged with the safety & protection of the children under them.

So are scout leaders; they don't have a commission. A section commander is equally responsible for the safety and protection of their section, but also does not have a commission for doing so.

 

[McG]

So are scout leaders; they don't have a commission. A section commander is equally responsible for the safety and protection of their section, but also does not have a commission for doing so.

Scout leaders are not members of the CF, and ultimatley the Pl Comd is responsible fro everyone in the platoon.

CIC are not PRes.  They are the fourth component of the reserve force.

 

[McG]

From Chatper 2 of the QR&O

2.034 â “ RESERVE FORCE â “ SUB-COMPONENTS

The sub-components of the Reserve Force are:

a) the Primary Reserve, which consists of officers and non-commissioned members who have undertaken, by the terms of their enrolment, to perform such military duty and training as may be required of them and contains all formed Reserve Force units;

(b) the Supplementary Reserve, which consists of officers and non-commissioned members who, except when on active service, are not required to perform military or any other form of duty or training;

(c) the Cadet Instructors Cadre, which consists of officers who have undertaken, by the terms of their enrolment, to perform such military duty and training as may be required of them, but whose primary duty is the supervision, administration and training of cadets mentioned in section 46 of the National Defence Act; and

(d) the Canadian Rangers, which consists of officers and non-commissioned members who have undertaken, by the terms of their enrolment, to perform such military duty and training as may be required of them, but who are not required to undergo annual training.

 

[badpup]

I like this idea Duke.  In keeping CIC relevent to military requirements, it leaves Canada with a "backdoor" in case, by a long shot, Canada needs to mobilize.  Although CIC would be quite aware that the chances of them being picked up and put into a regular Army function were slim, they would be concious of the requirement (and be forced to maintain some semblance of preparedness) that if we needed qualified people, they would be the first pool we would look to for leadership to be put into the breach.

As well, if required to maintain some level of standards and competency, it could be assumed that the CIC could step up and fulfill certain administrative/non-combat roles within a Homeland Defence framework.

I'm not sure how it would work administratively, but perhaps the CIC could become Officer's of the Supplementary Reserve List, fulfilling a role as a third-line "pool" of Army leadership behind the first-line professional Army (the Regs) and the second-line stand-by Forces (The Reserves).

Amazing, I think that this thread may be pulled from the dung-heap.

Good job.

Infanteer

Just a lively discussion my friend no real dung was harmed in the making of this thread  ;D

In answer to what I am quoting, CIC are already in the loop for active duty call out, they would fill largely administrative/Support rolls in an armed conflict or major National Emergency dependant largely on skills and qualifications. The potential also would exist for some to take on Combat roles as well.

As for Sup Res, CIC go there too upon retirement/leaving/LOA.
Myself when I left in 1990 due to civvy employment reasons I was placed on Ready Reserve status, and apparently am still on the Sup list to this day.

 

[combat_medic]

McG - mea culpa on that one. However I do still believe that in order to be an officer, you should be in command of soldiers, not children. Every other officer candidate, with the exception of the CIC have to meet and maintain the same standards to get in.

 

[Burrows]

It is the job of an officer to provide leadership and a leadership example to their troops...Which means that corpulent CIC officers are not setting a good example.. Healthy Living used to be a PO in the older cadet handbooks... That should be brought back and officers held accountable for their health.  Well said combat_medic.

 

[Strike]

In answer to what I am quoting, CIC are already in the loop for active duty call out, they would fill largely administrative/Support rolls in an armed conflict or major National Emergency dependant largely on skills and qualifications. The potential also would exist for some to take on Combat roles as well.

Ref the Combat roles, I seriously doubt that.  I have DAG'd I don't know how many times this year and just keeping up all my quals to remain combat ready is a full time job in itself.  What combat role would a CIC officer play?  If they are w/ an Army Cadet Corps with an infantry affiliation do you really expect them to lead a platoon of reg/res pers in the field?  I'm sure the no-hook who just got off basic would know more than him/her wrt patrols, recce, etc.  It would take at least a couple of years for the CIC officer in question just to get all the quals that his/her reg or res counterparts have before being employable in the field.

Don't get me wrong.  CICs are a vital part of the cadet movement.  Unfortunately that 10 days of training is not enough to learn what the military is about.

 

[badpup]

Ref the Combat roles, I seriously doubt that.  I have DAG'd I don't know how many times this year and just keeping up all my quals to remain combat ready is a full time job in itself.  What combat role would a CIC officer play?  If they are w/ an Army Cadet Corps with an infantry affiliation do you really expect them to lead a platoon of reg/res pers in the field?  I'm sure the no-hook who just got off basic would know more than him/her wrt patrols, recce, etc.  It would take at least a couple of years for the CIC officer in question just to get all the quals that his/her reg or res counterparts have before being employable in the field.

Don't get me wrong.  CICs are a vital part of the cadet movement.  Unfortunately that 10 days of training is not enough to learn what the military is about.

*note that it would be not the fresh 10 day wonder* as some would put it, but those who have such Military qualifications as say a Fighter pilot, or combat engineer, have since gone civvy, but joined the CIC

 

[Strike]

Ah, but that has nothing to do with the CIC as anyone who has "retired" can always be called back for the skills they acquired in the military if the need is great enough.