# Alternate for the CIC



## elscotto937

The question that should be asked: Should the CIC be commissioned CF Officers, why or Why not? Many people have been talking about the deficiencies in training the CIC and that they deal with children for the most part. If you suggest that they should not be commissioned officers, or even NCMs, what would thier alternate be?


----------



## Excolis

CIC officers should have a higher sandard of training.... but there are some who should have remained civilians for sure....i believe that they should be commisioned officers...  most of them used to be reg force/pres...   there are a few that teach at RMC as well...


----------



## Gibson

I agree they should be commissioned officers, but they need to raise the standards and requirements for them.  I‘ve seen some people in the CIC who simply do not shed a favourable light on the CF.  Those who do would have no trouble with a raise in standards.  So it‘s win/win


----------



## elscotto937

I agree that they most continue to raise the standard of training if they are to retain that status as CF members. But could the CIC actually maintain a qualification level, let alone attain it?


----------



## MikeM

I beleive they do deserve a CF commission, however, like the rest of you, I agree that there must be a higher standard for them. The current standard is unacceptable. 

Aswell, the physical shape of some Ocdts and Junior officers I have seen is substantially substandard, mind you the majority aren‘t but there are some people that make it in with a very poor health and fitness.


----------



## elscotto937

What is the standard for commissioning... couple of weekends and that‘s it? It used to be but i hoped that we had gotten beyond that


----------



## Spartan

but you also have to understand that the CIC recruits from a limited base as is, and the average paper quote is approx 4.7 yrs.

while upping stds would be beneficial, it should also be addressed in terms of what cadets is morphing into- more and more technical / hands on trg is evaporating simply because all the elements are losing people with the technical knowledge. the programs are being changed so that they can simply be taught out of a book, by anyone, in order to help alleviate  some of these problems.


----------



## primer

The standards need to be changed. But it has to start from the top. Most CIC officers dont do it for the money. Do I think there should be CIC SR NCMs yes. But it should be limited to members on the SHR with there experiance. The level of instruction at RCIS C is up to standerd but it needs to be changed ( the old boys club) they need new peaple and a change will happen,This looks like a thread thats going to blow up like the one before. have fun with it I am just going to watch...


----------



## Franko

Well Primer...if there are changes to be made in the system, you are in a position to do so. If the "old boys club" doesn‘t listen, then go higher with your ideas. You may be blacklisted as a ‘maverick‘ in the CIC, but who cares about that. We are talking about rasing the standards for the benifit of the troops. Use the chain to your and the cadets advantage.

As for the point of physical fitness on the part of CIC officers, I couldn‘t agree more. They are setting an example to the cadets, why shouldn‘t they be in good shape? I know lots of outstanding officer who are...I‘ll be gentle here...less than the ideal picture of fitness. But in the cadets eyes all they see is someone who can‘t keep up on runs, or ruck marches(or doesn‘t participate at all). I know of only one officer who used to ruck with the troops in cadets. He would wait for the last troop to leave, finish his coffee, throw on his ruck, and go with the RSM. They would pass EVERY troop encouraging them on. They would get into the biv site first and shake the hand of every cadet who made it. These marches weren‘t long either, 7-10k at most. He has seen the light and gone reg force now. But the point I‘m making here is we should have more people like him in the CIC.

As a note, I ruck with the corps everytime we deploy, full bug out kit and webbing(now TV). Normally I try to get a race going in between the troops for a bit of fun, we all know how boring these marches are. I am trying to get the officers to do it as well but we all know how that goes....   

Regards


----------



## Excolis

pt. pt. pt... they  need it in the cic.......i cant believe it is no longer in our training... at all.  they cut it out completely...   ahhhh...
it is all lazy that is it...


----------



## Jason Jarvis

I was doing a bit of research last night on how officers and instructors are handled in both the Army Cadet Force (great site, BTW) and Australian Army Cadets. It‘s incomplete, so don‘t slag me for misinformation.

From what I‘ve been able to gather, AFC officers are given a TA Class "B" commission, but there‘s nothing saying they have to become officers -- they can join as a "Sgt Instructor" but then opt for a commission down the road.

In the AAC, there are two types: "Officer of Cadets" (OOC) and "Instructor of Cadets" (IOC). From info on a page I can‘t seem to locate right now, I don‘t think OOCs hold a Queen‘s Commission like either AFC or CIC officers. I find this a little puzzling, considering other similarities in military tradition between the three countries.

As for training, I‘ve found remarkably little on the AFC side, although the AAC site lists a slew of courses for OOC/IOCs -- none of which are overly martial, except for a radio and history course. No fieldcraft, small unit tactics, etc.

Instead of just griping about the way things are done now, let‘s look to what other countries have done, and are doing. If anybody knows anything more about either the AFC or AAC, say so, and provide links so we can judge for ourselves. Then let‘s have an informed discussion to see what we can come up with.

Jason


----------



## AirCon

ok, let me see if I have this right....?

I spent 6 years in the Cadet movement - 3 years Navy League Cadets (Petty Officer 1st Class) - 3 years Royal Canadian Sea Cadets (Petty Officer 2nd Class) - 5 years Army Reserves (2 years Infantry Regiment, 3 years Service Battalion MCpl) - 4 years in a volunteer organization that "saves lives" (Unit President and Unit Director) - presently current job has me in charge of a multi-million dollar "camp" that uses what‘s called the "Incident Command System" (a mirror of the CF Command System)and has me dealing with everything from Human Relations with crews, mess halls, flight operations, administration etc. - have a keen interest in all things military........

are you saying I shouldn‘t be able/or allowed to wear the Uniform of the Queen‘s Canadian Armed Forces because I can‘t "hump a ruck" or do a 10K run?....Hmmmmmm...I really thought I‘d like to become a member of the Cadre in some way.  I guess not?....

BTW...13 years ago I lost my right leg to medical problems, so the your above comments about "ruckin‘ and runnin" kinda count me out?

BTW again...in case your wondering...no offense taken.  Please be careful.  There are LOT‘s of people out there who would make excellent additions to Her Majesty‘s CIC.  You‘d be surprised how many people read these forums (and MIGHT of had an interest in becoming a member of the CIC!)

Cheers

Wayne


----------



## primer

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] Well Primer...if there are changes to be made in the system, you are in a position to do so. If the "old boys club" doesn‘t listen, then go higher with your ideas. You may be blacklisted as a ‘maverick‘ in the CIC, but who cares about that. We are talking about rasing the standards for the benifit of the troops. Use the chain to your and the cadets advantage.
> 
> As for the point of physical fitness on the part of CIC officers, I couldn‘t agree more. They are setting an example to the cadets, why shouldn‘t they be in good shape? I know lots of outstanding officer who are...I‘ll be gentle here...less than the ideal picture of fitness. But in the cadets eyes all they see is someone who can‘t keep up on runs, or ruck marches(or doesn‘t participate at all). I know of only one officer who used to ruck with the troops in cadets. He would wait for the last troop to leave, finish his coffee, throw on his ruck, and go with the RSM. They would pass EVERY troop encouraging them on. They would get into the biv site first and shake the hand of every cadet who made it. These marches weren‘t long either, 7-10k at most. He has seen the light and gone reg force now. But the point I‘m making here is we should have more people like him in the CIC.
> 
> As a note, I ruck with the corps everytime we deploy, full bug out kit and webbing(now TV). Normally I try to get a race going in between the troops for a bit of fun, we all know how boring these marches are. I am trying to get the officers to do it as well but we all know how that goes....
> 
> Regards [/qb]


I do  agree with you about going higher on the old boys club and have. I have been BLACKED BALLED and they do want me.WE as CIC officers filed out a questionair last year on what needs to be changed IN the CIC, Its should be out very soon,well they say it is you know how things work.Till that comes out officialy then we know what needs to be changed.And I cant wait till its out.Do you know what I am Talking about ???


----------



## Franko

I know the one your talking about. It‘ll get buried, just like the other ones. Worse comes to worse I‘LL go higher. I have LOTS of contacts at NDHQ that can do some good.

I love useing back channels, get more done that way.

  :evil:


----------



## elscotto937

AirCon,
    You do not have to be a CIC to take a very active role in the the Cadet movement, civilian instructors are a huge asset to any corps. This is the location for those who want to commit some time and work with cadets, but cannot or do not want to take on the responsibilties of putting on a uniform. But it is a responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. Those who have the commission, are officers, and no where in thier commission does it have a caveat, that stats "only for Cadets," if there were, this discussion would be null and void. And I do agree that there are many out there would make excellent role models for cadets but not in a uniform. 
I think what everybody is talking about using training and Physical condition as criteria, is credibility. How do we stop the CIC from being the joke of the CF, cause lets face it, currently they are. They do provide a valuable service and no one can doubt that thier job is difficult one, although very different from that of the military.


----------



## chalk1

Raise standards.


----------



## Franko

Pertaining to what McBear? Generally the standards have gone up somewhat over the years. The problem lies with maintaining a standard. If COs and higher officers don‘t ensure the standard(for whatever issue this pertains to) isn‘t met on a regulated basis, what should they do? 

Personally I think if a CIC officer doesn‘t maintain the standard for dress and deportment, administration, and current guidlines, they should immediatly be counseled, and put on a probationary period. If they fail during this period...C&P. Follow that by another period and assesment, still no good...charge or discharge. Cut and dry.

But I‘m sure that we are aware that it won‘t ever come to this because right now the CIC cadre is hurting for officers, if they squeeze newcomers too hard they quit. 

I‘ve seen one officer that should have been punted a long time ago. Overweight, doesn‘t adhere to dress regs(won‘t divuldge too much)etc.
He thinks he has the world by the tail right now, wait until I get back from this hole.  :evil: 

Regards


----------



## AirCon

Hi Scott

Excellent points you bring forth...

I have thought about the CI route but deep down I think my calling would still lean towards the CIC.  I joined cadets waaaaaaay before a lot of the Forum Troops here were even born (1967) and continued my interest in "all things military" to the present.  No, that doesn‘t put me in the the "Old Boys Club" because I believe in the welfare of the Troops FIRST (cadets, fellow officers and my "civvie-side Troops").  I still believe in "yes Sir - no Sir" and "yes Ma‘am - no Ma‘am" articulation and trust me, you can "shave" from the shine on my boots and "cut yourself" on the proper creases of my uniform.

It seems from what I‘m hearing there is a problem with certain members of the CIC.  I don‘t even know if they accept individuals who have the same situation as I do?  I‘d love to offer the experiences and knowledge that I have but in a way that the Cadets (Land, Sea or Air) can best relate to - as a member of the CIC.

Time to do a little research!

Cheers

Wayne


----------



## Franko

Air Con...apply! No harm in trying

Regards


----------



## elscotto937

Wayne, they used to write a waiver for those who did not meet the medical standards but would still be effective. This was for exceptional situations, and I believe that you would be well served attempting to join the CIC, possibly a waiver could be obtained (I don‘t know if the exist, since recruting centers now control things)Sounds like you would be an excellent asset to the program..
Scott


----------



## chalk1

I meant raising standards for entry, as well as more leadership-oriented training time for CIC officers. But then again, this is only from a cadet‘s frame of reference...Also, would any of you agree that leadership time in the field helps improve ldshp skills? I found that after just four weeks trg with the brits (‘cause we cant handle rifles and do the whole combat trg thing here) was the possibly the best learning experience ive had in my time with cadets. Comments?


----------



## Jason Jarvis

> *Scott937 wrote:*
> You do not have to be a CIC to take a very active role in the the Cadet movement, civilian instructors are a huge asset to any corps. This is the location for those who want to commit some time and work with cadets, but cannot or do not want to take on the responsibilties of putting on a uniform.


Yes, but being a CI can often be a very frustrating experience. People assume that because you‘re not in uniform you‘re not committed, don‘t understand what it takes to be an officer, lack professional credibility, and don‘t really want to fit in. When these attitudes are combined with poor organization and leadership at the corps CIC level, the aggravation factor can blow off the charts.

All that said, my current corps has tried very hard to help me fit in. From pints in the officer‘s mess, to meeting the regiment‘s officers and CO, to inviting me to the soldier‘s dinner at Christmas, these activities have given me the chance to demonstrate some knowledge in a field other soldiers can identify with (shooting), and I think my integration is going well. Things aren‘t perfect, of course, but nothing ever is.

If I had my druthers -- and $5000 for LASIK -- I‘d join the CIC in a heartbeat. But even though I can‘t, I‘m still going to do what I can to ensure that the level of training and instruction I provide is the best it can be. I would expect no less as a cadet, and as a CO I would expect nothing less from my instructors -- commissioned or not.


----------



## Caz

CIC are specialist officers employed to run the government funded youth program.

Yes, we should be commissioned officers.  Yes, we should have a higher standard.  Yes, given our limited recruiting base, that standard is going to be very difficult not only to attain, but to define in the first place.

If you look at the structure of most units, having PRes or RegF NCMs working with us is great.  However, they again are even more specialized, running range or first aid or fieldcraft.

In a well-run cadet corps, the cadets fill the positions that NCMs would take.  The four positions that are mandatory for officers to have in the LHQ are positions that should be filled with officers:  Trg O, Sup O, Adm O, and of course, CO.

Being a CI, as Jason can attest, can be a very frustrating experience, indeed.  You are not able to attend the majority of training which allows you to better serve the corps and the cadets, so you are very much left to your own to develop your professional self.  This can definitely make you feel like part of the scenery.

It‘s a catch .22 argument - is Jason, being V5 or less, a risk to the cadets?  Likely not.  But then again, we scream, "increase our physical standards!"

Remember to put the focus on training.  A truly professional officer will go beyond what is offered to them at RCIS.


----------



## elscotto937

I did not realize the frustrations felt as a CIs... Having never been one, except for a month before enrolling in the CIL. Caz, well put, CIC problems are in a "catch .22" situation... Many people had stated that they need to be CF commissioned officers but no one has given me a good reason. Maybe you all have, but I really haven‘t picked up on it. Go beyond personal pride in the uniform, and consider that the troops that you supervise are not CF soldiers, why would you have to be an CF officer to supervise them. It doesn‘t mean that you couldn‘t be some form of part time civil servant, in a uniform and similar rank structure to the CF. But the training could then be focused on the preparing people to supervise cadets and not waste time on becoming military officers.


----------



## Caz

I guess there is no good reason that we are associated with the military at all, as cadets, or Officers.

Except that our aims are to stimulate an interest in the CF, so having real live members of the CF there usually helps with that.  As for the NCM argument, we‘ve been over that...

CIC are commissioned officers because that is what legislation (NDA Sec 46) currently dictates.

Our training at the RCIS does focus on us being military officers, however, the primary focus is the supervision of youth and the admininstration of the cadet programs.

Pulling the officers out of the CF and putting them in para-military wing would only prove to weaken our ties to the CF, which are fragile enough in many places.  As well, many officers use the CIC as a branch to get a foot-hold while moving to other components of the CF.


----------



## Jason Jarvis

> *Caz wrote:*
> Pulling the officers out of the CF and putting them in para-military wing would only prove to weaken our ties to the CF, which are fragile enough in many places. As well, many officers use the CIC as a branch to get a foot-hold while moving to other components of the CF.


This appears to be what the Aussies have done. I‘m having a tough time digging up how cadet officers fit into the structure of the ADF, but a claims guide I found states that "Officers and instructors of cadets serve as members of the Australian Services Cadet Scheme. While they are not members of the Defence Force, they are taken to be members for the purpose of this Part."

I haven‘t been able to find a description of the "Australian Services Cadet Scheme," but with the recent amalgamation of all cadets in Australia under the "Australia Defence Force Cadets" umbrella it appears that cadet officers are not commissioned, and in fact operate as a para-military wing. Officers have their element acronym suffixed to their rank, eg, "Maj (AAC) Jarvis".

Officer Of Cadets training is also heavily focused on their primary job -- running a youth organization with a military emphasis. Like our cadet program -- but unlike the British model used by the ACF -- there is no "army" training (like patrolling, fieldcraft, small unit tactics, weapons handling, etc). AAC website.

All that said, I do agree with Caz that CIC should hold a commission, and for all of the same reasons. I‘m not sure whether or not the Australians have a better model, but at first glance it seems way too bureaucratic for my taste and not enough action-oriented. And I‘ve no idea of how good a job or not RCIS is doing in preparing new officers for their roles and responsibilities.

Now as for this statement:


> It‘s a catch .22 argument - is Jason, being V5 or less, a risk to the cadets? Likely not. But then again, we scream, "increase our physical standards!"


I proved to everyone on my first FTX back in May that I was more than capable of holding my own -- and then some -- with a bunch of testosterone-charged teenagers, thank you very much!

In my case it‘s not a question of being physically capable of leading and maintaining control over cadets while on exercise, it‘s what happens if my glasses go into the water, get smashed on a cliff face or simply crushed during the night. I‘ll be the first to admit that I‘m next to blind without my glasses, and without them I would have a difficult time retaining command and control over an exercise. This is why I don‘t teach rapelling or white-water rafting.

But is this a more serious problem than a chain-smoking, 30 lbs overweight officer whose only exercise is lifting pints? While applicants such as this might not make it through the evaluation process today, there are many now in the CIC who fit this description -- right, Franko?   :blotto:  

That‘s my beef about CIC physical/medical standards.


----------



## elscotto937

Caz, Alright I can follow that - closer ties to the CF. That‘s a good enough answer for me.


----------



## Caz

Scott937 - No worries.  If you‘d like me to get into further, I could   

Jason - yep, that‘s the reason they give a lot of people - ‘in an emergency, if you break your glasses, you put everyone at risk‘.  Is that a good reason?  Well, I‘m a little jaded, because I know several top-notch people who were denied the opportunity to serve because of being V5 or lower.  But the element of risk still remains.

Though I happen to think the 50lb overweight officer who gets their exercise in the pub would have a harder time running to the river to rescue said cadet(s) than the blind guy.

Do the Australians have a better model?  For them, maybe.  I do know that the Canadians have a cadet organization that is an envy of a lot of nations - mostly because there is no mandatory cost for the cadet to participate.


----------



## elscotto937

Caz, I saw on your profile that you were a CI prior to joining the CIC, was that for any other purpose other than the time it takes to get enrolled?


----------



## Caz

Scott, I was a CI for three years.  Partly because I had been working, and needed to finish High School before I could enrol.  Mostly because I came into the adult staff role right after I had graduated from Air Cadets, and needed time to adjust to the role.  I started off as a Band O, which is a good spot for a CI.  I was able to gain a separation between being the WO and being the "officer".

Now, did I need three years to make that adjustment?  No, I probably only needed a year or two - but I did need that time to make some other adjustments in my life to make sure I could give the proper committment as a CF officer.  I did spend about a year longer being a CI that I would have liked (my enrolment only took 14 weeks), but it was time well spent, as I went between roles of Band O and Sup O.  I also felt by that time that I had reached the top of what I could learn, and thus pass to the cadets, by being a CI.  As soon as I was in uniform, I was able to access all the training available to me, and become a little more involved.

Cheers,
-R.


----------



## Franko

> Originally posted by Jason:
> But is this a more serious problem than a chain-smoking, 30 lbs overweight officer whose only exercise is lifting pints? While applicants such as this might not make it through the evaluation process today, there are many now in the CIC who fit this description -- right, Franko?     :blotto:
> [/QB]


Jason....I‘m not sure if you‘re asking a question or trying to imply something. 

If it‘s a question...absolutly, there are LOTS of officers who are in this boat. To aleiviate this there should be annual PT tests in place. It works for the Forces, whynot the CIC? I understand the points of it being a volunteer organization etc...but the lead by example thing comes into effect. I can‘t stand an officer barking out to cadets that if they want a course to get in shape(para, wilderness etc) and the chap can‘t see his own feet. Now I‘m not the perfect soldier by any standards but I have passed the express test, BFT, Regimental pt standards, and "fun runs"(10k run) and I expect the officers in my Regiment to be able to do the same if not better. It doesn‘t take long for a cadet to see through the smoke to see an officer who isn‘t as he appears, especially if he passes the corps on a ruck march in an SUV.

Now if your making an implication...
Please elaborate   

As for pers who are wanting to get in with a physical disability(such as an amputee), go for it. If you meet the criteria, by all means sign up! I‘ll never talk down to someone who got in on their own merrit!

Regards


----------



## Jason Jarvis

Franko: I was referring to an earlier comment of yours:



> I‘ve seen one officer that should have been punted a long time ago. Overweight, doesn‘t adhere to dress regs(won‘t divuldge too much)etc.
> He thinks he has the world by the tail right now, wait until I get back from this hole.


Doom on him!


----------



## Franko

> Originally posted by Jason:
> [qb] Franko: I was referring to an earlier comment of yours
> Doom on him! [/qb]


He has NO idea what‘s coming. He is going to have a rude awakening, the likes of which his corps has never seen before!

 :evil: 

Regards


----------



## Feist

I just replied in the "What would you fix about cadets?" thread, and much of my post was on this issue, so I will try to be more brief here.

I think that OCdt Caswell is correct in stating that we need higher standards and, at the moment, face closure of units if we implement them.  I do not think, however, that it is because we have a limited recruiting base.  I think it is because the low standard for CIC officers has become so ingrained in our branch culture that we cannot get rid of it.  When Captains, Majors, and even Light Colonels do not hold university degrees, it is hard to call this problem a problem without insulting senior personnel.  But I think that the Cadets deserve the same base standard for their officers as do their counterparts in the Primary Reserve, and making waves on this issue is definitely worthwhile.

My unit has no formal standard requiring university education for officers.  That said, of our six officers, four hold university degrees, and a fifth, an OCdt, is completing her BSc. in Anatomy.  And I unapologetically contend that we hose almost every unit I know of in training quality, discipline, and NCO Development.  We took home top NSCE in Saskatchewan last year, and are in a position to do so again this year.  Our past four consecutive BOQ candidates have held the RCIS (Pra) Parade Commander position on BOQ (yours truly included   ).  Our last ACO report held (the exact quote escapes me) that we should be the model for Army Cadet Training.  While it may sound like boasting (well, okay, it is blatant boasting) we run an excellent training program because we have excellent, well-educated officers.  No question about it.

Our Logistics (Supply) Officer is a former Reg Log Tech.  His duties now greatly resemble his duties when enrolled as an NCM.  He will very likely seek his commission, but I contend that his position, while nominally an Officer position, is functionally an NCM role.

The point of my contention is that if the CIC would have its own NCMs, not to supplant cadets from NCM roles, but to fill specialist roles filled in the Regs by NCMs (Log Tech, Coy Clk, Trg NCO) units would be able to fill these positions, but would not have to provide commissions based on a low standard unique to the CIC branch.

Thus, I see no need to remove CIC officers from the CF.  I think the way the CIC fits in to the CF benefits both the CCM and the CF.  I do, however, feel that something needs to change, and that standards need to increase.  It is just a matter of jarring people out of the complacency of the standard we have now.


----------



## big_castor

Bad news, Feist.     

CIC officers will remain commissioned officers of the CF and they will remain a branch of the Reserve.  That‘s not likely to change for quite a while.  The training will change, some policies will be adjusted to our specific needs but that‘s it.  More or less a "status quo" for the years to come.

Having had this discussion with many, many many other people before, I personally the question of "higher standards" for the CIC all comes down to a question of perceived respect.  I think the majority of people who think the standards for the CIC should be higher are those who feel that CIC officer don‘t get the respect they deserve form the other members of the CF.  

Even if CIC officers had the same standards in terms of education, physical fitness and training then members of the P Res, that would not solve the problems.  We would still be in the eyes of most other members of the CF, the "baby sitter" officers.  Actually, some might argue that we training CIC officers the same way then P Res officers would be a waste of money since their role is so different.

We have to accept our specific role in the CF.  I chose to be a CIC officer ; Not an officer of Infantry, Artillery or Armour or anything else.  It comes with some advantage and some disadvantages.  I‘m all for a better educated better trained, more professional corps of CIC officers.  But if changes are made, they should be made fort the greater good of the Movement.  If I get us more cadets, if it allows us to give more to ours kids, fine.  If it‘s only for a reason of ego and self-satisfaction of a few officers at the expense of our cadets, then we shouldn‘t change a thing.  I‘m not in this business to serve myself.


----------



## cdhoult

While I agree, to a point, the perhaps there needs to be higher standards, it really depends on where you‘re from. 

For example (sorry, using a Sea Corps, it‘s what I know better..) getting Reg Force NCM‘s/Officer‘s, etc, is far easier here in Victoria, where there is a strong Naval Precence, than say, Burns Lake.

Many corps away from bases, and away from big cities, have "Ma and Pa" Operations running. These are parents who were never cadets, but kind of got roped into the role. If you go, "Well, you need to be able to do x number of push ups..." to the 55 year old OCdt...I mean, come on, be realistic.

Time for a Commission is 1 year, or 9 months with 3 years of Cadet Experience. Many do NOT get promoted right on the date...I talked to a guy in Recruiting about the Naval Reserves, and he said after your second summer you get commissioned. In Theory, it could be just over a year (fast enrollment, and then magically getting on BOTC your first summer). 

While we can sit there, and go "Lead by Example!!!", just like in the ‘PRes‘, there are some...chubby...senior NCM‘s and Officers lying around. It happens. Doesn‘t make them bad leaders as a whole, it means they‘re not in great shape for whatever reason. Maybe they happen to have a really slow metabolism? Who knows. 

And from my understanding, although a PRes OCdt may undergo more training during the summer months, at least they have the benefit of being just that...under training.

Biggest joke in the CIC (Or so I‘m told) is that famous recruiting line, "One night a week, and the occassional weekend"....then people join, and realise it‘s a little bit more. Many CIC OCdt‘s have HUGE workloads, and then instead of getting trained over the summer, they are the ones trainING others. And they do that with their 10 days of BOQ, and a LOT of experience at the corps level perfecting there skills.

You get duds in every organization, some slip through the cracks. Such is life.

CH


----------



## Franko

Squadron CO...I agree with SOME of what you said but....
Quote:
"I think the majority of people who think the standards for the CIC should be higher are those who feel that CIC officer don‘t get the respect they deserve form the other members of the CF."

If these officers want respect they must first EARN it...I don‘t give it. Almost every CIC officer I have meet or have worked with have their act together to the point that I don‘t feel ill about giving them a salute. After working with them for a few days or years the majority have my respect...save a few(the one in question particularly)

As for the CIC not being up to the same standards as the Reserves...that is to be expected. How can you get all the info crammed into a few weekends? You can‘t, it‘s not possible. But they should instigate a refresher course every year that would be manditory. It should include PT testing, Drill instruction, theory mutuals, office work, first aid and RSO review. 

I can hear it now...PT?   

Look you‘re part of the CF therefore you should be tested once a year,the same as everyone else...no exception. The Coopers test can be done within 45 minutes...surely you can put 45min aside once a year? If you fail, so be it. You‘ll be put on written warning and given an appropriate time to get in shape so you can pass...the same as the rest of us.

As for Reg NCOs coming in to do CIC officer work...I don‘t think so. You are responsible for the outfit you command be it supply O or Trg O. 

Personally I have helped out in every position in cadets with the exception of CO. You make it up to that position...you‘re on your own.

As for the MOM and POP corps out there...the ACOs should be helping you out even more if you are having problems. 

Regards


----------



## cdhoult

As ideal as it would be, what would you like the ACO to do? Especially since ACO‘s can change a lot (sometime‘s it‘s just a temporary posting, and the guy/girl knows NOTHING about cadets).

BC has fewer corps than Ontario (sea-wise), however, they are much less centralized....when the only way to get up to some corps is an overnight ferry ride, well....

Not saying the Ma/Pa corps can‘t run themselves, but, without a strong military background, and maybe not being able to come down to RCIS once a year, and maybe not being in the best of shape...they do a pretty good job.

What I‘m saying is that you can‘t expect the 55 year old OCdt who just joined so the corps wouldn‘t close, to come down, and get in shape, and if not, be put on written warning, etc...the guy did it to help a whole bunch of youth out.


----------



## Franko

And I commend him for his willingness to support such a noble cause. But with becoming a CIC comes responsibilities...such as meeting standards. If he is 55, the standards are lower for him because of his age for PT...everyone knows this.

I‘m quite sure the ACO gives him a bit of an allowance for not meeting the standards, which is his perogative.

The point I was trying to make is make it a national standard...cut and dry. If there are instances where it is determined that a person has a disability or condition then certain rules apply in such cases. The majority of the CIC are not in this boat however, and they should be able to keep a standard of fitness that is acceptable.

Regards


----------



## big_castor

Franko,



> If these officers want respect they must first EARN it...


Yes, absolutely.  My point is that some people think that requiring a university degree or any other type of "higher standards" will immediately earn them that respect from other officers.  

We can have a very long argument about what should change in the CIC.  I just think that any change that is implemented should be done with full knowledge of the impact on the number of officers and the quality of training and supervision of our cadets.  

We shouldn‘t do anything because it looks good on paper or to fix an "image problem" at the expense of our real responsibilities.


----------



## Franko

True. But what some people think isn‘t ness. the best thing for the CIC cadre.

Why couldn‘t the standards be increased for the benifit of the people of which you are in charge of? As for an impact I think it would be a good thing...if brought in slowly and gradual. Sudden change of course is not the best solution, it will cause more problems than it will solve.

Regads


----------



## John Nayduk

Here's my two cents.  I came up through the cadet system in the 70s.  We wore the old battle dress uniform so I guess that makes me a dinosaur.  How about this, get better training for the CIC officers and allow retired NCOs to become part of the CIC as NCOs.  These NCOs would handle the training as they did in the Forces.  The officers would be what they should be, the administrators of the cadet corp.  Since they got rid of cadet officers back in the Stone Age, the highest rank a cadet can achieve is a cadet CWO. Wouldn't it make sense to have NCOs train the up and coming NCOs of the cadet corp?


----------



## Franko

Another Recce Guy....

*YOU ARE IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX! GET BACK IN BEFORE OTHERS START DOING THE SAME.*  

Regards


----------



## John Nayduk

Oh, sorry.  What was I thinking.


----------



## combat_medic

I‘m going to throw in a couple cents from someone who is neither a cadet nor a CIC officer.

I have worked extensively with the cadet movement through my own unit as well as through outside taskings at cadet camps. And, with virtually no exceptions, I have NEVER met a CIC officer whom I would salute if I were not absolutely required to do so. I have probably met close to a hundred CIC officers, and if even one of them thought they "deserved" respect, then they are kidding themselves. The vast majority were excessively overweight, they all had serious attitude problems, and were vainglorious, selfish, and egomaniacal. The cadets themselves were often more professional than these pretended officers. 

For all the cadets and CIC officers who think that the CIC should be commissioned, then they should be held up to the same standards as the CF. To do a couple weekends of classroom training, and expect to get a commission out of that is downright insulting to all the people who EARNED theirs. It‘s like EARNING respect, it shouldn‘t just be handed out after spending 4 days in a classroom.

If there is a recruiting problem, then fine, lower the standards until the cows come home. But, if you can‘t compete at the basic minimum standards of the CF, then you shouldn‘t be holding its commission, and shouldn‘t be expecting the respect, or even the compliments from its members who are busting their buts for months, and even years to earn what the CIC was given.


----------



## elscotto937

Earlier on in this post Caz said that the ties to the CF are the justification for having CIC officers remain in the CF. I can buy that one...But many of you are stating that because the job is different, raising the standards would be pointless (for the Cadets at least). Maybe taking the CIC out of the CF would remove the burden of being a professional officer away from the Cadre. Does anyone beside Caz have a good justification for CIC officers being members of the CF...


----------



## Franko

Then why would the CF even bother funding the cadet movement if the CIC were removed from the CF as a whole?

Something to think about.

Regards


----------



## cdhoult

> Originally posted by Another Recce Guy:
> [qb] Here's my two cents.  I came up through the cadet system in the 70s.  We wore the old battle dress uniform so I guess that makes me a dinosaur.  How about this, get better training for the CIC officers and allow retired NCOs to become part of the CIC as NCOs.  These NCOs would handle the training as they did in the Forces.  The officers would be what they should be, the administrators of the cadet corp.  Since they got rid of cadet officers back in the Stone Age, the highest rank a cadet can achieve is a cadet CWO. Wouldn't it make sense to have NCOs train the up and coming NCOs of the cadet corp? [/qb]


This occassionally happens, actually....retired NCO‘s getting paid at their rank level, working at a Cadet Corps...usually if they are a specialist, or the corps is short on officers. It‘s usually the latter, and should an officer come along, they must leave.

But think of it this way. Would you let joe-blow CIC Officer anywhere a tank? And if you DID for some odd reason, would you let them touch it? Fire rounds, etc? (Sorry, I know NOTHING about tanks). And most of all, would you let them command your troops?

Likewise, the CIC Officers are trained to work with YOUTH. It is their area of expertise. While I can appreciate the talent and ability of many NCO‘s, many don‘t know how to work with youth, they weren‘t trained to. 

Dealing with a 25 year old Sgt who is out of line is significantly different from dealing with a 12 year old who is out of line.

combat_medic:

I‘ve seen some of the officers you talk about, the ones who don‘t really get an ego  boost anywhere else, and therefore use the cadet system as a gateway for it.

I‘ve also seen incredibly dedicated officers with outstanding leadership capabilities. Usually the few bad officers ruin the reputation of the entire movement. (Bad News travels around the world, before the truth even has a chance to get its pants on)

As I already stated, there are huge differences in training. It‘s like like you join the CIC, and a year late, BOOM, you have a commission. Unlike reservists, who have the benefit of being in classes, being intructed, etc, these CIC Officers often run training programs, administration systems, and sometimes, even a corps. They have to proove that they do indeed deserve their commission, and quite frankly, I think they do. A lot learn as they go, and trip on the way.

A lot of the officers are are talking about, from my experience, are the ones who joined before the standards were being strictly enforced (screening interviews, etc), and are being grandfather-claused out. 

It‘s like me saying I‘ve never met a Reg Force Sgt who I respected, all the ones I‘ve seen are fat, sit in an office, and half the time, just avoid work like the plague.

Mutual Respect for others qualifications is necessary for the entire CF. And from some posts in here, it would appear that there is a severe lack of it at times...at least, that‘s my impression.

CH


----------



## John Nayduk

I see your point in regards to being trained to work with youth.  Would there be anything wrong with having the NCO take the same course as the CIC officers that get them qualified to work with young people?  There must be such a course or how do CIC officers get trained?  It's common for NCOs and officers to take the same course (in the Armoured Corp anyway) so I don't think having both groups in the same classroom would be a problem.  Due to our advanced age, many of the NCOs who would work with the cadet corps probably have had kids of their own. Many of the young second lieutenants and lieutenants coming into a cadet corp, many of whom are ex-cadets themselves who have become too old to remain a cadet, do not have that experience.  And don't forget, a man with experience will never have to answer to a man with only a theory.


----------



## elscotto937

Then Mr Hoult, due to the fact that most Officers of the CIC learn thier job from OJT, would you advocate an few years as an officer cadet taking crses and learning as an apprentice TrgO or AdminO, before they qualify for thier commission. They do not need the commission to supervise cadets and act as members of the CF. That would sound reasonable to me, 9 months of evenings and some weekends does not an officer make. And it would make the commission more equal to the commissioned officers of the Reg and PRes Force.


----------



## cdhoult

Would you object to CIC Officers taking Reg/PRes Courses? Most CIC Officers, dependinf on their experience/qualifications, have to start from the bottom if they transfer (My old XO was a Lt(N), he‘s now an OS)

And Scott937, I‘d advocate it, but I‘m not entirely sure of the rules surrounding it. In Central Region, a NCdt isn‘t allowed to be the only one anywhere...we must have a commissioned officer, especially with on water activities. The way it was explained to me is that NCdt‘s aren‘t liable, at least for cadets (I don‘t know, I don‘t have a reference, this is what I was told).

I‘d say a year as an OCdt is fine though...I could join the NavRes, and get a commission is just over a year.

