# BFT for CIC Officers.



## RussBar119

Hello everyone,

I had a very unique opportunity today. I did the BFT with the Essex and Scottish. It was an amazing experience and I completed the 13K with no prior training in 2hrs and 15 minutes and 46 seconds.  I also completed the casualty drag and had an opportunity to talk with many members of the E&K who really are an amazing unit with an amazing history.
I put it out to all CIC Officers that we can and should be held to the same level of physical fitness standards as the rest of the CF and I encourage Officers to talk to the Affil. unit and find out when the unit holds the BFT and consider at least trying it. When I first started  I overheard some of them saying that they didn't think I would make it 3K, after it was done they had a different view and respect. 
I do admit though I felt like a rube when they issued me a helmet and tac vest and rifle, considering I do not get issued that equipment it was a slight learning curve to get it all put on properly.

I hope all CIC officers reading this will consider the challenge and step up.

Thanks goes out the Essex and Scottish Regiment, especially the Sergeant that kept verbally pushing me forward.


----------



## brihard

Don't take this the wrong way, but CIC officers *are* held to the same physical fitness standard as the rest of the CF. The CF standard for fitness is the CF EXPRES test. The Battle Fitness Test is unique to the land force, and is intended to represent the physical fitness demands of dismounted combat operations whereupon one is expected to be able to march from one position to the next, dig in a defensive position (damned if I've yet to find a base built on pea gravel), and then move a casualty from point A to point B. It's not a relevant test for CIC officers from the standpoint of functionality, and frankly if the CIC were to be held to such a standard it would lose many otherwise proficient CIC officers.

You trade's role is not the conduct nor the approximation of battle tasks, and so to apply battle task standards is both unrealistic and unfair to CIC officers who are fully proficient in the actual job of working with youth, but who may not have the degree of fitness expected of a combat arms or combat service support soldier. CIC oficers are not soldiers, and are held to accordingly different standards.

With all that said, I do applaud you for showing up with your affiliated (I assume) regiment and doing the BFT- going above and beyond is always to be lauded.


----------



## PiperDown

Brihard said:
			
		

> t CIC officers *are* held to the same physical fitness standard as the rest of the CF.



Can that be true ?  If it was, then I think that a good chunk of the CIC would be receiving their walking papers.


----------



## Zoomie

Brihard said:
			
		

> The CF standard for fitness is the CF EXPRES test.


CIC are not subject to CF EXPRES standards.


----------



## Zoomie

RussBar119 said:
			
		

> when they issued me a helmet and tac vest and rifle


Did they issue you the new style ruck-sack too?


----------



## RussBar119

No it was the old O.D A frame.


----------



## MikeL

old OD A Frame?

was it this ruck? The 82 pattern
http://www.greatadventure.ca/00cart/Candypress/ProdImages/xl_CFBACKPACK2.jpg


----------



## RussBar119

Yes it was.


----------



## X Royal

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> old OD A Frame?
> 
> was it this ruck? The 82 pattern
> http://www.greatadventure.ca/00cart/Candypress/ProdImages/xl_CFBACKPACK2.jpg


And I use to refer to that rucksack as the "_new one_".


----------



## northernboy_24

Brihard said:
			
		

> The CF standard for fitness is the CF EXPRES test. The Battle Fitness Test is unique to the land force



The funny thing about this statement is that in the navy if you fail several cf express tests even with the time off for forced remedial pt they will send you to St Jean to do a BFT.  Apparently they dont want to loose the out of shape people so much they have a second standard.  It does effect the promotion board standing but they stay in the forces.  Even Reg force are not held up to the "CF standard for fitness"

I do not think it is correct just stating the facts.  We do however have a commander of the Royal Canadian Navy that likes fitness and does 80 pushups when he wakes up.


cheers


----------



## Strike

RussBar, good on you for doing the BFT.  Even though it's not a requirement for you, it's certainly a good way to meet the people in your unit and promote esprit de corps between you.  If anything, this will hopefully encourage the unit to become more involved in the corps they are affiliated with and provide even more people for the cadets to look up to.


----------



## Blackadder1916

northernboy_24 said:
			
		

> The funny thing about this statement is that in the navy if you fail several cf express tests even with the time off for forced remedial pt they will send you to St Jean to do a BFT.  Apparently they dont want to loose the out of shape people so much they have a second standard.  It does effect the promotion board standing but they stay in the forces.  Even Reg force are not held up to the "CF standard for fitness"
> 
> I do not think it is correct just stating the facts.  We do however have a commander of the Royal Canadian Navy that likes fitness and does 80 pushups when he wakes up.
> 
> 
> cheers



Are you sure that they are going to St. Jean to do a "BFT" (which I find unlikely) or are they going there to do "CMTFE" (which is a normal process for someone who has failed the other physical fitness evaluations).  The two are not the same.  The BFT is primarily a rucksack march.  The items tested in the CMTFE (common military tasks fitness evaluation) are somewhat described in DAOD 5023-2, Physical Fitness Program.

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5023-2-eng.asp


> Common Military Tasks as a Basis for Minimum Physical Fitness Standards
> 
> The MPFS are derived from the following five common military tasks which a CF member might be expected to perform in a time of emergency:
> 
> sea evacuation;
> 
> land stretcher evacuation;
> 
> low-high crawl;
> 
> entrenchment dig; and
> 
> sandbag carry.



As for your knowledge of what the RCN commander does in his bedroom upon waking, I'll leave the speculation as to how you acquired this information to the more salacious members of this forum.  But for some reason a old tune came to mind, "the cabin boy, the cabin boy, the dirty little nipper, he . . . . " .


----------



## c.jacob

Zoomie said:
			
		

> CIC are not subject to CF EXPRES standards.



  I had to do it on my recruitment process  ??? .  Oh well, I have taken the opportunity to go with the regiment on several exercises including the BFT.  Good learning experience overall.


----------



## aesop081

northernboy_24 said:
			
		

> just stating the facts.



Incorrect ones at that.


----------



## brihard

Zoomie said:
			
		

> CIC are not subject to CF EXPRES standards.



My apologies- I stand corrected.

Regarding a previous comment- I think any one of us could stand outside NDHQ at lunch time and spot any number of individuals who have undoubtedly received questionable exemptions from the fitness standards. If we're going to take stabs at fat CIC officers, that criticism will have to be applied more generally all over the CF.


----------



## Scott

Brihard, is this the post you're talking about?



			
				PiperDown said:
			
		

> Can that be true ?  If it was, then I think that a good chunk of the CIC would be receiving their walking papers.





			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Regarding a previous comment- I think any one of us could stand outside NDHQ at lunch time and spot any number of individuals who have undoubtedly received questionable exemptions from the fitness standards. If we're going to take stabs at fat CIC officers, that criticism will have to be applied more generally all over the CF.



I don't see what's wrong here. Simple auggestion about the CIC in a CIC related thread. There are other threads about this sort of thing as it relates to PRes and Reg Force pers, I've seen 'em. And I note that the word "fat" didn't come from anyone other than you.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Rheostatic

From this week's Maple Leaf:





> Unless exempt, members of the Regular Force and Primary Reserve are required to meet the mandatory physical fitness standard on an annual basis to ensure they are physically capable of performing basic military duties. Members of the other Reserve subcomponents, i.e., Canadian Rangers, Cadet Instructor Cadre (CIC) and Supplementary Reserve, are required to meet the mandatory physical fitness standard on an annual basis if attached, seconded or transferred on consent to the Regular Force or Primary Reserve. Personnel are expected to perform to the standard of the environment in which they currently serve. However, those employed in groups other than Army, Navy or Air Force (i.e. VCDS , CMP, Fin CS etc), are expected to perform to the standard of the uniform they wear.


----------



## brihard

Scott said:
			
		

> Brihard, is this the post you're talking about?
> 
> I don't see what's wrong here. Simple auggestion about the CIC in a CIC related thread. There are other threads about this sort of thing as it relates to PRes and Reg Force pers, I've seen 'em. And I note that the word "fat" didn't come from anyone other than you.
> 
> Scott
> Staff



We can pretend that a comment about many CIC officers "receiving their walking papers." in response to a comment about 'held to the same fitness standards as the rest of the C.F." isn't a reference to many being fat and out of shape, but we're all smarter than that, so let's skip the pretense.

