# Military Police roles/org:  now vs. C Prov Corps days  (split thread)



## jollyjacktar (24 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree that a Royal Canadian Logistic Corps is more likely than a return to RCOC and RCASC but I think RCEME, the finance and admin clerks and the MPs* should be brought into that mix/cap badge, too.
> 
> _____
> * The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are _part_of the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.



Although I am no longer in the trade, and therefore don't have a current dog in the fight so to speak, I will take some umbrage at the highlighted text.  The MP of today are just as real, and professional as their civilian counterparts which is reflected in their acceptance at the same level as other municipal police departments in transferring to for example the RCMP.  I won't disagree at the importance of manning TCP's, POW collection points and cages as part of the big picture but that's not all there is to it.

- mod edit to clarify title a bit -


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are _part_of the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.



Actually you are the one that is very wrong.  The idea that MPs do traffic control in the field went out in the late 80s.  POW/Detainee handling, sure but MPs bring much more to the table then I'm sure you will ever admit.  During our time in Afghanistan we had teams of MPs embedded with the Battle Groups and out in the FOBs on patrol with the infantry, both on foot and mounted. It was that way during my roto in 07 and it was something that had happened long before my tour.  I won't try to change your mind on the facts that you won't accept because you have already clearly stated you are not open to any discussion on the matter.   I'd just respectfully recommend that you educate yourself.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Nov 2014)

I am certain the Mr. Campbell did not mention 'traffic control' with any negative connotation.  It is not a negative thing, nor a menial task.  You should not take offence, such as you have.

Perhaps you could help us educate ourselves -- who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2014)

Armoured recce does TCPs as part of their RAS taskings, I don't know if that fits your criteria though. However, we don't sign routes. That was the job of the Field MPs with their jeeps and doghouse trailers. No idea who does that now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Nov 2014)

I smell TANGENT


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2014)

Regimental Police can sign routes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2014)

> During our time in Afghanistan we had teams of MPs embedded with the Battle Groups and out in the FOBs on patrol with the infantry, both on foot and mounted.



The ones I saw 'attached' to Battle Groups, investigated traffic accidents, etc. Essentially, the same job Base MPs do at home. What other job(s) did they do in that capacity?

The ones going on patrol with the infantry were doing what? Acting as MPs or filling a rifleman's spot. If they were MP tasked, they would not be doing a section job as it would take away from the overall effectiveness and manpower of the section. If they were filling a rifleman's role, they weren't MPs, they were riflemen.

Or have I got it wrong. Just looking for clarification.


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

I didn't take any negative connotation re conducting traffic control, I've done it before and where required I'd do it again but it is certainly not the driving force for the existence of MPs in the modern battle space.  Things like route signing and traffic control are tasks that can be conducted by anyone and in fact it's not been taught at CFSIS/CFMPA for many years.  When called upon to conduct traffic control and route signing MPs are just as capable as any other soldier which is good because with the full scope of tasks MPs are called upon to perform there are often not enough MPs available to dedicate time and efforts to signing or traffic control.  

I don't have full access to many of the doctrine documents from home but a review of the relevent article within this document http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/D12-9-3-4E.pdf will give a better overview of the full scope of MPs in the field in this day and age.  Yes, traffic control is in there but its a very small part of our overall roll.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Regimental Police can sign routes.



Though it might have changed, when I was an RP, our Supervisor was an MP Sgt attached to the unit.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Nov 2014)

RP's were supervised by MPs but I think RPs have gone the way of the dodo


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Nov 2014)

Sorry G2G, I'll stand more with SL as well in that I believe ER is mistaken in his beliefs, however well meant.  

The vision that ER is proposing is outdated and would be more in line with what he was familiar with when he was current and there was a Provost Corps.  Their training is in line with CivPOL standards and as I said, there is more, much more to what is done today vs a 1960's model.  You are a product of your era, mine was late 80's to 90's.  Things have changed very much since I left the business in 99.  They're no longer the knuckle draggers that "might" have been more the case when we needed to have RCMP members flesh out the trade.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Though it might have changed, when I was an RP, our Supervisor was an MP Sgt attached to the unit.



