# Army to rely more on civilians to train recruits



## Nfld Sapper (21 Nov 2006)

All I can say to this is WTF ???

Army to rely more on civilians to train recruits

Updated Tue. Nov. 21 2006 8:52 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada's top soldier says the army is stretched so thin by the war in Afghanistan that it will rely increasingly on civilian contractors and reservists to train new recruits. 

"There's no doubt the army is under tremendous pressure," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie told an all-party Commons defence committee on Monday. 

But Leslie said he draws the line at using civilian contractors as mercenaries in war zones. 

He said despite the tremendous pressure the army is under, now that it's committed to operations in Kandahar until 2009, he's confident soldiers under his command would be able to do everything that is being asked of them. 

"If I wasn't, I'd tell you," said Leslie. 

The mission in Afghanistan has meant that junior officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs)-- enlisted members who've been given authority by a commissioned officer and are considered crucial for army training -- are in short supply in Canada. 

Leslie said the gap is being filled by outsourcing some training, such as driving courses for armoured vehicles and other non-combat related instruction. 

Relying on civilian assistance to prepare recruits for war is the latest in a series of moves the army has made to sustain the Tory government's commitment to keep the combat mission going in Afghanistan until February 2009. 

But even though they're under the gun, Leslie said that seasoned NCOs and officers will still direct all combat training -- stressing that mercenaries will not be used to fill any holes on the front lines. 

The general said Canada has no intention of copying a practice used by other countries, notably the U.S., that employs civilian security consultants in war zones. 

"There are some countries that use private security firms because they either don't have enough soldiers, or don't want to use their soldiers for those tasks," Leslie told The Canadian Press after the defence committee meeting. 

"I've seen them operating in certain parts of the world, when I was in Croatia and in Bosnia and elsewhere. And I'm very glad to tell you I do not believe it's the Government of Canada's intent to ever employ such individuals -- armed individuals -- carrying out what essentially I believe are soldier's tasks." 

Leslie's comments came on the day questions arose in the House of Commons about an internal defence document suggesting security measures needed for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver will compromise military operations in Afghanistan. 

NDP defence critic Dawn Black tabled a ministerial briefing note she obtained, which suggested the army won't be able to sustain an overseas deployment and provide security for the Winter Olympics at the same time. 

"Given the chief of defence staff believes we'll have to be in Afghanistan for 10 years or more, where will the minister find the troops to protect the Olympic venue?" she asked on Monday during question period. 

"Will he choose Vancouver or Kandahar?" 

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor suggested the question was hypothetical because British Columbia had not formally asked the army to be involved in Olympic security. 

A few weeks ago, O'Connor and chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier revealed plans to use sailors and aircrew in non-combat roles overseas, such as truck driving. The measure is meant to free infantry who might have been stuck in such support roles.

With a report from The Canadian Press


----------



## Cardstonkid (21 Nov 2006)

It may well be time for the PM to sign an Order in Council to get the desired Reservists into the Reg's to meet our commitments. I can't see that happening until after the next election.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Nov 2006)

You want the PM to do WHAT!

Seriously your kidding right...you have any idea the political and civilian backlash that would have, heck calling up the Res in WWI and WWII was bad enough politically(especially WWI) but that's just one step away from conscription in peoples minds oh wait it really is just one step away from conscription and well look how that fared previously in our history. No what we need is to streamline the Reg F recruiting system and get some relief on the ground for some of the Senior Cpls to get time to do the PLQ which in turn would lead to more MCpl's and then of course the senior MCPL's would be free to do the DP3...see how this works my friend, the in say 3-5 years the top gap measure of civilian contractors is removed and were floating just fine.

All this is IMO of course.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Nov 2006)

What is more economical for the Army;  to hire civilian contractors to take care of non-combat related training, or to pay to have people take the required courses, and then become instructors themselves?

Once you factor in all of the instructor courses, and the matieral courses - I'm curious to know which would be more economical.

Also, what are your feelings about using private companies, such as St. John's Ambulance, to conduct BMQ standard first-aid training??  Any other ideas or examples, of using private companies in such roles??


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Nov 2006)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Also, what are your feelings about using private companies, such as St. John's Ambulance, to conduct BMQ standard first-aid training??



NO!

We currently use St Johns's Ambulance for standard first aid, and it is woefully inadequate for anything even remotely military. It just doesn't cut it, It's great for civi's; useless for us. Trust me we are revamping the first aid as it is, no need to go backwards. As for other PMC for teaching military skills I se nothing wrong with it short term but if left too long it's not a good idea, plus I'm very sure it's more expensive long run then is feasible.