CH


----------



## John Nayduk

I'll assume that the question about CIC officers taking regular/reserve force courses is directed at me, the answer is NOT AT ALL!  That might do a couple of things.  The first would be to give the CIC officers a little more credibility and some knowledge of the workings of the Canadian Forces.   The second benefit would be that they would have solid leadership training that was up to the standard of the Forces.  The sponsoring units might be more likely to invite some of these officers to work more closely with those units.  I see it as a win/win situation for everyone.
I had a friend several years ago who was a CIC lieutenant who was considering joining my reserve regiment.  The Commanding Officer at the time told him that his CIC rank really meant very little in the reserve.  He was offered corporal.  When the difference in qualifications between, in this case, an Armoured officer and a CIC officer of the same rank, it became clear to my friend why the offer of corporal was made.  I remember this friend of mine telling me that his Basic Officer course lasted two weeks and his Army Officer course took another two weeks.  Boom, he's a lieutenant.  Compare that to an officer who does the RESO course in Gagetown.  That's two back-to-back summers of (I believe) 12 or 16 weeks each to get qualified as a lieutenant.  Big difference.  Of course the CIC officer will never be asked to do what the regular/reserve officer will do.  It's all a matter of what the person needs to know to do the job that they have.


----------



## cdhoult

Then I guess we agree   

I wouldn‘t open ALL courses to them, but Leadership Courses, etc, I would fully support...I‘m not very well versed on courses offered to officers in the reg force.


----------



## John Nayduk

Agreed, there would be no reason they would have to take, say, a troopers course because they would never use that training.  

You had mentioned that you could get a commission in the navy reserve.  If you have a degree, I believe, you become a second lieutenant as soon as you join.  It doesn't matter which arm of the service you join.  If you're thinking about it, try a year or two in the ranks first.  I'll give you valuable experience and might make you a better leader.


----------



## elscotto937

Honestly, I don‘t know the rules surrounding the supervision, but if the system would allow a delayed development period for CIC then the could base the supervision of Cadets on qualification crses rather than the rank. This would allow OCdts on Corps level OJT develop and learn, possibly through PRes or even Reg force crses. In the air element, the Flight Safety Officers attend the regular force FSO crse, so in some cases it happens already.


----------



## cdhoult

The occassional case where the training will be applied in their CIC life.

So if I can get a commission instantly with a degree, what‘s the harm in some people waiting a year for theirs (most have valuable life and/or cadet experience).


----------



## elscotto937

Colin, that is a completely different argument, I definately don‘t agree with people walking in off the street getting commissions, just because they attended university. Then again, they may wear these ranks but they are still under training where as the CIC officers are expected to do an officers job. Personnally, I think the best way to handle it would be: 
3 yrs as and OCdt and in those 3 years attend the crses to be an LT (LTQ, BOQ, MOC, and I think there is another one) at then end of that time be commissioned as a 2Lt, then follow the normal path. This would provide civilians a chance to develop some military bearing, and former cadets to grow-up (I don‘t mean this in a derogatory manner) and realize the difference between the miltary and cadets, before they become an officer Mainly, it‘s a "do your time" measure, to ensure pers are trained wear the rank. As everyone I think can agree the BOQ alone is not enough.


----------



## Franko

To add to that Scott937...

The wannabies will fall off the vine and wither, and that‘s a good thing. 

Too often I‘ve seen young CIC officers think they really are in the army and are trained to fight* the* fight instead of concentrating on their job...which is to train and supervise the cadet corps.

Regards


----------



## cdhoult

3 years? I don‘t think so...maybe doing smore more training in that year.

But as I already pointed out, if other Reservists can get commissioned in 2 summers, than I think the same rule should apply to CIC Officers.


----------



## elscotto937

If it is 2 Summers of training, then I would have no problem with a 1 year period, and during the year in the middle, they apprentice a CIC commissioned officer.


----------



## cdhoult

Which not all corps have the luxury of having (special circumstances, and a NCdt can be the CO). Or if there is only one commissioned office, they may not have the staff to apprentice. 

Many corps aren‘t fully staffed, it‘s hard to be an apprentice when there‘s no one around to learn from.

CH


----------



## elscotto937

What I‘m talking about is a near perfect world, but it is not a completely un do able suggestion. 
OCdt for 3 years and attend the Current crses
or 1 year with 1 full summer of Basic Officer Training. Those would be more acceptable options, but then again these may have to be compromised to keep Corps up and running. However, I believe it maybe a good start state. I have to get a job with the directorate of Cadets


----------



## cdhoult

What BOTC would they take? Clearly it should be designed for them to be CIC Officers (as great as a PRes BOTC would be, I‘m not entirely sure of it‘s usefullness), but a full summer?

Many junior officers begin their first summers working at a CSTC, filling the role as DivO (or other various junior positions). I could see THAT being an "OJT", as they have senior officers supervising them.

OCdt for 3 years is fairly rediculous. Most CURRENT CIC officers entering the system are more than prepared for their roles, and if not, they get prepared by the BOQ.

I know a NCdt who just came off the course. She was a cadet for 7 years, and rolled over to become a NCdt. She did the course, and still had to study incredibly hard to do well. She said that some of the candidates on the course broke down in tears because thye couldn‘t handle the stress of the course. It‘s a LOT of information to be crammed into 10 days. Should it be extended? Perhaps. Can we really be choosy? Not really. 

I don‘t think we‘ll see full summer training courses available to the CIC (The longest course I know of, at least on the Sea Side, is the Tender Charge Course, and I‘m not even entirely sure of it‘s length). Too many junior officers would be lost, and camps may face a staffing problem. They learn the most at camp anyway, and redieve the most guidance. 

And to add to ALL that, just don‘t forget the Ma and Pa operations. Yes, they should have to meet the same standards (and they do). But think about their motivation. You joined to serve your country...a lot of the ma/pa corps, they get conned into it because the corps wouldn‘t exist without them. If you‘re forcing these parents away from their homes during the summers, well, you‘ll lose a lot of quality people. 

The system is far from perfect, but it‘s improving slowly. But I still don‘t necessarily think that 2 full summers is a good idea for CIC Officers.

CH


----------



## elscotto937

Colin, you do bring up some good points about the back woods cadet corps, and like I said changes would have to be tempered with common sense. Would you shut down a corps because there was no one avail to take the training, absolutely not. A question I would have to ask: Why would the CIC not take a BOTC? They are officers in the CF, and if they are avail for summer employment then they should be avail for training. For those back fill positions those who cannot sign on to be an officer, there are the CI positions. BOQ, although I actually know a person who failed it, is pretty much a joke. So combine the limited training with only one year or less of experience which equals 0 credibility, regardless of the amount of potential the person has.


----------



## big_castor

I just want to let you guys know what changes will actually take place with CIC Officers course in the next few years.

The new CIC training courses are in the final stages of being written and should be implemented within 2 years.  The courses are the result a large MOC analysis of the CIC that took place 4 years ago.  The result of that analysis was a realisation that the training received by CIC officers has no real relation to the task we ask them to perform either at their unit or at the CSTC.

The current training courses are actually rank qualification (Basic officer Qualification, Lieutenant Qualification and Captain Qualification, with either the MOC course or the Junior Officer Leadership course in between BOQ and LTQ).   LTQ qualifies you to be the Training Officer of your unit, while the CQ qualifies you to be the CO of a unit.  

The reality of things is that a lot of Ocdts are actually Training officers, and that many 2Lt and Lt are unit CO‘s.  

The new training courses are qualifications for specific tasks.  After their Basic Qualification course, the officers will be able to go on courses according to their function at their unit :


Environmental specialization

Training Officer course

Admin Officer course

Supply Officer course

Adventure training courses (rappel,  orienteering, canoe, etc...)
 
There is also a Platoon/Flight Commander course for employment at a CSTC.  Those courses will be the first one implemented but more are being planned, especially for CSTC functions.  

An officer will actually be able to receive training specifically for a function that he will occupy, either at his local unit or at a CSTC.  Not everyone will have to take the same courses.  I don‘t know exactly how the promotion system will work however.

By the way, the five Regional Cadet Instructor School will be merged in one National School with five regional "branches".  That change should be effective in September 2005.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Franko

Good to see that the system is going in the right direction for once.

Regards


----------



## elscotto937

That is good to see, thanks


----------



## combat_medic

3005_MWO: If you think that CIC officers shouldn‘t have to wait 2 years for a commission, or have a degree, or have a certain level of training, then don‘t be surprised that they get no respect from the Reserves or the Reg Force.


----------



## Franko

Combat Medic....
TARGET,TARGET STOP....next target right    

I think you got ‘im.






Regards


----------



## cdhoult

> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] 3005_MWO: If you think that CIC officers shouldn‘t have to wait 2 years for a commission, or have a degree, or have a certain level of training, then don‘t be surprised that they get no respect from the Reserves or the Reg Force. [/qb]


I think it should be along the lines as a Reserve Officer (which is what CIC Officers ARE). I‘d expect that someone would be able to judhe how much they‘d respect someone based on their ability, not on a piece of paper. But really, that‘s just me, I suppose.

Out here, the CIC seems to get quite a bit of respect. The Admiral is VERY pro-cadet, and comes down hard on anyone out here who shows a level of disrespect towards the movement.

They do take courses to become qualified, and they have to pass them (regardless of how ‘easy‘ it would seem to you). So yes, I expect them to have a certain level of training. 

They are trained with relevent information, as opposed to information they won‘t use. If you were to treat them as members of the PRes, I‘d be demanding the same standards all around. $2000 off education every year, that‘ll be expensive considering the amount of CIC Officers doing Post-Secondary of some description. Apparently many PRes Officers are guaranteed summer employment (being trained, or otherwise)...not for the CIC, they are competing for few spots, and are sometimes left with nothing. It‘d be an expensive move to make them ‘the same‘.

Their training is relevent to them. You‘re right, they won‘t be the first to go to battle, and pretend to know how to drive a warship....and they won‘t even pretend to know how. Just like I‘d assume that you wouldn‘t walk into a cadet unit, and just assume you know how to work with youth, and the intricacies of the system. 

So if you hold this little respect for them, why should they hold any respect for you?


----------



## combat_medic

I hold little respect for them because they aren‘t held up to any standard, other than the couple weekends of training that any trained monkey could pass.

As for myself, I don‘t expect respect from anyone. I EARN it (heaven forbid).

BTW, I did walk into a cadet unit and a cadet camp for an entire summer, and figured out your so-called "intricacies" in about 10 minutes. Also, if they were held to the same standard as the Reserve;

1. They wouldn‘t be eligible for tuition reimbursement as they would require a post secondary degree before even applying.
2. There would be SIGNIFICANTLY less CIC officers, as the majority would not pass the written test, physical, medical, background checks and interview. Not to mention being required to pass all the courses.
3. No officer outside the reg force is guaranteed employment.
4. They may be trained with "relevant information" as far as you and the cadet world are concerned, but learning to write a memo, do BASIC drill, and not sexually harass children does not make them contributing members of the CF, nor make them worthy of a commission, in my humble opinion.

But, despite all this, the CIC will continue to amble along on its merry way, expecting to command the respect of CF members, when all they are is boy scout leaders with a bar on their shoulders.

Have I mentioned yet that respect needs to be earned?


----------



## Infanteer

> 4. They may be trained with "relevant information" as far as you and the cadet world are concerned, but learning to write a memo, do BASIC drill, and not sexually harass children does not make them contributing members of the CF, nor make them worthy of a commission, in my humble opinion.


Hooah


----------



## cdhoult

> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] I hold little respect for them because they aren‘t held up to any standard, other than the couple weekends of training that any trained monkey could pass.
> 
> As for myself, I don‘t expect respect from anyone. I EARN it (heaven forbid).
> 
> BTW, I did walk into a cadet unit and a cadet camp for an entire summer, and figured out your so-called "intricacies" in about 10 minutes. Also, if they were held to the same standard as the Reserve;
> 
> 1. They wouldn‘t be eligible for tuition reimbursement as they would require a post secondary degree before even applying.
> 2. There would be SIGNIFICANTLY less CIC officers, as the majority would not pass the written test, physical, medical, background checks and interview. Not to mention being required to pass all the courses.
> 3. No officer outside the reg force is guaranteed employment.
> 4. They may be trained with "relevant information" as far as you and the cadet world are concerned, but learning to write a memo, do BASIC drill, and not sexually harass children does not make them contributing members of the CF, nor make them worthy of a commission, in my humble opinion.
> 
> But, despite all this, the CIC will continue to amble along on its merry way, expecting to command the respect of CF members, when all they are is boy scout leaders with a bar on their shoulders.
> 
> Have I mentioned yet that respect needs to be earned? [/qb]


Of course, respect should be earned by the individual. You‘re belittling an entire component of the CF. HUGE difference.  

But let‘s go over your points:

1. I called up CFRC, and as long as I have a University Acceptence in my hand, I can start the enrollment process (as an officer), and be given $2000/year towards tuition. Ergo, any CIC Officer attending university (as I said in my post) would be eligable, if they were to be held to the same standard.

2. Um, incase you didn‘t know they have to have an interview, conducted at CFRC and all that good stuff. Background check? Of course! Apparently, when you work with minors, parents like to be assured that the guys in charge have a background check done.

I live with someone who processes CIC applications for a living, and she confirms it all    Apparently there‘s some part that contains some writing now.

As for the physical portion, they have to be in decent health (although I suppose that‘s subjective, and people let themselves go occassionally). But again I go back to the pool of these recruits, and the amount of it in their job. 

3. My mistake. But it would seem that there is a higher percentage of reservists on course during the summer than CIC Employment.

4. I don‘t even know how to respond to this comment. I don‘t know whether you didn‘t research RCIS or what....I haven‘t quite figured it out yet. Go research all the courses, the course material they need to know (and APPLY right away, with no time to really OJT), and the time in which they learn it. And then go back, and think AGAIN who some of these people are. I‘m just shocked by the level of disrespect, and what looks like ignorance (Maybe it isn‘t) towards an entire branch of the forces.

As for you figuring out the intricacies in about 10 minutes, well, I commend you. You must be far more intelligent than, well most everyone in the system. I know people who have worked at HQ a good 20 years, and still have new issues pop up. I very much doubt that you understand the cadet system to it‘s fullest. Seeing how things run, and knowing how the entire system, it‘s funding, it‘s supply, admin, camp selection, working with HQ, etc, well, takes most people a good 10 years.


----------



## Infanteer

> As for the physical portion, they have to be in decent health (although I suppose that‘s subjective, and people let themselves go occassionally). But again I go back to the pool of these recruits, and the amount of it in their job.


If you‘ve seen the CIC‘s I have, you would know that fitness is a non-factor.



> 4. I don‘t even know how to respond to this comment. I don‘t know whether you didn‘t research RCIS or what....I haven‘t quite figured it out yet. Go research all the courses, the course material they need to know (and APPLY right away, with no time to really OJT), and the time in which they learn it. And then go back, and think AGAIN who some of these people are. I‘m just shocked by the level of disrespect, and what looks like ignorance (Maybe it isn‘t) towards an entire branch of the forces.


Disrespect is also something that is earned.


----------



## cdhoult

As I said, they have to be in decent health (not stupendous, as we have ALL witnessed).

An entire branch of the forces didn‘t ‘earn‘ disrespect. And if you feel they do, they start writing a letter to the Admiral out here in MARPAC.


----------



## Infanteer

> As I said, they have to be in decent health


No, they don‘t.  Some CIC‘s are so fat that they are a physical embarrasment to the uniform.


----------



## cdhoult

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, they have to be in decent health
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don‘t.  Some CIC‘s are so fat that they are a physical embarrasment to the uniform. [/qb]
Click to expand...

From the CIC Officers I‘ve seen, the ones you speak of tend to be the old Captains who have been around a long time, who entered when standards weren‘t really enforced (afterall, they got paid less than reservists, so why have anything the same?). 

Most new CIC Officers, and the younger ones, tend to be in decent shape.

I see a bunch of overwight Captains in the CIC, but by the same token, I see a bunch of overweight senior NCM‘s and Chief‘s walking around...

People get out of shape.

CH


----------



## primer

well said 3005_MWO.He must have had a bad Summer working at a Cadet Camp...


----------



## primer

But remember about 1/2 of the CIC are Ret Reg force and PRes taking their commissions. There are well over 8000  CIC officers out there thats alot to hate...


----------



## Infanteer

> From the CIC Officers I‘ve seen, the ones you speak of tend to be the old Captains who have been around a long time, who entered when standards weren‘t really enforced (afterall, they got paid less than reservists, so why have anything the same?).
> 
> Most new CIC Officers, and the younger ones, tend to be in decent shape.


No, I‘m talking about the young, fat female CIC in my unit that had the swiss seat disappear on a rappelling exercise.

Or maybe I‘m talking about the too beached whales that tried to take over the TV room in the shacks from troops who were living there.  They shut up pretty quick when our real officers showed up and told them to piss off.

These are just examples of the sorry state I see in many CIC‘s...and they are not old or prior service people either.



> I see a bunch of overwight Captains in the CIC, but by the same token, I see a bunch of overweight senior NCM‘s and Chief‘s walking around...
> 
> People get out of shape.


Your right, and the fact that they are in the military makes it inexcusable.  They should be put on the launch pad as well.



> well said 3005_MWO.He must have had a bad Summer working at a Cadet Camp...


No, never worked for the Cadets before.  I just don‘t like seeing the military being treated as a kiddie organization.


----------



## combat_medic

Let‘s address a few points here;

I can personally name for you at least 6 CIC officers off the top of my head, who rank Lt or below, under the age of 30, who are at least DOUBLE their recommended body weight. There is absolutely NO medical/physical requirement for getting into the CIC. Trust me, I am a medic after all. I‘ve encountered CICs with congenital heart problems, chronic arthritis, diabetes, and other MAJOR conditions that bar them from the CF (which is often the reason they join the CIC).

As for the interview and background check, yes they are done, but are not held to the same standards as the remainder of the CF. In fact, one CIC officer told me that the reason he was in the CIC is because he failed the background check. He could be lying, but who would knowingly make themselves out to be such a complete tool?

As for the basic CIC course, they ran one at the same time as my QL3 Med As, and I saw first hand about 25 Cadet OCdts (who were also mostly fat, btw)in 3 weekends of classroom training. I observed their training quite closely, and not a single one could do drill, salute correctly, or even wear the uniform properly by the end of 6 days. All of my coursemates and I remarked on how much shame they brought to the uniform as they swaggered up to the dias after 6 days and pulled their commission out of a cracker jack box. I wouldn‘t trust one of them to polish a boot (which they also failed miserably at), let alone lead a cadet or a real soldier. 

You seem to be mistaking my disdain for ignorance, which is hardly the case. I have dealt with the cadet movement extensively, often for months on end, and have not yet encountered one who "deserved" respect. The only exception to this being the 60 year old, ex-Airborne, retired Reg Force Major I met. I respected him for his military service as an NCO, and not for his commission in the CIC.

Granted, I‘ve only met about 100 or so CIC officers. Perhaps every single one of them is a bad example and an embarassment to their uniform and the cadet movement. Maybe everyone else out there is some super officer and I‘ve only met the absolute worst ones, but somehow, I doubt it. 

If you want me to start telling all my myriad of horror stories, I will, but you can take my word for it that every CIC officer I‘ve encountered has earned every single ounce of my disrespect.


----------



## combat_medic

Again, allow me to reinforce the fact that all of these opinions are drawn from my own experience. I would very much like to find some CICs out there who will change my mind, and make some sort of attempt to earn the respect that everyone here seems to think they deserve.


----------



## elscotto937

[No message]


----------



## elscotto937

Colin, I understand you comments, probably many of your friends are in the CIC and you knew them to be good cadets. And don‘t get me wrong there are plenty of good people out there who are in the CIC who are interested in being a good CF officer and supervising cadets. However, these good people are far out weighed by the problems of the masses. I have quite a few horror stories, of which I will spare you, needless to say they range from the extreme to the mildly annoying.
What most of the guys (reg force and PRes) have problems with are during the cross over, when they are interacting with military pers. Imagine a soldier who has trained for months for the privilege of wearing his countries uniform, he expects that officers (by definition) his superiors at least have some military training, and are wearing the uniform through some right of passage (real training). That is probably what make the Regs and Pres angry. I have worked with cadets for a couple of years and from my experience when the cadet corps act independently from the CF under strong CIC leadership there are no problems (this is not the rule)


----------



## Franko

Just thought I‘d chime in here.     

I have instructed on BOQ courses. 3005 MWO I‘d hate to tell you this....

*Combat Medic* is correct in *HER* statement*"and I saw first hand about 25 Cadet OCdts (who were also mostly fat, btw)in 3 weekends of classroom training. I observed their training quite closely, and not a single one could do drill, salute correctly, or even wear the uniform properly by the end of 6 days. All of my coursemates and I remarked on how much shame they brought to the uniform as they swaggered up to the dias after 6 days and pulled their commission out of a cracker jack box. I wouldn‘t trust one of them to polish a boot (which they also failed miserably at), let alone lead a cadet or a real soldier."*

I had to literally be told to shut up by the ACO(who was Reg force BTW) when I protested 24 candidates passing this "course". They were well below standard...even for cadets. Dress and deportment deplorable. Drill...well below standard. As for attendance...the 24 were consistantly late..to the point I locked the drill hall doors and told them to wait until the class was completed(they got extras BTW).

Pretty bad for a group of 73 we pushed through that year. We had a OCdt who had 32 years service in the PPCLI go through...he wanted to kill the lot of them after one drill lecture.

Mind you he pulled me aside to tell me I was doing a great job of controling such a large drill class...a HUGE compliment(the man was a CSM..big time old school). He took the breaks in stride by telling the idiots in the group that they were"slack and idle" and should be "taken out back to get what SHOULD be comin‘ to them".

Anyways....seeing how you aren‘t even in the CIC, how do you know how the students are during courses?

But I digress...we are WAY off topic.     

Regards

edited for quoting wrong gender


----------



## combat_medic

Franko: psssst, I‘m not a guy. Shhh, don‘t tell anyone.


----------



## Franko

Combat Medic...check other means...OUT!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nice recovery, Franko!!!  CHEERS


----------



## Franko

Thank you Bruce. Anything to add to the topic...or just acolades?   

Regards


----------



## Franko

Just kidding Bruce   

Now I‘m getting the silent treatment?

Oh well.....

Regards


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Good morning Franko, No silent treatment for you, I just took a couple of days off work. Got free tickets for Boston vs. Ottawa thursday, and then friday to recover.[and then overtime today, I love Govt. jobs]       CHEERS


----------



## Franko

Must be nice to have a few days off...kinda forget what that‘s like.

Oh well, I‘ll have a few in Vienna Austria in a few days on R&R for ya, and I‘ll be lifting a few for Murph and Doug as well...

Cheers(literally)

Franko


----------



## Ltmel

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Again, allow me to reinforce the fact that all of these opinions are drawn from my own experience. I would very much like to find some CICs out there who will change my mind, and make some sort of attempt to earn the respect that everyone here seems to think they deserve.


     


Well, nice to see that people are convening in a forum set aside for us to disagree heatedly.   Will this continue or should I pull out now?   

Edited for personal attack.
1.   Too bad you've managed to find yourself in such a situation, have you considered that the reason you have only seen officer cadets graduating from a 12 day BOQ course is because that is the extent of the training that most will ever participate in or that your services were never required for anything more?
     How do you think i feel when I see these useless candidates wearing the same accoutrement's as me?   Rest assured you were looking at the future Supply and Admin officers of units all over the country.   Those of us that do more than that would love to participate in anything more advanced.   Is that where you'd like to see the military's funding going to?   The only reason our training system has suffered is that the funding is required elsewhere.

2.   I suggest that you attempt to get a summer posting to a cadet camp.   Steer clear of HQ, and get into the field with some CIC officers, then talk. 

3.   you want complaining?   I train cadets all year, put in 20-30 hrs a week, attend one exercise a month and get paid less than $250 dollars a month.   Everything usefull piece of info I've learned, I have sought out from sn members whom I have worked with.   This means countless hours In an old retired majors office asking questions about ops orders and dress and tradition and discipline .....   Also paying close attention in the field and seeking advice from NCO's who unlike you, make an attempt to understand the system and assist in anyway they can.   The first time I was a platoon commander I was fortunate enough to have a Patricia Sgt as a training adviser who taught me more in a week than I would ever hope to learn in a classroom.   In my opinion, our training system would work better with more OJT, forget the rest.
   As for drill, have you ever tried to teach a 30-40 yr old civie everything there is to know about drill in 9 periods?   I bet you looked fantastic on the parade square your second day in uniform.(PS they do not receive a commission for at least a year after their basic, so settle down)
 ahh yes, complaining.... I spend 5 of my six weeks on contract during the summer in the field.   Guess what I don't get.   Thats right, everything, I'd settle for not having to borrow a wash basin from a cadet.

But.. I love my job, who else will pay for a teenager from a   remote community that has a soaring suicide rate and drunken abusive parents or drug dealers for friends or is just a big loner .... to go somewhere to learn PRIDE and LOYALTY and PURPOSE?   Throw in a little leadership and now this kid has a chance in hell to develop a future.     This program is supported by our government and our military and trust me it is GOOD.   Stop complaining about the kid in the armouries whose beret looks like a pizza and go yell at the hellions on the street who are selling drugs.   Or stop complaining about the 45 year old mother who   has taken an intrest in their kids life and decided to join the organization who provides their children with something to do once a week.   Go have at the mother who is sitting in the bar while her kids are the ones selling drugs on the street.

4.   Medic:   do you honestly think you would ever see anyone who is fit?   Should I come down to MIR just to let you know that we are not all fat? "Hi I"m healthily!   And I pass the express test on a regular basis. ummm, see ya?"

thanks

This post edited in several areas for foul language (I don't care about asteriks, we all know what words are there and this is a thread for youth) and personal attacks.


----------



## Scott

Ltmel, with all of your hours for the youth from far away places you may indeed be a saintly, physically fit CIC. However, your comments earlier only showed you to be a bullying sort and a loudmouth. Wise up.


----------



## winchable

Please read the forum guidelines regarding personal attacks and circumventing the censor.



> Now listen here you ignorant POS.



combat_medic's post was quite innocent and very polite, and quite frankly it is responses like yours which can give the CIC a bad reputation.

You've been warned.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

It's a shame that people with good things to say, like ltmel, feel the need to completely subvert their message by acting like a spoiled 10 year old.  Had his post been done in a more civil manner, there could have been room for a real discussion.  As it stands, all the good points he made are overshadowed by the fact that he made himself look like a tool.  **shrugs**


----------



## Ltmel

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> Ltmel, with all of your hours for the youth from far away places you may indeed be a saintly, physically fit CIC. However, your comments earlier only showed you to be a bullying sort and a loudmouth. Wise up.





			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It's a shame that people with good things to say, like ltmel, feel the need to completely subvert their message by acting like a spoiled 10 year old. Had his post been done in a more civil manner, there could have been room for a real discussion. As it stands, all the good points he made are overshadowed by the fact that he made himself look like a tool. **shrugs**



Granted, my negative comments made earlier were uncalled for.  I will not defend my personal attacks towards the people in this forum, nor will I react to the above comments towards me.  However, I will say that this puts us all on the same level.  I should have known that the only pieces of info that would be discussed would be irrelevant to what I was actually trying to say.  I hope we can overlook the offensive parts of my post and I would like to hear some reactions to the other points I had brought up.  This will not happen again.


----------



## TCBF

Very interesting.   I have had occasion to briefly help out a few Cadet Corps, and I was impressed by the dedication of most of their staff.   Over their heads?   Sometimes, but they knew where to get help, and they kept showing up.   As for PT, I would be willing to support a slightly out of shape CIC who heart and soul believes that Marksmanship Training was essential to the cadet movement, rather than an Olympic athlete who thinks all guns are evil.   Give me the brain, I can work with the body.

Tom


----------



## combat_medic

Ltmel: To address your actual points, you may care to re-read what I already wrote about my experiences. I worked an entire summer at a cadet camp, and wasn't simply relegated to the MIR. I didn't write based on opinion, I wrote based on experience. I had commissioned CIC officers who were teenagers try to stop me from performing first aid on a cadet; others who refused to help me lift a kid onto a stretcher. Beyond the physically/medically unfit CICs out there, there are a great many I have dealt with who are the least professional people I have ever encountered. You know, there may be some who ARE the super youth-leaders; those who are trying hard to make a difference in kids' lives. All I've said is I've never come across them. Many people show up with a CIC commission and virtually no TI and immediately expect to be respected and obeyed. Respect must be earned, and no CICs that I have met have earned it. I'm still waiting for one to prove me wrong, and I sincerely hope they do.


----------



## sgt_mandal

I have had the unpleasant opportunity to have to work with some very immature CIC officers, but the majority I have known have been very good. Maybe it's just my good luck, but I have had some very competent CIC officers. 

combat_medic, I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are saying most CIC officers are "immature teenagers". If I am miss-reading your posts, I apologize in advance, if not, then I must say, the CIC has it's share of immature teenaged officers, but they also have a huge cache of very mature members who I feel are worthy officers and who I would respect. I hope that one day you have the opportunity to meet CIC officers worthy of your respect.


----------



## Scott

Ltmel, you were given advice by two Staff members, you were not attacked, you were corrected. I apologize for myself and on Michael's behalf if how you were corrected offends you.

Mandal, the discussion regarding CIC has been beaten to death, IMHO. I have enjoyed the last little while where there have been several good, quality posts from our CIC members, very informative. What I am fearing is that we are going to fall back down into the "CIC is the same as a PRes Officer" or "Why do CIC need the commission" or any one of the dozens of other useless debates that no doubt you have seen over the last few months.

I have been the first to say, on more than one occasion, that there are some CIC, some who post here, that are not so mature as the cadets they are supposed to be leading. I stood by that statement then as I stand by it now. 

I am tired of these CIC debates, they always go nowhere.


----------



## sgt_mandal

Just tying to make a point, sir. But I will leave it alone now.


----------



## Scott

Mandal, I just didn't want to answer for combat_medic but did want to express my view, there was nothing wrong with what you asked. I agree that there are some very fine members of the CIC, I have seen them in action and have seen others post here and quite enjoy what they bring to the forums. 

I guess it's just a case of a few bad apples ruining someone's perception of the whole lot.


----------



## muskrat89

> Beyond the physically/medically unfit CICs out there, there are a great many I have dealt with who are the least professional people I have ever encountered. You know, there may be some who ARE the super youth-leaders; those who are trying hard to make a difference in kids' lives.



Now I will tell of MY experience , and I can name one CIL Officer that busted her ass to help the kids, could do drill, and didn't weigh 300 pounds - that would have been my Mother, who had time in the Militia years before - joined the CIL, and eventually transferred bacl to the Regiment, as a Finance Officer. I did see sacks of pus as CIC Offciers. I did see crappy drill. I did see swaggering goofballs, but I would say roughly half of the Cadet Instructors that I met did pretty well, overall. Certainly, not the 100% rate that you speak of combat_medic....

On another note, and I am speaking generally, and from my own opinions and hunches... most of us soldiers - Reserve or Regular, joined because we wanted to be soldiers. We like looking sharp, we like many or all of the things associated with soldiering.

Maybe some of the naysayers could enlighten me as to the goal of the Cadet Program in Canada. Is it to train professional soldiers? Develop our Officer Corps? No? Maybeeeeeee it is to develop youth. I think that many of the CIC folks joined to help the youth in the Community, and the fact that it had a "military flavour" was a bonus. It seems that they have a hard time attracting leaders as it is - so let's up the standards, run them to death, and play mind games for 8 weeks of training. I wonder how many CIC people we'd have then? I wonder what that would do to "the mission" - which all of us should agree, is the most important thing of all. No CIL Officers, no Corps - or maybe they start posting Officers out of Combat Units, in order to provide people to watch over the kiddies. 

I agree with much of what c_m, Franko, scott, and others have said. The courses are short. The training is lacking. Many of these "Officers" look like sloths. But - they are only operating within the system that is in place! So - you may add - they don't need commissions. Again - that's not their choice...  Seems like y'all are barking up the wrong tree, to me.


----------



## PViddy

Greetings all.

I jumped into this post quite late, but some interesting reads none the less.

As a not quite Commissioned Officer in the CIC, and as a former cadet i know what a lot of Army.ca members are talking about when they refer to a sub standard CIC Officer,   as i have run into some in my time with the cadet system and even now as an Officer in the CF.    I am also in agreeance with some sort of raised standards for the CIC (which i think is happening curently, in terms of a new training system).

However, i think i can speak in general terms when i say most CIC Officers work very hard to earn your, memebers of the Reg and PRes, Respect.   I know i do.   CIC Officers come from a lot of different back grounds.   Some are lucky enough to have former cadet or military experience which, i can say, helps a lot when conducting training within the CF.   Alas, some are not lucky enough to have had prior experience and have to work twice as hard.   Some choose to enrol immediately after leaving cadets (generally not wise).
I guess what i am saying is, most of us are trying.

So thanks to you Ladies and Gentleman, i have learned quite a bit from this board from my Reg force, Pres and CIC mentors.   I hope to continue this.   I can only hope that one day i can have the chance to earn your respect and show you that the CIC is a proud and reputable unit within the CF.


cheers

PV


----------



## amos933

Since many of you have already brought your personal feelings about the CIC in here, I guess you won't mind if I continue off topic. I won't get into specifics since members here will just try to bash my points anyway.

First off I'd like to say this forum has been unfortunately side tracked by members looking to verbally bash the CIC, a few are even part of the Directing Staff. I don't care if you're polite or you include â Å“this is just my experienceâ ?, it still boils down to bashing another branch of the CF.

We all work within the frame work provided! The Regular Force, Reserves and CIC all have regulations and orders to follow, almost all of which are the same. These branches have further directives to amplify publications in regards to their specific branch. As members of the CF we each live within these guidelines, regulations and directives. Who are any of you to unconstructively question and criticize the framework of another branch?

Before you waist your time typing on the Cadets / CIC forum (where most viewers are Cadets and CIC Officers) you should educate yourself on the topic in which you bash. I know first hand that Cadets & CIC Officers would prefer to see constructive and informative information posted. There is no need to come back with comments such as â Å“In my experience thisâ ? or â Å“In my experience thatâ ?. I have read through the posts and can come back with a least a dozen statements about the CIC's enrolment, training and fitness that are inaccurate at best.

Personally I feel that you (Regular Force, Reserves, CIC Officers and Cadets) should maybe take the time to look at yourself, your Section and your Unit and ask â Å“What can I do to help improve the CF as a wholeâ ? then step up to the task. On a personal note, I go to work happy to know that I serve my country to the best of my ability everyday.


----------



## Bean

Rarely have I seen truer words in type.  Thanks Amos.


----------



## Scott

> Since many of you have already brought your personal feelings about the CIC in here, I guess you won't mind if I continue off topic. I won't get into specifics since members here will just try to bash my points anyway.



Well that's not the attitude we encourage. I don't think anyone had personal feelings aired, I thought they were all brought up on a professional level, that's just me though. If you have something to say, say it, just be prepared to back it up.



> First off I'd like to say this forum has been unfortunately side tracked by members looking to verbally bash the CIC, a few are even part of the Directing Staff. I don't care if you're polite or you include â Å“this is just my experienceâ ?, it still boils down to bashing another branch of the CF.



Bashing? Sorry, I don't see it that way. Am I bashing Cooks if I say that the food in Gagetown in 98 really sucked? Nope. I am stating an opinion _based on experience_ what's wrong with that? It's not a slam against any cook, just the food in one place in one year when I ate there to be not so good. (Just an example, I love Cooks ;D)



> We all work within the frame work provided! The Regular Force, Reserves and CIC all have regulations and orders to follow, almost all of which are the same. These branches have further directives to amplify publications in regards to their specific branch. As members of the CF we each live within these guidelines, regulations and directives. Who are any of you to unconstructively question and criticize the framework of another branch?