In any case, since my original statement - that they need to do EXPRES - was incorrect anyway, it's a moot point.


----------



## Scott

Brihard said:
			
		

> We can pretend that a comment about many CIC officers "receiving their walking papers." in response to a comment about 'held to the same fitness standards as the rest of the C.F." isn't a reference to many being fat and out of shape, but we're all smarter than that, so let's skip the pretense.



Or we can take it at face value and not pretend that every single negative comment about the CIC is meant to bash them, perhaps it's just a criticism.

I happen to agree with the statement. I also agree that there are many others whom would suffer the same fate. I have not seen CIC bashing from the poster so I am not taking it as such. When we jump to calling it what we think it is instead of giving benefit of the doubt we can cause as much trouble as the real thing.


----------



## PViddy

Good on ya Russ, although the BFT or EXPRES test is not a requirement for us CIC folks, it certainly won't hurt and attempt at better relations with your affiliated PRes unit (as was mentioned) and maybe, just maybe, change a few opinions in the process.

cheers

PV


----------



## Northalbertan

I agree with  PViddy.  Good on you.  And I think it reflects well on the CIC.  

There is nothing stopping any CIC officer who wishes from completing the BFT.  I also agree that it can't help but foster a better relationship with the affiliated unit.   Granted there are some CIC who for various reasons can't complete the BFT.  They aren't required to, but for those who want to?  Give 'er.

Again, good job!!   :nod:

Northalbertan


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> We can pretend that a comment about many CIC officers "receiving their walking papers." in response to a comment about 'held to the same fitness standards as the rest of the C.F." isn't a reference to many being fat and out of shape, but we're all smarter than that, so let's skip the pretense.
> 
> In any case, since my original statement - that they need to do EXPRES - was incorrect anyway, it's a moot point.




It's true most CIC types aren't up to soldiers standards of fitness, but,  their not soldiers.
You could probably get into a decent debate about them getting a commission, collecting pay, being saluted etc..  Personally I say at the end of the day their hearts in the right place so good on them.
Soldiers and Officers out of NDHQ with the shady exempt passes that you mentioned are something else completely and I agree.


----------



## Haggis

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> It's true most CIC types aren't up to soldiers standards of fitness, but,  their not soldiers.
> You could probably get into a decent debate about them getting a commission, collecting pay, being saluted etc..  Personally I say at the end of the day their hearts in the right place so good on them.


  A large percentage of CIC put in countless hours of unpaid work every year supporting the largest youth movement in Canada.  Many are former/retired Reg F and P Res comissioned officers with years of real world experience under their belts and are entitled to a salute.



			
				Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Soldiers and Officers out of NDHQ _units across the CF _ with the shady exempt passes that you mentioned are something else completely and I agree.



There, I fixed it for you.


----------



## Scott

Haggis said:
			
		

> A large percentage of CIC put in countless hours of unpaid work every year supporting the largest youth movement in Canada.  Many are former/retired Reg F and P Res comissioned officers with years of real world experience under their belts and are entitled to a salute.
> 
> There, I fixed it for you.



Thanks for the reminder of that, it is wise for all of us to keep this in mind before posting opinions on the matter.

No need for rebuttals, folks, that's been done to death here. Haggis is bang on.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haggis said:
			
		

> A large percentage of CIC put in countless hours of unpaid work every year supporting the largest youth movement in Canada.  Many are former/retired Reg F and P Res commissioned officers with years of real world experience under their belts and are entitled to a salute.



I have no issue with saluting CIC officers at all. In fact I'm quite happy to do so and I'll go out of my way to salute them if they are in front of their cadets. I'll also ensure anyone below me in rank pays CIC officers and cadets the same amount of respect (in the latter using their rank when speaking to them)

The context of my comment was that I've seen some arguments about saluting CIC officers due to requirements (for lack of a better word) to get the scroll/commission.  I believe an ex colonel or CWO turn CIC is well deserving of a salute for sure.  Being honest I think that's somewhat different than a 19 year old doing a couple of weeks whatever they do then falling under the same tree.
That said, they do fall under the same tree and since a soldier is most happy when following orders, I'm happy to salute them.
Obedience.

Regarding them doing BFTs, if I was younger I would say since they are in uniform, commissioned officers in the CF  and paid I think?  they should be held to the same standard as anyone else in uniform.
Now it doesn't bug me either way.


----------



## quadrapiper

The vast majority are paid 25 days per year on Class A, 30 for corps/squadron COs, plus any courses. Cadet Summer Training Centre staff are on Class B, as are headquarters and school staff.

From the other side of the fence, I'm always a bit put out at the lack of some sort of fitness assessment for CIC, even something that only confirms one's ability to conduct the same activities as the "average" cadet, as far as (depending on element) sailing and field training, and (in common) recreational sports and drill. Set CF standards entirely aside: I have a very hard time with CIC pers who can't meet the same standards we're expecting brand new 12 year olds to handle.


----------



## PViddy

I was told, when i was on my last RCIS course last year, that the new standard is 1 period of PT for every 2 days of course training for officers currently enrolled.  Now, laughable still for most, it's still a slow step in the right direction and; my only hope is this will increase in the future.

cheers

PV


----------



## c.jacob

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> From the other side of the fence, I'm always a bit put out at the lack of some sort of fitness assessment for CIC



  I fully agree with the motion of physical standards.  Those who always have it easy because they're not physically able to be in the field I find disturbing.  One thing to keep in mind though is not that the Corps officers are not the ones who have set the standard.  So for those who are not fond of these officers because of the standards that are set forward.  Take into account that the corps officers are doing the job they are tasked to as best they can with the resources that are available to them.  If the standards are the issue, it is best directed to those who set those standards.


----------



## Snakedoc

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> It's true most CIC types aren't up to soldiers standards of fitness, but,  their not soldiers.



Is this a true statement?  Arn't all members of the CF technically sailors, soldiers, and airmen/airwomen regardless of trade/officer classification?  Agreed that a different standard may be held for certain members of the CF but to say they arn't soldiers would be an untrue statement as they are reported as such in official figures such as to the UN or NATO etc. and are also held to the same responsibilities (such as unlimited liability, held to the CSD etc.) as other soldiers.


----------



## catalyst

Pugsley said:
			
		

> I fully agree with the motion of physical standards.  Those who always have it easy because they're not physically able to be in the field I find disturbing.  One thing to keep in mind though is not that the Corps officers are not the ones who have set the standard.  So for those who are not fond of these officers because of the standards that are set forward.  Take into account that the corps officers are doing the job they are tasked to as best they can with the resources that are available to them.  If the standards are the issue, it is best directed to those who set those standards.



yeah - and the young 'fit' ones end up doing most of the active work ....all....the....time....

I had an exercise planned last year that involved a long hike backpacking into a campsite. It was frowned upon by some officers becaucse they weren't fit enough to do it  :'( I ain't the fittest officer, but I do encorporate daily physical fitness where I can, and I'm a few pushups away from passing the express test (my weakness! gah). Regardless of fitness standards or looking thin or whatever, everyone should be doing something - whether walking, or jogging, or swimming, or ..... - for their personal health and wellbeing. I am not the fittest person in the world (far from it) nor am I the post child for thinness - but I am fit enough to perform my job, and perform it well. 

For the record - until I injured my ankle, BFT prep was encorporated into my physical fitness routine.... now its all about getting the strength back to do it  and so far....so good. 

It would be great to have the same standards as the PRes - I'll do the fitness test (and CFAT).......in exchange or the same benefits  .............(before anyone jumps in - I like my job working with Cadets too much to leave it at this point.)

My little ramblings  

Now........if we want to discuss how to better encorporate physical fitness for all officers and cadets, not just dodgeball every few months.......


----------



## Jarnhamar

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Is this a true statement?  Arn't all members of the CF technically sailors, soldiers, and airmen/airwomen regardless of trade/officer classification?  Agreed that a different standard may be held for certain members of the CF but to say they arn't soldiers would be an untrue statement as they are reported as such in official figures such as to the UN or NATO etc. and are also held to the same responsibilities (such as unlimited liability, held to the CSD etc.) as other soldiers.