----------



## SuperTrooper (21 Nov 2006)

Last time I instructed was 98, from what I hear is that the instructors are treated worse then the recruits, if someone could correct me, please feel free.
All I remember from 98 is that I can't do this and that and hug a troop if he is sad.
I would love to do it again if I could!


----------



## NL_engineer (21 Nov 2006)

CFSME RETS had civilans employed teaching CMD this summer  (they were all ex military: eather 043 old 041, or ammo tech)


----------



## xo31@711ret (21 Nov 2006)

Why not hire persons off the supplementary reserve list?   ??? I know ex-military who would love to be back in uniform part time. These folks range in ages anywhere from early 40's (joined at the ripe old age of 17 for example) to those in their early to mid-fifties. These folks could be used in the training cadres.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2006)

A little more on the same:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53574.0.html

I know the numbers may not be high, but there's gotta be some troops too injured to go back, but recovered enough to help train people, no?  What's better than having been there, done that?  

Another idea from outta left field:  How about any combat arms types discharged for having kidney stones invited back in to train?  Can't deploy them, but can certainly use them at home here.


----------



## rick7475 (21 Nov 2006)

There is a lot of civvie equivilent training that can be done. Medics can be trained, nurses can be trained, by civvie paramedics and nurses. Admin clerks can be trained by civies for computer skills, transport operations and drivers can be trained by civvies, CE can be trained by civvie counter-parts, pilots can be trained for elementry flying (I believe this is the case in Portage la Prairie already), police courses, and the list goes on. In many cases the civvie counter-parts have a great deal of expertise (ie medical, pharmacies, driver-training, etc) that are equal or better than military training.

There have been many instances of military personnel receiving training and schooling with civvies in colleges and universities. I think this is a great idea, as long as the civvie training meets the standards.

Also, Supp reservists and ex-members can certainly fit the bill.

I worked in the software industry on military contracts, and many of the engineers were ex-military who knew the systems very well.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Nov 2006)

Meanwhile, Gen. Hillier says recruiting going great guns. Thanks to David Akin for his post--when will this positive news hit the media at large?
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/11/20/2515042.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GMan87 (21 Nov 2006)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> It may well be time for the PM to sign an Order in Council to get the desired Reservists into the Reg's to meet our commitments. I can't see that happening until after the next election.


i thought that reservists could not be forced out of the country?  I must not understand that rule correctly.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (21 Nov 2006)

GMan87 said:
			
		

> i thought that reservists could not be forced out of the country?  I must not understand that rule correctly.



I think he is referring to Reservist like me who are Component Tranferring to the Reg Frce...what you quoted has nothing in it about forcing reservists to do anything...attention to detail.  Huge difference in what you quoted and what you are saying...


----------



## Cardstonkid (21 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> You want the PM to do WHAT!
> 
> Seriously your kidding right...you have any idea the political and civilian backlash that would have, heck calling up the Res in WWI and WWII was bad enough politically(especially WWI) but that's just one step away from conscription in peoples minds oh wait it really is just one step away from conscription and well look how that fared previously in our history. No what we need is to streamline the Reg F recruiting system and get some relief on the ground for some of the Senior Cpls to get time to do the PLQ which in turn would lead to more MCpl's and then of course the senior MCPL's would be free to do the DP3...see how this works my friend, the in say 3-5 years the top gap measure of civilian contractors is removed and were floating just fine.
> 
> All this is IMO of course.



I realize the political backlash would be huge, and that is why it could not be done by the Conservatives with a Minority gov't . With a majority they could explain the short term need to the Canadian public and then have the Order in Council written. 

Hire the Reservists for three years, get the Armed Forces up to a level that they can fullfill their obligations over the long term and then release the Reservists. Most Reservists I know (Including me) would  serve in any way we were asked, if we had some way of protecting our civilian careers while we were gone.

The problem with the Order in Council is that has not been used enough, so there is a perception that it is only needed when the Apocalypse is nigh. Afghanistan shows the need to give the political leaders tools to aggressively employ reservists without spreading false alarm through the media and the citizenry.


----------



## GMan87 (21 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I think he is referring to Reservist like me who are Component Tranferring to the Reg Frce...what you quoted has nothing in it about forcing reservists to do anything...attention to detail.  Huge difference in what you quoted and what you are saying...


Okay I thought he was saying something along the lines of The PM does something to force reservists to join the regular forces (he didn't mention directly sending them to Afghanistan, although I assumed that they if a sodlier was forced to join the regs, it would be with the intention of deploying them.)

I'm not sure, you obviously know more than me about the military, but it didn't sound like he was talking about people choosing to transfer; but I may have interpreted it wrongly.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (21 Nov 2006)

The poster might clarify for us.  However, my intent is to head off the idea, however it came up, that Reservists are being/will be forced to serve in a way they didn't volunteer for.  It doesn't take much to start a rumour, and some of the press print rumours as facts.