First part is true, I disagree with the last sentence as it pertains to this thread. What I saw was some people unconstructively replying to the criticism given resulting in a user being warned, not because he attacked a member of the DS or because he argued but because he violated the Conduct Guidelines. I get criticised every day, I have to live with it, it's a fact of my profession and, without it, who would get better at anything? If there was bashing then I will be the first to say that it's wrong, but what is bashing and what is not is a matter of opinion, no?



> Before you waist your time typing on the Cadets / CIC forum (where most viewers are Cadets and CIC Officers) you should educate yourself on the topic in which you bash. I know first hand that Cadets & CIC Officers would prefer to see constructive and informative information posted. There is no need to come back with comments such as â Å“In my experience thisâ ? or â Å“In my experience thatâ ?. I have read through the posts and can come back with a least a dozen statements about the CIC's enrolment, training and fitness that are inaccurate at best.



I was in Cadets for five years, read my Mod intro in this forum. Stating that you saw something and tagging it with "in my experience" is not a comeback, it's part of a debate. I can say that,_in my experience_, I have seen CIC out and about that, IMHO, were not worthy of the uniform they were wearing. I can also say that, _in my experience_, I have served with troops that were not worthy of wearing the uniform. Wish to discuss places and times so that I must back up what I say? PM me and I'll be more than happy to provide you with examples, just like all are required to do here when presenting an argument, that's also in the Conduct Guidelines under "Qualifying Information".



> Personally I feel that you (Regular Force, Reserves, CIC Officers and Cadets) should maybe take the time to look at yourself, your Section and your Unit and ask â Å“What can I do to help improve the CF as a wholeâ ? then step up to the task. On a personal note, I go to work happy to know that I serve my country to the best of my ability everyday.



Now here's a hearty slap on the back and a "cheers" to that! The CF, as a whole, must take an active role in the CCM so that we may further foster an interest in the CF among our young Canadians involved in these activities. Maybe you misinterpereted some of the misinterpretedthey weren't meant to _bash_, IMO, they were meant to be constructive.


----------



## Ltmel

"  We took home top NSCE in Saskatchewan last year,"

Pretty sure that didn't happen, you are referring to 2004?


----------



## Ltmel

Well, good to see that nothing has changed during my time away....
Lets attempt to stay on track;

Here is my opinion, based on my experience.

1.  It all comes down to whether or not people believe in, and are willing to see their government support the cadet program.
   -If no, then you are in the wrong forum.
   -If yes, thenwho would you suggest should lead it?
          a.  Civilian Volunteers? (may be difficult to have any semblence of military org.)


----------



## Ltmel

sorry, accidentally posted(stupid tab)
       
*if the program is run by civi's-they cannot be expected to run even a quasi-military program
          b. Military Volunteers (difficult to guarantee involvement and little continuity.)
          c.  fill positons by posting Reg/PRes members into jobs at units (they don't have enough to do)

          d. A CIC Cadre

Okay, so we're stuck with the CIC.

2. Training Options;
     a.  No training (cheap and embarrassing)
      b. Some training  (somewhere in the middle)
     c. All training  (expensive, *takes funding away from other facets of the military*, as well as resources.  How well trained should a CIC officer be?)

3.  Alternative to the CIC
    a.  possibly an NCM cadre therefore, no requirement for commissions, yet a requirement for officers, to do officer jobs.  I think this was actually considered at one time, I see it as a viable option and I know a few CIC offices who would have eagerly joined as NCMs.
These people could easily be employed as instructors.  However, I still see the need for officers.


In conclusion, what other option do we really have?  I truly believe that with a little tweaking, the system currently in place could be even more effective and is more than sufficient.  No one has said that the current standards are enough, however, I have seen it mentioned that raising them could deter possible recruits, I agree wholeheartedly, but overall where do we draw the line?.  Maybe that is what we should be talking about.

I also pose a question to the Reg and PRes members who has been posting to this forum;

I have noticed relatively few CIC officers and cadets on this site(cadet/CIC forums) compared to the reg and PRes members.  i have often seen cadets, get warnings to go to their own site, and stay out of things that they do not understand.  
Why is it then, that so many of you seem to be out of your league here?


----------



## Ltmel

> many more cadets and CIC officers on this site are way out of their league here, talking out of their behinds when confronted with some very legitimate comments about the CCM by people on this board.




Well, I disagree




> Maybye if raised standards deter possible recruits to the CIC, then we find the root of the problem



Yes, I agree here, my only concern is what do we do in the meantime, and how do we attract better people to the CCM without negatively affecting the rest of the CF?



> did a 10 day course, got a uniform and a scroll and then were let loose on cadets.



Again, On average, it is at least 2-3 years before a CIC officer is Commissioned, although it definitely wouldn't hurt to elongate that.


----------



## Ltmel

Just out of curiosity Piper, but since we are all talking from experience, how many years have you spent as an adult, instructing and administering the Cadet program?


----------



## combat_medic

Ltmel said:
			
		

> sorry, accidentally posted(stupid tab)
> 
> *if the program is run by civi's-they cannot be expected to run even a quasi-military program
> b. Military Volunteers (difficult to guarantee involvement and little continuity.)
> c.  fill positons by posting Reg/PRes members into jobs at units (they don't have enough to do)
> 
> d. A CIC Cadre
> 
> Okay, so we're stuck with the CIC.



You're forgetting option e: paid civilians. The military employs many civilians to do very important jobs, from doctors, to social workers, to clerks. The CIC have not always been commissioned members, it's actually a more recent development. If you have them sign a contract with the CF the same way as the civilian CF employees do, they will still be bound to many of the CF regulations, but without the requirement for military training, and without the necessity of a commission. 



			
				Ltmel said:
			
		

> 2. Training Options;
> a.  No training (cheap and embarrassing)
> b. Some training  (somewhere in the middle)
> c. All training  (expensive, *takes funding away from other facets of the military*, as well as resources.  How well trained should a CIC officer be?)



First off, making the CIC paid civilians would alleviate much of this, as trying to compress 3 weeks worth of drill lessons into a weekend is unreasonable and ridiculous. This would free up such time to teach them their duties as administrators of a cadet program, without any of the military training.


			
				Ltmel said:
			
		

> 3.  Alternative to the CIC
> a.  possibly an NCM cadre therefore, no requirement for commissions, yet a requirement for officers, to do officer jobs.  I think this was actually considered at one time, I see it as a viable option and I know a few CIC offices who would have eagerly joined as NCMs.
> These people could easily be employed as instructors.  However, I still see the need for officers.



At no point have you stated WHY there is a need for a CIC to be commissioned. 

Would that be in order so that their NCMs will follow them? No, wait, they're never in command of military personnel.
Maybe so that they can command a military unit or formation? No, that would be beyond their scope.
In order to ensure they have a post-secondary education? No, the CIC is exempt from that requirement.
So that they're required to meet the CF medical and physical requirements to set an example for their cadets? No, yet again they aren't held to the minimum entry standards.
So that they can be held to the discplinary requirements of the NDA? Nope, us NCMs are still accountable, and the National Defense Act allots for the organization of the CF to consist of "such units and other elements as are from time to time organized by or under the authority of the Minister." outside of the regular and reserve force. So a seperate CIC entity could easily fall under such jurisdiction.

So, at what point is there a REQUIREMENT for a CIC to have a commission, other than it's just a nicety, given for a full 10 days of military-esque training?



			
				Ltmel said:
			
		

> I have noticed relatively few CIC officers and cadets on this site(cadet/CIC forums) compared to the reg and PRes members.  i have often seen cadets, get warnings to go to their own site, and stay out of things that they do not understand.
> Why is it then, that so many of you seem to be out of your league here?



I have worked with the cadets on countless occasions, both part-time, and full time on a cadet camp over the summer. The vast majority of people posting here are the same, and many are former cadets themselves. We all have experience with both the cadet world, and the military world. What cadet can make the claim to have served in both the cadets and the military? 

Just because you haven't had any of the negative experiences that I and others have had, does not mean we don't know what we're talking about. Furthermore, I know a lot of Infantry Officers who nearly killed themselves in Gagetown to get their rank, and RMC cadets who spend FOUR YEARS working towards their commission who have a lot more reason to resent an overweight teenager with diabetes who has the same commission (not an exaggeration - I met a 19 year old CIC 2Lt who was about 5'4", 250lbs, and was diabetic).  Can you honestly look these officers in the face and tell them that you deserve your commission?


----------



## Big Foot

Ltmel, from what I saw last year in St-Jean, about 30 CIC officer cadets showed up, took some classes then 10 days later, they were commissioned. I don't see 2-3 years there. And after talking with some of them, I discovered they were my age or maybe a little older than I was, meaning 18-20 range. This means, from what I can tell, that there was no possible way they were in for 2-3 years. As for the issue of raising standards for CIC officers, I support that 100%. They must be held to some level of physical fitness, even if it is a low level. The extreme lack of fitness (eg: a few grossly overweight CIC Lts and Capts) does hurt the image of the CF. Consider this, anyone who wears the uniform of the Canadian military is responsible for the public image of the CF. Therefore, it is hurting the image of the CF to have people that are, too be perfectly honest, huge, in uniform. I don't know what has to be done but at any rate, they are very much hurting the reputation of the CF. Simply put, the CIC must do more on the whole to demonstrate that they deserve the respect that a commission brings. I have seen many people, warrants and sergeants, not salute CIC officers by virtue of the fact that they are CIC officers. Instead of complaining about the bad reputation that CIC officers have, these men and women MUST take it upon themselves to become fit and show that they are deserving of their commission, or else incidents of CICs not being salute by people within the PRes and Regs will continue. Somethings gotta be done, and if that means implementing fitness standards, so be it. Some CIC officers are simply a disgrace. I'm saying all this from my own personal experience, not wanting to really pass judgement on these people. I realise that there are good CIC officers but as we all know, people look at the negatives before considering the positives.


----------



## Ltmel

So how can you possibly know what the administration of the cadet program requires?  I don't understand how a 17 year old piper can possible fathom all that CIC officers do.  Its too bad that you have had no good experiences with the CIC, but you're hardly talking about a wide range of possible good experiences.  FYI, the ACF and CCF instructors are military members, volunteers also exist(like here), but British officers have a similarr system to ours, commissions and all.

  





> but rather the mentality that many people get when they join it, especially the younger ones)


Yes I often see the same thing with underage members of the Pres



> I'm sorry, a 10 day course does not give you the right to call yourself an officer.


Actually , it does.  It is your problem if you have a problem respecting the Queen's commission, it shouldn't matter where it came from.



> I don't comment on things on which I have no practical experience.


Obviously, you do.  I'm tired of quoting your lack of knowledge.  So you spent a summer working at a cadet camp(as an adult) and you didn't like what you saw, I suppose the CIC were the only people drinking and engaging...  P{point being you still do not know what is required for the administration of the program.

Finally, If you want to complain about the CIC, instead coming up with a new alternative, start a new post.
How many times must everyone re-iterate their reasons for disliking us?  Suck it up, do something about it then.  Patience and friendly advice go a long-way, much further than bashing, complaining and sitting in the back of the room getting angry.


----------



## Ltmel

Bigfoot,
  Did you actually see these people being promoted or just qualified?  I have a hard time understanding how they could have been promoted right there, unless they already had their time in.

I agree, members of the CIC need to take it upon themselves to get fit.  Many of us do.
However, I must mention the numerous Reg and PRes members that look no better.
Many people are a disgrace to the uniform, from all parts of the CF, in dress, Physical fitness and deportment, I'm sure you can name a few.

I hope that the changes being made currently are as effective as many of us hope, I guess we'll see in a couple of years.  What do you think of what is being changed now?


----------



## Ltmel

I don't recall saying that we do require commissions.  Under most circumstances, We don't

I have had Reg and PRes members under my command.  Many CIC do.  What happens when a CO of a Cadet Camp is in command of everyone posted there? Or the detachment commander? Thank-you for helping me find a situation where we do require commissions.



> have worked with the cadets on countless occasions, both part-time, and full time on a cadet camp over the summer.The vast majority of people posting here are the same, and many are former cadets themselves. We all have experience with both the cadet world, and the military world. What cadet can make the claim to have served in both the cadets and the military?



I say again:  You have not administered the cadet program from any level.  Instruction does not count.  How can you know what the CIC requires?  Could you even tell me what we do?


----------



## combat_medic

Yes I often see the same thing with underage members of the Pres

- Then again, all us Maggots have to pass the CF Express test yearly and the CIC do..... nothing. The PRes have to meet physical entry requirements to join up and the CIC... do nothing. Hmmmm

Actually , it does. It is your problem if you have a problem respecting the Queen's commission, it shouldn't matter where it came from.

And if you think, even for a second, that the commission you had thrown at you in less than a quarter of the time it took me to earn a single chevron entitles you to my respect, you're absolutely kidding yourself. If I went up to a Reg Force private and tried to tell him to put his heels together for me, I would be laughed at, and rightfully so. He would not respect my authority over him anymore than anyone here respects your authority over anyone other than children. 

If you think your commission is on par with serving members of the CF, then you are as deluded, and as much a part of the problem with the CIC than the other "officers" which are being spoken of unfavourably. Everyone else earned their commission, yours was handed to you on a silver platter. Short of not being a registered sex offender, you had to meet virtually no requirements to join. You spent a couple weekends in a classroom, put on a uniform once or twice, and are given a scroll, which you think means you've earned the respect of the CF. Others spend months, if not years earning it, marching for kilometres on broken ankles, suffering sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion, and other harships which I doubt you can even fathom, and you DARE to call yourself their equal?! I'm not even an officer and I find that offensive. 

Obviously, you do. I'm tired of quoting your lack of knowledge. So you spent a summer working at a cadet camp(as an adult) and you didn't like what you saw, I suppose the CIC were the only people drinking and engaging... Point being you still do not know what is required for the administration of the program.

You know what? In the civilian world I'm an administrator for a national youth program. My job is extremely challenging and requires a lot more background and skills than most CICs will bring to the table, so I'm intimately familiar with what is involved. If I was handed a commission for doing this job, it would mean as little to me as yours does, and would be deserving of as much respect.

How many times must everyone re-iterate their reasons for disliking us? Suck it up, do something about it then. Patience and friendly advice go a long-way, much further than bashing, complaining and sitting in the back of the room getting angry.

If you had bothered to read any of the previous pages of these threads, you would have seen a great deal of advice, suggestions, and other ways in which the CIC could be improved. You're the one continuously being offended and, if I recall correctly, started verbally attacking and threatening the members of this forum. As it stands, you have behaved more poorly than the cadets which you claim to lead. You discount all misbehaviour on the parts of your ilk and claim that a queen's commission is required to lead a group of children, without so much as a single reason as to why. Your replies are juvenile and lack any substance, and are so offended by the claims that there are poor CIC out there, that it leads me to the natural conclusion that you must be one of them. Every other cadet and CIC officer posting here, with the exception of yourself, has acknowledged the obvious problems with the CIC as it stands, and have mentioned ways in which they are trying to change that image. Your posts are the intellectual equivalent of a little child sticking his tongue out and screaming; "I'm already heeeere, you can't stop meeee."

Finally, in my capacity as a medic, I have worked for civilian doctors working under contract with the CF, and I am obliged to follow them, and have been under the direction of other civilians throughout my career. None of them have commissions, and did not require them, neither do you.


----------



## Burrows

If you feel you need a scroll of comission to do your job properly then you are not thinking right.  I have seen many incompetant officers in my cadet time... Including one who attempted to bring me forward to the base CO because I did not salute him as an officer cadet or "check my arms" which is an informal drill movement invented by mentally incapable officers and staff cadet who feel they need people to walk past them at attention.  

When some Ultra Godlike officer who is comissioned in a matter of days tries to get high and mighty with ANY other member of the CF then they deserve whatever they get.  My officers with the exception of a police officer have all spent time in either the militia or in the case of one in the RegF as NCMs and as such dont act all high and mighty to the NCMs that assist with our training.  I can guarantee you that it earns more respect to be nice to the soldiers putting their lives on the line each day than barking at them because you didnt salute the CIC Officer cadet or 10 days to comission.  *thinks* That might be a good title for a controversial book... 10 days to comission...*thinks*

If you feel that you have right to walk into an armoury and say to some random NCM or Officer junior to you in rank "Hey wheres my salute I DEMAND a salute"  I wouldnt blame them if they rendered you a new hole to release fecal matter from.

That said I know that many CIC officers are different and it is those ones I respect.  Well said combat_medic.


----------



## Ltmel

Would someone mind telling me where I "demanded" anything?
Obviously none of you are interested in discussing alternatives to the CIC. 



> If you feel you need a scroll of commission to do your job properly then you are not thinking right


Where did I say this?  I do recall citing specific circumstances, where one would be required, but i actually said that we did not require one under most circumstances, I quote myself;





> I don't recall saying that we do require commissions.  Under most circumstances, We don't





> claim that a queen's commission is required to lead a group of children, without so much as a single reason as to why.


reasons? I quote myself again;





> What happens when a CO of a Cadet Camp is in command of everyone posted there? Or the detachment commander? Thank-you for helping me find a situation where we do require commissions.



and finally, take your own advice





> If you had bothered to read any of the previous pages of these threads, you would have seen a great deal...


----------



## Infanteer

Har, I love these threads.



			
				Ltmel said:
			
		

> How can you know what the CIC requires?   Could you even tell me what we do?



Give me 10 days and I'll find out, I guess....


----------



## combat_medic

Ltmel said:
			
		

> However, I still see the need for officers.
> 
> I don't recall saying that we do require commissions.  Under most circumstances, We don't
> 
> What happens when a CO of a Cadet Camp is in command of everyone posted there? Or the detachment commander? Thank-you for helping me find a situation where we do require commissions.



I quote you. You see the need for CIC officers, and yet posted again to say there was no need, you then posted denying you ever said there was a need for officers, then went back to post reasons as to why officers are required. You have not presented a valid argument for either. I can't decide if you just haven't made up your own mind on the issue or you suffer from multiple personality disorder and are therefore changing your mind each time you post. 

You asked for alternatives, I mentioned the employment of paid civilians, which you either completely missed or totally ignored. Others mentioned the various cadet programs in other countries, which you never addressed, or dismissed because they didn't prove whatever particular point you had chosen for that moment. 

You asked for our combined experiences, which we all provided in detail. You asked for first hand knowledge. Again, the members here provided. You defamed the members of this forum, and we continued to address you. We asked you legitimate questions to which you either didn't reply at all, or couldn't formulate a valid answer. At NO POINT have you presented what could be construed as an argument even by the loosest definition of the term. You seem to be nothing but insulting and petty, and cannot discern the difference between constructive criticism and character attacks (although if you need assistance discovering the latter, I'm sure some of the Sr NCOs and CSM/RSMs on the board would happily oblige you... heck I'll give it a crack if you ask nicely). 

Burrows and the other cadets here, even when in disagreement with me, are posting with far more intelligence and reason than you have displayed thus far, and yet you claim to be their leader?! I would hope that they wouldn't even follow you out of curiosity. Furthermore, none of them have had to resort to threats and profanity to get their point across.


----------



## PViddy

This thread has turned to shambles.  I am literally shaking my head in shame as some of you call yourself members of the Canadian Forces.


that's to bad.

PV


----------



## Burrows

> What happens when a CO of a Cadet Camp is in command of everyone posted there? Or the detachment commander?


Cadet camp CO's do work full time as do RCSU officers.  They are trained to a higher degree than the "instant officer"



> and finally, take your own advice -- If you had bothered to read any of the previous pages of these threads, you would have seen a great deal...


  Please don't insult the directing staff or any other member... combat_medic is one of the finest people I have ever had the pleasure of working with and I take any insult to my counterparts as a great insult to myself.  The DS know their responsibilities and they are upheld.


----------



## McG

> Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to (Name)
> 
> Hereby appointed an Officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces. With Seniority of the (day) day of (Month) (Year).
> 
> We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and Integrity, do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an officer in our Canadian Armed Forces. You area therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the rank of Second Lieutenant or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to, and you are in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by Us to exercise and well discipline both the Inferior Officers and Non Commissioned Members serving under you and use your best endeavour to keep them in good Order and Discipline. And We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their Superior Officer, and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any your Superior Officer according to Law, in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you.


Those words are not about having passed longer more gruelling courses.   They are not tied to LCF.   They do not bestow some social status deserving of blind unearned respect.

Does the CIC officer require a commission?   Should the CIC CO be less accountable if a cadet is killed in training than a regular force CO would be if a soldier were killed?   Who is responsible for the administration of a corps' budget?   If you are content that the same accountability and responsibility should not be asked of a CIC officer as would be demanded of a regular force officer, then they should not get the commission.   

As far as fitness standards and longer courses are concerned, I think the arguments need a little more meat.   Is image a justifiable reason to impose greater fitness standards?   Probably not (as much as we may not like that).   Is the expectation that a CIC officer should be able to lead adventure training and respond to emergencies a justifiable reason to impose greater fitness standards?   I think so.

For all the complaints of ten day courses, where are the identified training shortfalls?


----------



## Infanteer

PViddy said:
			
		

> I am literally shaking my head in shame as some of you call yourself members of the Canadian Forces.



Thanks for the advice bud, I'll take that to heart.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Those words are not about having passed longer more gruelling courses.   They are not tied to LCF.



Aren't they about commanding soldiers?   I would assume this is what _"Canadian Armed Forces"_ would get at.

In the end, the piece of paper is just like medals, fancy decorations.   I am really not thrown off by the scroll - if CIC (or any other Commissioned Officer) thinks it gives them licence to be a pompous ass (I've see this in a few Army Officers as well), then that is their problem.   This seems to be a problem I've seen on these pages (RESPECT ME NOW!!!).



> Does the CIC officer require a commission?   Should the CIC CO be less accountable if a cadet is killed in training than a regular force CO would be if a soldier were killed?   Who is responsible for the administration of a corps' budget?   If you are content that the same accountability and responsibility should not be asked of a CIC officer as would be demanded of a regular force officer, then they should not get the commission.



Where is the commission required for accountability?   Should we commission Boy Scout and Girl Guide Leaders and Swim Team Coaches in order to ensure that they are accountable?  Do they require "especial trust" to carry out their duties?



> As far as fitness standards and longer courses are concerned, I think the arguments need a little more meat.   Is image a justifiable reason to impose greater fitness standards?   Probably not (as much as we may not like that).



I would hope that role models would appear to have some sort of ability to run for more then 10 meters.   What sort of example are we setting by being less demanding in our youth leaders?



> For all the complaints of ten day courses, where are the identified training shortfalls?



How is it that teachers require 5 years of post secondary education to teach children and NCO's require years of experience and weeks of training before they are allowed to march around recruits?   Should we not be ensuring that leaders of a National Youth movement are given a bit more training?

Anyways, this is just another stupid "CIC" spin-cycle that seems to boil up on the thread every few months - has everyone gotten out what they want to say?   Is the CIC honor still intact?   See you guys at the races....


----------



## badpup

Well said MCG  

though I have recently started posting my thoughts, here, I have been a reader of this forum for some time, and it is distressing to me at the number of "supposed" CF members who continuously slag members of the CIC and the cadets they serve.
It is true that there are some CIC that do not portray the image of the CF as many would like, however where are you, the active members of the CF when it comes to dealing with Cadets?
I have seen many instances of rudeness, and disrespect by members of the RF/PRes directed at cadets and the CIC. This makes those of you who participate in such actions far worse than the "shabby" CIC officer you seem to like  pointing out.
Irregardless of how the commission was earned, it is still a commission, and thus deserving of your respect. Disrespect of any officer, or NCO is disrespect of the Crown and our Nation. It makes one think that perhaps it is those of you who cannot accept this as being the persons whose actions and behaviour are not worthy of wearing the uniform.

Leave the Cadets alone, they are eager youth who wish to emulate you, and are doing far better than many of our youth today.
They have respect and admiration for you, return the courtesy.
Assist the CIC officers all you can, many are accepting of your comments, and courtesies and even your suggestions on improvement.
Also remember this; that in todays Cadet movement the Politically Correct have won the day, and have nearly removed anything remotely military from the training. As well that the hands of the Officers and instructors have been tied in relation to the teaching of military principles, and discipline.


----------



## Infanteer

Maybe I missed something here - who was trashing the Cadets on this thread?


----------



## Ltmel

!. Paid volunteers- sure, why not, how exactly would that work?  Most of us only get paid for a fraction of our time now.
2.  ACF and CCF- ARE COMMISSIONED.  Their system is very similar to ours, someone mentioned previously that most are teachers-true, as well as in Canada
3.  Camp CO's are not always RCSU, often, but it is not a requirement-only experience and rank.


----------



## Ltmel

What does everyone(maybe a few CIC could reply here) think of the current changes to our training program and standards?
I know I have brought it up before, but I think that many of the changes could be really positive, its nice to know that our surveys may have been taken into consideration!


----------



## badpup

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed something here - who was trashing the Cadets on this thread?



Perhaps not in this thread Infanteer, but in many many others that I have read over time.
My point is for all, whether you are Reg/ Res/ CIC/ CIV/, or even a Cadet, Give others the respect that you yourself would like to recieve, and it will be returned. Remember everyone that respect not only needs to be given in a civil society, but that it also needs to be earned.


----------



## badpup

Ltmel said:
			
		

> What does everyone(maybe a few CIC could reply here) think of the current changes to our training program and standards?
> I know I have brought it up before, but I think that many of the changes could be really positive, its nice to know that our surveys may have been taken into consideration!



My Opinion Ltmel
Changes to the CIC program:  Positive......A step in the right direction, however small a step it is
Changes to the Cadet Program: negative...... soon the DND will provide pinkfuzzy bunny suits for the cadets to wear, all different so they can not be known as uniform.


----------



## Ltmel

yeah, the program changes are worse.  I thought that after the initial adventure training program was brought in, we were going in the right direction, but it seems we are back tracking again.  (now that I understand the difference between qualified and certified!)Pretty soon we'll have another drought like after chap was initially instituted and they got rid of CLIP.

Training changes-a start-I hope it continues- I am beginning to think it has a lot more to do with pride than training though.  My biggest worry is that our training will start to take away from the rest of the CF if it goes to far-- --okay that will probably never happen, but then people will have a real reason to have disdain for us.
  Its too bad the CIC don't have more camaraderie with eachother-I really think that could make the difference.


----------



## badpup

Distance my friend, there are not usually a large number of CIC officers at any one place at any one time.
As well the fact that after the uniform comes off for the week, the other ones go on (Civvy job/ family responsibility/Unpaid cadet work)
Some also don't have a great deal of military interest outside of the Cadet corps, which is their prerogative, but unfortunate.


----------



## Bean

I agree that the changes are a positive first step, but must be followed on by a number of additional changes in the near future.  I have to agree with many others here that our fitness standards need to be raised and a formal program implemented, but I've said that numerous times here before.  Perhaps we need to expand the role of distance learning as well to cover some of the training gaps (i.e. mandatory OPME participation, or follow the COmmsRes model of doing certain courses at distance with regular lectures or conference calls for discussion, that was in the plans a couple years ago not sure how its going though).  I am really looking forward to the National School organization as it will make some significant improvements in standardizing further the training available and being delivered.


----------



## Sgt.Fitzpatrick

CIC should be comission because they they officers in the CF it that simple. I don't know why people 
question this.


----------



## Burrows

Fitzpatrick... It was an alternative...hes saying dont make them CF Officers.


----------



## badpup

Other issues of govt also need to be addressed, ones that affect not only CIC, but the PRes as well.
There needs to be federal legislation to grant Reservists training leave from the Civvy world without fear of repercussion/dismissal from and by the employer. Unlike Reg Force, Reservists have other jobs and responsibilities as well. Soldiering pays your bills, Our Civilian occupations pay ours, and until we have laws in place such as the Americans do, we can't be expected to train and make decisions that have an adverse effect on our families.
I do agree that there certainly should be more training for Officers in the CIC, but not at a price on the families of those Officers.
I also do not defend the "Pompous" attitudes displayed by some (NOT ALL) CIC I too have seen that first hand.
In my own experience I can see the point put across by some of the Reg Force posters, I too have had difficulty respecting some superior Officers due to attitudes. Never the less I do show the respect due by virtue of Office and position. I may not care for Prime Minister Martin for example, however I will respect his office and obey the lawful orders of his government.

Perhaps it is best to live by the Maxim "Treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated"
 Any other way and you have no right to complain.


----------



## McG

2332Piper said:
			
		

> The point being discussed here is that they should not have the commission because they SHOULD NOT be CF officers due to the level of training they receive.
> 
> Basically, if the CIC does the same training and adheres to the same standards that everyone else in the Officer corps has to do, then I have no problem with them holding a commission.


What training would you have them do?  What standards would you have them adhere to?  Why?  

A commission is not about image.  It charges an individual with a duty (and the all the responsibility and accountability that must come with it) and gives the individual the authority to execute that duty.  As we hold CIC officers to the same level of accountability and demand the same responsibility as from reserve officers, then should we not give them the same recognition?  The only argument against this would be if our CIC were not members of the CF.


----------



## badpup

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Sorry. If you ain't willing to do the training, then you shouldn't be wearing the uniform. PRes officers do their full officer training, and they have civvie jobs too. What makes the CIC any different in that they should not have to make the time commitment to do their officer training IF they want that nice little commissioning scroll? The point here is, why should they hold a commission when a) there is no need, and b) they do NOT earn it. In the military, having to earn your rank/qualification/respect is everything. Two officers, one CIC and one Reg/PRes, both holding the same commission does not seem fair. One person had to bust their butt to earn that scroll, the other had spend ten hard days away from his job to get it handed to them.
> 
> The point being discussed here is that they should not have the commission because they SHOULD NOT be CF officers due to the level of training they recieve.
> 
> Basically, if the CIC does the same training and adheres to the same standards that everyone else in the Officer corps has to do, then I have no problem with them holding a commission. However, this is not feasible and makes little sense, so therefore we should (again, like the Brits and like the Americans) have some sort of special cadre of 'sudo-officers' to run cadets. They earn special commissions that apply only to cadets, not to the rest of the CF. They are then basically on the same level as cadets, civilians in a uniform and paid during the summer.



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


----------



## combat_medic

MCG said:
			
		

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



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

My proposed alternatives:

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Duke

Combat_Medic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Duke


----------



## badpup

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


----------



## mz589

badpup said:
			
		

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



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

Not many I'll bet.

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

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


----------



## goodform

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

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

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


----------



## Infanteer

Duke said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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

Good job.

Infanteer


----------



## Burrows

The rangers are different from the CIC ....


----------



## McG

combat_medic said:
			
		

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


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



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

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


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



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

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


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



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## Burrows

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


----------



## qjdb

2332Piper said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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

My $0.02

Quentin

(edited for typo that I missed the first time)


----------



## combat_medic

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

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

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

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

See above. 

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

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


----------



## McG

combat_medic said:
			
		

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


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

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


----------



## McG

From Chatper 2 of the QR&O


> 2.034 â â€œ RESERVE FORCE â â€œ SUB-COMPONENTS
> 
> The sub-components of the Reserve Force are:
> 
> a) the Primary Reserve, which consists of officers and non-commissioned members who have undertaken, by the terms of their enrolment, to perform such military duty and training as may be required of them and contains all formed Reserve Force units;
> 
> (b) the Supplementary Reserve, which consists of officers and non-commissioned members who, except when on active service, are not required to perform military or any other form of duty or training;
> 
> (c) the Cadet Instructors Cadre, which consists of officers who have undertaken, by the terms of their enrolment, to perform such military duty and training as may be required of them, but whose primary duty is the supervision, administration and training of cadets mentioned in section 46 of the National Defence Act; and
> 
> (d) the Canadian Rangers, which consists of officers and non-commissioned members who have undertaken, by the terms of their enrolment, to perform such military duty and training as may be required of them, but who are not required to undergo annual training.


----------



## badpup

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I like this idea Duke.  In keeping CIC relevent to military requirements, it leaves Canada with a "backdoor" in case, by a long shot, Canada needs to mobilize.  Although CIC would be quite aware that the chances of them being picked up and put into a regular Army function were slim, they would be concious of the requirement (and be forced to maintain some semblance of preparedness) that if we needed qualified people, they would be the first pool we would look to for leadership to be put into the breach.
> 
> As well, if required to maintain some level of standards and competency, it could be assumed that the CIC could step up and fulfill certain administrative/non-combat roles within a Homeland Defence framework.
> 
> I'm not sure how it would work administratively, but perhaps the CIC could become Officer's of the Supplementary Reserve List, fulfilling a role as a third-line "pool" of Army leadership behind the first-line professional Army (the Regs) and the second-line stand-by Forces (The Reserves).
> 
> Amazing, I think that this thread may be pulled from the dung-heap.
> 
> Good job.
> 
> Infanteer



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

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

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


----------



## combat_medic

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


----------



## Burrows

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


----------



## Strike

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



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

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


----------



## badpup

Strike said:
			
		

> Ref the Combat roles, I seriously doubt that.  I have DAG'd I don't know how many times this year and just keeping up all my quals to remain combat ready is a full time job in itself.  What combat role would a CIC officer play?  If they are w/ an Army Cadet Corps with an infantry affiliation do you really expect them to lead a platoon of reg/res pers in the field?  I'm sure the no-hook who just got off basic would know more than him/her wrt patrols, recce, etc.  It would take at least a couple of years for the CIC officer in question just to get all the quals that his/her reg or res counterparts have before being employable in the field.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  CICs are a vital part of the cadet movement.  Unfortunately that 10 days of training is not enough to learn what the military is about.



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


----------



## Strike

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


----------



## PViddy

> Healthy Living used to be a PO in the older cadet handbooks... That should be brought back and officers held accountable for their health.  Well said combat_medic



 You are very general here, but i must assume you mean your specific elemen.  The air cadet program still has sensible living in a lot of our levels.





> Unfortunately that 10 days of training is not enough to learn what the military is about



Does everyone think 10 days of training is all we do ? their are tons of courses to do after BOQ (BMQ to you guys i guess).  No the training is not as elaborate as Pres and Regs but i do not need to know how to field strip a C-9 or Carl G.
We all have our specific jobs, 


PV


----------



## badpup

Many of them do PV, however it is an attitude I have generally seen from those other than a Senior NCO or Officer, for the most part with them I was always treated with respect.


----------



## Ltmel

its true- CIC in admin positions in Afgan.


----------



## Ltmel

> Does everyone think 10 days of training is all we do ? their are tons of courses to do after BOQ (BMQ to you guys i guess).   No the training is not as elaborate as Pres and Regs but i do not need to know how to field strip a C-9 or Carl G.
> We all have our specific jobs,



Bravo!
The CIC basic Officer Qual. Course is ten days. However, that just lets you stay an officer.   After this course and one year working with a unit(yes I agree this is insufficient-it was actually one of our survey questions-to which most CIC officers responded the same way I did) then ,we are qualified for promotion(and of course comes the commission).  Most CIC officers are officer cadets for at least two years.
The decision to shorten the BOQ course was made because of limited funding. 
 I know this doesn't improve the sit much, but candidates are also required to do much of the work at home(Pre-study packages) , then take the tests on course- this was done to cut down on the time required on course(=less pay, ect)
Also. as above, remember that this is only one course of many and most CIC training is OJT.

What would you rather see? and where should the funding come from if you would like to see longer courses?


----------



## McG

combat_medic said:
			
		

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


Except that the PRes officer qualification is different from the regular force officer qualification which is different from the CIC officer qualification.   Who's course should set the standard?   Is regular force IAP the standard, or should it be IAP and BOTP?   Would the content of the PRes BMOQ be a better base line?   

Not all reserve or regular force officers require a degree.   There are frequently exceptions made, not the least of which is for CFRs.   I know of exceptions being made for community college.   I've also known a few reserve officers to enrol while in university but never finish.   Should all of these individuals be punted?

As for medically and physically fit, I agree that that would be a nice requirement for the sake of image (and we would argue this even if the CIC did not have commissions because they are CF members).   However, is it necessary?   Infanteer mentioned the value of these requirements for making role models, yet Terry Fox managed to become a national role model despite the fact that he certainly would not have been medically fit.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> I don't have much to add else, but combat_medic makes the point that only CIC officers are not held to the same entry standards as the rest of the CF officer corps. That is why they should not hold the commissions that they do. Simple really.