Good question.  I don't think CIC are soldiers.  I can't see them being deployed in to any warzone or fighting in any sort of capacity. Medics still carry weapons and I've been told of a padre getting the boot for refusing to go through CBRN training.   I'm not sure if CIC officers do CBRN training.  Are CIC officers deployable overseas?

By all means I'm not trying to sleight the CIC corps, I could very well be wrong and they could be considered/called soldiers  I just didn't believe they were since they recieve next to no type of soldier training, even less I would say than a padre (Who are in unique positions but again still deployable)


----------



## dogger1936

Being a "soldier" is a vague term. CIC are commissioned under a sub componet of the reserves. A real live commission like a reserve or regular force officer. Are they members of the canadian forces? Yes. Are they soldiers IMHO? No. And most CIC officers I've met would agree to that.

Contrary to what I keep hearing 90% of CIC officers I've met have zero military experience outside of CIC courses. Many are mom and dad's; uni students, school principles; CEO's of civilian companies etc. 

Will they ever deploy as a CIC? No. Will they ever understand what soldiering is? No.

To compare regular and reserve soldiers to CIC is akin to comparing the Salvation army to the knights templars. While connections can be made; there is very little in common.


----------



## dogger1936

Devils advocate here:

As for CIC doing a BFT I wonder what happens when a CIC officer decides to do a BFT and drops with a heart attack, destroys a ankle or a knee etc? What is in place to ensure this sub componet's fitness level is sufficient to complete a Army fitness test? A CIC officer showing up to do a BFT who approved it? Is he carrying a weapon and mags that he has zero qualification to carry? In a program trying it's very best to ensure children are not seen as soldiers ( privates are now lance corporals as Soldat in french is somehow offensive...I could rant on about how much I think Soldat/soldier shouldnt be a bad thing...heck I'm a soldier whats wrong with that??) Should a CIC member be wearing a tatical vest? A vest designed to carry our things to kill people?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Good question Dogger, the same can kind of be applied to the reserves.
The regular force, in theory, do 6 weeks of BFT work up.  Even if that isn't the case they do PT a few times a week which atleast gets them somewhat prepared for it.

9 times out of 10 when we do our BFT in the reserves guys just throw a ruck on their back and claw and bite their way through it.  Our members aren't brought in and paid to do any sort of work up training.  What happens if a Class A guy tries it and goes down with an injury.  I'd imagine CIC in the same boat.


----------



## dogger1936

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Good question Dogger, the same can kind of be applied to the reserves.
> The regular force, in theory, do 6 weeks of BFT work up.  Even if that isn't the case they do PT a few times a week which atleast gets them somewhat prepared for it.
> 
> 9 times out of 10 when we do our BFT in the reserves guys just throw a ruck on their back and claw and bite their way through it.  Our members aren't brought in and paid to do any sort of work up training.  What happens if a Class A guy tries it and goes down with an injury.  I'd imagine CIC in the same boat.



A class reserve force members are REQUIRED to complete the BFT (or express) CIC officers have zero requirement to do so. So why would they be covered if injured?

And I will be looking into a CIC officer carrying a fully auto weapon that he has had no training on. Regardless that there was no ammo. Theres a reason a tacvest/rifle isnt issued to CIC officers. They have no need or requirement to wear/use it.

If that CIC officer went down and got injured I could see a "**** show" happening and who ever allowed him to come out and play army in a load of charges.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> A class reserve force members are REQUIRED to complete the BFT (or express)


But is the CF required to support class A members in order to facilitae them passing the BFT or express test? ie paying them to come in for half days to do BFT work up training.


----------



## dogger1936

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> But is the CF required to support class A members in order to facilitae them passing the BFT or express test? ie paying them to come in for half days to do BFT work up training.



Thats a totally differnt topic! :nod:

Fact is regardless of how a reserve member gets ready and what protocols are in place to ensure a safe BFT for class A ; it is a requirement of them.

It is NOT a requirement for CIC to do a BFT, and I'm willing to bet carrying a C-7 tacvest etc is verboten as well. If a class A member has a heart attack and dies on a BFT...he is covered. If a CIC officer blows out a ankle why would he be covered? Did he ask permission from his regional headquarters to carry fully auto weapons tacvest and participate? 

From my view point now I don't think the unit should have allowed him to participate at the level they did. And I am willing to be his regional Det had ZERO idea it happened.

I'd love to hear from the original poster.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I used to volunteer with the cadets as an adult supervisor or whatever. One sunday afternoon with nothing else to do in connaught I took 3 sections of cadets gave them radios and taught them different section movement formations moving up and down some fields there.  It culminated in a platoon attack with snowballs where they (quite effectively) used fire and movement throwing snowballs. Covering moving, all the fun stuff.  They had a great time and loved it. Someone drove by saw it and apparently freaked out. When we got back from the weekend I found myself no longer supervising cadets. I guess they really take that stuff seriously 

I don't think there will ever be a requirement for cadets to do a 'battle' fitness test.  It would be a good idea to emphasize physical fitness (lead by example) considering the level of obesity in kids today.  I think at the end of the day there are just some CIC members who if made to do any sort of physical test would fail and the CIC movement loosing them isn't worth trying to make them pass a fitness test which their job doesn't exactly require them to do.


----------



## JMesh

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I think at the end of the day there are just some CIC members who if made to do any sort of physical test would fail and the *CIC movement loosing them isn't worth trying to make them pass a fitness test which their job doesn't exactly require them to do*.



Emphasis mine.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. As a CIC Officer, I am expected to lead my cadets. Physical fitness is one of the aims of the cadet program. How can I expect them to aim for high physical fitness if I won't do the same myself? Leadership by example is often important, and never moreso than when you are dealing with 12-18 year olds (particularly given that they can just up and leave if they don't like it).

Furthermore, as an officer in the CF, I am a representative of the CF wherever I am in uniform. This is particularly important in rural areas, where we are often the only representatives of the CF for quite a distance. If I am not in decent shape, I give a bad look to CF members everywhere. When we put on the uniform, Joe Public doesn't generally know the difference between me and an RegF mbr with 20 years experience and a few tours under their belt.

Also, I have encountered members who were not physically fit enough to do their jobs. The people like this in our side of the house are a prime example of why physical fitness testing to some standard (even if lower than the MPFS, though that should be achievable outside of those with MELs) should be occuring for us (I know these people exist in other sub-components/components but they already have this testing in place - doing something about it is up to their superiors IAW DAODs 5023-2 & 5019-4).


----------



## Strike

Dogger -- Re: the tac vest being used to carry things that kill people, then by your argument Padres shouldn't carry that either.

As for the weapon, ever thought he may have been carrying the hard rubber fake?

The OP went out and did the BFT to help strengthen his attachment to his affiliated Reg F unit.  I suspect to participate, said unit would have had to make sure he was properly kitted out and the appropriate waivers were signed.  You're posting as if he just showed up and said, "I'm gonna go do the BFT with you guys, kay?"  Probably nowhere close the what actually transpired.


----------



## dogger1936

Strike said:
			
		

> Dogger -- Re: the tac vest being used to carry things that kill people, then by your argument Padres shouldn't carry that either.
> 
> As for the weapon, ever thought he may have been carrying the hard rubber fake?
> 
> The OP went out and did the BFT to help strengthen his attachment to his affiliated Reg F unit.  I suspect to participate, said unit would have had to make sure he was properly kitted out and the appropriate waivers were signed.  You're posting as if he just showed up and said, "I'm gonna go do the BFT with you guys, kay?"  Probably nowhere close the what actually transpired.



Strike- Padres can deploy to combat zones; Cadet officers cannot. Padres can be attached to untis that deploy and train to fight. CIC cannot.  

-He didnt mention a rubber rifle.

- He didnt say it was cleared just that he arranged it with his affiliated unit. I HOPE he was approved to do this; otherwise it brings a lot of questions into play as I staed above.