Yes, with perhaps a MP Cpl, and a bunch of Crewmen.  They are under comd of the Reg't not the MP Platoon.


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The ones I saw 'attached' to Battle Groups, investigated traffic accidents, etc. Essentially, the same job Base MPs do at home. What other job(s) did they do in that capacity?
> 
> The ones going on patrol with the infantry were doing what? Acting as MPs or filling a rifleman's spot. If they were MP tasked, they would not be doing a section job as it would take away from the overall effectiveness and manpower of the section. If they were filling a rifleman's role, they weren't MPs, they were riflemen.
> 
> Or have I got it wrong. Just looking for clarification.



At times they were acting as riflemen, as any soldier would in that situation.  We all know that every CAF members job, regardless of their trade affiliation, boils down to being a soldier first.  At other times though, many times, they were taking initial possession and processing of detainees, processing and gathering information and evidence at IED sites, providing advice and direction on detainee handling, gathering sworn statements from witnesses and/or victims of incidents in the field (of all types).  What many fail to realise is that every death in the field was processed and treated as if it was a crime so the gathering and preservation of evidence was very important.  

They also spend quite some time working with, mentoring and overseeing various elements of the ANP both in the field and at their various police posts or sub stations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, with perhaps a MP Cpl, and a bunch of Crewmen.  They are under comd of the Reg't not the MP Platoon.



Which is why I said "MP Sgt _attached_ to the unit", and yes, the rest of us were crewmen


----------



## McG (25 Nov 2014)

In talking about all the tacticool stuff an mP might do if we go back to Afghanistan, I noticed this question was ignored?


			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could help us educate ourselves -- who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?


What is the doctrinal answer?  It is not "anyone can do it" and RPs (if they existed still) would not have the scope to undertake such a task at the formation level.


----------



## Wolf1412 (25 Nov 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The ones I saw 'attached' to Battle Groups, investigated traffic accidents, etc. Essentially, the same job Base MPs do at home. What other job(s) did they do in that capacity?
> 
> The ones going on patrol with the infantry were doing what? Acting as MPs or filling a rifleman's spot. If they were MP tasked, they would not be doing a section job as it would take away from the overall effectiveness and manpower of the section. If they were filling a rifleman's role, they weren't MPs, they were riflemen.
> 
> Or have I got it wrong. Just looking for clarification.



Not much for posting on the site but do visit for information as currently OutCan. One thing I have noticed RG is your continued fight against anything MP. So a little education regarding MP task in Afghanistan outside of the KAF policing and the others already mentioned.

Convoy Ops and Force Protection. Personally conducted 144 successful convoys  out of the PRT on ROTO 3. This included detainee pick up and transfers, escort duties, QRF task (yes at time an MP was QRF Commander, Accident and IED response and cordons, ANP/AUP Liaison and training (all AUP post, check points and ACPs in and around Kandahar, Panjwa and Zhari). These task complete, conducted by MP Close Support Platoon out of Nathan Smith, My counter part conducted a similar number of convoys equating into approx 250 successful convoys from Feb - Sep 2007

POMLT - As an MP had the task of Commanding a AUP Substation at Pashmul South. 6 MP's and 3 Infantry (1 Reserve and 2 Royals) and 14 AUP - tasks to include 4 to 6 foot patrols through AOR weekly, Combined OPS with November Company (Local Land owners at the time), VCP operations 1 to 2 times a week, Route Clearance of Summit to include the river crossing, training AUP, Command and Control of Pashmul South and surrounding AOR, Village searches and Mullah, Mallic liaison, ran shoes for kids throughout local villages and conducted pretty much any task requested by C/S 2 or Tango 1 across the river. All this well living in a 32 Sq meter hesco compound from Sept 2008 to Apr 2009. "Razorbacks"

The combination of MP and RCR produced a high competent and professional group of soldiers who became a family unto themselves and at times conducted ops that would make the most ardent battle group member enviable.

Not sure why the constant attempt to denigrate MP's RG but please delve a little deeper before making comments.