But once enrolled, the reserves are not held to the same training standards as the regular force, so why should they be allowed commissions?

Instead of preaching everyone must be the same, why not set out quantifiable standards that you feel the CIC are lacking (or that you feel should be the minimum for all officers)?   



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> The Rangers do not hold commissions (so your comparsion that you used is a moot point in this discussion MCG)


I've made no comparisons to the Canadian Rangers, but thanks for coming out.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Ltmel said:
			
		

> its true- CIC in admin positions in Afgan.



Um....sure about this one?  Not on my watch and I just cannot see it in a military context (perhaps as a civvy employee - CANCAP/CFPSA).

TR


----------



## Ltmel

> Um....sure about this one?  Not on my watch and I just cannot see it in a military context (perhaps as a civvy employee - CANCAP/CFPSA).



yep, as a CIC officer, in uniform.


----------



## Infanteer

:boring:

Are we done yet?


----------



## PViddy

> Are we done yet?



Are we not using this forum for what it is meant to be used for ?  I am trying to civilize my points as a gentleman should.

Mostly for the CIC folk in here but, you guys have probably noticed their are changes in the works as we speak, i know of a couple of people in my area that have had a medical discharge for one reason or another.

I think we will see a lot of changes that were discussed on this forum actually implemented in some form or another.  Changes in training are already taking place, unfortunately it can't be an overnight thing.


cheers

PV


----------



## Michael OLeary

Ltmel said:
			
		

> yep, as a CIC officer, in uniform.



Since we probably do not have a corps of Canadian Cadets in Afghanistan, it is highly unlikely that he is there "as a CIC officer." He may currently be a CIC officer, but he must have prior service, experience or qualifications that made him suitable for selection in a staff appointment on the mission as a Primary Reservist.


----------



## badpup

This is exactly the type of point many of us  are making, don't discount the knowledge, and capabilities of some of the Cadre just because of a few that are less than pefect specimens.


----------



## foxtwo

Inch said:
			
		

> I don't know about CIC's since I don't know exactly who they fall under, they don't belong to the CAS or 1 CAD



CIC's are reservist though because they too have to be commissioned. If they were needed anywhere else, they would have to go I'm pretty sure. It's weird how he explained it...


----------



## c_canuk

during war traditionally CIC officers do misc drudgery paperwork back home to free up more experianced officers for more active roles... not sure if that would apply to todays military, but they are supposed to be able to fill that role


----------



## elscotto937

Wow, this has gone on a very long time. Let me put some points out there for those who will take the time to read them.

1. To those in the CIC who continue to use examples of retired service personnel who join the CIC and subsequently get picked up for some Class B Contract in their former role(operational tour), you may not have realized it but it is not because they were CIC. And by your incessant need to bring them up as examples to justify your worth, you are doing the same thing as you have accused everyone else of doing, allowing a portion of the CIC to be held up as the norm.

2. To the others out there who question the CICs need to be commissioned officers and can pontificate on the lack of standards out there. Yes, it is true other their training is severely lacking for them to hold the Queen's Commission and wear the uniform of the Canadian Forces. Also, I'm sure that the majority of you respect the CIC for the job they do with the youth of Canada, because a good portion of their time is on a volunteer basis (I think they only get paid for 20 days throughout the Cadet year). Finally, just understand that the CIC officers that are arguing these points may have not had the benefit of being a soldier and looking in at the CIC, so they might not get it, try as you might to beat it in to their heads that they are not soldiers, airmen, or sailors, all you efforts might be falling on deaf ears. 

Thank you for your time,

Scott


----------



## Riobeard

Scott you are bang on as are so many other folks who posted here.
1) The CIC are not trained to a standard where they can do anything but train cadets
2) IF they were required to anything else, they would have to retrain from pretty much the ground up
3) There are lots of wanna be's in the CIC who would otherwise not qualify for any other position with the CF (including the Rangers)
I can speak from experience, as I've been PRes, Reg Force and now am CIC.  I actually trained (then CIL) CIC officers in the '70's and I can tell you that the training standards then were a lot tougher than today but still didn't even come close to PRes or Reg Force.   Complaint back then was same as today about so many CIC's thinking they were more than what they really were.  
Reason I got into the CIC was my kids got into Cadets and I wanted to help out, got sucked into the vortex and voila, here I am.  Believe me, if I could have been brought in at my former rank of M/Cpl, or as an NCM I would have been just as happy but took the commission so I could do more to help out.
As for the comments some have made about never meeting a CIC officer who they could respect, I can empathise with you, but there are some of us out there who don't pretend to be more than we currently are or have been and I would hope that we make a difference to the cadets whom we instruct and bring honour and respect to the uniform we wear despite the failings of others among us.


----------



## Duke

Riobeard said:
			
		

> As for the comments some have made about never meeting a CIC officer who they could respect, I can empathise with you, but there are some of us out there who don't pretend to be more than we currently are or have been and I would hope that we make a difference to the cadets whom we instruct and bring honour and respect to the uniform we wear despite the failings of others among us.



Right on!

Duke


----------



## McG

Scott937 said:
			
		

> they are not soldiers, airmen, or sailors,


This leads to the question that then deserves debate.  Should CIC be members of the CF?  If they are members of the CF, then the argument for a commission is that the accountability of a CIC officer is commensurate with that of an officer (responsibility for the unit, the safety/well-being of its members, its finances, its level of training, and its overall effectiveness).  However, if not members of the CF there is no need to commission the CIC.


----------



## combat_medic

Intelligere said:
			
		

> Neither, in my opinion, are chaplains or dental officers. So what?



A Chaplain is, indeed a member of the branch to which he belongs. He must meet the requirements to join, and takes basic training, minus the weapons training as he is a non-combattant. Dental Officers are members of the medical branch, which is now its own branch, so he is as much a soldier, sailor or airman as an MO or Medic is. Certainly no one has questioned the validity of having medical personnel in the CF.

Your argument for either of these holds very little water. All CS/CSS trades provide valuable support to the military in places where it is needed. The CIC is an organization that is a group for children which does not directly or indirectly support the CF other than in promoting interest and the occasional recruiting base. Not a valid comparison.


----------



## Riobeard

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Your argument for either of these holds very little water. All CS/CSS trades provide valuable support to the military in places where it is needed. The CIC is an organization that is a group for children which does not directly or indirectly support the CF other than in promoting interest and the occasional recruiting base. Not a valid comparison.


One point to your post to clarifiy, we don't train Children.  Children are legally defined as those under the ages of 12.  Cadets are 12 - 18 years of age.


----------



## McG

The Canadian officer corps has gone a long way to reinvent itself as a proffessional establishment since 1905.   The whole CF has transformed significantly in those last 100 years.   It would be foolish to argue that the CIC belong in the CF as commissioned officers based on what was the norm even 20 years ago.


----------



## Ltmel

It is very frustrating to be in a CIC officer's position for this discussion. I am not defending the fact that we are commissioned, but that we If we want to work with cadets and receive any training what so ever, we join the CIC.   I joined the CIC because I wanted to support the CCM in everyway possible. If there was a NCM cadre, I probably would have joined that, but such an option does not exist.   So, I have a commission, which (regardless of how easily it may be had) I am very proud of.   I do not expect other members of the CF to respect me for the same reasons they would their own, but rather for how well I do the job that I am expected to do.   Which happens to be to train cadets.

There is little anyone can do about whether or not the CIC exists or is commissioned.     We can look at what the CIC does now and try to improve it.   The CIC receive little formal training because most of our training is supposed to be OJT.   This would work if it was enforced.   Unfortunately, most CIC officers make little to no effort on their own behalf.      Over the years, I had many opportunities to learn from patient and understanding members of the CF.   These are the people that most of my knowledge comes from.     Maybe, instead of being the one who refuses to salute, start a dialouge.   CIC officers also have a unique perspective, on leadership, instruction, motivation... Granted, there are alot of useless CIC officers out there, maybe you can help change that.

 Be the one who asks a question in order to answer the one that wasn't asked.


----------



## PViddy

I believe thatt was well said El-tee

cheers,

PV


----------



## my72jeep

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I like this idea Duke.   In keeping CIC relevent to military requirements, it leaves Canada with a "backdoor" in case, by a long shot, Canada needs to mobilize.   Although CIC would be quite aware that the chances of them being picked up and put into a regular Army function were slim, they would be concious of the requirement (and be forced to maintain some semblance of preparedness) that if we needed qualified people, they would be the first pool we would look to for leadership to be put into the breach.
> 
> As well, if required to maintain some level of standards and competency, it could be assumed that the CIC could step up and fulfill certain administrative/non-combat roles within a Homeland Defence framework.
> 
> I'm not sure how it would work administratively, but perhaps the CIC could become Officer's of the Supplementary Reserve List, fulfilling a role as a third-line "pool" of Army leadership behind the first-line professional Army (the Regs) and the second-line stand-by Forces (The Reserves).
> 
> Amazing, I think that this thread may be pulled from the dung-heap.
> 
> Good job.
> 
> Infanteer



When I transfered into the CIL now CIC it was explained to me by my career manager that the CIL was third line defence deployable in the event of a national emergency or if the war measures act was invoked.
now as was explained to me last week by a Maj. from Director General Reserves and Cadets, the CIC entrance requirements and physical fitness requirements are being changed to bring them into line with the PRes. This is a requirement now do to the CIC being eligible for the CF pension plan.


----------



## my72jeep

MCG said:
			
		

> This leads to the question that then deserves debate.   Should CIC be members of the CF?   If they are members of the CF, then the argument for a commission is that the accountability of a CIC officer is commensurate with that of an officer (responsibility for the unit, the safety/well-being of its members, its finances, its level of training, and its overall effectiveness).   However, if not members of the CF there is no need to commission the CIC.




Good point about accountability As we speak a CIC Officer is in Club ED. For failure to account for public and non public funds.


----------



## bLUE fOX

I am a new officer cadet. I have three years experience in the Canadian Cadet movement, four years experience as a Civilian Instructor ( I will never call them Civilian Volunteers)  and was enrolled just this Thursday into the Cadet Instructors Cadre. as far as the physical standards go, I firmly believe that they should be increased, across the board both in the cadets and the CIC. Training should be improved (form my understanding) to make it more relevent to our jobs. if you want it more military then make cadets more military. make our training 1) usable and 2) pertenant to them.
As far as post secondary education is concerned, in the cadet world who does it benefit? we teach basic military skills to kids (definition be damned) most of it taken form at least three to seven years experience in the cadet world. those without experience learn along the way by asking
as far as a need for a commission, there is an organization in Canada called the Navy league. they are a sponsoring committee for the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets and another organization, Navy League cadets (for children age 10-13) whose "officers" are not queens commissioned. we could most certainly follaw there examples in all three branches, But I personally think that that takes some of the military away from cadets. 
As for NCM's doing our jobs, that's why there are cadets. there are, in sea cadets any way, staff appointments in the local corps for supply, admin and what have you.
Maybe I'm just ranting, it's latter than I usually answer to these things, but one last point all of you who hate the CIC (and surprisingly I was once like you) aside form suggesting an increase in course load can you suggest to me things that I can do to be a better officer? none of this "take real basic training" and so forth. For those of you who can thanks a bundle, every one else please stop knocking what I like to do.

Sincerly 
N/CDT Lane Shymko
Divisional Officer 132 RCSCC  Repulse


----------



## Duke

Blue fox,

Welcome to army.ca!

As a fellow CIC member, there are a few things I'd like to point out:

 First, Civilian Instructors and Civilian Volunteers are two *separate * entities. A CI is a paid position within a corps/squadron. They may not actually receive money, but they can. A civilian volunteer (CV) on the other hand is a voluntary i.e. not paid position. Both still have to be screened.

Second, if what you are implying is that the process of enrolling CIC officers should become more in line with the PRes and by extension the Reg Force, why would you then say a degree is not necessary? If the goal is to make the CIC 'deployable' (internally or externally) at some point, why dilute the prerequisites?

Third, wrt the Navy League, do their 'officers' control Public Funds? I suspect not. 

Fourth, there have been some constructive points raised in this thread and on army.ca. There certainly has been some bashing, but at the end of the day, it's just someone's opinion. If I busted an artery every time someone trashed the CIC, I'd be dead duke by now. The reason why I don't lose a lot of sleep about people's negative thoughts wrt the CIC is that I am not trying to rationalize the obvious, that there are CIC people out there who should not be in uniform.

Finally, if you want to make a positive impression, please try to spell check and use capitalization correctly. There are a lot of cadets on this forum, and I'm sure you don't want them thinking negatively of you, do you? Also, you are leaving yourself open for some grief if you come on army.ca, say that as a N/Cdt Post Secondary Education is not necessary and then misspell, hack sentences etc.


Duke


Edited to add emphasis in 1st sentence.


----------



## Burrows

Duke said:
			
		

> Finally, if you want to make a positive impression, please try to spell check and use capitalization correctly. There are a lot of cadets on this forum, and I'm sure you don't want them thinking negatively of you, do you? Also, you are leaving yourself open for some grief if you come on army.ca, say that as a N/Cdt Post Secondary Education is not necessary and then misspell, hack sentences etc.



When was the last time I told you to stay out of me head!


----------



## Duke

Just call me 'Quick Draw McGraw'!  ;D

Duke


----------



## BandO

Hello all, 

Just reading through the posts Re: the CIC.   I am a CIC officer, and I agree that some changes need to be made. However I dont agree we need to be bashed as much as we do recieve.   I do believe that some people should not hold the Queen's Commission. However many others do deserve it. 

It's important to realise that the CIC is not a Combat Arms trade, and for good reason. Our goal is to train the youth of Canada. We are not out to train young soldiers the government does not allow that. Now dont get me wrong I have the upmost respect for the CF and its soldiers. I just think that people dont look at all sides of the issue.

As a Cadet Officer our goal is to provide safe, fun, educational and professional training. Our aims are to promote citizenship, physical fitness, and the CF.   I have worked for many different CIC officers who for a lack of a better word need a change of direction. At the end of the day, if we take care of our cadets, and pass on to them knowlwdge and professionalism then we have done our job to the best of our abilities.

As for training standards for officers, I would agree things need to change. And some aspects of OLQ's (officer like qualities) are not taught at RCIS. I do not and wont pretend to have the answers to this age old question, however I believe I do a good job, and that   the cadets in my charge never go without what they need.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

BandO said:
			
		

> It's important to realise that the CIC is not a Combat Arms trade, and for good reason.



Well no kidding you aren't even a CSS trade, you are a sub-component of the primary reserves.


----------



## McG

Nfld_Sapper said:
			
		

> Well no kidding you aren't even a CSS trade, you are a sub-component of the primary reserves.


No. We've covered this already.  The CIC is a sub-component of the reserves.  They are in no way a part of the primary reserve (which is a different sub-component of the reserves).


----------



## CrashBear

I have been watching this topic being discussed for sometime now and feel that a few have an axe to grind. I read an excellect version of How do we see ourselves-What is a CIC?

I Quote :"Let me introduce myself, I am one of the people that the majority call "Pretend Officer". There is no pretence that we may be single, or have a family as well as children. Nor is there pretence that if any of us ARE married, we have full time careers that pay for the support of the family.
There is no pretence regarding what many call our PRETEND CAREERS, that pays some of us 23 days out of the countless 100's of days we put in. There is no PRETENCE about the fact that this career if we do it with diligence, requires attention 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. There is no PRETENCE to the sacrifices our families must  accept, so that we can carry on with this second career, that many would not undertake. There is no PRETENCE that we all have a direct impact on tomorrow's society and
what values that society may have. 

I , like all of you, have never PRETENDED to be a COMMISSIONED OFFICER in the CANADIAN FORCES, because I am one, we are COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, our scrolls do not say FAKE, Non Negotiable, pretend, or SAMPLE COPY.

My trade and expertise is with the youth of Canada, whom many forget are our future leaders of our country. To train, guide, mentor and channel their energy, so that they accept and respond to the 
challenges of citizenship that they will face once their teen years have passed. 

None of us pretend at all. We are as qualified as any other officer. Our dedication, and commitment is as great as any; however our field of expertise may differ. So the next time someone says "Oh you're just a CIC officer", remember all that you do, and know that you are not just an anything, but an important part in our community, and someone who is directly impacting the people that the cadets in our care are going to become." UnQuote.  Yes some should not be wearing the uniform. The training is given in realtionship to the duties required and that is sometimes lacking.  A good CIC Officer will realize that and obtain the required training to perform their duties.

Enough said.


----------



## Infanteer

We are letting the argument revolve around the commissioning scroll, which is kind of irrelevant.

Perhaps we should define "Officer" and how a "Professional Officer" is something different from other roles or positions and why it warrants the "especial trust", responsibility, etc, etc.

I've seen piss-poor examples of Officers from the CIC (The one who's belly we had to lift up in order to hook her swiss-seat to the rappel line comes to mind), but there are less then stellar examples from both the Regs and the Reserves that I've seen as well.

Perhaps we'd do our best to, as I said above, define "Officer" before we start apportioning who is and isn't one.

(Disclaimer: I think we tried doing this earlier in the thread - I'm only "rehashing" it because I think it is far better then everyone marking off the opinion and defying anybody to counter it, which has been happening on both sides.)


----------



## CrashBear

Until there is a change in the Gov't policy and changes made to NDA that the CCM be directed by the Canadian Forces this topic is mute.  

Do we all feel that adequate training is required? Yes

Should that training be relevant to the duties being perfomed? Yes

Should a fitness standard be enforced? Yes

Should CIC Officers involved with the CCM have a number of years of life experience before becoming a mentor? Who Knows.  Some of us feel they should.

Does all of the above mean that the CIC Officer be treated by some as irrelevant and disrespectfully? Show disrespect at your own peril as QR&O's are very specific and do not treat different components of the CF differently, and don't be surprised if the action taken is by your own supriors and not the CIC Officer.

In order to keep on topic if there are viable alternatives to the CCM and the CIC then you have the right to send a letter to your MP and voice your concerns and attempt to have the NDA changed.  The opionions stated under this forum have little to do with viable alternatives.


----------



## Infanteer

CrashBear said:
			
		

> Until there is a change in the Gov't policy and changes made to NDA that the CCM be directed by the Canadian Forces this topic is mute.



This is a discussion board - just because something isn't going to change anytime soon doesn't mean we can't debate and discuss the issues.  After all, we have threads on tanks and amphib ships.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Interesting. But what about  officer professional military education offered through RMC? Acceptable?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> No. We've covered this already.   The CIC is a sub-component of the reserves.   They are in no way a part of the primary reserve (which is a different sub-component of the reserves).



That's what I meant, should have read over my post before posting it  :-[


----------



## my72jeep

The PIO for the Borden Cadet Camp did a survey one summer out of 42 Officers employed that summer.
                  2 had a Masters degree
                  9 had a bachelor's degree   
                  16 were attending post secondary schools 
                  1 was attending RMC as a CIC Officer
                  2 were Police Officers
                  6 ex Reg's
                  1 was a civi lawyer
                  4 Teachers
                  1 Reg on loan from CFSAL
Now this isn't allways the case but if you use education as a qualifier the the CIC will have the regs and reserves beat every time. It is a good guess that 1/3 of the CIC is in university at any given time.
Now I will admit that we have more than our share of less than prime examples, but we are working on that now, and as was said a few pages ago officers that do not meet the basic of the requirements are being tossed.


but this is only one CIC Officers opinion, Mine.


----------



## CrashBear

Based upon the principle that higher education is always preferred, looking at the CIC a good number have achieved education of advanced standing. Usually the only thing in the education that is missing is the military aspects for which I can find nowhere in any Professional Officer qualification requirements for enrolment.  Any person with advanced education can be enrolled in the CAF and is required to take non degree education in the roles duties, responsibilities of a Professional Military Officer. That goes without saying. 

As a Retired Prof Fire Chief, I would give preference to a person who had completed a University Degree program. Why? It proved to me that the individual was able to commit to a program and complete it.  Does the degree held mean that the person is a Firefighter NO. They still have to start at the bottom and work up.

The same is true for the CIC, Just because I hold a Degree does it mean that I'm a good CIC Officer? No as additional training is required to be able to perform the duties that have been assigned? Once the required training has been received the CIC Officer is no less a Professional Officer than any other in the CAF. Where the training is received is dictated by requirement. The only difference is the area of responsibility. You don't see an Infantry Officer looking for training in how to deal with a youngster with ADD, and you don't see CIC Officers learning fields of fire. One is to lead personnel in conflict the other to guide and mentor youth.

One of the other desirable aspects of the CIC Officer is one who has been around the block more than once and comes with valued life experiences and is able to help guide impressionable young people.  No reasonable CIC Officer would ever imply that they would ever lead personnel into a field of conflict as they do not have the training(nor are required to).

As to remaining enrolment criteria should the fitness standard be the same for a CIC Officer as all other Officers. Yes it should be, but that should be a topic for another forum as there are differing standards of fitness based on age and gender. The remaining criteria is the same as far as I'm aware, with Criminal records checks, background checks etc.


----------



## my72jeep

Yes your right there are CIC Officers with hardly the ability to form speech but they are few. I was just stating a reply to a past post about CIC's and Education, 80% of our ranks have higher education then any other CF group but according to some of you we are all a bunch of dumb ****. We come to the CF with life skills and a desire to work with youth not lead men in battle. but some times when you get a group of hormonal teens some on downers, some on uppers, all hyper and put them in close proximity to members of the opposite sex, a battle field will be a vacation.I never asked to be accepted by the regs, only for them to under stand that we do a job that most people would not touch with a ten foot pole, and to let us do it with as little crap as possible. and if you think our task is easy volunteer for a year at a cadet unit then talk to me.


----------



## CrashBear

2332Piper said:
			
		

> And there are NCM's in the ranks with Master's degrees. Whats your point? Having a post-secondary education is not a *mandatory* requirement for the CIC. Many CIC officers do not have any type of degree, and barely passed high school at that. Point in case, I met a female CIC officer who is now working as a Budweiser Girl after having just passed high school.
> 
> The point is not if there are people with degrees in the CIC, its that having a degree is an essential requirement to be an officer in the rest of the CF, but not for the CIC (who are still considered to be commissioned officers on the same level as everyone else).



Not really sure what your point is.

Given very limited information and expanding on your rational, I see an Officer who has completed something(high School).  This person is working and contributing to society. Do you know what are the other considerations. What kind of background does she come from?  Is she able to afford to got to University? What are her family background limitations in giving her assistance?  Is she working doing CIC work and going to University to further herself at the same time.  If not is she attempting to incraese her knowledge base with in her ablity to do so.  Does this make her any less a capable Officer when she reports for duty?

Just because she works at a career that would seem to be demeaning to you is she any less an Officer. I personally know of very cabable Officers who's primary employment is driving Honey wagons sucking out peoples spetic systems.  Having said that the addition side of the information is that he owns the company?

That's my point. A CIC officer comes from many different backgrounds and make a valuable contribution to the Aims of the CCM.


----------



## McG

2332Piper said:
			
		

> If CIC officers want to be taken seriously as professional officers in a military, on par with the rest of the officer corps, then having the degree as a prerequisite is a good start.



2332Piper,
I know many excellent commissioned officers, in both the regular force and primary reserve, that do not have university degrees.   I know some who have enrolled from civi street in the last handful of years.   There are regular force and reserve officers without degrees that are intelligent contributors to these boards.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Who in the infantry world does having a degree benefit? Armour officers don't really need one, heck, anyone who isn't in a tech trade does not really *need* a degree. But having one decrees a level of professional development and skills, which is necessary as an officer in the CF.


The need for university education is not to produce platoon and company commanders.   It is to produce capable formation commanders, command level staff officers, commanders of commands, Chiefs of Defence Staff, etc.   These are not places you are likely to find CIC.   Other than some exercise in â Å“penis size,â ? why would the CIC officers need university degrees?



			
				bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> ... what about officer professional military education offered through RMC? Acceptable?


Well, seeing as CIC should be able to represent the CF to Canadians and educate cadets on the CF, there are certainly several OPME that could be made mandatory.   The Canadian Military History OPME would provide the CIC officer with the requisite knowledge to educate cadets on the history of the CF and its role in Canadian society.   Introduction to Defence Management would give the CIC the requisite knowledge to educate the cadets about the current structure of the CF & how in operates.


----------



## CrashBear

MCG said:
			
		

> 2332Piper,
> I know many excellent commissioned officers, in both the regular force and primary reserve, that do not have university degrees.   I know some who have enrolled from civi street in the last handful of years.   There are regular force and reserve officers without degrees that are intelligent contributors to these boards.
> The need for university education is not to produce platoon and company commanders.   It is to produce capable formation commanders, command level staff officers, commanders of commands, Chiefs of Defence Staff, etc.   These are not places you are likely to find CIC.   Other than some exercise in â Å“penis size,â ? why would the CIC officers need university degrees?
> Well, seeing as CIC should be able to represent the CF to Canadians and educate cadets on the CF, there are certainly several OPME that could be made mandatory.   The Canadian Military History OPME would provide the CIC officer with the requisite knowledge to educate cadets on the history of the CF and its role in Canadian society.   Introduction to Defence Management would give the CIC the requisite knowledge to educate the cadets about the current structure of the CF & how in operates.



Im not sure if I entirely agree with you on this. Yes OPME is valuable in developing an Officers general knowledgebase but is it really what the CIC Officer needs to perform their duties.  I submit as a past CO of a Corp that to meet the mandate of "stimulate an interest in the CAF" I would bring in someone from the affliated unit or when ever an opportunity presented itself when the Reg force personnel were in town.

I believe what would help the CIC Officer more is required education in how to deal with a cadet who has ADD or FAS. Perhaps some basics in child phycology.  The education of a CIC Officer does not end with enrolment especially when dealing with youth. 

A case in point, I had a youngser who wanted to be in cadets in the worst way but his parents were reluctant to let him join as he was one of 5 children in North America who's illness dictated that he would not see his 18th birthday. In order to to be fair to the Cadet and the parent and with their permission I had a 2hr meeting with the family Doctor and learned what I could do to ensure that the child would be safe within the CCM. That youngster is still in the system at age 16 never went to camp but has been having a ball ever since.

A good CIC Officer looks for ways to advance their education in a way that will allow the youth to participate within the program safely.


----------



## CrashBear

2332Piper said:
			
		

> CF policy clearly states that unless an exception is made, officers are required to have a university degree. Having one speaks to having a higher level of maturity, work ethic and education (please PLEASE don't take this as a bash towards people with no degree, thats not what this means). Thats what is needed and should very well be required of officers.



You have said a mouth full there.

As to maturity, work ethic and education I have a very good friend who has a PhD and teaches at UofA who outside of the confines of the campus couldn't find his backside in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.  On the other hand I have a friend who is an Air CIC Officer who flys for a major airline and has never been inside a University in his life.  His educational equivent is at the PhD level and is an excellent Officer.


----------



## Infanteer

This is an excellent thread on Officers and education

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23230.0.html

As Brad Sallows said in the above linked thread, a PSE is a good goalpost, not a gatekeeper.

As well, although a general PSE is supposed to give a person a variety of analytical tools, this isn't always the case and it shouldn't be assumed that a PSE automatically means "smart".  I believe that an educational requirement "goalpost" should hone in on military affairs at a  deeper level then the OPME programs - it shouldn't be assumed that degrees in zoology, Scandinavian literature, and Gay and Lesbian studies offer the same "raw material" to the Professional Officer Corps - like the _Kriegsakadamie_ of old, a proper _military education_ should enhance the professional capabilities of our Officers.

Finally, *Mr Piper*, don't stray out of your lane because you are starting to.   We have many senior officers on these boards who don't have Post Secondary Educations and are proven in real world operations as able commanders.   Where you've got the stones to declare that they lack some sort " higher level of maturity, work ethic and education" is beyond me - even with your meaningless disclaimer.

My Two Cents,
Infanteer


----------



## McG

CrashBear said:
			
		

> Im not sure if I entirely agree with you on this. Yes OPME is valuable in developing an Officers general knowledgebase but is it really what the CIC Officer needs to perform their duties. I submit as a past CO of a Corp that to meet the mandate of "stimulate an interest in the CAF" I would bring in someone from the affliated unit or when ever an opportunity presented itself when the Reg force personnel were in town.


I've been to communities in which the CIC officers were the only members of the CF, or communities in which the CIC officers were the only commissioned members of the CF.  In these communities, the CIC officer must fill the reserve roll of connecting with Canadians.  The CIC officer must be able to inform the cadets and the community about the CF.

I think connecting with Canadians is as reasonable a role for the CIC as it is for the primary reserves.


----------



## CrashBear

MCG

I agree with you that often the CIC is all that most communites see.   Every Officer should be versed in the Duties Roles and Responsibilities of the CF and where they fit into the scheme of things.   However detailed training in all aspects of the military to the CIC Officer is not really required based on their"Primary Duties and Responsibilities"   When I first became a CIC Officer was at my request of the Recruiting Office to send up an Officer to a Northern Community.   They used the opportunity to do some recruiting for the CAF as well as interview candidates for the CIC in a community that was trying to get a Cadet Corps started.   It seemed after the Corp was started that regular visits by Recruiting was ongoing as well as regular visits by the Corps Affiliated Unit and the Reg Force.

In today's CCM the Cadet Corps have more opportunities to have exposure to the CAF and stimulate the interest in both the Corps and the communites that they are in.   I feel a good CIC Officer takes advantage of this and utilizes the resource.

The OPME program is a valuable resource for the CIC Officer but really not essential to the primary duties of a CIC Officer. Other more valuable sources of education would be of a benefit, thus meeting the criteria of development of a Professional Officer to perform the duties to which they are assigned.


----------



## CrashBear

I agree with you that we must keep ourselfs as current as possible, but keeping with the new direction of what makes a Professional Officer, That we must identify what is the required primary training requirement in order to fulfill the duties assigned.

The basic of all required CIC training is Military, however given the Primary Duties one would think that relevant education would be the theme of the day with additional Military training the secondary consideration.

As Officers in the CAF we are required to keep ourselves up to date on numerous things and some being mandated by QR&O's.

Does the Training given by RCIS meet the mandate of what our primary duties entail? Some would argue that it is not.


----------



## PViddy

I believe you can commision from the ranks in the RegF. as well ? correct me if i am wrong.

PV


----------



## combat_medic

Furthermore, under the RESO program, you must complete your degree before you get your commission.


----------



## xFusilier

Not unless they've changed it...

Pass RESO II - promoted 2Lt

Pass RESOIII - promoted to Lt

At least thats the way it used to work in the infantry, and I know for a fact there are tons of reserve infantry officers out there who do not have degrees IMHO the whole degree thing is a red herring.


----------



## Steve031

I think the problem most Reg/Res have with the CIC is that they aren't soldiers.  It's kind of odd to have a branch of the military that wears the same uniform of the military and yet is full of members who are not soldiers.  So the argument is that CIC members should not be commissioned officers in the CF because they are not soldiers.  Just to pre-empt any arguments about what a soldier is, any member of the military who participates in the waging of war (from the combat arms to a clerk in NDHQ) is a soldier.  They are trained to participate in armed conflict.  CIC officers are not.  In that sense, it makes sense that soldiers do not want to salute CIC officers because they are not soldiers and the salute is a form of greeting held to be exclusive to soldiers.


----------



## Duke

Interesting.

Is the Queen a soldier? The Governor General? The Prime Minister?

You are paying compliments to the commission and the trust and confidence shown by the Monarch that goes with it, not the person .

Duke


----------



## Steve031

Are you comparing yourself to the Queen?

Actually, the Queen is a soldier.   The prime minister is not, however this is because he has no formal role in the CF.   The Queen is a soldier because she is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.   The Governor General is her deputy in Canada, and traditionally a military post.   Therefore, it is on her orders that we, soldiers of Canada, go to war.   Her role, as the authority that sends the military to war, makes her a soldier.

You missed the whole point of my statement.   The CIC is an oddity because it is part of the CF even though its members aren't soldiers.   The argument is that a salute is a greeting between soldiers, an statement of trust and respect between soldiers and the officers who could lead them in battle, and so it is understandable that soldiers would resent saluting someone who, while a member of the military, is not one.


----------



## Duke

And you missed my point, entirely, Steve031.

"Are you comparing yourself to the Queen" Nope. Are you?

The PM has no formal role in the CF?????? 

You don't need to be a soldier to be saluted. Is our National Flag a member of the CF? Having a role, formal or otherwise in the CF is irrelevant. What about Honorary Colonels and Lt Colonels? They don't have to be soldiers or even ex-soldiers. Do you arbitrarily not salute them, I mean their commission are only honorary? Once again: You are saluting the commission (comes from the Queen via the GG) and the trust/confidence that goes with it, NOT the person. If you have a problem understanding that, you might want to tell HRH or the GG that they made a boo-boo. Better still, take it up your chain of command.   

Duke


----------



## Trinity

Steve031 said:
			
		

> Just to pre-empt any arguments about what a soldier is, any member of the military who participates in the waging of war (from the combat arms to a clerk in NDHQ) is a soldier.  They are trained to participate in armed conflict.



Am I a soldier as a Chaplain.  I do not participate in the waging of war.  I provide pastoral assitance to any member
of any religion but I do not participate in waging of war.  I don't participate in an armed conflict as much as I try
to minimze the damage spiritually, morally and ethically.  

I have worked at Cadet camps.  I have learned that it is easy to generalize the CIC as "fake soldiers".  But the
reg force does that to the Reserves.  In 12 years, I have learned every system has good people working for it,
people who are just there, and then the ones you wish never put a uniform on.  

Somtimes being a good soldier is sucking up and doing what you HAVE to do, even when you don't like it.
Salute the CIC officers.  I don't make the rules.  

Incidently, I had to salute DUKE before...  its only mildly disturbing and thats just cause of the way he looks.

i'm not siding with Duke cause I know him.  I know a few GREAT CIC officers who i would rather have than some
of my own officers in my career. * Leadership comes from the man, not the trade.*


secretly i feel your pain...  been there.. OCdt at a cadet camp.. yeah.. i saluted everyone. If I can, you can. Its soldiering.


[Mod Edit to fix quote tags.]


----------



## Duke

C'mon, Trinity. I haven't looked disturbing since I shaved off the moustache and threw away my "I love Ricky Martin"T-Shirt.

Duke


----------



## Steve031

As a chaplain, you are a soldier.  Your job, correct me if I'm wrong, is to minister to the spiritual needs of those who fight or support the fighting in war.  

I understand the idea of saluting a commission, rather than a person.  In fact, I have saluted many cadet officers in my time.  I don't have any problem with the cadet instructors cadre being officers.  I'm just pointing out the fact that the salute is a soldier's greeting, and that's why some soldiers have trouble according it to non-soldier members of the CF (ie. the CIC).  I'm not going to argue each individual case, because I'm not trying to say it's alright for NCMs not to salute an officer.  I'm just explaining why so many of us feel this way.


----------



## LF(CMO)

The only valid criticism, as per the CIC, that I've seen on these pages is the fitness one.  However, as has been pointed out, the Regs and the P-Res but can be included in that as well. 

The other stuff on saluting, Queens Commission, part of the CF, style of uniform is just superfluous nonsense from people that can't think of anything original and are desperate to criticize something!

 Most of the CIC Officers that I've been associated with are very capable, dedicated people and are as capable as any in the CF.  When a 19 year old upstart from the P-Res launches into a criticism of the CIC, I just treat as a form of 'comic relief'.

 As a CIC Officer, I have been embarrassed by the 'form' of some of the CIC Officers and I've been a long time advocate of a Basic fitness standard for the CIC of some sort.