Strike if you assume I`m just the type of guy who looks at the negative in things your mistaken. Building ties with an affiliated unti is excellent and can really aid a cadet corp. Its something I truly encourage. HOWEVER I know enough about the program to know that if this wasnt waivered to heck and back there could be some serious issues.

I`d love to see CIC doing BFT and basic etc. However the fact is it isnt a requirement; its a youth program. And if this young keen CIC officer got injured or was out carrying a C7 around and no one inside his regional command knew...there could be a giant shitstorm if he was injured.

Maybe the original poster can clarify things a little. However I ask instead of listening to the original poster; you young CIC officers should ask for direction if you plan on heading off to regiment x to fall into a BFT.

Edit to add: Padres wear Tacvests when deployed if required. As they need to be able to protect themselves.  CIC will never deploy or train to defend against attack or to kill. So no my argument would not include padres.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I don't understand what a TacVest or even a C7 for that matter has anything to do with insurance.  Yes, the TacVest is made to carry weapons, but if it doesn't what's the big deal?  Yes the C7 can fire rounds, but if it doesn't contain a bolt, it can't. We fly cadets every year in a F-18 (that can drop bombs, fire missiles and even shoot a 20mm gun) and they have to wear a vest that can carry a 9mm and 2 mags (essentially our TacVest if we buy the farm and eject over bad guy land), sitting on an ejection seat.  Oh the horror.


----------



## Jarnhamar

JMesh said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I disagree with this wholeheartedly. As a CIC Officer, I am expected to lead my cadets. Physical fitness is one of the aims of the cadet program. How can I expect them to aim for high physical fitness if I won't do the same myself? Leadership by example is often important, and never moreso than when you are dealing with 12-18 year olds (particularly given that they can just up and leave if they don't like it).
> 
> Furthermore, as an officer in the CF, I am a representative of the CF wherever I am in uniform. This is particularly important in rural areas, where we are often the only representatives of the CF for quite a distance. If I am not in decent shape, I give a bad look to CF members everywhere. When we put on the uniform, Joe Public doesn't generally know the difference between me and an RegF mbr with 20 years experience and a few tours under their belt.
> 
> Also, I have encountered members who were not physically fit enough to do their jobs. The people like this in our side of the house are a prime example of why physical fitness testing to some standard (even if lower than the MPFS, though that should be achievable outside of those with MELs) should be occurring for us (I know these people exist in other sub-components/components but they already have this testing in place - doing something about it is up to their superiors IAW DAODs 5023-2 & 5019-4).



You're right. You lead by example and these young kids see you and emulate you.  In theory it works, in practice if you held CIC officers to a fitness standard MANY would either not pass it or would quit.  There are some very physically fit CIC types and also some very out of shape ones. If you turfed the ones who couldn't pass fitness tests the cadet movement would grind to a halt, regiments would fold due to lack of leadership. Kids would leave.  It's just not something that's practical to enforce.

It's like the reserves in a way. In theory the CDS should be able to say regiments #1,2,3 and 5 pack your gear you're deploying.   You might get a section of guys, or maybe a couple of sections, but a lot of people are gonna say 'ya right, good luck with that'.
People who aren't physically fit, people who have tons of administrative issues and people who just wanna work 4 weeknights a month.

If I was running a BFT and a CIC officer wanted to jump in and do it I'd let him or her. I'd give them a tacvest, helmet and rifle sans bolt and magazines and wish them luck. I'd also use common sense and if the CIC was clearly out of shape I would refuse them and have them do some work up training first, the same as I did for a clerk at my unit who's out of shape and fell out of a 400 meter walk.  Had him do some training on his own, *sign off that he did training on his own *then he was allowed to do the BFT, which he passed.

My concern for him was that with zero work up training if he thundered in on the BFT he'd turn around and try and get monetary compensation/work at the regiment for getting injured on the BFT with no work up.  It's a pretty shady area from what i can tell.


----------



## RussBar119

Dogger,

To answer your questions. I obtained written permission from my CO and the CO of the E&K. I signed a liability waiver as did ALL personal who participated. I carried a rubber c-7. I was issued the same equipment because if I had asked for special permission that would indicate that I wanted to be different, not gonna earn respect that way.

Any more questions please feel free to PM me.

Cheers.

Edit: Dogger is right, don't just "hop in" secure permission through the appropriate channels. 
I never meant for this topic to become a "are cic deployable" I meant it to encourage physical fitness and standards, not to troll the pres or regs.


----------



## Strike

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Edit to add: Padres wear Tacvests when deployed if required. As they need to be able to protect themselves.  CIC will never deploy or train to defend against attack or to kill. So no my argument would not include padres.



Huh?  How does a Tac Vest provide protection for a Padre, other than carrying First Aid equipment?


----------



## MedCorps

The Bioscience Officers will tell you the proper wearing of the tac vest is very important if you get in a large IED strike.  Something about providing an extra layer to aid in keeping the body armour on you during the first milliseconds of the blast.  

The tac vest can also carry things like water, snacks, flashlight, GPS, book of worship, etc for the padre. 

Food for thought. 

MC


----------



## formercadet1029

Interesting thread. 

I would suspect part of the lack of a fitness requirement for the CIC basically falls back on the the ideology that many CIC officers aren't and won't ever be soldiers. Many join the CIC as a result of their own children being involved in the cadet program, they want to be involved with that on some higher level. In my opinion, anyone showing an interest at the level to become an officer at an active cadet corps should be encouraged at every level because people seem to come in and out of this system frequently. Acquiring a complete staff of competent people that will show up every week in this day and age is nothing short of a miracle. These people only get paid for 2 days a month when you look at it realistically, they really have to want to be there considering all the extra time that goes into it without any financial gain. It has to be about the kids first, or they won't last. There is a small epidemic of CIC officers that appear to be trying to make a full-time career in the CIC, that's a whole separate discussion for sure. 

So saying all of that, perhaps the idea of discouraging anyone to join the CIC on any level, for any reason, may just be something they are trying to avoid at all costs just to ensure a healthy pulse in the system itself.

People in the reg force, class A or B, have a very different type of Job commitment than anyone in the CIC ever would.  CIC officers typically have jobs and careers in the civilian world.

Not apples to apples on any level.


----------



## dogger1936

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't understand what a TacVest or even a C7 for that matter has anything to do with insurance.  Yes, the TacVest is made to carry weapons, but if it doesn't what's the big deal?  Yes the C7 can fire rounds, but if it doesn't contain a bolt, it can't. We fly cadets every year in a F-18 (that can drop bombs, fire missiles and even shoot a 20mm gun) and they have to wear a vest that can carry a 9mm and 2 mags (essentially our TacVest if we buy the farm and eject over bad guy land), sitting on an ejection seat.  Oh the horror.



Believe me I would love to have the "child soldiers" we once had. IE children firing FN all the time firing howitzers as they did a decade or so ago. Fact is Max that isnt going to happen.

The program is so politically correct that it has removed the rank Private/soldat as it may offend someone; or made cadets sound like child soldiers. Waivers etc are not the exception its the norm to do Anything in the program. 

I'd gladly have children doing section attacks; alas the program has moved away from the CF over the past few years IRT implimenting of new courses etc.

Russ I'm glad to hear everything was approved. And I'm excited to hear such a great raport being built between you and a regiment. Thats a awesome help for your corp. BZ.


----------



## gwp

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Contrary to what I keep hearing 90% of CIC officers I've met have zero military experience outside of CIC courses. Many are mom and dad's; uni students, school principles; CEO's of civilian companies etc.



Actually 45% of the COATS reserve subcomponent and CIC Branch have former Reg F or P Res Service.  

Furthermore, most members of the CF are mom's and dads, were or are university students, and have had civilian occupations.  



> Will they ever deploy as a CIC? No. Will they ever understand what soldiering is? No.



COATS personnel may be deployed under specific circumstances with specific approvals if they have the skills required for what is understandably support roles. 



> To compare regular and reserve soldiers to CIC is akin to comparing the Salvation army to the knights templars. While connections can be made; there is very little in common.



A member of the CF is a member  of the CF is a member of the CF.  They all come from the same Canadian society and all have the same desire to serve their country in accordance with their vocation.