Lets just be careful about Terms of Service and make sure we speak facts....*no* reserve's are being forced to join the Reg's, or to go overseas.  Many are volunteering to go over, and to fill needed billets in the training system.

So..the Reserve is doing what it was/is meant to do.  Some of us are deploying...some are waiting to transfer to the Regular Force and some of us are filling full time positions in the training system.


----------



## Cardstonkid (21 Nov 2006)

An order in Council calls up the Reserves for regular service. They are called up for the time required by the gov't and for the purpose decided by the gov't. There may be no need to put the Reservists into combat (although they are trying to get 560 for the next Roto) but they can be used for training and support roles. It is up to the gov't to decide. 

I was trying to point out that calling up the Reserves in Canada may well be needed. It cannot be done in the current political environment without huge risks to the current government. Operationally it may be necessary, but it won't happen yet. With all that being said former training staff could be called back into service if their skills are still current enough to be of use. An Order in Council could forcibly pull them back into duty, therebye circumventing the need for "Civilian Contractors." However it would be political suicide at this point so it is cheaper to contract them to do the job that is needed.


----------



## Cardstonkid (21 Nov 2006)

Let me be clear that I have NEVER heard a rumour or heard anyone ever speak of the current gov't considering an Order in Council, I was only suggesting that it may be needed. At this point Reservists are volunteering and no one is suggesting otherwise. (As far as I know.)


----------



## GMan87 (21 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> The poster might clarify for us.  However, my intent is to head off the idea, however it came up, that Reservists are being/will be forced to serve in a way they didn't volunteer for.  It doesn't take much to start a rumour, and some of the press print rumours as facts.
> 
> Lets just be careful about Terms of Service and make sure we speak facts....*no* reserve's are being forced to join the Reg's, or to go overseas.  Many are volunteering to go over, and to fill needed billets in the training system.
> 
> So..the Reserve is doing what it was/is meant to do.  Some of us are deploying...some are waiting to tranfer to the Regular Force and some of us are filling full time positions in the training system.


Oh ya I understand that completely, I was just talking abou the future. Actually I wish more people would understand that every reservist in Afghanistan volunteered. I'm sure Layton doesn't mention this fact when he asks to "support the troops by bringing them home".


----------



## GMan87 (21 Nov 2006)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> An order in Council calls up the Reserves for regular service. They are called up for the time required by the gov't and for the purpose decided by the gov't. There may be no need to put the Reservists into combat (although they are trying to get 560 for the next Roto) but they can be used for training and support roles. It is up to the gov't to decide.



Okay I see, so they COULD be forced up for domestic duties (possibly related to international operations).. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Nov 2006)

A point on the use of civilians to train recruits: there is a program called TCEP (Training Capacity Enhancement Program) that addresses the use of ex-military personnel to train recruits (to free up military personnel to train other soldiers in areas where it still requires someone in uniform to instruct, such as tactics or general recruit training). It is in use here in Gagetown to train soldiers on (for now) driving B vehicles (LSVW, MLVW) and some armour vehicles (Bison, but not cross country, AFAIK). The personnel are ALL ex-military, with the requisite qualifications (from when they were serving, or being trained once employed by (the current contract holder), Valcom. 

I have to tread lightly here, but I would like to point out that in the LONG run this will be beneficial, but there is some short term pain for this long term gain: a number (how many is not clear at the moment) of people are "jumping ship" to work for Valcom, and guess where they are coming from? The Schools (for the most part) here in CTC. So "we" are losing instructors (in green) to this civilian company. This is effecting us, particularly at Sr NCO level, as we are already short on instructors, and because the Career Manager's crystal ball didn't predict these people leaving the military (most have 20+ years in), these weren't forecast, so we won't receive replacements for a considerable length of time (if ever). 

Anyway, you have to take the term "civilian" with a grain of salt when it is mentioned that "civilians" will be used to train recruits (or soldiers in general): I'm certain that (where applicable, as the lion's share of these positions require skills that nobody who has never donned a uniform could ever have) the civvy with the earring, mullet and cheesy mustache that you call Mr. Bloggins, was likely Cpl/MCpl/Sgt/WO Bloggins not too long ago.

Al


----------



## 284_226 (21 Nov 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Another idea from outta left field:  How about any combat arms types discharged for having kidney stones invited back in to train?  Can't deploy them, but can certainly use them at home here.



You mean actually retain experienced people with a history of kidney stones?  Now why would they go and do that, when they can enrol completely untrained people with a history of kidney stones?   :


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2006)

The Navy mans their MCDVs with reservists. I think they only have 2 reg force ratings on board. These ships are used to train MARS officers as well as fill an operational minesweeping role. I've been on 'ride alongs' with them a few times and they seem very competent. Why not staff the army training system with reservists? This may also be a good incentive to attract retired Reg F personnel back into uniform and make use of their skills.