 As a CIC Officer in my mid fifties, I meet the BMI for weight and height, I can make 5.5 on the 'beep' test and I did two jumps for the 60th anniversary of D-Day.   If you don't want to my salute commission, I could care less.  That's your problem


----------



## Trinity

Steve031 said:
			
		

> As a chaplain, you are a soldier.  Your job, correct me if I'm wrong, is to minister to the spiritual needs of those who fight or support the fighting in war.



Yes and No.  Its not that simple.

Yes, I am a soldier. But I don't think according to your definition I fall into it.  If my job is to bolster the spiritual needs
of the troops so they can go out and kill again then I am sorely in the wrong trade.

According to the Chaplains manual, in a time of war we
a) nuture the living,
b) care for the wounded
c) honor the dead
d) protect civiians and prisoners of war

I can't find where it says it in the manual, but the best way to describe it is as this....

We act as a moral compass.  In the time of chaos we provide a moral bearing for the troops
so that they can have standards in a time where there appears to be none.  By doing so we
can avoid any undue attrocities of war that soldiers might commit without any moral guidance. 

Yes, if I search the chaplains manual I can find one paragraph to support your claim. But one paragraph
in 15 chapter manual hardly consists of the "nature" of the chaplains job.  We are non-combatants. 
Our participation in the waging of war is negliable.

okay.. enough said.. either to you I do contribute to war or I don't.  I don't consider that to be true, you do.
I just hope I have shown you a different side of my trade than what you thought. I will happily continue this in a 
PM, but I will not hijack this thread or try to openly represent the Chaplains brach, cause clearly I do not. 

NOW.. these are just my the humble opinions and do not reflect those of  the chaplains branch. 

(edit.. reworded the middle... cause i can!)


----------



## CrashBear

Well said padre.

For the better part of 32 years I have seen this arguement and whizzing contest about who is who in the pecking order, and quite frankly and growing weary by it.   All personnel enrolled in the CAF are soldiers, sailors and airmen. Some in the direct roles of combat arms others in the duties as have been assigned to them by their superior officers.   I personnal look at the CIC officers as assigned into the benevolant role of a soldier and required to be a mentor to the youth of the nation.   Does that make the CIC Officer any less a soldier than others I think not.

I like to think of the words of General George C. Marshall's definition of a soldier.

Quote: What is a soldier? 
"The soldier is a man; he expects to be treated as an adult, not a schoolboy. He has rights; they must be made known to him and thereafter respected. He has ambition; it must be stirred. He has a belief in fair play; it must be honored. He has a need of comradeship; it must be supplied. He has imagination; it must be stimulated. He has a sense of personal dignity; it must be sustained. He has pride; it can be satisfied and made the bedrock of character once he has been assured that he is playing a useful and respected role. To give a man this is the acme of inspired leadership. He has become loyal because loyalty was given to him." 

As a CIC Officer I do include myself under the definition of a mentor. As a mentor I am fulfilling my duties as a Officer in the CAF and am making a difference in the lives of the young people who will some day pick up the mantle of leadership in the ongoing development of our country.   An excellent poem was written about being a mentor and a Quote;

The Difference
There were two airmen who didn't know what to do
They came into the Air Force and were proud to wear the blue
Quickly they realized they didn't know it all
And soon they must learn or they would fall

But who was to teach them how to go?
Where were they to go in order to grow?
Around them they looked and what did they see?

One found a mentor the other one was left himself to be
The one with the mentor seized the day
He learned quickly and found experience does pay
The protégé' listened and the mentor taught him a lot
And through his successes he never forgot

The second who had to go it alone
Did his best but felt forlorn
He did what he could and learned as he went
But in the end he was totally spent

Now the protégé is a mentor, too
His successes and lessons are not few
He shares what he knows and learns from the young
And praises for his mentor are sung

So now the Air Force has only one wearing the blue
But it should have been two
With experiences and happiness in their heart
Because someone cared about them from the start

Penny Bailey, Lt Col, USAF. 1 Nov 2002.

There is more to being a soldier than picking up arms and taking of lives. One of the soldiers worst nightmares is the day that he has to do what he is being paid for.


----------



## Steve031

In no way was I attacking the CIC, I was simply stating the way alot of soldiers feel about the situation.  As far as the CIC being soldiers, that's a stretch.  I could find a definitioin in the dictionary, I doubt it would classify a youth leader as a soldier.

As far as the chaplain's branch, I'd say your role is fairly similar to that of the medical branch.  You're a non-combatant but the reason for your existence within the military structure is to serve to the spiritual needs of other soldiers in order to allow them to continue their job (ie. killing people during war time).  Now we don't go to war very often, and your job isn't to justify immoral actions, but your job is basically to help soldiers deal with the moral ramifications of taking life.


----------



## Neill McKay

Steve031 said:
			
		

> In no way was I attacking the CIC, I was simply stating the way alot of soldiers feel about the situation.   As far as the CIC being soldiers, that's a stretch.   I could find a definitioin in the dictionary, I doubt it would classify a youth leader as a soldier.



I think you'd have similar trouble finding a dictionary that describes psychologists, musicians, social workers, and public affairs workers as soldiers, yet there are hundreds of such people in the CF.  Do you dispute their legitimacy as soldiers (or sailors or airmen) as well?


----------



## Trinity

Steve031 said:
			
		

> Now we don't go to war very often, and your job isn't to justify immoral actions, but your job is basically to help soldiers deal with the moral ramifications of taking life.



No.. its not.  I've explained this to you.  I will now show you the manual. 

This is the second time you have "generalized" my trade and summed it up to supporting troops so that they can kill. 




> DOCTRINE OF CHAPLAINS IN COMBAT
> 
> 10.	The doctrine of chaplains in combat flows from their calling as servants of God, and care-givers to Humanity. Whether in word and sacrament or prayer and witness, Chaplains are endorsed spiritual leaders who:
> 
> a. Nurture the Living:
> 
> i. Chaplains should pursue opportunities for exercising a ministry of presence and spiritual friendship with and amongst the soldiers, NCM's and officers, even on the battlefield.
> 
> ii. Chaplains should seize opportunities for formal and informal worship with due regard to the tactical setting and local security.
> 
> iii. Chaplains should exploit opportunities for padres hours, religious instruction, study and pastoral counselling during breaks in the action in formal and informal settings.
> 
> b. Care for the Wounded:
> 
> i. Chaplains by their very presence among the wounded and dying bear peace and assurance of care.
> 
> ii. Chaplains should maintain appropriate spiritual resources and prayers for those of various faith groups.
> 
> iii. Chaplains, while cooperating with medical personnel, should be proactive in offering prayers and sacramental ministry to the wounded and dying.
> 
> c. Honor the Dead:
> 
> i. Commendation of the Dying or Last Rites should always be offered. It provides a peaceful release to both the dying and those who have laboured to save their life.
> 
> ii. Chaplains shall ensure that appropriate funeral arrangements are made whether in theatre or at home.
> 
> iii. When there is a break in action, appropriate Remembrance Services will be held for the dead.
> 
> d. Protect Civilians and Prisoners of War:
> 
> i. Chaplains, as advisers on moral and ethical issues, are to ensure that the rights and privileges of civilians and prisoners of war are not overlooked.
> 
> ii. Chaplains shall be knowledgeable of The Geneva Accord and Provisions for treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. (See Chapter 9.)
> 
> iii. Chaplains may engage in humanitarian assistance as authorized by the chain of command, and as battle rhythm permits. (See Chapter 4)



That is my previous post explained in more detail.  


Now.  As for the CIC.

I would suggest your definition of soldier may be the key to solving your answer. 
Many manuals I am reading state "Soldiers, NCMs and Officers"

Not that I would agree with that statement but you may wish to rethink your definition
that would include medics/chaplains but exclude CIC.  

In the end, we're arguing opinions.  And on the internet, opnion without
fact to back it up... is worth nothing.

(BTW.. my official stance is CIC are PRES, therefore soldiers)


----------



## CrashBear

I am really going to open up a can of worms here.   Those employed in the CAF who are not full time regular force personnel are classified as reservists.   The Reserves broken into 4 sub components, 1 the Primary Reserve, 2 the CIC, 3 the Rangers and finally 4 the SHR. None are subservient to the other and all report to the same boss in the end.   As proof of what I speak is to get you to got to the following website . www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=396

That should settle the argument about who is in the reserves and who is a sub component as we all are.   Any doubt that CIC Officers are not legitimate can be clearly addressed in OR&O's.

You folks who are in this thread who pose as PRes should realize through your training what is a Primary Duty and a Secondary Duty. You may not like being a sub component of the reserves and think that you may be a higher form of being, but when it is all said and done we are all members and proudly so of the CAF doing our duty.


----------



## McG

Steve031 said:
			
		

> I think the problem most Reg/Res have with the CIC is that they aren't soldiers.   It's kind of odd to have a branch of the military that wears the same uniform of the military and yet is full of members who are not soldiers.   So the argument is that CIC members should not be commissioned officers in the CF because they are not soldiers.


There are not many soldiers in the Navy.   However, that oversight aside, you are still a little off.   The argument is that CIC should not be members of the CF because they are not Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen.

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen accept an "unlimited liability."  As members of the CF, the CIC can be called on to do the same.

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF.   How do the CIC do this?   If they don't currently have a role, is there a role they could be given?



			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> (BTW.. my official stance is CIC are PRES, therefore soldiers)


We've gone through this a plethora of times now.   CIC are not PRes!   CIC, Rangers, PRes, and SupRes are all separate components of the reserve force.


----------



## CrashBear

MCG said:
			
		

> Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF.   How do the CIC do this?   If they don't currently have a role, is there a role they could be given?



The CIC does have a role as defined by an Act of Parliament stating that the Canadian Armed Forces will have oversite of the youth Organization called Cadets. The NDA and OR&O's are the Canadian Forces mechanism enabling the will of the people and the Government of Canada to have oversite to the largest Government supported youth organization in the country.   Those duties are assigned to the CIC as the duties should not be assigned to the RegF or PRes because of their primary duty. You wouldn't want a bunch of young people being trained in the craft of a soldier.   The CIC Officer is specifically trained to deal with youth, which is a job which most folks in the CAF not would want.

The CIC Officer is the choice of the Government, when and if they change it so be it. The CIC Officer if the so wish, if the CIC is disbanded can review their options according to their terms of service elect to transfer to another subcomponent of the reserves or regular force if a position is available.

The big question is should the Government be sponsoring a youth organization?


----------



## McG

CrashBear said:
			
		

> The CIC does have a role ...


Okay, let me rephrase:

If they don't currently have a role,which contributes to the operational effectiveness of the CF, is there a role they could be given?


----------



## CrashBear

Trinity said:
			
		

> Oops.. my bad..
> 
> I humbly bow in shame...



Padre, I'm shocked that you have not learned to walk on water yet and be as perfect as everyone else. ;D


----------



## CrashBear

MCG said:
			
		

> Okay, let me rephrase:
> 
> If they don't currently have a role,which contributes to the operational effectiveness of the CF, is there a role they could be given?



Given the operational role of the CF, the CIC are contributing to the operational effectiveness by relieving the fully operational component of the CF to do their primary duties and having primary duties of their own assigned to perform the mandate of the govt. It's call adequate delpoyment of resources.


----------



## McG

CrashBear said:
			
		

> Given the operational role of the CF, the CIC are contributing to the operational effectiveness by relieving the fully operational component of the CF to do their primary duties and having primary duties of their own assigned to perform the mandate of the govt. It's call adequate delpoyment of resources.


I don't buy this argument.  Civilians could fill the roll just as easily.  The only way you could argue this is if you assume that the cadets themselves contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF, and that the cadets required thier instructors to be CF members.


----------



## CrashBear

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't buy this argument.   Civilians could fill the roll just as easily.   The only way you could argue this is if you assume that the cadets themselves contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF.



It's not an argument, it's a fact. If the Govt wanted the Cadets to be run by a civilian organization they could have very easily enacted legislation that made it so. They Didn't as they wanted the CF to do the mandate. That's why the CCofC was formed in 1867 and the first Officer commissioned in 1902.

The funding that goes into the cadets could very easily be funneled into other govt priorities and the 60,000 + youth that benefit from it could be off doing something else and so could I.

I joined the CIC to pay back for what it invested in me when I was a Cadet in the 60's, as Soldier,as prison guard and a professional Fire Chief. now retired.  If it had not been for cadets and the CIL Officers then, my life would have had a different course.

I will call the Cadet Officers who were in charge Soldier's because that's what they were. Doing a duty for the country and making a difference.  Those gentlemen were in my opinion the best of the best because I know what a challenge that both myself and friend's were.  Given the challenges of today's youth I would still say the same. Do we have dud's in the system? Yes but they are being dealt with in accordance with regulations.

Can the CIC's job be done by civilians, probably yes with changes in legislation. The question is who is going to hold them accountable? What is the difference between a CIC Officer and a civilian?  The CIC officer is trained and held accountable. That meets the duty of care that the govt wants in this organization.  

There is no sense in what you say that the only way my argument would hold water is if the cadets contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF. Cadets are not the issue in this debate. They are the reason the CIC was formed.

If folks believe that the CIC can not be called for active service you only have to look at QR&O's.  It has been done before (1939) and the majority of those were employed at training stations across the country.

Do some of the CIC find it hard to be a member of the military? Yes Do some members like not being able to drill and dress properly? Yes As a PRes member try looking any better with 9 periods of drill over a 10 day period and look any better.


----------



## Neill McKay

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't buy this argument.   Civilians could fill the roll just as easily.



I think you'd find that the military mindset (and you may argue that it's weak in the CIC but by no means is it absent) is a key part of the cadet programme.   If it were run by someone other than CF members it would be a very different programme.



> The only way you could argue this is if you assume that the cadets themselves contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF, and that the cadets required thier instructors to be CF members.



Cadets don't directly contribute to operational effectiveness, but they do contribute to the public perception of the Forces -- in countless towns the closest thing to a military presence is the local cadet unit and its officers.   While keeping the Forces in the minds of the public doesn't have an immediate effect on operational effectiveness, but I'm sure you can understand that, in the long term, it's very desirable that the public not forget that we exist.   The Naval Reserve was established in the 1920s for the very same reason -- not because we had an operational need for a garrison of sailors in Regina, but because the navy needed to be seen by more than just the residents of Halifax and Esquimalt.


----------



## McG

CrashBear said:
			
		

> If the Govt wanted the Cadets to be run by a civilian organization they could have very easily enacted legislation that made it so. They Didn't as they wanted the CF to do the mandate. That's why the CCofC was formed in 1867 and the first Officer commissioned in 1902.


If the CDS came to you tomorrow and asked for you to draft a CF policy recommendation on where the CIC belonged, would you build your argument around what the government of 1902 wanted?  We are not all idiots here, and we know how things are.  However, when debating how things should be, it's a pretty weak argument to throw up your hands and say "the legislation says it should be this way, so that is obviously the way it should be."



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Cadets don't directly contribute to operational effectiveness, but they do contribute to the public perception of the Forces -- in countless towns the closest thing to a military presence is the local cadet unit and its officers.   While keeping the Forces in the minds of the public doesn't have an immediate effect on operational effectiveness, but I'm sure you can understand that, in the long term, it's very desirable that the public not forget that we exist.


Now you've hit on the one relevant roll that I've found for keeping the CIC as CF members.  It also a roll of the PRes.  That is to connect with Canadians.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I think you'd find that the military mindset (and you may argue that it's weak in the CIC but by no means is it absent) is a key part of the cadet programme.   If it were run by someone other than CF members it would be a very different programme.


It is also an essential mindset to ensure the CIC is able to represent the CF to cadets and to Canadians (as part of connecting with the population).  As I am arguing that this is the one roll that would make the CIC relevant as a CF element (as opposed to a civillian org), then the training deficiencies (lamented at the start of the thread) would be whatever is missing to ensure this mindset is not weak in the CIC.

It was previously argued that the CIC should be required to take the same training as "every other officer.â ?  This vague demand was made by individuals that I suspect of being ignorant as to what is involved in officer training and the differences that exist depending on ones environment and component.  However, in order to establish this "military mindsetâ ? I would suspect that the PRes BMQ could provide a minimum starting point.  "But why not the PRes officer trgâ ? you ask?  Because, we do not need to train CIC to lead Pl & Coy into battle.  We only need to get that "military mindsetâ ? into them.  So, we can use the same course the CF uses to get the "military mindsetâ ? into every new reserve Pte (regardless of environment)



			
				CrashBear said:
			
		

> MCG
> 
> I agree with you that often the CIC is all that most communites see.  Every Officer should be versed in the Duties Roles and Responsibilities of the CF and where they fit into the scheme of things.   However detailed training in all aspects of the military to the CIC Officer is not really required based on their "Primary Duties and Responsibilities"   ...
> 
> The OPME program is a valuable resource for the CIC Officer but really not essential to the primary duties of a CIC Officer. Other more valuable sources of education would be of a benefit, thus meeting the criteria of development of a Professional Officer to perform the duties to which they are assigned.


While OPME training may not be required for the CIC's "Primary Duties and Responsibilities" it should be seen as essential for the duty of representing the CF to Canadians & cadets (and without this roll, the CIC may as well be civilian).  Canadian Military History, Leadership & Ethics, and Introduction to Defence Mgmt are the ones I see as being relevant to the CIC's roll.


----------



## Steve031

Fair enough: soldiers, sailors and airmen.  The argument here is not about what is, it is about whether what currently exists is agreed upon as a good solution.  Obviously, there are some problems that people have brought up.  There's no need to get defensive, these criticisms have been generally constructive and rarely aimed at individuals.  

Interestingly, the British army cadet force is staffed by civilians and their system has far more military training than ours.

Padre: do you think your job would exist in the CF if it did not contribute to the ultimate capabilities of the military: that is fighting wars?  Your job is about helping soldiers with spirituality, morality etc.  The reason the military wants these soldiers to be helped is so that they can do their job as effectively as possible (either helping them directly, or knowing that help is there if they need it at some point).


----------



## xFusilier

I come from a bit of a different background then a lot of people who have posted one this subject, I am a 6A Res Infantry MCpl who works with a Cadet Corps (due to the fact that the nearest Res Unit is 1400 km away), for those of you who think that those who  decide to lead in the cadet movement as nothing more than glorified boy scout leaders I have one thing to say...give me trained soldiers to lead any day of the week.  *Anecedotal experience alert* there is as much of a challenge leading cadets as there is soldiers, the challenge simply comes in different forms.  As for the question "How do CIC officers contribute to the defence of Canada", well I hypothesize that more and more so the average Canadian's contact with the military is minimal, combine this with the fact that Cadets is the single largest youth leadership training program in Canada: Cadets is the single largest opportunity that the CF had to but it's best foot forward in a large number of communities in Canada.  Furthermore it is an oppourtunity for the CF to show the leaders of tommorow that the CF does make a difference.  We live in a democratic society and it is the opinion of these future leaders in terms of the political opinions that they aid in forming that will make or break the CF, far better that WE form the opinions of the leaders of tommorow, than the Young Dope-Smoking Hippie Pinko-League.

That being said, yes there are poor officers in the CIC, I have worked with a number of them, but to say that I worked in the BOR or the MIR of a cadet camp and blah, blah, blah, is basing an opinion on having sat back in the rear and not seen where the rubber meets the road i.e. the training that goes on at a Cadet Summer Training Centre.  The CF has to a large extent done the CIC a great diservice by failing to equip them with the tools they need to do their job (honestly if you are not a leader, a ten day commisioning course isn't going to teach you how to lead).

As for those who say that the CIC could be replaced by an NCO cadre, the reason that those NCO's (not NCM's) that work with Cadet Corps are as effective as they as is on the basis of the training that they have recieved as a young soldier.  The reason I can effectively lead in a cadet environment is based on my experiences in leading soldiers, thus leaving the question how are we to train NCM's to be effective leaders without the experience of leading soldiers.  To sit there and say that we already do that wiith the CiC is a dodge for those that don't like having to salute Cadet Cadre officers.  The fact of the matter is that members of the CF who choose (and I say choose, because I know a number of members of the CIC who are good officers period, they would be as sucessful in any other classification as the CIC...but choose or are forced to work as Cadet Instructors) assume a level of responsibility that does not exist when working with soldiers.  Every soldier assumes a certain amount of risk when he or she signs of the dotted line, the Cadet movement cannot take such risks with other people's kids.

I'm not trying to develop a screed here, but I've learned in the three years I've worked within the Cadet Movement that the age old adage of "walk a mile in my shoes" applies a hell of a lot in this case.


----------



## Neill McKay

MCG said:
			
		

> It was previously argued that the CIC should be required to take the same training as â Å“every other officer.â ?   This vague demand was made by individuals that I suspect of being ignorant as to what is involved in officer training and the differences that exist depending on ones environment and component.   However, in order to establish this â Å“military mindsetâ ? I would suspect that the PRes BMQ could provide a minimum starting point.   â Å“But why not the PRes officer trgâ ? you ask?   Because, we do not need to train CIC to lead Pl & Coy into battle.   We only need to get that â Å“military mindsetâ ? into them.   So, we can use the same course the CF uses to get the â Å“military mindsetâ ? into every new reserve Pte (regardless of environment)



I agree with the thrust of that argument -- a good "basic" course is necessary.  The current CIC Basic Officer Qualification unfortunately tries to do a little bit too much in the time it has, mixing the indoctrination-type topics with some of the trade skills, if you like.  I'd rather see those kept in two separte courses.



> While OPME training may not be required for the CIC's "Primary Duties and Responsibilities" it should be seen as essential for the duty of representing the CF to Canadians & cadets (and without this roll, the CIC may as well be civilian).   Canadian Military History, Leadership & Ethics, and Introduction to Defence Mgmt are the ones I see as being relevant to the CIC's roll.



Very much so.


----------



## McG

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I agree with the thrust of that argument -- a good "basic" course is necessary.   The current CIC Basic Officer Qualification unfortunately tries to do a little bit too much in the time it has, mixing the indoctrination-type topics with some of the trade skills, if you like.   I'd rather see those kept in two separte courses.


Why not.   The rest of the CF splits the indoctrination and the occupation training into separate courses.   You could have a CIC BMOQ and a BCIQ (basic cadet instructor qualification).



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue each individual case, because I'm not trying to say it's alright for NCMs not to salute an officer.   I'm just explaining why so many of us feel this way.
> 
> 
> 
> What's this us  stuff?? you got a mouse in yer pocket?   I never felt that way, I have been 031 over 15 years.   Sure there is that feeling that the cadets are our little brothers and sisters, but we are all of the same regimental family.   The CIC's in our regiment are respected as an officer holding a commission in OUR regimental family, and are offered the same High five.
Click to expand...

 I think this was addressed best by Mark C when he posted on saluting foreign officers: 





			
				Mark C said:
			
		

> Saluting foreign officers is an idicator of your OWN professionalism as a Canadian soldier, Full-Stop.
> 
> Now ask yourself if you should be saluting them.....
> 
> I cannot believe that this topic has gone back and forth for 7 pages!     What is it about simple international military courtesy that so many here don't get?!?!


Saluting the CIC (or one's lack of desire to do so) should not even be a discussion point.


The Padre discussion has a new home: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29182.0.html


----------



## CrashBear

MCG said:
			
		

> If the CDS came to you tomorrow and asked for you to draft a CF policy recommendation on where the CIC belonged, would you build your argument around what the government of 1902 wanted?   We are not all idiots here, and we know how things are.   However, when debating how things should be, it's a pretty weak argument to throw up your hands and say "the legislation says it should be this way, so that is obviously the way it should be."



As a matter of fact it would be included under historical data.

It has however been well identified that the CIC Officers training is lacking, thus my previous posts identified where I felt the thrust of CIC Training should be.   Additional military training is in fact required and is required however not to the extend that the PRes would mandate. The jobs are just not the same.

A standardized basic course should be implemented, however one has to look at the funding required to do same and as well the additional time commitment being asked of the CIC Officer. I believe the last study that was conducted showed that the average CIC Officer works an average of 149 days a year of combined payed and voluntary service in order to adequately perform their duties at the unit level. I have been lead to belbelieveat this time does not include the summer deployment time for those as a summer training centre.   The old terms of service consited of 20 days per year and after the study was boosted to 23 days per year for corp officers and 33 days for unit CO's.

I feel that after enrolment that the CIC Officer should have to participate in the same Basic training prgram that exists for other Reserve Officers and then should be tailored to youth oriented problems.   Any other training should be avaialable as an On Line type of training model with the Officer given a timeline to complete.

The slagging that this forum has produced does not help in identifying how the CIC Officer can become a better trained and effective Officer. Whether the CIC Officer is respected by members of the PRes is a non issue. The vast majority of the RegF personnel that I have had the pleasure to work with with in the CCM have conducted them selves as total professionals.   Some comments made within this form by some including Directing Staff have shown a complete lack of professionalism.   

It is good to have a discussion on how to improve or remove a program within any govt service being provided.


----------



## elscotto937

I have been reading for a while, I made a decision to stay out of that education left turn that the thread took a while back. But, something that has been mentioned sort of irked me, the CIC as soldiers. 
Now I will grant that the CIC are definately members of the CF and are officers properly commissioned by the Queen, they provide a necessary service to Canadian Youth,   but no where in my definition of soldier (I will leave the Navy and Airforce, to argue thier own sailor and Airman points) would a CIC be considered a soldier. Everyone in the CF aside from the CIC have a direct role in the domestic and international security of Canada. And no one should being up the dental and padres, because how do you keep a soldiers head in the game, if his jaw is rotting out and his wife left him for the mail man. They fill that direct support role, that being said that is not all that the do, Trinity enlightened us a few pages back, but a major function never the less.
One cannot say that inspiring the Canadian Youth to think fondly of the Canadian military, qualifies as direct support.

To those who that walked in the footsteps of soldiers and now choose to instruct youth, and to those who have decided to put on a uniform and accept the mantle of making better Canadian citizens through a military style organization, I say very well done, and a hearty thank you, you are doing the Canadian population a service and that should be commended.   Now to those CIC out there who are arguing that they are just like the PRes or Reg Force and feel the need to consistantly tell people that there commission is a real commission and they are soldiers, please get over yourselves, maybe you aren't in it for the kids(good question to ask yourselves) and just maybe you don't have what it takes to PRes or Reg Force and you have to go through life as a wannabee, and are using the CIC as a conduit for those crushed dreams of serving the the army.

Saluting issue, as MCG just posted is a Dead issue, however, I just wanted to add....to the Troops out there if you see a CIC officer comming, give him /her your best parade square salute(it speaks of your abilities, not his) and maybe you will be rewarded by the officer droping his papers/saluting with the wrong hand/etc... or best case that CIC was a former soldier who will respect you for you show of military form and ettiquette.


----------



## CrashBear

Just as a side note; I was visiting other forums and one especially involving my old Mil Trade and find that the same type of comments that are in this forum regarding training are being expressed in others.  That of Lack of trg being recieved by Reserve force personnel.  Maybe it's a common thread for reservists to recieve the minimum to meet requirements and if required to recieve the training needed to augment.


----------



## Neill McKay

Scott937 said:
			
		

> Everyone in the CF aside from the CIC have a direct role in the domestic and international security of Canada. And no one should being up the dental and padres, because how do you keep a soldiers head in the game, if his jaw is rotting out and his wife left him for the mail man.



What about PAffOs and musicians?  Soldiers or not?



			
				Scott937 said:
			
		

> Now to those CIC out there who are arguing that they are just like the PRes or Reg Force and feel the need to consistantly tell people that there commission is a real commission and they are soldiers, please get over yourselves, maybe you aren't in it for the kids(good question to ask yourselves) and just maybe you don't have what it takes to PRes or Reg Force and you have to go through life as a wannabee, and are using the CIC as a conduit for those crushed dreams of serving the the army.



Those kinds of comments, when they are made, are more apt to be reactionary -- no-one goes around saying "my commission is real" until several reg. force or p. res. types have said it isn't.  (In other words, and with a bit of levity, you started it!  )

I believe the wannabes are very small in number.  It just wouldn't be worthwhile to do it.  For someone not interested in being a CIC officer for the sake of actually doing that job, I think it would be a hellish way to spend your Wednesday evenings.

I don't see the CIC as being fundamentally different from certain other staff types in support roles.  Most CF members participate in, or directly support those who participate in, combat activities.  But a few MOCs such as the PAffOs and musicians I've mentionned above, and CIC officers, do not.  (In fact, SAR techs might be lumped into that category as service members whose main function, occasional combat SAR missions notwithstanding, is to serve the public in a way unrelated to the war-making capacity of the Forces.  Ditto for Snowbird pilots WSE.)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Re Snowbird pilots. Well considering close formation flying and aerobatic manuevers can help save a fighter pilots life in combat I don't think Snowbird pilots should be there.


----------



## Inch

McKay, while I'll agree with SAR techs not really being part of the war machine that is the CF, it's job we've been saddled with in the CF because no one else in the country can afford to perform SAR to the extent that we can. Combat SAR is non-existent in the CF, so your "occasional combat SAR missions notwithstanding" comment is RTFO'er unless you know something that we don't.

As for the Snowbirds, precision flying is the hallmark of great aviators. Only the best get chosen for the Snowbirds from across the CF, almost all of them have had operational flying tours on a variety of aircraft prior to going to the Snowbirds and while 431 AD Sqn may not be a front line unit, the experience those guys get is invaluable when they go back to operational Sqns.

I apologize for the hijack, but yes I do lump PAFFOs and Musicians into the war machine, can you quantify morale boosting and selling us to the taxpayer? It's all part of the machine, and I agree with others that CIC's play no real role in the machine.

For the record, PAFFO's and Musicians still do annual quals on the C7 (or they're supposed to) and they've all gone through basic training consisting of the same PO's as the crunchies, zoomies and fishheads.


----------



## McG

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> What about PAffOs and musicians?   Soldiers or not?


Managing information is an important part of war.  PAffOs contribute to this.  Connecting with Canadians (that one militarily relevant roll that I'd suggested CIC also cover) is the bread & butter of the PAffO.  PAffOs may not be the pointy end of things, but they do contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF.

Bandsmen . . . hmm.  To be honest, I'd be okay if we had to drop a few of them to put more money into other parts of our forces.


----------



## CrashBear

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Those kinds of comments, when they are made, are more apt to be reactionary -- no-one goes around saying "my commission is real" until several reg. force or p. res. types have said it isn't.   (In other words, and with a bit of levity, you started it!  )
> 
> I believe the wannabes are very small in number.   It just wouldn't be worthwhile to do it.   For someone not interested in being a CIC officer for the sake of actually doing that job, I think it would be a hellish way to spend your Wednesday evenings.



Well Neil while I concur with what you are saying, I really don't think these folk's types of comments really deserve any response as they obviously lack both experience and maturity.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Bandsmen . . . hmm.   To be honest, I'd be okay if we had to drop a few of them to put more money into other parts of our forces.



Obviously havn't worked very much in dealing with Govt service. Once they take the funds away it's lost. Also too easy to use the whitewash brush.


----------



## McG

CrashBear said:
			
		

> Obviously havn't worked very much in dealing with Govt service. Once they take the funds away it's lost. Also too easy to use the whitewash brush.


No.  That's fine.


----------



## goodform

2332Piper,
I agree that for combat operations the CIC are not a required component of the CF. But if you look at the mission statement of the DND and CF http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/mission_e.asp

The mission of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces is to defend Canada, its *interests and its values*, while contributing to international peace and security.

Under Canadian defence policy, the Canadian Forces are called upon to fill three major roles:

Protecting Canada 

Defending North America in co-operation with the United States of America 

Contributing to peace and international security

I don't want to sound angry, I'm not, but that shows the CIC has a role in the achieving the mission of the DND/CF on a day to day basis, and is therefor valuable.

edited for grammar


----------



## McG

LeGars said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound angry, I'm not, but that shows the CIC has a role in the achieving the mission of the DND/CF on a day to day basis, and is therefor valuable.


Would you mind expanding on this thought?


The Bandsman debate has moved:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29192.0.html


----------



## Neill McKay

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Actually, look up your history. There have been instances of bandsmen winning VC's (mostly in WW1) and they contributed directly to the moral of the troops and were in the thick of the fighting in every major battle.



No argument there.  However, we no longer send musicians onto the battlefield. Topic relocated here



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> These days, our job is to promote the CF in the eye of the public and contribute to parades (all military parades need music, thats how it has always been) and other official functions, and (in those units that actually let us train as such) to act as infantrymen as a secondary role. PAffo's, well, thats already been explained. SAR techs, we are the only org with the capabilities and resources to do this job. Snowbird pilots, promoting the CF to the public.
> 
> All these trades have their place in the machine, as was already said. Don't degrade other trades to try to justify yours,



Hang on, now.   I haven't said anything to degrade any trade.   My point is that CIC officers are among the trades whose role is more related to non-combat service to the Canadian public, as opposed to closing with the destroying the enemy or feeding and clothing those who do.   I don't for a minute mean to diminish the importance of the Public Affairs or Band branches, any more than I do the CIC branch.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> it has been clearly established that although the CIC provides a valuable service to the YOUTH of Canada (like Boy Scout leaders, hockey coaches and teachers do), they do not provide a valuable or necessary service to the CF,



I disagree -- it hasn't been established at all; that's the very crux of this discussion.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Yes, the CIC does a usefull job, keeping youth occupied and allowing them to turn themselves into something better. BUT, as members of the CF, they are the only trade that do not contribute at all to the day-to-day or operational jobs of the CF.



Once again I disagree.


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Re Snowbird pilots. Well considering close formation flying and aerobatic manuevers can help save a fighter pilots life in combat I don't think Snowbird pilots should be there.



Fair enough -- if the Snowbirds are intended to be a training outfit, then that's quite different from my impression that they were strictly intended as a demonstration squadron.


----------



## McG

2332Piper said:
			
		

> But for arguments sake, tell me, what does the CIC do that contributes to the overall combat effectiveness or operational success of any part of the CF?


Connect with Canadians.


----------



## goodform

The mission of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces is to defend Canada, its interests and its values, while contributing to international peace and security.

The mission of the Canadian Cadet Movement is to develop in youth the attributes of good citizenship and leadership, to promote physical fitness, and to stimulate an interest in the Canadian Forces.

I believe that Canada is very interested in its youth, and wants them to have certain values. The CIC contributes to the mission of the DND/CF by having a role of helping develop youth as its aim. Just like the infantry is to "close with and destroy the enemy" as its main mission, which contributes to the mission of the DND/CF, it is the job of the CIC continue the CCM, which also contributes to the mission of the DND/CF.


----------



## CrashBear

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Yes it has. But for arguments sake, tell me, what does the CIC do that contributes to the overall combat effectiveness or operational success of any part of the CF? Apart from the few CIC officers that have needed skills (which is the same reason we have the sup reserve) that would be called up in time of crisis, what does the CIC contribute to the CF on a day to day basis? Don't say 'encouraging kids to join', thats what the recruiting system is there for.



That proof has been provided to both you and others in previous posts linking to legitimate websites.  Lets reverse the question and ask you to provided proof other that your personal feelings that the CIC does not provided a legitimate role to the CF.


----------



## Neill McKay

2332Piper said:
			
		

> But for arguments sake, tell me, what does the CIC do that contributes to the overall combat effectiveness or operational success of any part of the CF? Apart from the few CIC officers that have needed skills (which is the same reason we have the sup reserve) that would be called up in time of crisis, what does the CIC contribute to the CF on a day to day basis? Don't say 'encouraging kids to join', thats what the recruiting system is there for.



Which do you think would produce larger numbers of recruits: the recruiting system acting alone, or the recruiting system supported by the CCM, with 4000 officers stimulating an interest in the activities of the CF among 50,000 cadets?   I think the CIC makes a significant contribution to recruiting.

The CIC also plays a role in keeping the Forces in the public eye, just as PAffOs do, although perhaps in a less direct way.   My earlier comparison to musicians has another dimension to it: in many (too many) areas, the closest thing to a military band that can be mustered for Remembrance Day or Canada Day parades is the local cadet band, many of which do yeoman service in providing some modicum of military presence where there would otherwise be none.