----------



## dogger1936

gwp said:
			
		

> Actually 45% of the COATS reserve subcomponent and CIC Branch have former Reg F or P Res Service.
> 
> Furthermore, most members of the CF are mom's and dads, were or are university students, and have had civilian occupations.
> 
> COATS personnel may be deployed under specific circumstances with specific approvals if they have the skills required for what is understandably support roles.
> 
> A member of the CF is a member  of the CF is a member of the CF.  They all come from the same Canadian society and all have the same desire to serve their country in accordance with their vocation.



55% have no other CF experience. So what?

Please do tell me about CIC deployments. Do you mean to say members of the police force who donate their time to a youth organistaion; may deploy to foreign countries as part of the police force? Or for a trip in the way back when machine the Wavy Navy or something?

CF soldiers have a very differnt vocation than CIC officers. CIC officers are there to support a DND funded youth program; soldiers are employed to kill people. While comparrisions can be made on the parade square thats where the similarities stop. 

There is no need for stringent CIC fitness testing. Being a percentage guy I'm certain you can desertain the percent who would not pass. And how many would be left to take care of the youth program. 

Heading out on a BFT (approved of course) is a great way to build ties to regiments. That will aide the corp's with procurement of equipment and support IRT volunteers. Other than that having CIC officers do BFT's would be pointless. Hence why it isnt required now or will ever be.


----------



## Scott

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Please do tell me about CIC deployments. Do you mean to say members of the police force who donate their time to a youth organistaion; may deploy to foreign countries as part of the police force? Or for a trip in the way back when machine the Wavy Navy or something?



It's on the books, is what he means. Kinda like it's still on the books in some places that you can hitch your horse anywhere on a main street. Nobody uses it except to weakly try to bolster an argument, or to stir shit.


----------



## Kalatzi

Umm, Grimaldus - Hellooo

"It's like the reserves in a way. In theory the CDS should be able to say regiments #1,2,3 and 5 pack your gear you're deploying.   You might get a section of guys, or maybe a couple of sections, but a lot of people are gonna say 'ya right, good luck with that'.
People who aren't physically fit, people who have tons of administrative issues and people who just wanna work 4 weeknights a month."

Pot, This is Kettle, Black, Over

Way back when, even before the "Decade of Darkness", There used to be an organition called `The Militia`

I will try to phrase this in a positive manner. 

These class A bumpkins used to get slotted onto all sorts of Reg Forces Ops Missions eg Cypus, Reforger etc on roughly two weeks notice


----------



## Haggis

*TANGENT ALERT*



			
				Grimaldus said:
			
		

> 9 times out of 10 when we do our BFT in the reserves guys just throw a ruck on their back and claw and bite their way through it.  Our members aren't brought in and paid to do any sort of work up training.  What happens if a Class A guy tries it and goes down with an injury.  I'd imagine CIC in the same boat.




IMO, any Reservist who just shows up and does a BFT "cold",  without workup training is a fool.   I've done it when the C of C has sprung a short notice requirement for a BFT on me  (i.e. Op CADENCE).  But, it's not the right thing to do.

It violates the entire premise of the BFT if you do it cold and are so f**ked  up the next two or three days that you can hardly walk.  The intent is to arrive at the battle fit to fight.  Not needing two or three days to recover.  But I digress.

All Class A Reservists should have either a DND 279 or LFCO 24-02 Annex A, Appendix 1 form filled out, signed and filed.  This protects them by ensuring that the physical fitness activites they are engaged in are recognized for pension purposes.  In addition, if you are engaging in activites not listed on either form, submit a memo to your chain of command requesting "permission to participate in non-standard physical fitness training activities" and identify what you are intending to do.  Once approved, you should be covered.

If a Class A Reservist is injured doing an authorized BFT, s/he is entitled to emergency medical care by the CF and Reserve Force Compensation under CBI 210.72.

If a Class A Reservist is injured doing authorized BFT workup training, PAID OR UNPAID, s/he is considered "on duty" and is eligible for Reserve Force Compensation as detailed in CANFORGEN 115/08.

*TANGENT ALERT ENDS*


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> If a Class A Reservist is injured doing authorized BFT workup training, PAID OR UNPAID, s/he is considered "on duty" and is eligible for Reserve Force Compensation as detailed in CANFORGEN 115/08.



A Class A Reservist on duty is entitled to pay.  Full stop.  There is no such thing as unpaid duty.  CBI 204.51 is clear that "...an officer or non-commissioned member shall be paid..."

That senior leaders refuse to pay for BFT workup training is a moral and legal failing on their part.


----------



## Brasidas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A Class A Reservist on duty is entitled to pay.  Full stop.  There is no such thing as unpaid duty.  CBI 204.51 is clear that "...an officer or non-commissioned member shall be paid..."
> 
> That senior leaders refuse to pay for BFT workup training is a moral and legal failing on their part.



Kids in university have midterms and often get worried about school. Units should and do encourage them to show up for the dates they can do so. Units can and do book BFT's on their behalf on some day other than when the majority of the unit does it, so that that member can still get the qualification. They don't have to conduct workup training on the unique schedule of the member.

If they can not make it out to workup training for the BFT, they can do it on their own time and be covered for injuries sustained while doing so. Our unit so informs the member.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A Class A Reservist on duty is entitled to pay.  Full stop.  There is no such thing as unpaid duty.  CBI 204.51 is clear that "...an officer or non-commissioned member shall be paid..."



Agreed, but you're missing the point of CANFORGEN 115/08.  The intent is to ensure that Class A Reservists who are doing PT on their own time to meet CF requirements are covered if they are injured while doing so.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> That senior leaders refuse to pay for BFT workup training is a moral and legal failing on their part.



Now that the Army Reserve has essentially done away with most (but not all) Class A fitness requirements by way of CANLANDGEN 026/11, the need to invoke the protection of CANFORGEN 115/08 and benefits of CBI 210.72 should be reduced.


----------



## dogger1936

Scott said:
			
		

> It's on the books, is what he means. Kinda like it's still on the books in some places that you can hitch your horse anywhere on a main street. Nobody uses it except to weakly try to bolster an argument, or to stir crap.



Seen. Thought so. 

 Thanks.


----------



## patt

i dont get why people on here are crying about BFT workup! frig, ive seen guys including myself do 2 or 3  BFTs in a month of each other without any work up.  stop crying and be a damn soldier...


----------



## Scott

Xfire said:
			
		

> i dont get why people on here are crying about BFT workup! frig, ive seen guys including myself do 2 or 3  BFTs in a month of each other without any work up.  stop crying and be a damn soldier...



Eh? Don't know where you get that out of this thread but whatever....

Oh, wait, you were trolling there! I get it!


----------



## Rogo

Just read this all today, and not to dig it up too much but Rubber C7 or real thing. If that were ever aimed improperly or held in a direction deemed unsafe by the perceptions of any citizen even driving by...it could cause quite an issue. 

I like to think that most if not all CIC (having had several cadet and staff cadet time working with them when younger) are responsible and would not point  the rubber C7 in any unsafe directions on purpose. But the point I'm making is that anyone walking by or around them won't know the difference between a rubber one, one without a bolt, or one with a bolt, a full mag and safety off.

I am curious (may have been mentioned in original post so I'll have to check) to know if this was a ruck march on a base or out in the world. Sometimes I see personnel (I assume PRes) doing ruck marches in Ottawa.


On a personal note and admin or regulation issues aside, good on you for broadening your fitness abilities by doing the BFT.


----------



## Strike

Rogo - when a unit does a BFT off military property they will usually issue a public service announcement.  In that PSA it will mention whether or not they are carrying real riffles and that there is NO ammunition.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Strike said:
			
		

> Rogo - when a unit does a BFT off military property they will usually issue a public service announcement.  In that PSA it will mention whether or not they are carrying real riffles and that there is NO ammunition.



I was always told that we don't announce whether or not the weapons we are carrying are real and whether we have ammunition or not for security reasons.


----------



## Rogo

Strike said:
			
		

> Rogo - when a unit does a BFT off military property they will usually issue a public service announcement.  In that PSA it will mention whether or not they are carrying real riffles and that there is NO ammunition.