----------



## John Nayduk (22 Nov 2006)

I think that there may be a point being missed here.  If you want a reservist to go overseas, train people full time or do anything full time, you need to protect their jobs.


----------



## pbi (22 Nov 2006)

I have no problem whatsoever that we might use civilians to teach new soldiers things, with one caveat (and one observation).

The caveat is that the training establishment "owning" the recruit/trainees must ensure that a solid framework of military ethos and culture is in place and reinforced as often as possible. It might otherwise be a bit confusing (particularly for new people) to be put into a completely civvy training environment. Having said that, Res soldiers spend most of their lives in a civvy environment, and do just fine. We also send people to civvy universities under UTPO/UTPNCM and this works quite well also. Still, I think we must consider that making soldiers is not just about teaching a collection of skills: it is about shaping the way people think and see themselves.

My observation is that we will probably find that the "civvies" employed as instructors in such a programme would be very heavily made up of former serving folks, who would probably fit into the environment well, and  would likely understand the needs and concerns of the CF.

We are between a rock and a hard place (largely of our own making IMHO) so we should  consider all practical and intelligent solutions.

Cheers


----------



## pbi (22 Nov 2006)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not staff the army training system with reservists? This may also be a good incentive to attract retired Reg F personnel back into uniform and make use of their skills.



This is a good idea that has been in place for a while. There already lots of Res soldiers throughout the Army training system, and there have been for years.(And I'm not referring to the annual summer training surge for the Res itself) Most of these people do a great job, despite the initial reluctance and squeamishness of some RegF people about allowing Res to do these jobs. (I recall the horror the first time a Res offr was allowed to be a Pl Comd on a PPCLI TQ3 serial at Wainwright BSL). In my experience the problem has not been that the Army doesn't offer the positions: it's finding a Res who meets the standards and is available. Many excellent Res WOs and NCOs have civvy jobs that would not allow them to do a stint on Class B, while some of those available for Class B are not necessarily those you want to see in front of a class.

Cheers


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Nov 2006)

Another Recce Guy said:
			
		

> I think that there may be a point being missed here.  If you want a reservist to go overseas, train people full time or do anything full time, you need to protect their jobs.



This is an interesting issue. Recently, I was talking to the CEO of an american company who has many reservists on staff who are being let go because they've been away for several tours in Iraq. His argument is that he has no way of holding a job for someone who might be gone 3 years out of 6. It all comes down to the bottom line, unfortunately. I asked him what he does about people who take parental leave, and the response was that in the US, parental leave is seldom more than 6 months - unlike the much cushier leave policies in countries like Canada. Many US employers are now avoiding hiring reservists because of this policy, although few would come right out and admit it. It would therefore seem that the much vaunted US system of legally protecting the jobs of reservists can be less effective than one might think at first glance.


----------



## GMan87 (23 Nov 2006)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This is an interesting issue. Recently, I was talking to the CEO of an american company who has many reservists on staff who are being let go because they've been away for several tours in Iraq. His argument is that he has no way of holding a job for someone who might be gone 3 years out of 6. It all comes down to the bottom line, unfortunately. I asked him what he does about people who take parental leave, and the response was that in the US, parental leave is seldom more than 6 months - unlike the much cushier leave policies in countries like Canada. Many US employers are now avoiding hiring reservists because of this policy, although few would come right out and admit it. It would therefore seem that the much vaunted US system of legally protecting the jobs of reservists can be less effective than one might think at first glance.


But as worst case scenerio, couldn't the reservist just not bring up that he/she is in the reserves? I don't see any legal reason you would have to write this on your resume. I doubt employers will go out of their way to specifically ask out of nowhere "are you in the reserves?"  Now of course the downfall of this is not getting to put this work experience on your resume, but if the employer doesn't give jobs to people who are in the reserves in the first place, then that job experience was useless anyways.  Once the employer finds out, it could also affect future promotions within the company or they may lose their job easier, but I still think its best that reservsits have their jobs protected.


----------



## pbi (24 Nov 2006)

> Recently, I was talking to the CEO of an American company who has many reservists on staff who are being let go because they've been away for several tours in Iraq. His argument is that he has no way of holding a job for someone who might be gone 3 years out of 6.



I heard some of this from US types in Afgh. It is all that new: at Staff School (anybody remember that place...?) in 1987 I wrote my paper on job protection for Res. At that time my research showed that the major cause of attrition for US Res was conflicts with employers. The demand on US Res is far greater now: it only stands to reason that this problem is worse, too. However, some of our US posters here have argued strongly that this problem is being overblown and is not really an issue beyond isolated cases. Tomahawk6 where are you?

Cheers


----------