This public awareness function takes place at several levels: First, there are the cadets themselves learn something about the Forces and why we have them.   Even those who don't go on to join up will at least go through life with an appreciation for the Forces, and will be less likely to be among the civilians who are forever asking "why do we waste money on the Forces instead of spending it on health care?"

The next level is the families of the cadets, who may not take away as much as the cadets themselves, but will at least have had some level of exposure to the Forces when they mightn't have otherwise.

Finally, the rest of the population who see cadets in public, for example in the form of a band at the Remembrance Day parade as noted above.   Someone in a region far removed from the coasts is apt to have the navy entered into his consciousness when the hometown sea cadet unit takes to the streets, and that can only be good.

In performing these PR and recruiting support functions for price of a pittance of classroom training and 23 days pay a year, the CIC is the best bargain going!


----------



## COBRA-6

For those of you who continue to insist that the CIC contributes to the overall combat/operational effectiveness of the CF I pose the following question: what is the role of the CIC in an operational theatre??


----------



## CrashBear

None and has not been implied;

The indirect role of the CIC in the operational effectiveness of the CF is to perform the role mandated under legislation to the CF for the operation of a youth organization.  As stated in previous threads the CIC was formed to take care of that mandate there by not requiring the operational personnel in their limited form of having to perfom these duties with limited resources.


----------



## Neill McKay

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> For those of you who continue to insist that the CIC contributes to the overall combat/operational effectiveness of the CF I pose the following question: what is the role of the CIC in an operational theatre??



I'm not sure if you've read the thread so far, but your question is addressed above.   My brief version is: none, but it plays an indirect role in the overall welfare of the Forces just as certain other branches without direct combat or combat support roles do.


----------



## elscotto937

LeGars said:
			
		

> I believe that Canada is very interested in its youth, and wants them to have certain values. The CIC contributes to the mission of the DND/CF by having a role of helping develop youth as its aim. Just like the infantry is to "close with and destroy the enemy" as its main mission, which contributes to the mission of the DND/CF, it is the job of the CIC continue the CCM, which also contributes to the mission of the DND/CF.



Legars, I'm afraid your going to spell it out, because I'm not making the leap, between the CF's mission and the mission of the CCM as you have indicated. 

Ok, I know this has been beat to heck, but there are some new members responding to the thread, so I'll pose the question, what if the CIC were not given a commission,  but as members of the CF with a special status similar to the Rangers that allowed them to lead cadet units and instruct and run summer training establishments, but they have minimal status when it comes to dealing with other componets of the CF. Other than allowing the Cadets to believe they are real elements of the CF, having real commissioned officers as their leaders is not really required.  Second part of the question, if that was done would it eliminate some of  problems.


----------



## CrashBear

Scott937 said:
			
		

> Ok, I know this has been beat to heck, but there are some new members responding to the thread, so I'll pose the question, what if the CIC were not given a commission,   but as members of the CF with a special status similar to the Rangers that allowed them to lead cadet units and instruct and run summer training establishments, but they have minimal status when it comes to dealing with other componets of the CF. Other than allowing the Cadets to believe they are real elements of the CF, having real commissioned officers as their leaders is not really required.   Second part of the question, if that was done would it eliminate some of   problems.



I finally agree with you on this. Before this thread got hijacked, I posed a number of questions that none have answered.  If the CCM program was to fall to a ranger type of program would the appropriate training be provided and not how it's being provided now or would it be another bungle?

If the mandate is to remain the same would it still be as accountable for the safety of the youth as it is now, or would it be along the lines of other youth organizations?


----------



## Neill McKay

Scott937 said:
			
		

> Ok, I know this has been beat to heck, but there are some new members responding to the thread, so I'll pose the question, what if the CIC were not given a commission,   but as members of the CF with a special status similar to the Rangers that allowed them to lead cadet units and instruct and run summer training establishments, but they have minimal status when it comes to dealing with other componets of the CF. Other than allowing the Cadets to believe they are real elements of the CF, having real commissioned officers as their leaders is not really required.   Second part of the question, if that was done would it eliminate some of   problems.



What do you see as the problem with having commissioned officers working in the cadet programme?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Fair enough -- if the Snowbirds are intended to be a training outfit, then that's quite different from my impression that they were strictly intended as a demonstration squadron.



You do realize that every time a sailor, soldier and airman goes out whether sailing, flying or in the field its for more then just demostration purposes. Its to instill instinctual reaction for situations that a service person may find themselves in.


----------



## George Wallace

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> What do you see as the problem with having commissioned officers working in the cadet programme?



I think enough posts have been made in reference to this.   Most cases, have been due to examples of the poor calibre of some CIC officers and their poor attitudes, Dress and Deportment, GMK, etc.   These bad apples have left a lasting impression on many proud Serving Members.   As there seems to be no "Professional Development" of these officers, many are questioning the reasons to give them an 'equivalant' Commission to Regular Force and Reserve Force Officers.


----------



## McG

Scott937 said:
			
		

> what if the CIC were not given a commission,   but as members of the CF with a special status similar to the Rangers that allowed them to lead cadet units and instruct and run summer training establishments, but they have minimal status when it comes to dealing with other componets of the CF.


As long as CIC are members of the CF, they deserve the commission.   They do officer jobs (CO, Trg O, Log O), they must be accountable to the same extent as any other officer for the effectiveness of unit training, for the safety of members of the unit, for the spending of public & non-public funds, and for the leadership of their subordinates.

The Canadian Rangers do hold NCM ranks.   However, there are officers and senior NCOs of the regular force that provide the command structure over-top of the ranger patrols.   Do we want to reinvent the CIC so as to become a draw on the finite number of regular and PRes officers?


----------



## CrashBear

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Its not the fact that commissioned officers are working in the cadet program, its that these people are commissioned officers (but this subject has already been addressed, see the last couple of pages).
> 
> My welfare is not increased by having the CIC around. For the last time, the CIC does not contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF. It is NOT a mandatory responsibility of the CF to give youth something to do, it has been assigned to them, but could you imagine a youth group modeled on say, the Finance Department? The CF is responsible for defending Canada, not giving kids something fun to do on a weeknight and each summer. The CF does it, yes that is true, but to justify your job by saying that it is the responsibility of the CF to support youth groups, then you have a very lax argument.



Once again Piper while your opinions are valuable with your many years of experience howver I do not see anything again in your post to substanciate your views


----------



## Steve031

As far as bandsmen contributing in wartime, historically they have also been employed as stretcher bearers and medics (the band thread).   Here's the difference between CIC and the rest of the CF.   The PRES and Reg CF are soldiers who are trained and authorized to take deadly action against the enemy when appropriate.   The CIC are not trained to do so.   If you were a member of a foreign military and came to Canada and saw a system where a whole bunch of commissioned officers were members of the military and yet not actually qualified to fire the service rifle, what would you think?   Kind of odd.   Every member of the CF, except for the CIC, is trained to fire a weapon at people to some extent.   So, in a time of war, all these soldiers could conceivably fight wheras CIC officers could do nothing on the battlefield.

CIC has an important job, and generally they do it well.   But why do they have to be commissioned officers in the CF.   There isn't any real reason why they have to be, but some good reasons why they shouldn't be.


----------



## CrashBear

2332Piper said:
			
		

> After all of this, I really don't mind the CIC. For those that do their job and are not an embarressment to the CF (like so many are), I have the utmost respect for them and they do an important job for the youth of Canada (not for the CF). But what I have issue with is when the CIC are presented with our 'beefs' (lack of training for their commission, ideas of being a soldier too etc) and then try to justify their position as CF members. It cannot be done, you cannot realisticly justify your being in the CF as officers. But, what you can do is accept that CF members have reservations and carry on with your job anyways, like we do around CIC officers. Thats just how it is. Its less that we don't like the CIC, not that at all, its that many of us dislike the justifcations that are weakly tossed around to try to justify the CIC being what it is.



And once again piper we are all well aware of what is given in training to the CIC. These items are being addressed as we speak.   The justification is there whether you like it or not. What is important here is instead of reacting to old information what new and interesting do you have to add to the discussion at hand.   Can the Cadet program be better served in another model and how?


----------



## aesop081

CrashBear said:
			
		

> Once again Piper while your opinions are valuable with your many years of experience howver I do not see anything again in your post to substanciate your views



You are not excactly a seasoned veteran yourself !


----------



## CrashBear

Steve031 said:
			
		

> As far as bandsmen contributing in wartime, historically they have also been employed as stretcher bearers and medics (the band thread).   Here's the difference between CIC and the rest of the CF.   The PRES and Reg CF are soldiers who are trained and authorized to take deadly action against the enemy when appropriate.   The CIC are not trained to do so.   If you were a member of a foreign military and came to Canada and saw a system where a whole bunch of commissioned officers were members of the military and yet not actually qualified to fire the service rifle, what would you think?   Kind of odd.   Every member of the CF, except for the CIC, is trained to fire a weapon at people to some extent.   So, in a time of war, all these soldiers could conceivably fight wheras CIC officers could do nothing on the battlefield.



Nor should they be given the training that they have been given.  That is not the mandate that the CIC has been asked to perform.  The question is still the same as other posts. Instead of telling us why the CIC is no good what is the Alternative in a constructive way that would benefit the youth?


----------



## aesop081

regarding CIC training i have a quick question:

are they considered General service officers ?


----------



## Trinity

good question

specialist officers would include

doctors
dentists
padre's
(nurses)???


----------



## COBRA-6

2332Piper said:
			
		

> In the military, earning what you have is important. All other officers have to earn their commission the hard way, the CIC (sorry about this, but its true) do not. Thats what the issue is. Would you accept being a military-trained civvie with a 'special' commission, giving you standing within the CCM but not in the CF? Cadets still gets help/funding etc from DND, but the CIC are trained/used/commissioned as per their job, with no misconceptions.



Or, as an opposite alternative, have CIC Officers take normal PRes officer training like everyone else (land/air/sea), then their cadet-specific (trade) training. This would eliminate the "not a real officer" argument, increase their usefullness to the CIC in times of crisis, and go a long way to improve the calibre and professionalism in the CIC ranks. Those members who have already served in the PRes or Reg Force will already have completed this training, and would only have to do the cadet-specific part. If this was done then CIC officers should be paid the same as PRes officers, which would be a lot more as I understand. Those who take fitness and military duty seriously would have what it takes to complete the training, those with prior service would be largely unaffected, and those who don't could still be involved with cadets in a civilian instructor capacity....

Problems I foresee: 

Time of training (4weeks BMOQ + 10weeks CAP + cadet-specific crses)
Cost (longer training time + new class A pay rates)
Impact on training system (so many CIC officers to train)

Thoughts?


----------



## McG

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Or, as an opposite alternative, have CIC Officers take normal PRes officer training like everyone else (land/air/sea), then their cadet-specific (trade) training.


Why have you recommended a 10 week CAP(R) for the CIC?  It is an army course (not for the air and sea types). 

However, any argument for training should be based on need.  The Navy PRes don't need CAP(R), so they don't take it. The CIC don't need CAP (R) either.  They do need BMOQ (or even just a BMQ) to get them to think like a member of the forces.


----------



## CrashBear

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Or, as an opposite alternative, have CIC Officers take normal PRes officer training like everyone else (land/air/sea), then their cadet-specific (trade) training. This would eliminate the "not a real officer" argument, increase their usefullness to the CIC in times of crisis, and go a long way to improve the calibre and professionalism in the CIC ranks. Those members who have already served in the PRes or Reg Force will already have completed this training, and would only have to do the cadet-specific part. If this was done then CIC officers should be paid the same as PRes officers, which would be a lot more as I understand. Those who take fitness and military duty seriously would have what it takes to complete the training, those with prior service would be largely unaffected, and those who don't could still be involved with cadets in a civilian instructor capacity....
> 
> Problems I foresee:
> 
> Time of training (4weeks BMOQ + 10weeks CAP + cadet-specific crses)
> Cost (longer training time + new class A pay rates)
> Impact on training system (so many CIC officers to train)
> 
> Thoughts?



As both Ex PRes and RegF the idea of taking the training again makes me shudder given my age.   I don't really think that the CIC Officers in the same position that I'm in would relish redoing it again either. There is though a matter of being current. The last military weapons I had any training in were the FNC1,FNC2, SMG,Browning Auto 9mm and riot shotgun.   

Would it help me to perform my duties as a CIC Officer?   No unless I was assigned into a summer training billet where I was responsible for training cdts on the weapon.   For training at the LHQ level I a unit goes for C& trg we have the PRes give the trg to the cadets and they have to modify their language and terms of use and if firing have to use non siloette targets.

As to CIC Off who have not taken any basic training, what is given now is just not cutting it.   It would be a good option to have them complete it. but as both you and I have pointed out the time involved etc.etc.

As to the terminology of being a real Officer I'm not hung up on that as I know I am one. I can fully understand how some feel about CIC Officers project themselves and how other would be upset. I'm not total sure that giving them PRes trg before being commissioned would change attitudes as these have been in place long before even I enrolled in the 60's. The PRes to me seems to have a long standing image problem but that is for another discussion.

Basically I agree that the CIC Officer who enrols without previous trg requires it.


----------



## COBRA-6

MCG said:
			
		

> Why have you recommended a 10 week CAP(R) for the CIC?   It is an army course (not for the air and sea types).
> 
> However, any argument for training should be based on need.   The Navy PRes don't need CAP(R), so they don't take it. The CIC don't need CAP (R) either.   They do need BMOQ (or even just a BMQ) to get them to think like a member of the forces.



Because I don't know the environment-specific course names for the air and navy officers... Common Army, Air or Navy Phase then, depending on which environment the officer plans to serve in. Of course I wouldn't expect a Air Cadet Officer to take infantry training... oh and CAP(R) is dead, all reserve officers now take RegF CAP, on the bus off the bus, yay!!

And as for need, do Public Affairs Officers really "need" dismounted infantry training? I think someone with no military training who wants to wear the uniform and hold a commission would greatly benefit from spending a summer at Fire and Movement U...


----------



## CrashBear

MCG said:
			
		

> Why would you impose a 10 week army course on the CIC when it includes air & navy officers?



I'm totally not sure anymore about elemental basic qualification crses. Maybe the Air and Sea Off if there are any on this forum can enlighten us.

I do know that Naval CIC Officers do take Tender Command Courses and Air CIC Officers who are actively involved in the flying program have to hold appropriate licence qualifications.


----------



## COBRA-6

CrashBear said:
			
		

> As both Ex PRes and RegF the idea of taking the training again makes me shudder given my age.    I don't really think that the CIC Officers in the same position that I'm in would relish redoing it again either.
> 
> Basically I agree that the CIC Officer who enrols without previous trg requires it.



Note I proposed that those who had previous PRes and RegF training would be waived, as they would have already done it, and would only do the cadet or "trade specific" crses.


----------



## McG

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Because I don't know the environment-specific course names for the air and navy officers... Common Army, Air or Navy Phase then, depending on which environment the officer plans to serve in.


I think you will find that the navy and air enviroments do not have a common phase.  They go straight into thier MOC.  I think rather than impose this 10 week PRes Army course on the CIC, they would be better served by going from BMOQ to a BCIQ (basic cadet instructor qualification, for lack of a better name).


----------



## CrashBear

MCG said:
			
		

> I think you will find that the navy and air enviroments do not have a common phase.   They go straight into thier MOC.   I think rather than impose this 10 week PRes Army course on the CIC, they would be better served by going from BMOQ to a BCIQ (basic cadet instructor qualification, for lack of a better name).



Maybe something good to be said about the Tri-service model of Basic Trg. where everyone had to complete the basic module of training before proceeding for MOC trg.


----------



## McG

CrashBear said:
			
		

> Maybe something good to be said about the Tri-service model of Basic Trg. where everyone had to complete the basic module of training before proceeding for MOC trg.


Every enviroment except the army seems to be happy with the tri-service BMOQ and BMQ.   The army has introduced CAP and SQ as common land officer and NCM training respectively.  Mind you, the army does need this extra layer of common training.


----------



## McG

Big Foot said:
			
		

> If nothing else, CIC officers should have to do IAP/BOTP. They're becoming commisioned officers like the rest of us, they should have to do the same basic course we do.


The logic does not work.  The PRes does not take the same basic officer training as the regular force.  Is one component more deserving of its commission than the other?


----------



## CrashBear

Big Foot said:
			
		

> And CrashBear, theres no such thing as PRes or Reg BMOQ, its IAP/BOTP



Sorry I stand corrected :-X

The end result is the same.


----------



## COBRA-6

Just to clarify, PRes Army (Navy, Air?) Officers take BMOQ, which is BMQ with an extra week of leadership small-party tasking type stuff tacked on. It can be run as a 5 week course, or a one week suppliment to the BMQ, in fact I had two officers in with the 58 pte's on the BMQ I ran last summer. IMHO, officer and NCM trg should not be mixed...


----------



## Trinity

Money is a factor...

They can't afford to send people away on a 10 or 12 week officer course.....

Time - they're people probably cannot afford to train for a whole summer as they are short
officers now and need them for the current year.

PT is another factor... 
(i have no idea what the requirements are so I'll just leave it there and someone in the CIC world can inform
me on what the PT standards are... please and thank you)

Hey.. different trade, different standards, different training.  It just the way it is.  Why train any trade
to a higher standard or more extensive than they need (if it won't get used).  Its not cost efficient and
most likely the skills will be lost from lack of using because they won't have the chances to apply the extra
knowledge on a regular basis.

I like the system....    :  It just needs tweaking

(be nice.. please.. I just finished two essays and I swear I have no idea what i'm writing about)

 :


----------



## CrashBear

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, PRes Army (Navy, Air?) Officers take BMOQ, which is BMQ with an extra week of leadership small-party tasking type stuff tacked on. It can be run as a 5 week course, or a one week suppliment to the BMQ, in fact I had two officers in with the 58 pte's on the BMQ I ran last summer. IMHO, officer and NCM trg should not be mixed...



The present CIC Trg covers basically the same thing but in two courses with leadership in both and SPT in MOC. The problem is it's very basic and just skims the surface.  In my opionion while it's not prefered to have officers in the same classes as others it can really help an officer to understand what the feet of the organization is doing. Other wise not a good practice.  Once again I boils down to time allotted for the required trg and the taskings that each has at the end.  Is it enough ?????


----------



## COBRA-6

CrashBear said:
			
		

> The present CIC Trg covers basically the same thing but in two courses with leadership in both and SPT in MOC. The problem is it's very basic and just skims the surface.   In my opionion while it's not prefered to have officers in the same classes as others it can really help an officer to understand what the feet of the organization is doing. Other wise not a good practice.   Once again I boils down to time allotted for the required trg and the taskings that each has at the end.   Is it enough ?????



That's the battle isn't it, the PRes had the same issue with the old MITCP vs RESO training, where one group would train to RegF standards, and the other... no so much... and this produced much of the same animosity towards MITCP trained officers some display towards CIC officers... quality of the officer vs time available training... I know for me it took 23 weeks of training over 2 summers to become MOC qualified... they recently switched from phase 2 (old CAP) to CAP(R), a switch from 11 weeks to 5 weeks of training... this lasted 3 years, and now they've gone back to RegF CAP (10 weeks) for PRes officers as well... why? I don't know, but quality of training delivered is number 1 on my list of suspects... quality vs quantity...


----------



## CrashBear

I concur.  

The other issue may as well be not fully understanding the roles and responsibilites and the need for type of training to do the primary duties.  

Is it really cost effective to training a CIC Off to the same level as one in a purely operational role.  Is it likely that the additional trg given to the CIC Off will ever be put to any practical use. 

Therefore one of my arguments for more trg in the needs of the primary duties.

Does an operational officer required training in how to deal with a problem child?  Not if their primary duty doesn't call for it.  We have RegF Officers working in the program and they have to obtain the reg'd training that CIC Off gets.

Basically it's optics


----------



## Inch

CrashBear said:
			
		

> I concur.
> 
> The other issue may as well be not fully understanding the roles and responsibilites and the need for type of training to do the primary duties.
> 
> Is it really cost effective to training a CIC Off to the same level as one in a purely operational role.   Is it likely that the additional trg given to the CIC Off will ever be put to any practical use.
> 
> Therefore one of my arguments for more trg in the needs of the primary duties.



What do you guys keep going back to "primary duties"? You're an officer remember? Welcome to the land of secondary duties. I'm a pilot, my day to day job does not consist of using the C7 yet I maintain yearly quals on it because I'm a member of the CF and that's what we do (with the exception of padres since they're non-combatants but that's a special case). No one is saying you should be MOC qualified infantry officers, personally, I'd like to see CIC's and reservists do the same BOTC (IAP/BOTP whatever they call it now) that I did. On my BOTC there was a doctor, 2 dentists and a JAG and a whole assortment of other trades. Why? Because we're all CF officers and we have a common baseline that way.

For the record, I'm not sure where you guys are getting this 10 week nonsense, RegF basic officer training was 14 weeks when I did it and I believe the new system is also 14 weeks. It can be broken down into two summers too, mine was, 8 weeks followed by 6 weeks.



> Does an operational officer required training in how to deal with a problem child?   Not if their primary duty doesn't call for it.   We have RegF Officers working in the program and they have to obtain the reg'd training that CIC Off gets.
> 
> Basically it's optics



That's MOC training, that has nothing to do with being a general service officer (universality of service, which you guys don't seem to have to fit into like the rest of us), but if a RegF officer has to deal with problem children as a secondary duty, rest assured, they'll have the proper training.


----------



## McG

The 10 week reference was to Common Army Phase (which takes place after BMOQ for reservists or after IAP/BOTP for regular force), and the course lengths given were all for the PRes courses.  The only airforce types that do CAP are regular force who are in occupations that are managed by land forces (I've seen MPs and logistics officers in blue berets doing the course).  However, CAP goes beyond the needs of the CIC.


----------



## Neill McKay

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Or, as an opposite alternative, have CIC Officers take normal PRes officer training like everyone else (land/air/sea), then their cadet-specific (trade) training. This would eliminate the "not a real officer" argument, increase their usefullness to the CIC in times of crisis, and go a long way to improve the calibre and professionalism in the CIC ranks. Those members who have already served in the PRes or Reg Force will already have completed this training, and would only have to do the cadet-specific part. If this was done then CIC officers should be paid the same as PRes officers, which would be a lot more as I understand. Those who take fitness and military duty seriously would have what it takes to complete the training, those with prior service would be largely unaffected, and those who don't could still be involved with cadets in a civilian instructor capacity....
> 
> Problems I foresee:
> 
> Time of training (4weeks BMOQ + 10weeks CAP + cadet-specific crses)
> Cost (longer training time + new class A pay rates)
> Impact on training system (so many CIC officers to train)
> 
> Thoughts?



Outstanding idea, but you're correct about the problems.  Right now CIC officers come pretty cheap both in what we're paid when doing our normal jobs, and in the relative brevity and classroom nature of our courses.  I'd love for someone to send me on more and longer courses, but there are only "n" dollars in the defence budget and I imagine we all agree that the pointy end should be getting most of it.


----------



## Neill McKay

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Its not whether or not the cadet program can be better served, its if the CF can be better served by a new system.



So far, the only problem for the Forces seems to be a group, majority or minority I don't know, who have some sense that commissioned CIC officers somehow take away from their own achievements as service members.  I don't think hurt feelings are a good reason for major organisational changes.  What do you want to spend the defence budget on: bombs and bullets, or a mob of bureaucrats to design new uniforms and write new commissions, terms of service, and reams of other required paper to implement this new outfit?


----------



## Neill McKay

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Because I don't know the environment-specific course names for the air and navy officers... Common Army, Air or Navy Phase then, depending on which environment the officer plans to serve in. Of course I wouldn't expect a Air Cadet Officer to take infantry training... oh and CAP(R) is dead, all reserve officers now take RegF CAP, on the bus off the bus, yay!!



No idea about the air force one, but the naval courses are called Naval Environment Training Programme and Naval Environment Training Programme - Officers.   (The latter includes training on naval history, sword drill, and the attack team leader segment of the shipboard firefighting training, all of which I believe are absent from the NCM course.   I don't know what other differences there are, if any.)

It would be a wonderful course for CIC (Sea) officers to take.


----------



## elscotto937

I think it would be to everyone's advantage if, some knowledgable person placed a mini-CTP for the CIC BOQ(what ever the minimum commisioning Crse is) Detailing PO and periods. Because I'm interested to see how much time is spent on training a CIC to deal with children. Because, if we only have the resources to train the CIC for example 10 days, are we giving up time that should be spent on training to work with youth to trying to make CIC officer candidates into military officers. If we are restricted in such a fashion, and required to insert mil training at the cost of youth worker training, does that not dictate the arguement for removing the commissions and inserting them with a special status. As the arguement that the CIC hold positions of responsibility within their units/schools therefore require them to be accountable, doesn't really hold water because civilians employed by DND have the ability to control public funds and can organize training and administer a unit. The CIC do not exercise command of the Cadets or thier units, as they are not accountable for the operational readiness of that unit. They could look similar to CF members, they could wear ranks that are recognizable within the CCM, but when the report to the base for training or are involved with the rest of the CF they become CIC Smith, status lvl of CPL. 

Next the other option that I have mentioned before is that of the continuous training. Most can agree that initial training is insufficiant for the CIC. But the CIC have numerous other Crses beyond BOQ... Why not make them all a requirement for Commissioning, because surely that would be enough time to provide them a modicum of military knowledge. As officer cadets the could still supervise cadets and act in positions of responsibilty  within thier organization, however until they are properly trained, cannot exercise command of soldiers.


----------



## McG

Scott937 said:
			
		

> As the arguement that the CIC hold positions of responsibility within their units/schools therefore require them to be accountable, doesn't really hold water because civilians employed by DND have the ability to control public funds and can organize training and administer a unit.


Right.  So the CIC should be either civilians or commissioned members of the CF.



			
				Scott937 said:
			
		

> The CIC do not exercise command of the Cadets or thier units, as they are not accountable for the operational readiness of that unit.


There is no operational readiness that must be maintained in a cadet unit, but the CIC do exercise command over their units and they are responsible for the effective training of the cadets.


----------



## elscotto937

MCG said:
			
		

> There is no operational readiness that must be maintained in a cadet unit, but the CIC do exercise command over their units and they are responsible for the effective training of the cadets.



Are they? I'm really asking. Because in my experience with the Cadet organization, I have never seen a CO repremanded or fired for the poor to none existant training and effectiveness of their cadets. If by responsible you mean that they are required to put together a training plan on paper then I'll buy that.


----------



## Neill McKay

Scott937 said:
			
		

> Are they? I'm really asking. Because in my experience with the Cadet organization, I have never seen a CO repremanded or fired for the poor to none existant training and effectiveness of their cadets. If by responsible you mean that they are required to put together a training plan on paper then I'll buy that.



I've yet to see one fired, but I've seen a couple reprimanded for deficiencies in their units.


----------



## Bean

I've seen a couple of CO's turfed over the last 10 years for negligence, inappropriate conduct, and issued related to NPF.   There are few evaluations of the effectiveness of the training delivered to the cadets, provided you are training to the prescribed curriculum.   So it would be rare to see a CO turfed on that account since all of the other CIC officers supporting the CO are generally responsible for the conduct and quality of training.   If they all conspire to deliver a different programme or blatently dis-regard the current programme, I'm sure there would be a massive re-org of the unit, if not the revocation of the unit charter and recognition as a unit of the CCM.   I am aware of only 3 units that this has happened to, and none after 1982 (so my information is historical only and is likely incomplete).   The individual cases of CIC officers being turfed however, I do have some first hand knowledge there as I've had to be on the end delivering bad news in the past.   

The CO is generally also responsible for ensuring the professional development of the officers and staff working within their unit, and making the recommendations for promotion or further advancement and training.   Their role is often as manager and supervisor of their staff, but after several years working with the same team, this often takes a very informal role to complete as most CIC officers will complete the full training program available to them before leaving the system.   It is in this area where we can use some additional support and may provide a point of integration with affiliated units and like.   For example, the affiliated unit provides technical advisors to the cadet corps, perhaps one of the corps officers shuold also function as a regular liaison position within the regiment to the CCM (perhaps supervision of tech advisors, coordination of temporary loan of equipment as required, etc.) which are elements that often fall to the CO to arrange.   Just different thoughts on how we can better integrate and cross educate the officer cadre without incurring additional cost while building additional professionalism.

Coming orginally from the PRes, I have the advantage over some, but not all, of the CIC officers I work with as I've had opportunities for training they will never get.   I like the idea of putting CIC though BMQ but there also may be other ways to deliver this cost effectively that need to be explored, and perhaps expanded in its application.   Not that I'm the one to do that however.

A large portion of the CIC I work with would welcome the opportunity to partake in the PRes training, and in factare itching for the day when we are required to meet the same standards, but many rules must chage to bring us into line (i.e. retirement age should align so we don't become a last refuge for some, enrollment standards and MOC structure need to be updated, etc.).   Some of this is underway and we hope for a more positive result.

At the end of the day, we are not the PRes and we know it.   For those younger officers who are adament about portraying a different image of the CIC, they need some time in and to be mentored into their role just as any other officer would, and in time they will learn or leave.   We must also recognize the difference between corps/sqn officers and those on special slates such as sailing centers and summer training centers, who may have a different view since many believe they are only officer's during the summer since they don't wear the uniform the rest of the year.   I'm sure that some of these are a problem category that needs to be addressed.

As a CIC officer now all I ask is assess me for how I perform my duties, and correct me if you think I'm wrong.   I've been around long enough to know I don't know it all, but neither does anyone else and we're all just trying to get our prescribed jobs done in various service to this country.


----------



## elscotto937

Good post Bean, you don't much hear about the ones they kick out (unless they make the news)


----------



## Bean

Scott937;

Referencing your questions about CIC Basic Officer Qualification, I'll try and sum up the process and course outline quickly and in an appropriate format for this type of board.  Please recognize that while supervision of cadets is the overall mandate of the CIC, BOQ focuses on providing core skills and the ability to provide our system with Instructors for cadets.  More time on dealing with social issues, Harassment and Human rights, and dealing with and counselling youth happens at later phases of the training.

Once enrolled in the CIC an Officer Cadet applies for a convenient BOQ (either a 10 day straight course or a series of weekend training sessions).  Prior to arrival, each candidate must complete the self study Programmed Instructional Package for the course.  This consists of four (4) topics which the candidate will be tested on and expected to pass the first weekend of the course.  These include Apply General Service Knowledge (PO 411), Write Administrative Correspondence (PO 406), Comply with Supply Procedures (PO 410), and Utilize Administrative Procedures (PO 413).  The intent of the package is to provide the candidate with the specific information required to fill a subordinate position within the unit in administration or supply, as these are supporting activities and form the basis of good management of the cadet unit.  PO 411 covers Rank structure, paying of compliments, conduct and attendance at ceremonial parades, the Officers mess organization, customs and etiquette, as well as social conduct or how to act in the public eye.  The remaining elements focus on specific orders regulations and practices to complete the forms and daily activities of unit support staff.  O/Cdts are often employed in these roles first when they join the CIC as they may or may not have the experience to actually instruct within the curriculum, and technically O/Cdts are not to supervise cadets on their own (although you don't always have that option).  So having these pers work in admin or supply initially reduces the regular need to supervise while still untrained.

Additionally the Supply Officer and Admin Officer courses are open to O/Cdts to get further details and exposure prior to moving into the training section of a unit (remember this is perfect world).

On the course the curriculum looked like this when I took it many years ago (according to my tattered course outline).  Generally speaking there were 5 instructional periods per day plus time allotted for at least 2 exams per day on previously learned material.  Not sure if this is still a match, but it should be close:

-Duties and Responsibilities of an Officer â â€œ 4 Periods
-Safety â â€œ 6 periods
-Leadership â â€œ 10 periods plus 1 day Practical Field Exercise
-Physical Fitness Training â â€œ 1 Period per day plus 3 periods on conduct of effective PT 
-Instructional Technique â â€œ 10 Periods 
-Drill â â€œ 10 Periods
-CF Environmental Policies â â€œ 3 Periods
-CF Harassment and Racism Prevention Policies â â€œ 4 Periods

It is expected that once completing BOQ the candidate will do at least 1 year of additional service as an O/Cdt before recommendation for promotion so they have time to learn from more senior officers and build their skills.  There are waivers in place for those who are ex-cadets or joining from other elements of the CF, but if the CO is doing their job, an average off the street candidate for the CIC should be at least 2 years before promotion to 2/Lt.  Often this is not the case as there has been liberal application of the waivers, to meet the expanding need for qualified or experienced instructors that cannot always be met following the full process much many of our chagrin.  The focus on training of a CIC officer as has been mentioned by others is really on the job training, supplemented by bursts of formal training.  

The last unit I had command of, every CIC officer was encouraged to continue their military or professional education, and all but one were either working on second degrees through RMC, or taking the OPME courses.  Also I only enrolled two officers during my tenure, one former reg force MWO who was commisioned easily, and one off the street university student that we waited 24 months to promote because he just wasn't getting the job done at first.  Not necessarily the norm, but it is the CO of the cadet unit who is responsible for ensuring their staff of CIC officers seek out these opportunities and help them achieve them.  It is also their responsibility to correct those who seem to pretend to be something they are not.


----------



## Inch

Pissed off Taxpayer, obviously you lost the point of what I and others were trying to make, but that's easily done looking in from the outside of the military culture when you know nothing about it as you said. I never once said that the CIC's were doing a bad job nor did any of the posts that I read, I simply said I'd like to see more military relevant training if they're to hold the same commission that the rest of us do. CIC's don't have to write the aptitude test, there's no physical fitness standards to be met, there are a few medical standards to be met but not anywhere near what their reserve and regular force counter parts must meet, and finally, there is a decided lack of training which I think we've all agreed on and for the most part we would all (CIC's included) like to see more thorough training but the almighty dollar wins that round.

Universality of service is the crux of the matter IMO, you should be able to take an infantry officer, a pilot or a MARS officer and put him into a different job with proper training and the only limiting factor should be aptitude for the selected job (ie flying aircraft isn't for everyone). Medical and physical fitness should be the same for all CF members with a few higher standards for pilots, aircrew and astronauts for obvious reasons, CIC's and Rangers are the only ones exempt from that. Rangers however aren't commissioned, CIC's are.

Bean, great posts by the way.


----------



## Steve031

Couldn't agree more Inch, universality of service is definitely the point here.  I agree that the standards should be the same for all members, with exceptions for the combat arms (not just aircrew ;D).


----------



## Inch

Steve031 said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more Inch, universality of service is definitely the point here.   I agree that the standards should be the same for all members, with exceptions for the combat arms (not just aircrew ;D).



Sorry, that was a little vague, I meant higher medical for us (ie my med category is 111221) and higher physical fitness standards for the pointy end since that's relevant to you guys.


----------



## CrashBear

Steve031 said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more Inch, universality of service is definitely the point here.   I agree that the standards should be the same for all members, with exceptions for the combat arms (not just aircrew ;D).



The universality of service could very well be the point, but at what point do you slice the training. Does this imply that the CIC Off should have training which they would have no use for, be required to use or maintain. If the same entry type of training is the order of the day, would it not be more effective to provided the required essential training when and if required.


----------



## my72jeep

Steve031 said:
			
		

> As far as bandsmen contributing in wartime, historically they have also been employed as stretcher bearers and medics (the band thread).   Here's the difference between CIC and the rest of the CF.   The PRES and Reg CF are soldiers who are trained and authorized to take deadly action against the enemy when appropriate.   The CIC are not trained to do so.   If you were a member of a foreign military and came to Canada and saw a system where a whole bunch of commissioned officers were members of the military and yet not actually qualified to fire the service rifle, what would you think?   Kind of odd.   Every member of the CF, except for the CIC, is trained to fire a weapon at people to some extent.   So, in a time of war, all these soldiers could conceivably fight wheras CIC officers could do nothing on the battlefield.
> 
> CIC has an important job, and generally they do it well.   But why do they have to be commissioned officers in the CF.   There isn't any real reason why they have to be, but some good reasons why they shouldn't be.