Regardless, not everyone will see such an announcement and all it takes is one incident and a call to a radio station or a news source or even the dreaded facebook and the issue is out there.  Fake weapons or not, people won't know the difference.


----------



## Haggis

Rogo said:
			
		

> Sometimes I see personnel (I assume PRes) doing ruck marches in Ottawa.



Lots of members do ruck marches in the Ottawa area.  Most are Army (Reg F and P Res) but some are RCN and RCAF looking for another way to stay in shape or prep for a deployment.  My Capt(N) and RCAF Major routinely come out with me.  Good way to "talk shop" and do some workup training at the same time.


----------



## Strike

Rogo said:
			
		

> Regardless, not everyone will see such an announcement and all it takes is one incident and a call to a radio station or a news source or even the dreaded facebook and the issue is out there.  Fake weapons or not, people won't know the difference.



Except that said radio and news source would have the PSA in hand.  And if a person were to post something on FB, then all it takes is one of their friends who actually reads the paper to copy and paste the PSA to buddy's thread.


----------



## Robert0288

Haggis said:
			
		

> Lots of members do ruck marches in the Ottawa area.  Most are Army (Reg F and P Res) but some are RCN and RCAF looking for another way to stay in shape or prep for a deployment.  My Capt(N) and RCAF Major routinely come out with me.  Good way to "talk shop" and do some workup training at the same time.



I know that myself and a couple other people at my unit (PRes) ruck down from moonyes bay through vincent massy park to bronson, around Carleton U then back up the canal on strange days.  Nice route, minor variation in elevation and the only thing you have to worry about is some crazy guy on a bike.  Also there are some units downtown who go up the canal to Dows lake and back hitting 13km as well.


----------



## Pusser

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> I know that myself and a couple other people at my unit (PRes) ruck down from moonyes bay through vincent massy park to bronson, around Carleton U then back up the canal on strange days.  Nice route, minor variation in elevation and the only thing you have to worry about is some crazy guy on a bike.  Also there are some units downtown who go up the canal to Dows lake and back hitting 13km as well.



Hey!  I'm that crazy guy on the bike!  And I rang my bell.

I did see a guy in CADPAT carrying a rifle awhile ago all by himself.  I actually did call the MPs because I thought it was suspicious.  A group would make sense, but one guy?  It made me think about the problems we had in Toronto a number of years ago.  It seems one regiment in particular in the Toronto Garrison had problems with guys joining and disappearing with all their kit - until found by the police in High Park stalking the tourists...


----------



## Robert0288

There were more than a few that didn't   Where you the one who also said "13 more km to go troops" or something along those lines as you past by?  I had 2 people do that.  
I would be a little concerned about the guy with a rifle all by himself too as 1) Troops don't normally get left behind all by themselves, or atleast without a safety vehicle or something within earshot. 2) Even during work up training I would expect them to bring somone else with them, or atleast leave the rifle back in the armory.


----------



## Mike5

Following this thread with some interest.  Are there any Canadian Forces sponsored events that civilians can participate in ... along the lines of the Marine Corps Marathon in the US?


----------



## God56

RussBar119 said:
			
		

> I did the BFT with the Essex and Scottish


Essex and Kent scottish


----------



## Haggis

Mike5 said:
			
		

> Following this thread with some interest.  Are there any Canadian Forces sponsored events that civilians can participate in ... along the lines of the Marine Corps Marathon in the US?



The Army Run:  http://www.armyrun.ca/


----------



## Strike

http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Trenton/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/Pages/SurfNTurf.aspx

Trenton Surf'N Turf


----------



## OldSolduer

Strike said:
			
		

> http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Trenton/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/Pages/SurfNTurf.aspx
> 
> Trenton Surf'N Turf



Air Force Run

www.airforcerun.com

Posted by a Canadian Army guy lol


----------



## Aken13

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Please do tell me about CIC deployments. Do you mean to say members of the police force who donate their time to a youth organistaion; may deploy to foreign countries as part of the police force? Or for a trip in the way back when machine the Wavy Navy or something?



Not "exactly the same thing, but civilian cops non the less:
http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/police.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

iper:


----------



## aesop081

Aken13 said:
			
		

> Not "exactly the same thing, but civilian cops non the less:
> http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/police.aspx?lang=eng&view=d
> 
> iper:



So you agree....CIC members have not deployed to Afghanistan as CIC members.

It is not "not exactly the same thing"................it's not at all.


----------



## dogger1936

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So you agree....CIC members have not deployed to Afghanistan as CIC members.
> 
> It is not "not exactly the same thing"................it's not at all.



Precisely.


I wish people like Aken13 would spend a little more time focusing on the youth in the program than pretending to be something they are not. It's a large problem within the youth group in which CIC administer. 

While police like the above deploy in their civilian role from time to time; no CIC have the training or mandate to do so. CIC training of a 6 day course on writing a memo and some powerpoint on "leadership" is not a good training base to deploy to a war zone with a platoon of soldiers with.

Please stop pretending you are anything remotely close to a soldier. your not.  You act as a leader of children in a community based youth program much like beavers and scouts. 

If you can wear the uniform properly it would be appreciated and a step in the right direction; as many of us soldiers buried our friends in the same uniform your wearing. It makes me ill to see it poorly worn and used as a prop in a magical world of make believe.


----------



## dogger1936

I would also like to ask if anyone can direct me to a written direction on the ability of CIC to lead regular force or reserve force soldiers. I have HEARD that they cannot; yet can't seem to find anything on it. Anyone ever see this written somewhere?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I would also like to ask if anyone can direct me to a written direction on the ability of CIC to lead regular force or reserve force soldiers. I have HEARD that they cannot; yet can't seem to find anything on it. Anyone ever see this written somewhere?



CANFORGEN 081/05 VCDS 016 270938Z APR 05
CLARIFICATION ON THE USE OF CADET INSTRUCTOR CADRE (CIC) OFFICERS OUTSIDE THE CANADIAN CADET MOVEMENT
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS: A. DGRC MESSAGE 488 011853Z SEP 98 
B. D RES MESSAGE 311 041411Z FEB 04 



THIS MESSAGE REPLACES REFERENCE B. THE POLICY ON TERMS OF SERVICE FOR CIC OFFICERS HAS BEEN APPLIED INCONSISTENTLY OVER THE YEARS. WITH THE IMPENDING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR CIC OFFICERS SOME OF THE ISSUES REGARDING PERMISSIBLE USE OF CIC OFFRS WILL BE RESOLVED. THERE STILL MAY BE SOME AGENCIES OUTSIDE THE CCM WHO UNKNOWINGLY MISUSE MEMBERS OF THE CIC. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO REITERATE THE POLICY THAT CIC OFFICERS WILL NOT BE USED OUTSIDE THE CCM 


THE PRIMARY DUTY OF A CIC OFFICER IS THE SAFETY, SUPERVISION, ADMINISTRATION, AND TRAINING OF CADETS. AS DEFINED IN QR&O 2.034(C), THE RAISON D'ETRE OF CIC OFFICERS IS TO BE EXPERTS IN YOUTH LEADERSHIP ON BEHALF OF THE CF 


THE PURPOSE OF REFERENCE A WAS TO REMIND EMPLOYERS THAT THE CIC HAT BADGE IS NOT BE USED AS A BADGE OF CONVENIENCE TO ALLOW PERSONNEL TO LEAVE THE REGULAR FORCE OR THE PRIMARY RESERVE AT THE AGE OF 55 AND CONTINUE THEIR SERVICE IN THE CF WHILE WEARING THE CIC HAT BADGE AND CONTINUING IN THEIR SAME JOB UNTIL THE AGE OF 65 - THE CRA FOR CIC OFFICERS. THE MESSAGE STATED, IT IS ONLY WHEN HE/SHE IS EMPLOYED IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF CCO ACTIVITIES THAT A CIC OFFICER OR A SUPP RES MEMBER ATTACHED TO THE CIC MAY BE ON ACTIVE SERVICE UNTIL AGE 65. THE MESSAGE WENT ON TO STATE, ACTION ADDRESSES ARE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ENSURE THAT ABUSES OF THIS TYPE CEASE IMMEDIATELY. 


REFERENCE B WAS ISSUED TO REINFORCE REFERENCE A AND TO END THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF CIC OFFICERS IN POSITIONS THAT ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE CCM. IN REFERENCE B, DRES STATED, THE AIM OF THIS DIRECTION IS TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF CIC OFFICERS OUTSIDE OF THE CCO ON NON-CADET RELATED ACTIVITIES. EVENTUALLY CIC OFFICERS WILL BE USED ONLY IN CHIEF OF RESERVE AND CADETS DIVISION, CADET UNITS, REGIONAL CADET SUPPORT UNITS OR DETACHMENTS, CADET SUMMER TRAINING CENTERS (CSTCS), GLIDING SCHOOLS, SAIL CENTERS, AS STAFF OFFICERS ON PROJECTS OR IN OTHER STAFF POSITIONS THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO SUPPORT OF CIC OR CADET RELATED ACTIVITIES. CIC OFFICERS WERE REMINDED THAT IF THEY WISHED TO CONTINUE THEIR SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CCM, THEY SHOULD REQUEST A TRANSFER TO THE PRES 


HENCEFORTH, CIC OFFICERS WILL ONLY BE USED ON CADET-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND ONLY IN THOSE POSITIONS DETAILED IN PARAGRAPH FOUR. NO CIC OFFICER CURRENTLY ON RESERVE SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CCM (OR FORMER CIC OFFICERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY ON THE SUPP RES OR ATTACHED FROM THE SUPP RES) WILL BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE COMPLETION OF HIS OR HER CURRENT ONE YEAR TERM OF SERVICE. QUESTIONS REGARDING PERMISSIBLE EMPLOYMENT ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE DRES STAFF AT DGRC. FURTHER, ALL REGIONAL COMMANDERS ARE TO CONDUCT A STAFF CHECK TO CONFIRM THAT ALL CIC OFFICERS ON THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS OCCUPY CIC POSITIONS AND THAT ALL THOSE CIC OFFICERS ARE WORKING IN POSITIONS THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE CCM. YOUR STAFFS ARE TO INFORM BOTH DRES AND DCDTS OF THE RESULT OF THIS STAFF CHECK BY 31 MAY 05.THE RESULT OF THIS STAFF CHECK BE COMPARED WITH EXISTING RPSR DATA TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF CIC OFFICERS WHO REMAIN EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE CCM


----------



## Nfld Sapper

2.034 – RESERVE FORCE – 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 Organizations Administration and Training Service, which consists of officers and non-commissioned members who, by the terms of their enrolment or transfer, and supported by members of the Regular Force and members of the other Reserve Force sub-components, have undertaken as their primary duty the supervision, administration and training of cadets or junior Canadian rangers who are members of the cadet organizations referred to in section 46 of the National Defence Act*.
      (2 June 2009)      (2 juin 2009)  
  (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

National Defence Act, Sect 46

Cadet Organizations

Formation

46. (1) The Minister may authorize the formation of cadet organizations under the control and supervision of the Canadian Forces to consist of persons of not less than twelve years of age who have not attained the age of nineteen years.

Training, administration, provision and command

(2) The cadet organizations referred to in subsection (1) shall be trained for such periods, administered in such manner and provided with materiel and accommodation under such conditions, and shall be subject to the authority and command of such officers, as the Minister may direct.

Not part of Canadian Forces

(3) The cadet organizations referred to in subsection (1) are not comprised in the Canadian Forces.


----------



## quadrapiper

A note - neither of those references governs, in the broad sense, "leadership of Reg/PRes pers by CIC." Both make the purpose and application of CIC pers clear: lead/admin/support the cadet programs. In that context, there are no restrictions on the ability of CIC to lead any Reg or PRes personnel assigned to them. No different than any other officer in the CF - lead those assigned to you, and otherwise let good judgement and the regs guide your interactions with personnel junior to you outside your unit/trade/shop/whatever.


----------



## Haggis

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> A note - neither of those references governs, in the broad sense, "leadership of Reg/PRes pers by CIC." Both make the purpose and application of CIC pers clear: lead/admin/support the cadet programs. In that context, there are no restrictions on the ability of CIC to lead any Reg or PRes personnel assigned to them. No different than any other officer in the CF - lead those assigned to you, and otherwise let good judgement and the regs guide your interactions with personnel junior to you outside your unit/trade/shop/whatever.



True - to a point.

CIC/COATS officers can lead or be in command of Reg F and P Res members posted/attach posted to units or organizations that form part of the Cadet establishment.   Tthey shall not be employed in such responsibilites outside the CCM.


----------



## dogger1936

The position I am in is a reg force position in a cadet detachment. Our regular force ACO Capt position is currently held by a CIC officer.

Can CIC be ACO's at a det level in a regular force position?

 This is the worse work situation I've ever been in during my career. I am the third reg force ACA qho has held the position in the past couple years due to this place. Something needs to change and I am trying to make it better for the next guys coming in. I've never seen such unprofessionalisim and power tripping from any officer in the CF as much as I've seen here.


----------



## dogger1936

To add thanks guys for the references. Very much appreciated.


----------



## rogsco

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Is this a true statement?  Arn't all members of the CF technically sailors, soldiers, and airmen/airwomen regardless of trade/officer classification?  Agreed that a different standard may be held for certain members of the CF but to say they arn't soldiers would be an untrue statement as they are reported as such in official figures such as to the UN or NATO etc. and are also held to the same responsibilities (such as unlimited liability, held to the CSD etc.) as other soldiers.



_Duty With Honour - The Profession of Arms in Canada_

In the Canadian Forces, all non-commissioned members (NCMs), especially senior non-commissioned officers (Sr NCOs), warrant officers (WOs), petty officers and chief petty officers (POs and CPOs), share leadership responsibilities and are required to master complex skills and gain extensive knowledge of the theory of conflict. Therefore, and in accordance with the criteria listed, all regular force members of the CF, regardless of rank, are members of the profession of arms. Although not necessarily on full-time service, primary reserve members are an essential component of the nation’s military capability and meet the criteria, and thus are accorded professional status. On active duty, they assume the status and identity of full-time military professionals.

Note, no mention of COATS, Rangers, Supp Res, only Reg F and P Res.

Not flaming... just saying. Put the above quote in context with the raison d'être for the COATS sub-component of the Res F and you decide for yourself if this answers the question are CIC considered soldiers.

That aside, good on the OP for taking the initiative. Fitness is a good thing. My Rx to everyone: Eat less, Move more. I would recommend any CIC officer considering BFT (LFCPFS) familiarize themselves with CATO 23-11 guidance for CIC officers volunteering for duty without pay (unique to that sub-component).


----------



## quadrapiper

Just a note on CATO 23-11; it applies to all reservists supporting cadet activities without pay. 

References:


			
				CATO 23-11 CADET INSTRUCTORS SUPPORTING CADET ACTIVITIES WITHOUT PAY said:
			
		

> 3. The term “Cadet Instructor” used in this order has the same meaning as defined in article 1.02 of QR (Cadets).





			
				QR&O Cadets said:
			
		

> 1.02 - DEFINITIONS
> (1) In QR (Cadets) and in all orders and instructions respecting cadets, unless the context otherwise requires:
> 
> "cadet instructor" means an officer of the Cadet Instructors List, and includes a member of another subcomponent of the Reserve Force while he or she is instructing cadets;


----------



## Pusser

The primary role of a CIC officer (i.e. the supervision and training of cadets) is irrelevant to their status as officers in the CF.  The fact is, CIC officers *ARE* officers - plain and simple.  The hold the same Queen's Commission as any other officer in the CF (save Chaplains).  This means they have the same responsibilities, privileges and liabilities as any other officer of the same rank.  Are they qualified to lead an infantry platoon in battle?  No, of course not, but neither is a MARS officer.  However, if a MARS officer happens to be in Gagetown and sees a bunch of soldiers chewing bubble gum and standing around outside the Canex with their berets in their pockets, their shirts undone and making rude gestures at passing cars, would anyone think that MARS officer would be out of line or not allowed to speak to and correct them?  In fact, he's obligated to do something, notwithstanding the fact that he is not in their chain of command, nor qualified in any way to direct them on operations.