Here is a good reason, The CF lets the CCM use a lot of thier toys, Equipment, and resources. one way to keep tabs and accountability is to make CIC's part of the CF.


----------



## CrashBear

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Here is a good reason, The CF lets the CCM use a lot of thier toys, Equipment, and resources. one way to keep tabs and accountability is to make CIC's part of the CF.



Old argument CIC is a part of the CF.  While I agree that the CIC should recieve the same BMQ as the rest does it really make sence to teach a CIC Officer in all aspects including those that you quote?  The locations of most Cadet Corps far from the locations where the CIC Officer can maintain the proficency to be current.  Just have to look at what is in place now. Once finished the CApt Qual. no further training except fro specilaty training.


----------



## Inch

CrashBear said:
			
		

> The universality of service could very well be the point, but at what point do you slice the training. Does this imply that the CIC Off should have training which they would have no use for, be required to use or maintain. If the same entry type of training is the order of the day, would it not be more effective to provided the required essential training when and if required.



I don't think you realize what's taught on BOTC, you don't learn section attacks or C6/C9, you don't throw grenades, you don't do much in the way of actual pointy end tactics. The biggest thing you learn is task procedure (or battle procedure depending on who taught you), as well as all the basics like drill (a lot of drill followed by a drill test both with and without arms and swords), PT is quite regular, plus all the leadership classes as well as stuff officers should know like QR&O's and Geneva convention.

BOTC is the first step for all Reg force officers regardless of trade (except Padres), it turns a civilian into a CF officer, it has nothing to do with MOC training and therefore I don't believe would be a waste for CIC officers to go do. So you slice it after BOTC. I know an ex-CIC Capt that went reg force, he had to do BOTC with the rest of the nuggets, so what's that tell you about CIC training?

You do have a point though, even if CIC's didn't do BOTC, it would only take them 14 weeks to get trained properly to that level, universality of service has less to do with BOTC (or any training for that matter) and more to do with Medical and Physical fitness. If you're not medically or physically fit then all the training in the world won't make you fit for universality of service, so what good are you? Guys have been released for knee injuries which made them undeployable and therefore no good to the CF. If a CIC doesn't meet the basic medical and physical standards that the rest of the CF must meet, then you're automatically behind the 8 ball when it comes to universality of service since you're no good to the CF in any capacity other than as a CIC officer.

I can live with the lack of training, though as I said before, IMO all officers should at least do BOTC. Training is very minor if you're medically and physically unfit for employment in the CF, hence universality of service.


----------



## CrashBear

Agree with your points Inch however was refering to the quote from the previous post regarding training and qualified to take deadly action.

There are however exceptions to all rules regarding disablities. Not sure about the CF but a case in point for personnel enrolled   with disabilities in the US Forces. Example General Fred Franks JR(Ret) who after having his leg removed from injuries sustained in action as a LT, went on to Command US Armour forces in Desert Storm.


----------



## Steve031

Yes the CF gives the CIC permission to use alot of their toys.  However, this is always under the supervision of qualified CF members.  Besides which, that isn't an argument as to why a CIC commission should be the same as every other commission.

I think the idea that CIC officers should be BMOQ trained makes alot of sense.  At that point, they will be as qualified as the least qualified commissioned officer in the CF.


----------



## Burrows

From PViddy:

Quote
IMO all officers should at least do BOTC

I would jump at the chance to do BOTC.  I wish Canada could adopy similiar legislation as in the US, that requires employers to give Reservists time off work for mandatory training.


----------



## my72jeep

Steve031 said:
			
		

> Yes the CF gives the CIC permission to use alot of their toys.   However, this is always under the supervision of qualified CF members.   Besides which, that isn't an argument as to why a CIC commission should be the same as every other commission.
> 
> I think the idea that CIC officers should be BMOQ trained makes alot of sense.   At that point, they will be as qualified as the least qualified commissioned officer in the CF.



Steve 031 The only time I have ever had an "Qualified" CF member supervise me is once on the C7 range with my Affiliated unit and I was better Qualified then the Cpl. I have $30.000-$50.000 of the Queens kit on my charge and not a "Qualified" CF member to be seen. Part of having the commission is that we can be held responsable for the kit without having a baby sitter.
I know the CF does not like to give a Civi uncontrolled axis to its toys, hard to send a civi to Edmonton. So maby some General decided to enroll us into the CF and give us a Commission. anyway I think 80% of CIC Officers agree with you about being BMOQ trained, I do, it would probably be easier then Cornwallis in the early 80's.


----------



## aesop081

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I know the CF does not like to give a Civi uncontrolled *axis*  to its toys,



Access !!

And as for you reference to the value of the kit under your charge, i don't buy it.   I have had nearly half a million dollars worth of Boats and trucks under my charge along with 30 soldiers, the conduct of an operation and everyone's safety without a commissioned "babysitter" and i was only a Mcpl so i do not buy your argument there.  If anything had gone wrong, beleive me, it would have been my ass in the sling an no one else. You dont have to hold a commission to be held accountable.


----------



## my72jeep

Yes when I was a Reg Cpl. 20 years ago same thing, But someone said that I could not be part of a cadet unit as a Cpl. that I had to Join the CIC and take a Commission it was how the CCM was set up.
Simple question if you pocket the 1/2 million who goes to jail you or the guy above you who should have kept an eye on you or both?


----------



## aesop081

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Yes when I was a Reg Cpl. 20 years ago same thing, But someone said that I could not be part of a cadet unit as a Cpl. that I had to Join the CIC and take a Commission it was how the CCM was set up.
> Simple question if you pocket the 1/2 million who goes to jail you or the guy above you who should have kept an eye on you or both?



quite simply.....ME !


----------



## my72jeep

Cool its the same way with the CIC. maybe someone up in the puzzle palace does not think the CCM is worth waisting an NCO on.


----------



## aesop081

re-reading things i may have misinterpreted your comments.   working with young officers fresh out of RMC, i often get the " you are a lowly NCM and can't be trusted with anything..I'm an officer so i am god" type attitude, so i may have mistaken you comments for that.   If i did i appologise for it.


----------



## my72jeep

No problem, I have the highest respect for NCM's. As and old RSM once told me it is the duty of an Officer to entertain the troops.
To bad the CIC is not authorised to enroll NCM's in to its ranks.


----------



## drrchief

I think that a lot of comment(tors) forget that a lot of current/past CIC officer may have been reg force (031!) and have screwed up knees/backs and it is a current way for them to pass on info to future generations.

Pro Patria!


----------



## Ironside

I know this is a bit off topic, but...

aesop081:

I find it hard to believe that there are many officers coming out of RMC with the so called "God" complex.  There are absolute tools wherever you go, and sometimes maybe they can come from RMC.  However, the impression I get is that everyone likes to show everyone up.

Citing a few examples I have encountered:

UTPNCMs with the "God" complex:
- They were in the ranks prior to becoming an officer and thus know more about the forces than any other officer new to the game.
- There are still good officers that come out of this program.

DEOs with the "God" complex:
- They already have a degree and have been at there respective training schools longer, thus being more 'enlightened' than the rest of the fresh officers.
- There are still good officers that come out of this program.

Civy U with the "God" complex:
- Hate RMC students because they applied there initially and were turned down, although being offered the opportunity to go to other universities under the ROTP - they subsequently have more to prove.
- There are still good officers that come out of this program.

RMC with the "God" complex:
- The traditional "ring knocker"/huge ego/four year education/know more than everyone else.
- There are still good officers that come out of this program.

NCOs with the "That guy thinks he's God" complex:
Officer: "Left flanking attack!!!"
NCO: "Sir, there's a giant river followed by a mine field with interlocking arcs of fire over there..."
Officer: "Shut-up I know what I'm talking about!  Left flank!!!"
NCO: "Dear Jesus, save me..."

In the words of Adam Sandler: "Let's keep this [blank] semi-real - everyone will encounter both terrible NCOs and officers in their careers.  It is not just restricted to the graduates of RMC.  Many graduates move on with the intent of constantly raising their professional level, and to simply knock them like so many do is not really necessary.

My intent of this message is not to offend anyone or force ideas on them, nor are these my own.  These are just mentalities/ideologies I have formed from stories that circulate and do nothing but to bring down the professional bar.  I'm just trying to display this in a fashion that I hope the majority of readers here find somewhat comical.

And the moral of the story is:
There are bad officers/NCOs/people/etc. in the world - please do not form a general opinion of them simply because a few that you have dealt with happen to come from the same place.  A vast majority of RMC graduates do not, in fact, have the infamous "lowly NCM" mentality that seems to circulate like wildfire.


----------



## sgt_mandal

Ironside said:
			
		

> In the words of Adam Sandler: "Let's keep this [blank] semi-real - everyone will encounter both terrible NCOs and officers in their careers.   It is not just restricted to the graduates of RMC.   Many graduates move on with the intent of constantly raising their professional level, and to simply knock them like so many do is not really necessary.


Adam Sandler said all that :|


----------



## Ironside

Just the "keep[ing] the...semi-real" part actually - I figured that was implied.

My apologies.


----------



## PViddy

> please do not form a general opinion of them simply because a few that you have dealt with happen to come from the same place.



Hmm, that sentence could appeal to some who suggest much the same for the CIC; forming opinions based on the few.

Good post anyways Ironside, it's interesting to note the different paths Officers can take in order to enrol in the CF.


----------



## elscotto937

Ok, kinda off topic..but I thought I would mention it. Today at some community event, the local army cadets were employed in traffic control, and even though they looked to be youngest of the lot they were doing quite well in the cold rainy weather. When  I was walking from my car I noticed that there was a CIC Capt there, looking after the cadets. She was out there in the weather with them, and looking after them. And I was very impressed, there are many that would have huddled inside closely gripping their Tim Hortons... but not this officer...Well done, that was leadership.


----------



## Canadian Sig

Think I was at the same event Scott. Was very impressed with the "kids". My wife (also in the forces) and I were discussing how un-supported kit-wise they are. Seems to us that all of those greens we turned in could be used by them... not to mention our used Mk IIIs.


----------



## PViddy

> Think I was at the same event Scott. Was very impressed with the "kids". My wife (also in the forces) and I were discussing how un-supported kit-wise they are. Seems to us that all of those greens we turned in could be used by them... not to mention our used Mk IIIs.



Canadian Sig for CDS!!!

haha, that would be nice! 

I always try and employ a lead from the front attittude with my cadets as well, although i believe Cadets are technically (by the rules) not suppose to be allowed to do traffic control, i'll have to some CATO searching.


cheers

PV


----------



## elscotto937

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> Think I was at the same event Scott. Was very impressed with the "kids". My wife (also in the forces) and I were discussing how un-supported kit-wise they are. Seems to us that all of those greens we turned in could be used by them... not to mention our used Mk IIIs.



Petawawa? Granted I was only there at 0930


----------



## elscotto937

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


Didn't realize this was already posted this morning in a separate thead


----------



## PViddy

Is there a non DIN link for that ? would be a good read.]

cheers

PV


----------



## dogg

I have been in the CIC for 12 + years.  Primarily on the air side.  
I agree that we have an image problem.  But I also think we all CIC elements are painted with one broad brush.  From my experience we work closely with our Reg. Force counterparts.  We attend the same flight safety courses, we have had members attend the Canadian Forces Instructors school (Flying).   Recently we have aligned our training standards and instructional standards with that of 3CFTS.  Our gliding schools have regular force appointed standards officers.

I have checked out and instructed regular force NCM's and officers alike,  Everything revolves around earning respect.  I personally do not care if I am saluted or not.  At the end of the day I have a job to do and under Transport Canada and Reg. Force Ops. Guidelines.... I do so.

Many, CIC are in the system for glorification other than working and molding youth.  It is a shame but all organizations have their deficiencies.  Many CIC get the courses out of the way because they think Rank means you get respect.  I have met Captains that are useless and 2Lt's that you would be amazed at what they can do professionally.

Training needs to be addressed, I agree but people seem to be under the impression that BOQ is all that is required.  
I have not only taken the required courses to be a SQN officer but all the courses that allow me to do my job as a pilot in the CIC.  Including a few Reg. Force courses.

Again don't paint us all with one not so informed brush.  Spend some time in Army, Navy, Air camps and Sailing centers and gliding centers.

Drop in to a Regional gliding school then tell us what you think of the CIC.  Basing all your comments on one summer at an Army cadet camp is very narrow minded and misleading.  Hell go on the cadet para course.  Go on a Sailing weekend when they practice with search and rescue CF units!

As an officer I am mandated as a leader!  We all are, we just have a piece of paper that sets it out in eloquent English.  When you have an officer staff and cadet staff , 3 airplanes in a flying environment... leadership is truly required.  You teach a 16 year old to fly before he has drivers license... Then tell me if I have earned my commission.  That is not to say I still need to earn peoples respect for being someone of sound moral character.  In uniform and out! 

Many of my students from gliding are CF-18 drivers, Herc. Pilots, Paramedics and a police officer.  We are tasked to motivate and mold Youth and show them what the forces are all about.  I think I have provided the basic fundamentals to the Herc. and 18 pilot for example as DND hopes to get out of the program.

Cheers


----------



## Burrows

:warstory:*digs in for war and readies the nuclear device*


----------



## condor888000

That paranoid eh Burrows?

But any person who is willing to get in an a/c with a 16 year old at the controls desereves a medal for bravery or something........or at least that cool instructor badge.......


----------



## Inch

Oh boy, do I have a few questions for you. Let's start with FIS.



			
				dogg said:
			
		

> From my experience we work closely with our Reg. Force counterparts.   We attend the same flight safety courses, we have had members attend the Canadian Forces Instructors school (Flying).     Recently we have aligned our training standards and instructional standards with that of 3CFTS.   Our gliding schools have regular force appointed standards officers.



Which FIS? To my knowledge the only FIS's that exist are in Moose Jaw at 2 CFFTS on the Harvard II and Hawk, and 3 CFFTS on the Jet Rangers and King Airs. Even instructors at the OTU's don't hold instructional categories nor do they go to FIS. The do an abbreviated "learn to be an instructor" at the OTU to learn how to teach. They're not Qualified Flight instructors, they simply teach the aircraft that they've been flying for 5 years.

Having said that, I'd really be interested in learning when and why a CIC officer would go to FIS when they don't hold military instructional categories and what use learning to teach on a Harvard II would do them in a glider or Cessna 172 that goes 1/4 the speed.



> I have checked out and instructed regular force NCM's and officers alike,   Everything revolves around earning respect.   I personally do not care if I am saluted or not.   At the end of the day I have a job to do and under Transport Canada and Reg. Force Ops. Guidelines.... I do so.



Again, checked out and instructed on what? Cessna's? It couldn't have been much more than that since all flight instructors in Moose Jaw and Portage (except PFT) are military trained instructors that wear CF Pilot Wings. Not a big deal, I also have a Commercial licence, I could check someone out. It doesn't have to be a flight instructor.

About those Reg Force Ops guidelines, what's the name of the orders? IE, the military equivalent of the CARs.


----------



## GunnerySgtHartman

standards do need to be raised, but who is going to do something about it?


----------



## aesop081

dogg said:
			
		

> I have been in the CIC for 12 + years.   Primarily on the air side.
> I have checked out and instructed regular force NCM's and officers alike,   Everything revolves around earning respect.   I personally do not care if I am saluted or not.   At the end of the day I have a job to do and under Transport Canada and Reg. Force Ops. Guidelines.... I do so.



Inch, i just noticed this post and, i think that i smell a rat.

Dogg:

I would like to know what trade were those reg force NCMs you checked out ?   There are 2 aircrew NCM trades and you are not qualified to administer check rides to either one.

Considering that you have a blank profile and have made only one post, i can safely assume that you will never reply to this and that Inch and i will nevr get our answers.


----------



## elscotto937

Aesop,
He could mean Offr and NCMs who volunteer at Cadet Gliding Sites. And Inch, FIS? Flight Instructor- Standards? Just curious.

Scott


----------



## aesop081

Scott937 said:
			
		

> Aesop,
> He could mean Offr and NCMs who volunteer at Cadet Gliding Sites. And Inch, FIS? Flight Instructor- Standards? Just curious.
> 
> Scott



You may be right...but the rest of the post is still suspicious.

FIS = Flight Instructor School


----------



## Bean

Now I'm not one of the flying CIC types even though I wear blue, but in my time in the CIC (also 12+ years now plus some PRES time) I have never heard of this happening.  I noted that His job is with Transport Canada, perhaps there was some cross over from civvie side, but that's the only way I see this happening.  Last I checked, we were not to be employed as instructors outside the RCIS structure or our cadet units.  If this is a flying center specific set of orders and instructions, my bad, but a brand new one on me.

However his coment about not hitting us all with a broad brush is a good one, and one made several times.  Being in Ottawa alot, I've met alot of people at fort fumble dealing with the standards issue, and I don't see it changing without some real grass roots push.  A friend is now working with a corps in Ottawa, and he seems to be of the same opinion.  But everything seems to come back to cost, the CIC are a cost effective way to address the Forces need to employ staff and instructors without impacting operational personnel given the current operational tempo.  So to stay cost effective, selection follws different standards.  The CIC officers didn't ask for the seperate standard, we just deal with it, even though many feel as this forum does that there should be one acceptable standard for all.

Perhaps its time for a new thread on any good experiences you guys have had with CIC officers.  I'd like to hear some of them, and I'm sure some of the junior CIC here would like to learn from the example as well.


----------



## PViddy

> I'd like to hear some of them, and I'm sure some of the junior CIC here would like to learn from the example as well.



It would be a nice change of pace.


----------



## Inch

aesop081 said:
			
		

> FIS = Flight Instructor School



Correctomundo.

I agree Bean, but in the same breath that he says "don't paint us all with a broad brush" he mentions a bunch of BS that is completely out there.


----------



## Bean

Agreed Inch, we need to police our own a little I guess.  Can't account for the BS, all we can do is try and filter it as its seen.


----------



## Burrows

Well done guys.


----------



## Bean

Thanks Kyle, always appreciate the positive response of our moderators.

Now how about that extra thread?


----------



## Burrows

Go for it.


----------



## dgrayca

Franko said:
			
		

> Pertaining to what McBear? Generally the standards have gone up somewhat over the years. The problem lies with maintaining a standard. If COs and higher officers don't ensure the standard(for whatever issue this pertains to) isn't met on a regulated basis, what should they do?
> 
> Personally I think if a CIC officer doesn't maintain the standard for dress and deportment, administration, and current guidlines, they should immediatly be counseled, and put on a probationary period. If they fail during this period...C&P. Follow that by another period and assesment, still no good...charge or discharge. Cut and dry.
> 
> But I'm sure that we are aware that it won't ever come to this because right now the CIC cadre is hurting for officers, if they squeeze newcomers too hard they quit.
> 
> I've seen one officer that should have been punted a long time ago. Overweight, doesn't adhere to dress regs(won't divuldge too much)etc.
> He thinks he has the world by the tail right now, wait until I get back from this hole.   :evil:
> 
> Regards



A few simple points to think about:

1.  If the standards were raised do you think the number of CIC officers would increase or decrease?  The CIC currently has a huge shortage of officers....  
2.  What's worse for the cadets, overweight CIC officers or NO CIC Officers (i.e. NO CORPS/SQUADRONS)??  Think about it...
3.  What skills are required to be a good CIC officer?  Being a CIC officer is about administration and teaching.  The skill set is COMPLETELY different than that of other trades therefore the standards should be DIFFERENT.

on a side note... the average level of education is higher within the CIC body of officers than the PRes or Reg body of officers.  

This is coming from a current militia officer who has 9 years past CIC experience.


----------



## Bean

While I can agree in principle to your points about the dwindling numbers if standards are changed, I still believe that by not requiring a physical fitness standard we are doing the cadets a dis-service.  What is the first stated aim of the CCM? To promote physical fitness.  Having officers who can't walk 20 yards without breaking a sweat or needing a nap does not contribute to the goals of the cadet program.  I agree that the skill set required is completely different, and the education level is excellent, but since one of our stated aims is centered on fitness every CIC officer should be capable of meeting some reasonable level of fitness performance.  I think we can all agree that overweight does not necessarily indicate a lack of physical fitness so just targeting the overweight doesn't work, and there are overweight individuals in every trade in the CF from my experience (I haven't always been a CIC type).  But as one of the most visible elements of the CF in local communities we need to present a positive image of the CF by maintaining good to superior dress and deportment standards.  The shortage of CIC officers will always be an issue, and we will continually have to find innovative ways to deliver our training, so this should not be an excuse for slacking on standards or bringing in those who do not present a positive image to our cadets and the public at large.


----------



## elscotto937

dgrayca said:
			
		

> on a side note... the average level of education is higher within the CIC body of officers than the PRes or Reg body of officers.



I have heard this stated before, I believe in this thread. I'm curious what study this is based on and what are the numbers.


----------



## Springroll

When I was in cadets I had the priveldge of working with some incredibvle CIC's. There are always going to be those that disgrace the cadet movement(I can give you names, if you like) but then there are those that really do take it seriously and do a darn good job at it too(can give you a couple names there to)....


----------



## aesop081

Springroll said:
			
		

> When I was in cadets I had the priveldge of working with some incredibvle CIC's. There are always going to be those that disgrace the cadet movement(I can give you names, if you like) but then there are those that really do take it seriously and do a darn good job at it too(can give you a couple names there to)....



You are quite right.  As with both the reg and pres, there are good ones and there are bad ones in the CIC.  We were just talking about this at lunch today when a rather large femal CIC captain walked by.  With cadet season in full swing here in shangrilla, we have noticed a few who's uniform pushed the limits of engineering.  While we know full well that they are CIC officers, joe 6-pack out there doesn't usualy have the benefit of this knowledge.  This presents a rather poor image of our forces.  That being said, before the inevitable CIC maffia flaming reaches my cruising altitude i will say that, unfortunately, some members of the regs around here give them some competition.  CIC officers have indeed a differing role to play but as long as they wear the same uniform i do, they should be held to the same standard and present a positive public image of the CF.


----------



## PViddy

Excellent posts from Bean and Aesop  

Yes, i beleive we should have higher standards for fitness, although it's easy for me to say because i am very physically active.  Yes, we are short on CIC Officers, some elements and regions are hurting more than others.  From the above posts, i believe we have reached an impasse.  if we raised the fitness standards, tommorow let's say-i bet we would loose 35 % (my guess-not a stat) of our current compliment due to medical release.

So what is more important, physical standards and the image of the CF as a whole or quality instruction for the cadets.  I say they are both very important issues and IMO i don't know if one is more important than the other.

I think this could spawn some interesting discussion.

cheers

PV


----------



## LF(CMO)

Bean said:
			
		

> While I can agree in principle to your points about the dwindling numbers if standards are changed, I still believe that by not requiring a physical fitness standard we are doing the cadets a dis-service.   What is the first stated aim of the CCM? To promote physical fitness.   Having officers who can't walk 20 yards without breaking a sweat or needing a nap does not contribute to the goals of the cadet program.   I agree that the skill set required is completely different, and the education level is excellent, but since one of our stated aims is centered on fitness every CIC officer should be capable of meeting some reasonable level of fitness performance.   I think we can all agree that overweight does not necessarily indicate a lack of physical fitness so just targeting the overweight doesn't work, and there are overweight individuals in every trade in the CF from my experience (I haven't always been a CIC type).   But as one of the most visible elements of the CF in local communities we need to present a positive image of the CF by maintaining good to superior dress and deportment standards.   The shortage of CIC officers will always be an issue, and we will continually have to find innovative ways to deliver our training, so this should not be an excuse for slacking on standards or bringing in those who do not present a positive image to our cadets and the public at large.



 I TOTALLY agree with most of the above!!  Can anyone explain how some of these Officers can reconcile there grotesque physiques with "LEAD BY EXAMPLE"?  As everyone knows, physical fitness is one of the stated goals of the Cadet Movement.  Are these people living in denial?

"I agree that the skill set required is completely different, "  I disagree with this.  Leadership is the same wherever you are.  The people that standout in the CIC would be sucessful in any context Mil or Civ.  There is nothing 'special' about the military.  In fact, the higher echelon jobs in the private sector are probably where the elite hang out.


----------



## PViddy

> Can anyone explain how some of these Officers can reconcile there grotesque physiques with "LEAD BY EXAMPLE"?



That sounds a little extreme.

Lead by example ? hah. thanks for blading your own peers.  I'm glad we don't work together.  I have a bad ankle from running, guess that makes me a horrid gimp.....

Maybe you should leave the labeling to Business Depot.


PV


----------



## Springroll

I don't think he was trying to insult. 
I think(and forgive me if I am wrong) he is referrring to those CIC's that are overweight because of laziness. There is a difference between an injury making  you unable to participate in physical activities, and just being to darn lazy to get out of your chair to exercise.


----------



## LF(CMO)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I don't think he was trying to insult.
> I think(and forgive me if I am wrong) he is referrring to those CIC's that are overweight because of laziness. There is a difference between an injury making   you unable to participate in physical activities, and just being to darn lazy to get out of your chair to exercise.



 You've got it exactly right!!   Most of it is overeating and laziness.  I don't blame CF people for their animosity toward the CIC in this regard.  Although there might be some of it in the Regs and a few more in the P-Res; it's endemic in the CIC.  My guess is that a goodly number of them are female and that further complicates the 'politically correct' nature of the situation.


----------



## Springroll

Women and donuts do not mix....hehehe


----------



## PViddy

I agree with you  in the point of people should try and live an active lifestyle but i think for some people it get's much deeper than just being plain lazy.

Perhaps the solution is implementing a new fitness initiative for current members and having people who want to enroll do the express test like everyone else? just a thought


PV


----------



## dgrayca

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> I TOTALLY agree with most of the above!!   Can anyone explain how some of these Officers can reconcile there grotesque physiques with "LEAD BY EXAMPLE"?   As everyone knows, physical fitness is one of the stated goals of the Cadet Movement.   Are these people living in denial?



Sometimes a person's physical appearance is not reflective of their fitness standards.  I have worked with several CIC officers who did not look the image you probably think the should have, but are extremely fit individuals and who would easily meet the Militia fitness standards at anytime they are called upon.

What about the officers with health issues (bad hearts etc)... should they be removed from the CIC since they can no longer exercise fully?

Do you think every officer/ncm in the militia maintains their fitness level after enrollement.

Yes there are some who are obese through whatever reason people here state (laziness was one), but I think if you looked at the trade a little more closely you'd realize that they are the exception and not the norm, and thet you are gerneralizing on the largest officer body in the forces.



			
				LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> "I agree that the skill set required is completely different, "   I disagree with this.   Leadership is the same wherever you are.   The people that standout in the CIC would be sucessful in any context Mil or Civ.   There is nothing 'special' about the military.   In fact, the higher echelon jobs in the private sector are probably where the elite hang out.



So you are telling me that the same leadership skills apply to working with adults as it does with teens?  Absolutely not.  I have a higher echelon civilian job, have worked CIC and now work Militia, and I can tell you that the skill set to manage Corporate Managers, Corporate Emloyees, NCMs and Teens are all totally different.  Just because you are good at leading one, doesn't mean you are good at leading them all.

I have worked with some incredible Vice Presidents who inspire their staff, but would make the worst military leader and vice versa.

Dealing with subordinate officers or NCMs is also totally different than teens.  Try working with a troubled cadet who has no home life, has been in and out of juvie hall and tell me that's the same leadership required to deal with a Cpl.  Try dealing with an abused teen and tell me that's the same skill set as being a Battery Commander.


----------



## dgrayca

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> My guess is that a goodly number of them are female and that further complicates the 'politically correct' nature of the situation.



I'm guessing you got flying marks on your SHARP class.


----------



## aesop081

dgrayca said:
			
		

> Dealing with subordinate officers or NCMs is also totally different than teens.   Try working with a troubled cadet who has no home life, has been in and out of juvie hall and tell me that's the same leadership required to deal with a Cpl.   Try dealing with an abused teen and tell me that's the same skill set as being a Battery Commander.



And in the same breath we have to deal with NCMs who have gambeling problems, drinking problems, that go AWOL on a weekly basis, some who have attempted suicide, marital issues, financial difficulties, behaviour problems, drug addictions........sounds like teenagers to me !

If wish i could point out to you the officers to which i was refering to previously.  It would be interesting to see you defend your position with a straight face.

Maybe give the CIC more destinguishing acoutrements for their uniforms so that the average canadian civie doesnt get the wrong impression about the CF ?


----------



## Neill McKay

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> Most of it is overeating and laziness.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Although there might be some of it in the Regs and a few more in the P-Res; it's endemic in the CIC.



How could you know either of these things?  Do you know that there are literally thousands of CIC officers in the Forces?  How many of them have you spoken with long enough to know their eating habits and health issues?  Or, for that matter, even laid your eyes on?  It's a big branch, you know.


----------



## Neill McKay

aesop081 said:
			
		

> And in the same breath we have to deal with NCMs who have gambeling problems, drinking problems, that go AWOL on a weekly basis, some who have attempted suicide, marital issues, financial difficulties, behaviour problems, drug addictions........sounds like teenagers to me



Yep.   We're not so terribly different after all.



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> Maybe give the CIC more destinguishing acoutrements for their uniforms so that the average canadian civie doesnt get the wrong impression about the CF ?



For that to mean anything, the public world first have to know what a CIC officer is.   In a day and age when much of the population can't tell the difference between a Commissionaire and a sailor (or, for that matter, a sea cadet and a sailor) we're many steps short of that.

Of course, further branch-specific accoutrements for the CIC that wouldn't address the impression Joe Civvy gets of the Forces when he sees 250 pounds of Boatswain walking down the street in a 5'9" package, so it would be at best a partial solution.


----------



## dgrayca

aesop081 said:
			
		

> And in the same breath we have to deal with NCMs who have gambeling problems, drinking problems, that go AWOL on a weekly basis, some who have attempted suicide, marital issues, financial difficulties, behaviour problems, drug addictions........sounds like teenagers to me !



Sure its similar, but its still different.

One major difference, military law.   An NCM falls under that, while a cadet doesn't.
Second major difference, one's a adult, one's a child.   Two totally different things as far as the law's concerned.

Don't get me wrong though, dealing with NCMs is challenging at times.   I'm not saying CIC are better leaders, I'm saying they're different types of leaders.



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> Maybe give the CIC more destinguishing acoutrements for their uniforms so that the average canadian civie doesnt get the wrong impression about the CF ?



The public would never notice.   They already have CIC sholder titles (CIC army) and I doubt Joe Blow even notices.   To be honest, most of the time you see CIC officers you see them with cadets.   I wouldn't be suprised if the average public just thought they were cadet leaders and not PRes Officers.

Maybe not...



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> If wish i could point out to you the officers to which i was refering to previously.   It would be interesting to see you defend your position with a straight face.



I know there are some, but they're more the exception than the rule.   For every 1 significantly out of shape CIC officers you can think of, how many in-shape can you think of?   I bet you the incident of obesity in the CIC is lower than the general public for starters.


----------



## Neill McKay

dgrayca said:
			
		

> I know there are some, but they're more the exception than the rule.   For every 1 significantly out of shape CIC officers you can think of, how many in-shape can you think of?   I bet you the incident of obesity in the CIC is lower than the general public for starters.



I attended a CIC MOC course grad parade a few months ago and took a picture of each platoon.  Every CIC officer takes this course, so this is a good sample of this year's crop of CIC officers in the Atlantic provinces.  Looking at them now, out of 36 (+/-) naval candidates I see two who I would describe as a bit chubby; about four out of a similar number of army candidates; and perhaps five or six in about 40 air force candidates.  When I say chubby, I mean just that, not obese.  There were none who looked as if they were patently unfit.

I think the CIC is a victim of a lot of peoples' selective memories: don't like the CIC in the first place, see one fat officer, and assume we're all like that.  But the numbers just don't bear it out.


----------



## dgrayca

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I think the CIC is a victim of a lot of peoples' selective memories: don't like the CIC in the first place, see one fat officer, and assume we're all like that.   But the numbers just don't bear it out.



Bang on.


----------



## Springroll

Out of the numerous overweight CIC's I met when involved in cadets, only one had a medical condition that made him that way. The others, I'm sure, had something to do with having a few donuts and coffee's a few times per night X 2 nights a week when they could have been out on the parade square with us, or doing PT with us. Or taking off for breakfast at a pub when we were all out on an field exercise(good supervision)

Now keep in mind that the ones I am referring to were in back in 90-94, so I am not sure if they still are.


----------



## Neill McKay

Springroll said:
			
		

> Out of the numerous overweight CIC's I met when involved in cadets, only one had a medical condition that made him that way.



It may surprise you to learn that most CIC officers don't share information about their medical conditions with cadets.

(It may also surprise you to lean that there are usually more pressing issues for a CIC officer to look after during a training night than joining the cadets on the parade square.  There's a whole other world in the orderly room or ship's office that very few cadets ever see.)


----------



## dgrayca

Springroll said:
			
		

> Out of the numerous overweight CIC's I met when involved in cadets, only one had a medical condition that made him that way. The others, I'm sure, had something to do with having a few donuts and coffee's a few times per night X 2 nights a week when they could have been out on the parade square with us, or doing PT with us. Or taking off for breakfast at a pub when we were all out on an field exercise(good supervision)
> 
> Now keep in mind that the ones I am referring to were in back in 90-94, so I am not sure if they still are.



Based on the fact that you are drawing your experience from when you were a cadet, I can probably guess that your exposure to CIC officers was extremely limited.  You are probably basing your generalization on the officers from your unit and perhaps from a cadet camp or two (but I doubt that since you are refering to parade squares and field exercises only).

So, perhaps 3, maybe 4 officers?  Out of a body of over 2500 officers... so 0.16% of the population.  Doesn't sound like very sound research to me.

In fact, while units in big cities tend to have larger officer bodies, small towns (which make up a lot of Canada) tend to have small units with some times as few as 1 CIC officer, so you could be even basing your fact on 1 officer.

I am basing my opinion on 7 years as a cadet, army and air, 2 years as a CI and 9 years as a CIC officer (3 of which as a CO) having met numerous CIC officers through courses, camps, seminars, conferences etc.  I can say that the majority of the CIC body is in relatively good shape.  But, like your statements, that is still anecdotal.


----------



## Springroll

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It may surprise you to learn that most CIC officers don't share information about their medical conditions with cadets.
> 
> (It may also surprise you to lean that there are usually more pressing issues for a CIC officer to look after during a training night than joining the cadets on the parade square.   There's a whole other world in the orderly room or ship's office that very few cadets ever see.)



I assisted the CIC's in the stores room for the end part of my last year of cadets. I was also friends with one of the CIC's daughters and that is how I was aware of his medical condition. Sorry, I should have said that. 

Also just to clarify, I am not saying all of them are over weight, just saying that the ones I did know that were overweight, only one had a medical condition. I have met a good mix of both fit and unfit, but the majority I have met have been on the fit side of the spectrum.


----------



## Burrows

Discuss this in a mature matter(which you have done so far).  I would hate to have to lock this because members are behaving like children once again.

If there is any talk bordering sexism you will be generously provided with a formal warning.  You have been warned.


----------



## Neill McKay

dgrayca said:
			
		

> So, perhaps 3, maybe 4 officers?   Out of a body of over 2500 officers... so 0.16% of the population.



It's worse than that: the strength of the CIC is closer to 4500 (unless there's been a drastic decline in the last five years).


----------



## aesop081

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> I would hate to have to lock this because members are behaving like children once again.



Moderator or not, comming from a 14 year-old doesn't mean much !



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I think the CIC is a victim of a lot of peoples' selective memories: don't like the CIC in the first place, see one fat officer, and assume we're all like that.   But the numbers just don't bear it out.



I am not using selective memory here.  I see CIC officers every day at this time of year and most bring credit to the CF and the cadet movement with their phsycal apearance and their state of dress. I remember when i was a cadet , our CIC officers were all in great shape and looked every bit the part.  I was in no way generalizing.