The directives quoted above make no mention of any restriction on CIC officers leading Regular or Reserve Force personnel - because their isn't one.  CIC officers lead Regular and Reserve Force personnel all the time.  All the above-quoted directives do is clarify the CIC's role.  This was necessary because of abuses where units were bringing personnel on strength who were too old to serve in the Regular or Reserve Force, putting a CIC badge on them and then employing them differently (e.g. take an ex-Reg Force officer who is 63 years old and employing him as a staff officer in a HQ doing something totally unrelated to cadets).  In other words, there were cases where the CIC was being used/abused to get around the compulsory retirement rules.  For the most part, the folks in this situation had likely never functioned as actual cadet officers.  There were also cases where folks with civilian qualifications were misemployed based on these civilian qualifications as opposed to their military ones (e.g. civilian lawyers who happen to be Reserve infantry officers used as legal officers - this was not confined to the CIC).

This debate is getting tiresome folks.  CIC officers are members of the CF and must be accorded all the respect due to them based on their rank in accordance with the regulations and customs of the service.  Whether or not they should be commissioned or even members of the CF is an entirely different question.  The decision on this, however, was made a long time ago.  The fact is, they are CF members and they are officers - deal with it.

Dogger1936:  I hear you; however, the issue in your case is that you've been stuck with what sounds like an exceptionally bad officer in charge of your unit.  This is not unique to any component of the CF.  There are bad officers (and petty officers and privates, etc) in the PRes and Reg Force too.  You just have to deal with them as you would anyone else.  Whether they're Regular, Reserve, CIC is irrelevant.  They're just bad.  You may have to address this by reporting the situation up the chain of command, but get your ducks in a row and be sure of your facts and all the relevant regulations and be prepared for an uphill fight.  BUT claiming that CIC officers cannot or should not lead Regular or Reserve Force personnel is a losing argument that will kill you before you even get out of the gate.


----------



## Northalbertan

Pusser, well said.  I agree 100%.  I can however sympathize with Dodger's predicament and wish I had a better solution to the one you offered up.  I can understand the frustration and where the anger comes from.

Northalbertan


----------



## dogger1936

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> Pusser, well said.  I agree 100%.  I can however sympathize with Dodger's predicament and wish I had a better solution to the one you offered up.  I can understand the frustration and where the anger comes from.
> 
> Northalbertan



Thanks brother.

I came here to help as much as I can. Unfortunately it's being prevented due to ego's. It's all about the youth. Most CIC I've met have been fantastic people; friends I know I will have for life. Career CIC with ego's are the biggest problem the cadet movement faces.

And yes I agree Pusser. Thanks.


----------



## Scott

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Thanks brother.
> 
> I came here to help as much as I can. Unfortunately it's being prevented due to ego's. It's all about the youth. Most CIC I've met have been fantastic people; friends I know I will have for life. Career CIC with ego's are the biggest problem the cadet movement faces.
> 
> And yes I agree Pusser. Thanks.



And before someone tries to drop in a comment about PRes and Regs having the same issues: we know. This is talk about CIC, nothing more. Check your ego at the door.

Staff


----------



## Snakedoc

Pusser said:
			
		

> This debate is getting tiresome folks.  CIC officers are members of the CF and must be accorded all the respect due to them based on their rank in accordance with the regulations and customs of the service.  Whether or not they should be commissioned or even members of the CF is an entirely different question.  The decision on this, however, was made a long time ago.  The fact is, they are CF members and they are officers - deal with it.



Great post Pusser, this is basically the point I was trying to get across previously


----------



## c.jacob

So with Pussers post, can we put this topic to bed?


----------



## q_1966

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Believe me I would love to have the "child soldiers" we once had. IE children firing FN all the time firing howitzers as they did a decade or so ago. Fact is Max that isnt going to happen.
> 
> The program is so politically correct that it has removed the rank Private/soldat as it may offend someone; or made cadets sound like child soldiers. Waivers etc are not the exception its the norm to do Anything in the program.
> 
> I'd gladly have children doing section attacks; alas the program has moved away from the CF over the past few years IRT implimenting of new courses etc.
> 
> Russ I'm glad to hear everything was approved. And I'm excited to hear such a great raport being built between you and a regiment. Thats a awesome help for your corp. BZ.



Really, Cadets with 1 chevron are no longer privates, that's sarcasm right.


----------



## Scott

Bud, did you really have to wait 6 months to kick that beehive over and get this rolling again?


----------



## q_1966

Scott said:
			
		

> Bud, did you really have to wait 6 months to kick that beehive over and get this rolling again?



Sorry, I didn't know that it was actually true.


----------



## Pusser

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Really, Cadets with 1 chevron are no longer privates, that's sarcasm right.



I know this is an old thread, but since GN has revived it, I just have to weigh in.

The Army Cadets no longer use the rank of "private" because the French equivalent is "soldat" and we want to stay awar from the concept of "child soldiers."  However, my son is an Army Cadet and has just been promoted from "cadet" to "gunner" (his corps is affiliated with the Artillery).  I find it really odd that "private/soldat" is not allowed, but "gunner" is OK?  Then of course we move on to "bombardier" and "master bombardier."  It makes one wonder.... :facepalm:


----------



## quadrapiper

It was a change to the generic ranks list, to keep _la belle province_ happy. If memory serves, there's an "out" in the regulations allowing anglophone army cadet units affiliated with an army unit that uses "private" to carry on using that title, on the same grounds as gunner, sapper, etc.


----------



## dogger1936

Try getting approval for things like paintball. The kids can go home and play shoot em up games; but to get approval for them to go outside and participate in paintball...no way. I attempted everything to get approval for one of my corps to have a fun day activity out; something THEY (CIC and cadets) we're really looking forward to.

Requests for approval from training was met with " Well submit a review to us and we will decide and discuss". Fact is most things related to the "Army" is very taboo and verboten. 

After writing the review and displaying the positive aspects and safety involved; it was denied due to "optics". And the possibility of lower body injuries assioated with uneven ground.  

The only cadet corps I've seen who are doing well with good numbers and kids who are enjoying the program has been at corps who "skirt" the program. Frankly doing their own thing. And I quite happily looked the other way during my visits; as aside from these FEW corps where the local CIC are doing their own thing the youth are not staying. These people are usually lauded at the cadet det; yet they are parading 100 youth in rural areas. Instead of looking into WHY these corps are doing so well the det's focus all their attention on attacking these fine people for not following the program.

The new army cadet program developed is hated by most for good reason. It is so far beyond the army aspect; it clearly shows who took part in it's making. Millions spent without the thought for equipment needed in rural areas to even remotely follow the program to the programs direction. Equipment required is denied as it will be "in the system" soon. Cadets are out in garbage bags for rain jackets during winter FTX's; this was a huge issue I wanted to sort out. Submitting reports on the use of LSA funds with upkeep required to at least keep kids in rain gear. No one cared enough to address the issue.

Infact one of the biggest problems I found in the program was the inability to address problems without huge reviews and political speak that always resulted in nothing. 

Try telling people at the det that kids should be parading in combats and they should scrap the cadet dress uniform. The way I looked at it I would prefer kids have a uniform they could wear in the "field" AND on the pde square. Why have a single use uniform when we could have poor kids dressed the same as their gortex wearing friends who were rich? Why were some kids kitted with gortex and some in black garbage bags? Is that fair? 

I even went as far as GETTING OD combats to outfit a few corps who were doing a lot of activities in the field. Discussing with their CIC they were thrilled and we came up with a plan for funds for upkeep. Having a field uniform for these few corps was a thrill for me. Poor kids dressed the same as rich kids; equals. Instead this was shut down by the cadet det.

CIC out in the field wearing full combats while kids shivered in 2 dollar sneakers and black garbage bags on a rainy October weekend. One kid was quickly given my jacket during my visit; I could bear to see it.

Anyway a bit of ranting from what I seen as a ACA in my region.


----------