----------



## Burrows

One would expect the officers to set the example and not resort to petty jabs.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
_Moderator or not, comming from a 14 year-old doesn't mean much _ !

So if he would just lie and put 58 for his age THAN he would be correct? 
The kid [ sorry, couldn't resist ;D] has been doing a fine job of keeping the most frustrating forum on this board on the straight and narrow, so lighten up on him, please.


----------



## aesop081

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _Moderator or not, comming from a 14 year-old doesn't mean much _ !
> 
> So if he would just lie and put 58 for his age THAN he would be correct?
> The kid [ sorry, couldn't resist ;D] has been doing a fine job of keeping the most frustrating forum on this board on the straight and narrow, so lighten up on him, please.



Sorry Kyle and Bruce...forgot to put the   ;D at the end

Edited to protect Bruce's feelings.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
Sorry Kyle and bruce...
....well don't give him THAT much.....


----------



## PViddy

Sorry,   

Your right.   totally read that the wrong way.   My bad.

I'm gonna go mark time for a couple of hours   

cheers

PV

edited: ....to change the post completely!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Maybe you should reread his post and actually pay attention to what he wrote.


----------



## Bean

So lets see if I can sum up the last little bit.   Generally we acknowledge that a good number of CIC officers do maintain a physical fitness level that lends credit to the image of the CF.   There are noted examples of CIC officers who, for whatever reason, do not maintain an adequate fitness level which may impact their ability to lead by example in a youth organization with physical fitness as one of its corner stones.   If I may stir the pot a little on this one, here is my thought, (and how I've councilled some of my fellow CIC officers in the past).   If you choose to and are called to wear the uniform of the CF you should be capable of meeting a minimum physical standard EQUAL to that of what we expect from our cadets (i.e. the army cadet fitness test), I would recommend that they be able to perform to a standard equal to that of what is expected of our PRes and RegF counterparts but there is not policy or standard on that at this time.   For those who are unable to meet the fitness standards, perhaps their contributions are best made as civilian instructors and they can fill roles in the administration and supply components, which are valuable and essential support tools for the cadets at large.   They can also then teach in their specialties as appropriate.   We should not look to preclude individuals participation in the CCM, but I think that we owe our cadets the best possible image we can present, and we owe the same to the CF.   This often falls to policing our own, and a gentle nudge from one officer to another does help, I've both nudged and been nudged in the past.   For those simply unable to meet a minimum fitness requirement, there should be some administrative action, or at least the use of common sense (i.e. if the uniform is stretching at the seams, get it re-twilored so at least it looks cleanly dressed).   But ultimately I'd support more stringent fitness requirements, and I don't think we'd have any fewer officers quite frankly, too many of my junior officers have left for other elements of the ResF because they don't want to be associated with "the doughnut crowd" in the CIC.   Perhaps water/juice and fruit at breaks at RCIS would be better than coffee and timbits which have become so common, and for those attending/facilitating courses, no more playing duck duck goose for PT. ;D   In an organization where image is a great part of public relations, we must ensure we send the right message and ensure it is consistent.


----------



## Neill McKay

Bean said:
			
		

> If you choose to and are called to wear the uniform of the CF you should be capable of meeting a minimum physical standard EQUAL to that of what we expect from our cadets (i.e. the army cadet fitness test), I would recommend that they be able to perform to a standard equal to that of what is expected of our PRes and RegF counterparts but there is not policy or standard on that at this time.   For those who are unable to meet the fitness standards, perhaps their contributions are best made as civilian instructors and they can fill roles in the administration and supply components, which are valuable and essential support tools for the cadets at large.   They can also then teach in their specialties as appropriate.



This all makes very good sense.  One shortcoming I see, however, is that civilian instructors aren't eligible for any training beyond the supply and administration short courses.  I'd much rather have more people qualified at least to the LTQ level but it's very hard to justify loading civilians on a CF course, especially if there are CF members available to go.  The choice seem to be between large and useful officers who portray a poor image for the Forces and set a poor example for the cadets, or large and somewhat less useful civilian instructors who portray no image for the Forces and set a poor example for the cadets.  I'm not sure that the image issue outweighs (no pun intended!) the training issue.


----------



## dgrayca

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> This all makes very good sense.   One shortcoming I see, however, is that civilian instructors aren't eligible for any training beyond the supply and administration short courses.   I'd much rather have more people qualified at least to the LTQ level but it's very hard to justify loading civilians on a CF course, especially if there are CF members available to go.   The choice seem to be between large and useful officers who portray a poor image for the Forces and set a poor example for the cadets, or large and somewhat less useful civilian instructors who portray no image for the Forces and set a poor example for the cadets.   I'm not sure that the image issue outweighs (no pun intended!) the training issue.



Not to mention that there are positions to which a CI/CV cannot hold i.e. Training Officer or Commanding Officer.


----------



## PViddy

In certain circumstance a CI can hold the TrgO position. 

cheers

PV


----------



## bLUE fOX

In an issue of _Cadence last year they made mention of the number of corps and squadrons in Northern region which have no CIC staff due to the lack of interest/ availability of training. But thatès neither here nor there. The origanal title of this forum was "An Alternativefor CIC." alot of this has been used to voice the opinion that we're all fat, lazy and what have you. I think more suggestions for improvement should be made as opposed to more examples of the let downs in the CIC. and back to the origanal point, I have read that in Great Briton and Australia the cadet units are staffed by civilians with special commissions, IF any one here has been part of an overseas cadet corps like that I would like to here about how the feel this compares to having a uniformed military presence such as the CIC. Look forward to hearing from you all._


----------



## drrchief

I was a CIC officer and went to the Regs with the infantry.  During my enlistment I injured my knees.  Since then I have not been able to maintain the higher level of fitness that I was accustomed.  I would like to mention (although not currently in the CIC) that some CIC officers are not able to maintain their fitness due to injuries.  These officers (although not physically fit) still have a lot to offer the system.  We should be encouraging these officers and getting them help, not bashing them.  I agree that there are those dorito eating, beer swallows, but hey you can find them anywhere.

 >


----------



## LF(CMO)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So lets see if I can sum up the last little bit.  Generally we acknowledge that a good number of CIC officers do maintain a physical fitness level that lends credit to the image of the CF.  *There are noted examples of CIC officers who, for whatever reason, do not maintain an adequate fitness level which may impact their ability to lead by example in a youth organization with physical fitness as one of its corner stones.  If I may stir the pot a little on this one, here is my thought*, (and how I've councilled some of my fellow CIC officers in the past).  If you choose to and are called to wear the uniform of the CF you should be capable of meeting a minimum physical standard EQUAL to that of what we expect from our cadets (i.e. the army cadet fitness test), I would recommend that they be able to perform to a standard equal to that of what is expected of our PRes and RegF counterparts but there is not policy or standard on that at this time.  For those who are unable to meet the fitness standards, perhaps their contributions are best made as civilian instructors and they can fill roles in the administration and supply components, which are valuable and essential support tools for the cadets at large.  They can also then teach in their specialties as appropriate.  We should not look to preclude individuals participation in the CCM, but I think that we owe our cadets the best possible image we can present, and we owe the same to the CF.  This often falls to policing our own, and a gentle nudge from one officer to another does help, I've both nudged and been nudged in the past.  For those simply unable to meet a minimum fitness requirement, there should be some administrative action, or at least the use of common sense (i.e. if the uniform is stretching at the seams, get it re-twilored so at least it looks cleanly dressed).  But ultimately I'd support more stringent fitness requirements, and I don't think we'd have any fewer officers quite frankly, too many of my junior officers have left for other elements of the ResF because they don't want to be associated with "the doughnut crowd" in the CIC.  Perhaps water/juice and fruit at breaks at RCIS would be better than coffee and timbits which have become so common, and for those attending/facilitating courses, no more playing duck duck goose for PT.   In an organization where image is a great part of public relations, we must ensure we send the right message and ensure it is consistent. 

 « Last Edit: August 18, 2005, 12:52:55 by Bean  »  

 The above is a very wise comment on the subject!


----------



## Shadowhawk

Bean said:
			
		

> .... What is the first stated aim of the CCM? To promote physical fitness.   .....



Just to be technical ... The first aim of the CCM is to "Develop in youth the attributes of good citizenship" Second is to promote Physical Fitness.

 ;D


----------



## Shadowhawk

Thought I would wade in and offer my 2 cents worth ... (not that anybody asked for it .. but here goes)

Background ... I have been a CIC officer and Commanding Officer of an Air Cadet Unit for 6 years. Currently Reg Force Cpl.

I think the bigger picture we should be concerned with (as a parent, Former CO, and Strong CCM supporter) is the quality of the person representing the CCM (whether Officer or CI). 

What I mean by quality of the person is do they "come to the table" with a well developed skill set to be able to handle what the job will involve. 

1.  Are they willing to work more that the 1/2 day per week they get paid for the benefit of the cadets (first) the unit (second) and the CCM (third). (as CO I often put in 6 evenings a week for the cause .. and loved every ... er almost every minute of it ... ;D )

2.  Are they mature enough to understand that the cadets are not and can not ever be their friends. The Officer is there to supervise, guide and develop youth (I have seen this too often, especially with young officers just coming in from the cadet program)

3.  Are they mature enough to understand that they are responsible for SOMEONE else's children and that if they (officer) screws up, the cadet may be "hauled out" of a fantastic program for youth  so the child looses. (Not to mention the headaches for the CO  : )

4.  Are mature enough to realize that when they are in uniform (or not in some cases) that they are representing the CF. Joe Public does not know the difference (and probably doesn't care) and will "paint the CF with the same broad brush" If a parent sees an officer stumbling out of the local pub after a training night or on a weekend and puke on the ground or getting into fights ... the parent has to ask if this is the best person to be looking after "My child."

5.  Mature enough to understand that he rules are there for a reason  and the the CO is responsible for everyone in the unit including volunteers ... enough said on that.

6. Mature enough that when the CO makes a decision, (popular or not) the officer can never go to the cadets and "bad mouth" the decision of the CO. This does nothing to benefit the Esprite de corp of the unit.

See a theme here ... 

After the Sponsoring committee and CO evaluate these aspects of the person wishing to become a member of the CF and CIC. Then is is up to the Recruiters (Ottawa - D Cadets) (yes recruiters ... the same recruiters which recruit Reg Force pers) to set a Physical standard (which they have ... like it or not), and do what they do to enroll a CIC officer.


As for an alternative for the CIC ... I can't come up with one. I know that the NDHQ as said no to a NCM/NCO component of the CCM ( too bad really) ... but that is their decision to make not mine. 

(just a side note ... I still have my Commissioning Scroll up on my livingroom wall ... get lots of questions when the "guys" from the Sqn come to visit ... Some want to know what the He%% I did to get busted from Captain to Cpl ... great conversation starter ...  : )


**** soapbox off ****

**** anti-flame suit on ****

I await your collective approval / disapproval   8)


----------



## Neill McKay

Shadowhawk said:
			
		

> I await your collective approval / disapproval



Then I offer my approval.  I've seen some of the issues you've mentioned (not the bit about staggering out of the pub and heaving in the bushes, thank God!) and agree that the expectations have to be made clear to young prospective officers very early on.


----------



## Springroll

I agree with what you have written, Shadowhawk.


----------



## Nobby

I have a simple rule. I don't ask anyone to do something that I wouldn't do myself. So to not keep my requests limited, I try to stay in good enough shape and stay informed enough to have an example set that allows me use my lawful authority to command.


----------



## Bean

A good rule to be sure Nobby.

ShadowHawk, I agree completely with your post in selection of the personnel we try and put into uniform, but I must admit if they are planning on amking a commitment to the organization, a higher physical standard would be recommended (and I checked, the literaure in air army and sea and the first point in the manuals is To promote Physical Fitness, but probably only because its the shortest line of text).  All the guiding principals of the CCM are important, and as CIC officers we need to represent each of these through demonstrable activities, physical fitness through maintaining a good personal fitness level, good citizenship through volunteerism and community involvement, Leadship by example, and promoting an interest in the CF through continued education and learning programs such as the OPME.  As officers of the CF we have an obligation to present every aspect of the cadet programme equally, and it is my belief and practice that we should practice what we preach.  If I expect my armt cadet challenge team to p[erform a task I should be able to perform it myself (granted I still wear an air element uniform), if I expect cadets to be up for PT on exercise I should be there right along side them for both safety and demonstrative purposes, and if I expect a greater sense of citizenship I should be doing the same.  Nothing you have said contradicts the points raised to date, however we as CIC officers must stand up and take personal accountability for the image we produce to the cadets around us.  If the cadets see us as slack and idle, doughnut eating staff, we do not promote an environment to recruit new youth leaders who are looking for a way to serve.  Granted this is NOT the majority, but a minority that hurts us greatly.  When cadets start to see the officers in thier units as no better than scout leaders (not knocking that program just respecting the differences) there is a problem.  We hold a commission and should be held to the same standards all those who do.  When we seek credibility within the CF we cannot simply say we are different, we must demonstrate that we are capable and different at the same time.  If we are not capable, then perhaps the model of the CAP or the british cadet forces needs to apply.

I fully believe in the current model with the CIC as a distinct component of the CF, but with changing attitutdes and the CF doing more with less its time we either put up or shut up.  Not that that is reflected in policy or the NDA at this point in time.  If we are to be a priemier organization that we constantly seel ourselves as being, we need to be able to present ourselves this way in any forum (CF, youth leadership, or community leader).  We play a vital role in the development of our citizenry so lets represt that in the best positive light.

I don't think the majority of CIC officers aren't already doing this, but there are those few who regularly bring us down, so lets deal with that appropriately and we may find we have more people looking to join us (just a personal opinion having been a CO and seeing officers and senior cadets opt for other branches of the CF).  Clean up our image and we'll be better off.


----------



## Shadowhawk

Well said Bean. I have been preaching this to my staff the whole time I was CIC. Most of my staff was exceptional.


----------



## dgrayca

PViddy said:
			
		

> In certain circumstance a CI can hold the TrgO position.
> 
> cheers
> 
> PV



yes, but that is a last case measure.  If there is a CIC officer on the slate (besides the CO), the CIC must hold the TrgO position even though the CI may be more qualified for the position.


----------



## Neill McKay

dgrayca said:
			
		

> yes, but that is a last case measure.   If there is a CIC officer on the slate (besides the CO), the CIC must hold the TrgO position even though the CI may be more qualified for the position.



I don't think it's possible for a civilian instructor to be more qualified for the Training Officer position than a CIC officer.


----------



## dgrayca

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I don't think it's possible for a civilian instructor to be more qualified for the Training Officer position than a CIC officer.



So if you had a 40 year old teacher with years of teaching experience and experience in making teaching plans they would be less qualified for a TrgO position than a 19 year old OCdt?


----------



## Burrows

dgrayca said:
			
		

> So if you had a 40 year old teacher with years of teaching experience and experience in making teaching plans they would be less qualified for a TrgO position than a 19 year old OCdt?


  But does the teacher know the content of the star manuals more than the OCdt?  Plus, you can always find the MLPs on the cadet website.


----------



## dgrayca

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> But does the teacher know the content of the star manuals more than the OCdt?   Plus, you can always find the MLPs on the cadet website.



Why not?  I had a CI on staff who had 8 years experience.  He never became CIC because due to many reasons.  He knew the manuals inside out.

At any rate - I'm just stating that its possible.


----------



## Neill McKay

dgrayca said:
			
		

> Why not?   I had a CI on staff who had 8 years experience.   He never became CIC because due to many reasons.   He knew the manuals inside out.
> 
> At any rate - I'm just stating that its possible.



Given that we're talkling about qualifications, as opposed to experience as a teacher, and the preferred qualification for a Training Officer is the Lieutenant Qualification course (which civilian instructors cannot take), we'll never see a CI who is considered by the powers that me to be qualified as a Training Officer.  That's why the policy is in place to restrict CIs in the position.  The training officer's role isn't just to teach; it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan in accordance with the QSP, to supervise and develop instructors, to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on.  I will grant you that a long-serving CI could pick that necessary skills up through years of experience and private study, but he or she will never have the military qualification normally required to do the job.

For comparison, consider whether the navy would allow a merchant marine officer with a master mariner's ticket to stand watch on one of their ships, or a private pilot to fly a military aircraft.


----------



## dgrayca

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Given that we're talkling about qualifications, as opposed to experience as a teacher, and the preferred qualification for a Training Officer is the Lieutenant Qualification course (which civilian instructors cannot take), we'll never see a CI who is considered by the powers that me to be qualified as a Training Officer.   That's why the policy is in place to restrict CIs in the position.   The training officer's role isn't just to teach; it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan in accordance with the QSP, to supervise and develop instructors, to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on.   I will grant you that a long-serving CI could pick that necessary skills up through years of experience and private study, but he or she will never have the military qualification normally required to do the job.
> 
> For comparison, consider whether the navy would allow a merchant marine officer with a master mariner's ticket to stand watch on one of their ships, or a private pilot to fly a military aircraft.



That is exactly what is being debated here... yes, the CI in most cases (with a few exceptions) will NEVER be qualified for the position (even though they have the experience and skill set to boot) since CIs can not take the LTQ (should be named TrgO course).  That comes back to the original point why a CO may wish to enroll an less than fit, but otherwise out of shape, CI into the CIC... So they can take courses and be qualified.

Oh yeah - and a teacher's job isn't just to teach either, but also to "it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan (lesson plans, term work etc) in accordance with the QSP (Ministry Standards), to supervise and develop instructors (for self learning units), to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on"


----------



## Neill McKay

dgrayca said:
			
		

> Oh yeah - and a teacher's job isn't just to teach either, but also to "it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan (lesson plans, term work etc) in accordance with the QSP (Ministry Standards), to supervise and develop instructors (for self learning units), to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on"



If we were going to compare a cadet unit to a school, the Training Officer would more closely resemble the principal or the vice-principal than a teacher.  Cadet units employ senior cadets, and sometimes officers, in the "teacher" role.


----------



## PViddy

> yes, but that is a last case measure.  If there is a CIC officer on the slate (besides the CO), the CIC must hold the TrgO position even though the CI may be more qualified for the position.



That may be written somwhere, however their are ways around it.  PM me for specific examples from my unit.

PV


----------



## dgrayca

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> If we were going to compare a cadet unit to a school, the Training Officer would more closely resemble the principal or the vice-principal than a teacher.   Cadet units employ senior cadets, and sometimes officers, in the "teacher" role.



Now we're just arguing semantics really.  So, okay, substitute VP for teacher in my example.

I think we both agree on the same point though... the regs state that unless there is no other CIC officer on slate, the TrgO cannot be a CI.  AND.... CIs cannot take the LTQ course to be qualified for the position.

So... hence, why the desire to put someone in uniform... so they can TAKE courses... and be QUALIFIED.


----------



## bwatch

Back in my days as a Cadet, we had Officers who would Volunteer their time who were Reg Force or Militia. We didn't have the CIC in my days. Officers came from Cadet Services of Canada


----------



## c.jacob

I agree with most of you who would like more training and standards for CIC.  But from what I have seen the officers themselves are not at fault.  I do respect what they do and most of them take advantage of what is available to them.  As well I find that many of them are very good and it's just a certain few that are giving them the bad name.  After all, like some of you have said many of them are ex-army.  I think maybe it would be a good idea to open up some reg or Pres. force training for CIC such as a reg force JOLC or even an MOC into Infantry or Armoured corps etc.  Now I know this opens up the argument that it has nothing to do with teaching cadets but if you're complaining that the CIC isn't military enough then what other options are there.

Just a though   :


----------



## chair_borne

The CIC is very much a reflection of the Canadian Forces in general. Both bureaucratic, out of shape, officer heavy, politically correct and in general poorly equipped. This sad situation breeds a mad scramble to assert a backhanded claim to 'professionalism' by calling down other units, regiments, Cadres, etc. Extremely bad form for an officer and gentleman, by the way. Once upon a time when there was an Army (before the unification fiasco years of the 1970s and onwards for quite some time), the Royal Canadian Army Cadets ("CCM" was a bicycle brand name) were under the mandate of the Canadian Army and the badged cadet was considered reflective of the corps or regiment he was affiliated to. So, any self respecting Militia (Reserve) or Regular force unit made darn sure that "their" cadets had training, a place to meet, ranges, field exercises, etc. that befitted a 'soldierly' unit. The cadet instructors of the time were very often ex military men, aged out officers, and a goodly number of school teachers as members of the CSofC (who were encouraged to wear the sponsoring regiment's badge & accoutrements). These Cadet Instructors were welcomed into the officers' mess and felt as part of the regiment-what a great way to learn appropriate roles, manners, make training connections, etc, to enhance themselves and the unit's cadets. The Army no longer directly controls cadets, rather, i believe it is the Directorate of Cadets or some type of bureacracy versus the ARMY. This has placed today's Cadet Instructors of all types in a very interesting situation: you are expected by everyone to deliver a military program but it has to be warm and fuzzy, politically proper, and without significant military hardware,without regular force or reserve force members guiding or helping, without proper facilities, and in spite of enormous paperwork inefficiencies.
So all you weekend warriors, reserve NCOs (oops, NCMs) who quite frankly are often under trained and out of shape themselves, step up to the job of instructing young citizens under the difficult conditions mentioned. Frankly, you probably cannot do it. You aren't trained for it-just like the CIC officer isn't trained to be a craftsmen, sapper or rifleman. 
If Canada wants a CIC and an effective cadet movement, imbed them both with the Army (Navy or Air Force). Otherwise we will continue to have a poorly trained CIC and unfit CIC. If you want the CIC to be 'real officers', give them the opportunity to receive the training (but realize that no one wants to pay that bill at presnt). 
Finally, over the decades I've noticed that usually the junior NCO and the insecure subaltern had the most to 'gain' by CIC (or CSofC or CIL) bashing. Somehow it covered their own insecurities. Surprisingly it was often the Lieutenant ("leftenant") Colonel or other senior officers that expressed encouragement to the cadet instructor long before the insecure underlings did!
And by the way, no need to salute...the awards via Buck-house, and bits of ribbon from gov't and the jump wings are more than enough...because apparantly I was never worthy of the Queen's Commission.


----------



## yoman

> without regular force or reserve force members guiding or helping, without proper facilities, and in spite of enormous paperwork inefficiencies.



You are so wrong there. My unit has reservist helping out all the time. Do we have proper facilities? Have you ever been to a cadet summer training center? Now I don't have the most experience there but I have never heard anybody complain about them. From my experience they are very good. 


Piper summed up everything pretty good.


----------



## Bean

Let us not jump too quickly on chair_borne, he does raise some excellent points in the change in culture and approaches in how the cadet system was administered in the past.  We must recognize that the society we live in has changed and the CCM has changed along with it.  Many  of his points are valid and deserve due consideration. 

We all know and can agree that certain elements have been beaten to death in this thread, so I'll not raise them again, but there are great disparities from unit to unit on facilities for LHQ training ranging from well equiped, locally sponsored space to literally parading in run down buildings no one else wants.  Its a matter that the leagues and DND have been working long to resolve.  Lets keep an open mind and a wide perspective, else this becomes a flame war and we need another of those like we need an additional hole in the head.

There needs to be a change in the culture of the CIC, I think we can agree on that, and there needs to be some adjustment to how they are viewed in the grander CF structures.  Both will take time, effort, and understanding.  Lets try and make that start here if we can.


----------



## armyvern

Chair_Borne,

I don't know where you're coming from but it's not Gagetown. The cadet Units in these parts are fully supported by both their Parent "Reg Force/Res Force" Units and by this Base in general.

We action many TSRs (technical support requests) on their behalfs providing them with kit and equipment (tentange/toboggans/ranges etc) for thier Corps trg purposes. 

And I'd like to point out that although their CIC officers are indeed members of the Reserve Force, the Units around here are also assigned Reg Force Liaison personnel who action their kit/clothing/trg/instruction requirements on their behalfs. Although the CF no longer controls the Cadet Movement, we do indeed support it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

And chair_borne how about filling out your profile a little more so we can guage a little more what you are basing your opinion and experiences on.


----------



## dapaterson

Piper said:
			
		

> Actually, CIC officers are members of the PRes, just FYI.



That is incorrect.  The CIC is a seperate sub-component of the Reserve Force, just as the Rangers, Supp Reserve and Primary Reserve are all distinct.

CFAO 2-8 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/002-08_e.asp) reads:

6.     Composition.  The Reserve Force is composed of the following sub-components:

     a.   the Primary Reserve;
     b.   the Supplementary List;
     c.   the Cadet Instructors List; and
     d.   the Canadian Rangers.

An important distinction; many benefits are for the PRes and thus not the CIC; additionally, the training is different, as the required skillsets for the CIC are not the same as those of the other sub-components.

The chain of command for CIC officers does generally pass through an Army area HQ (or Navy or Air Force equivalent); that being said, they are restricted from employment outside Cadet units or organisations.  

DAP


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Chairborne might be interested to know that "NCOs" is still current parlance; it identifies a non-commissioned officer, ie corporal, master corporal, or sergeant.  An NCM is a private, corporal, master corporal, sergeant, warrant officer, master warrant officer or chief warrant officer.

Inaccuracies like these, and the general tone of the post, weaken some of the points he/she makes, some of which seem valid on the face of it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> The chain of command for CIC officers does generally pass through an Army area HQ (or Navy or Air Force equivalent); that being said, they are restricted from employment outside Cadet units or organisations.



That being said, so its unlikely a member of the CIC organization would ever be deployed to some place like Bosnia or Afghanistan. I ask as it was claimed by a member of the CIC that members of the CIC were deployed.


----------



## dapaterson

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> That being said, so its unlikely a member of the CIC organization would ever be deployed to some place like Bosnia or Afghanistan. I ask as it was claimed by a member of the CIC that members of the CIC were deployed.



There may have been a small number (probably could be counted on one hand) of CIC officers who have deployed, but those have been based on civilian skillsets they hold, not on their CIC experience.  Alternatively, there are some former PRes / Reg F members who become CIC officers later in life; if one of them held military skills required for a mission (and if those skills were still current) they may have been employed.  Again, though, such a deployment would not be based on them being a CIC officer.


CANFORGEN 081/05 explains where CIC officers are to be employed:

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 

1. 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 

2. 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 

3. 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. 

4. 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 

5. 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


----------



## chair_borne

The Cadet movement has interested me for years and I found the comments in this forum very thoughtful for the most. Since years as a cadet mid sixties to CIL years mid 70s-80 and with Army Cadet League around 2000, I cannot help but notice or experience a widening gap been "army" and "cadet". 
The 'barbs' and the vainglorious smuggness that I signed of with I would hope reflects a dry irony to some of the puffed up critics of the CIC.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thank you for the clarification


----------



## Shadowhawk

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> That being said, so its unlikely a member of the CIC organization would ever be deployed to some place like Bosnia or Afghanistan. I ask as it was claimed by a member of the CIC that members of the CIC were deployed.



Just to throw my 2 cents worth in...

I agree that it would be extremely unlikely that CIC would be deployed in Bosnia or Afghanistan ... however... that being said,

While I was being interviewed for the CIC, The recruiter asked if I understood that CIC was a component of the reserves and as such, DURING TIMES OF WAR, I may be asked to deploy.  ???

I thought he was kidding. He seemed serious enough when he asked. I asked him if he was joking?

I was told by the recruiter (with a smile) that if the CF required my services as a CIC officer... we were in big ca ca.

Then he said if we ever were asked to assist with a deployment, it would be only to handle paperwork to free up reg force personell.  :

This is what I was told.... did I believe it? Not on your life. I believe he was pulling my leg. 

I never felt for a moment that as a CIC officer would I ever be asked to deploy with the regs. 

Now ... of all the CIC officers I know in the Maritimes (where I was CIC) not one of them have ever been deployed or assisted. 

Only one said that he was asked for an upcoming deployment to Bosnia. He said yes but the "deal fell through" at the last minute. (how convenient). Was he BS-ing me? Probably. He is the type.


Cheers


----------



## c.jacob

I saw it written somewhere that CIC can be deployed if needed but there wasn't alot of detail to it.  I'd imagine it would be as a last resort if all the Primary reserves are deployed and they might need extra training.  If anyone has a link to anything like this it would be useful.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jacob,

From para 5 of the CANFORGEN, one page back:

HENCEFORTH, CIC OFFICERS WILL ONLY BE USED ON CADET-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND ONLY IN THOSE POSITIONS DETAILED IN PARAGRAPH FOUR.

Go back and read the whole thing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

chair_borne said:
			
		

> The 'barbs' and the vainglorious smuggness that I signed of with I would hope reflects a dry irony to some of the puffed up critics of the CIC.



A rather inglorious start and an unviable excuse, is what it is. Your Reserve bashing and other swipes are not welcome. Go back and read the Guidelines, you obviously didn't grasp them the first time. Continuing behaviour of this sort won't be tolerated. Filling out your profile, to back up your so called experience wouldn't hurt either. Right now you come off as nothing more than an uninformed pompous prig. You may wish to change that view.


----------



## Kaziklu

Most CIC officers which to join to help the Kids and I would hope most don't care about any rank they hold. 

CIC Officers are trained to operate a Cadet corps or Squadron and act as a recruiting and or PR tool for the Canadian Forces. They do this job for very little pay, and are often times in many communities the only time residence see a member of the Canadian Forces first hand in their Community. They spend months if not years waiting to be able to help the Kids, And for the first few years most likely get their pay from time spent doing training, to better help the Cadets. The Fitness level is lower in most officers, as they are often officer workers and the such that one day week and one weekend a month.. plus a few extra days here and there for meetings, and other activities. A CIC officers job is to represent DND to the Cadets, they promote citizenship, act as role models, and in theory generate interest in the Canadian forces, which is usually the case. 

The Problem with the CIC isn't the training the receive, it's the hoops they have to go through in order to do what it is they are joining to do. A CIC officer requires to wait no less then 46 days but more accurately 3-6 months to actually be able to work with the Kids they are joining to help. This whole process turns alot of people away, you then have to deal with internal politics, politics between various groups inside the CCM, and general crap that is to be expected. All to support the Cadet Movement. 

I personally don't care if I hold a rank at all. However if the gov't has deemed that the contribution of the CIC is worth of a commission, and a uniform, should not members of the Reserve and Primary forces at least pay them the respect of the rank and position they hold? A desk officer, a Doctor, a lawyer or even a Chaplin all are non combat commissions, and start with signing bonuses, increased pay and starting Ranks of Capitan. A Chaplin requires the same fitness and medical level as a CIC officer. And a CIC Officer in theory does need to meet certain physical standards. (though not in practice) There is little chance of them bing used in a Combat situation.. but you know funny thing, not all deployments are combat. CIC officers are teachers, office workers, police officers, nurses, doctors, delivery drivers, university students, etc. some of these Jobs can be handy in various deployments, heck some of these jobs would entitle them to join the Military at higher rank and pay full time if they wished some couldn't serve at all. 

Some do get a bit of a big head when on base, particularly at summer camps when they temporarily full time employee's of the Forces. Should they... no... however they still hold a commission and they do deserve respect for the rank they hold and the job they do.. just like a an Admin Officer or a Chaplain. Just because they aren't combat trained doesn't mean they are undertrained to do theirjob.  How many people on this board feel that because a Chaplain who starts at the rank of Captain (Lt(N)) and receive no combat training, does not deserve respect of the rank they hold? 

(it's not an exact parallel but it's close) 
There are 4,000 officer in the CIC, it most likely about fewer then 10% of them take the rank they hold overly seriously. But it doesn't mean that a Reg Force or Reservist shouldn't pay proper respect to them when a position would require it.. particularly with Cadets are around. 
Should the CIC Officer get out of hand, make a complaint like you would with any other situation.


----------



## chair_borne

Piper is right about me sounding as a pompous prig. As tasteless as it is, I hope that it illustrates that criticism of trade/job description, capabilities or slagging whatever-status can be a two way (deadend)street.


----------



## Michael OLeary

chair_borne,

I hope you realize that such demonstrations are not considered in good form to "make a point" at army.ca. If you had reviewed this complete thread I believe you would have found a number of points where staff or other senior posters had advised that simple slagging of any groups was unwelcome and in poor form.

You infer that you have some background experience which might support offering credible contribution to this site. To that end, you will find that posters' credibility and the value of their posts relies heavily on their professional approach to discussion and the quality and tone of their posts. Also, the value of filling in the profile should not be under-estimated for new members wishing to establish themselves as useful contributors.

Unfortunately, your first post was a poor start. I think you will find that to be so in comparison to the level of quality we try to achive here and do our best to maintain through a fairly agressive approach to Moderation.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to consult any of the staff, or the owner, Mike Bobbitt. You will also find the Conduct Guidelines a worthwhile read.

thank you.


----------



## Sloaner

Thank you Michael for your post.  

Chair_borne, as a long standing CIC member I appreciate the perspective you bring , and understand the frustrations you are expressing, but there has to be a beter way to resolve the situation.  If you have been working with the league, perhaps that is the best place to exhert influence to help resolve this situation (as a CIC officer I'd appreciate the support).  

As for others, including my colleague Kaziklu, we are here to help the cadets on an individual and global basis.  Those who have been deployed have been so based oncivillian experience and we should recognize their non-uniformed contributions.  As for individual fitness, we expect army cadets to maintain and assess on a fitnesss standard anually . why not the officers who lead them.  I agree that for most of us its not about the rank we hold, but at the same time, the PRes folks here have a valid point about the rampant fast tracking of some officers to higher ranks. If the system works it should take several years of time in and on the job training before an officer is made a lieutenant or captain, but I have known far too many who have gotten there in 2 -3 years.  This is not in our best interest, or that of the CF.

I must disagree though that we don't take our rank seriously.  If we are officers of the CF then we MUST take these ranks and appointments very seriously.  As officers of the CF we have an image and culture to abide by, and as you stated often are the sole representatives of the CF in our communities.  If we don't take our positions, ranks, and image seriously, then why do we exist.

We cannot compare ourselves with the chaplaincy, doctors or other non-combat arms trades because we are not called to the same level of duty.  We serve our country by assisting in the development of children to be the capable leaders and citizens of tomorrow.  We should not look to compare with any other trade because we do not compare with any other trade in the CF.  We lead youth, relish in that you have the opportunity to influence their choices and be a positive influence on how they lead their lives.  There is no point arguing how we compare to the CA trades or the CSS trades because we do not.  While many of our civilian skills are portable, unitl the CF sees fit to employ us (most likely as civilians) based on these skills we are no different than the public at large beyond our ability to undersatnd the culture and lanuage of the CF a little more easily.

Lets be honest about what we do, and proud of the same.  I train kids to be better citizens and I hope I can help them make good decisions for their future wheter that be in the CF or not, and I'm honoured to do it.  'Nuff said.


----------



## c.jacob

I think that's the best way I've ever heard it expalined.


----------



## PViddy

An excellent article representing many of the points in this thread just popped up in the most recent issue of Cadence (just got it at my LHQ yesterday).  A must read for CIC Officers, it is not yet updated online yet, but i will try and post in the coming days for everyone else, if your interested.

cheers

PV


----------



## Good2Golf

Jacob said:
			
		

> I think that's the best way I've ever heard it expalined.



Concur.

Sloaner, well stated!

For any who may disparage CIC Officers, CI's or any other member of the Cadet movement involved in helping our country's youth develop pride and professionalism beyond the norm of their age group, shame!   When people ask me how long I have served my country, my immediate response is 21 years....perhaps I should really say 26 years and I include the time I spent in Air Cadets learning discipline, structure, perseverance, personal drive and pride!  The CIC Officers, CIs and other volunteers did an admirable job while I was a cadet, facing many of the challenges that those of us in the RegF or Res mistakenly think we may hold a monopoly on.  

Hopefully the recent resurgence in public support for the CF will flow equally well into the Cadet movement.  If but only a fraction of those boys and girls....young men and women who pass through the cadet movement later join the CF, the CIC Officers will have achieved their mission and have every reason to be proud.  

Well done!

Duey


----------



## Fishbone Jones

And a fitting way to finally put this one to bed. :


----------