----------



## GR66 (25 Nov 2014)

> Quote from: E.R. Campbell on Yesterday at 13:42:21
> * The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are partof the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.






			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Actually you are the one that is very wrong.  The idea that MPs do traffic control in the field went out in the late 80s.  POW/Detainee handling, sure but MPs bring much more to the table then I'm sure you will ever admit.  During our time in Afghanistan we had teams of MPs embedded with the Battle Groups and out in the FOBs on patrol with the infantry, both on foot and mounted. It was that way during my roto in 07 and it was something that had happened long before my tour.  I won't try to change your mind on the facts that you won't accept because you have already clearly stated you are not open to any discussion on the matter.   I'd just respectfully recommend that you educate yourself.



What I take from Mr. Campbell's comment and the response is that there has been an ongoing "blurring" of the ultimate role of the Army (and by extension the Military Police) over the years.  At one time the ultimate role of the Army was very clear - to defeat an enemy conventional force in the field.  The Army was to be designed, equipped and trained for battle with a peer or near-peer enemy conventional military.  

If this is still the ultimate, primary role of the Army then the primary role of the MPs should be exactly as expressed by Mr. Campbell and other, secondary roles should not detract from their ability to effectively fulfill this primary mission.  If training for and execution of other missions (collection of evidence at crime scenes, training of civilian police forces of allied states, on base municipal police functions, etc.) mean that the MP's don't have the manpower, training or equipment to fulfill their primary function, then perhaps the trade needs to be split into two unique functions or the secondary functions should be performed by another party that has that as their primary function (RCMP, etc.).

The above is a fine statement "in theory" but I can't fault the MPs for instead focusing on the roles that it is ACTUALLY called on to perform by the government and the CF.  The fact is that they are required to fulfill these so called "secondary" functions (doctrinally speaking anyway) on a regular basis while the supposed "primary" function is not really something that they are called upon to do even in regular large-scale exercises.

The same is true for the CF writ large.  It's the same reason we don't have Pioneer or Mortar Platoons in the infantry.  The same reason we have very limited Air Defence and Anti-Armour capabilities.  The same reason we don't have a dedicated CAS platform or attack helicopters.  Our logistics vehicles are rotting out, etc., etc., etc.  

The question was asked "who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?".  A fair question I guess, but probably more fair if you also asked "who is capable of performing a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation against a peer enemy?".

Lots of threads here question the correct roles, training and equipment requirements for various trades in the CF.  It's great to question but in my opinion none of those questions can really be answered until the people in Ottawa (military and political) answer the fundamental questions about what the role of the CF is and what we expect it to be able to do.

 :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2014)

First: an apology to MPs, my problem isn't with you, the people who are MPs, it is with _why_ we have/need the MP branch, at all. I had the pleasure - right word - of commanding MPs in the past, both CProC and, a few years later, Security Branch members and they were, without exception, good soldiers doing good, useful work.

Second: I agree that convoy operations in a theatre like Afghanistan are important, vital roles for the MPs, but they _seem, to me_, to be modern or theatre specific analogs to traffic control.

Third: I am, indeed, basing my thinking on a peer-to-peer, BIG war. I _think _that's the worst case scenario and i think that we should be able to understand what's needed for that and then scale our current operational thinking accordingly.

Fourth: the world has changed and I recognize the valid requirements for e.g. cyber security and facility security and I appreciate that they are good, proper, MP roles.

All that being said, this is a useful discussion ... but  >  I still _think_ logistics, administration, finance and security/policing are all more related to one another than they are to, say, engineering, intelligence or signalling, and they _could_ be grouped into one, big, super-branch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> At times they were acting as riflemen, as any soldier would in that situation.  We all know that every CAF members job, regardless of their trade affiliation, boils down to being a soldier first.  At other times though, many times, they were taking initial possession and processing of detainees, processing and gathering information and evidence at IED sites, providing advice and direction on detainee handling, gathering sworn statements from witnesses and/or victims of incidents in the field (of all types).  What many fail to realise is that every death in the field was processed and treated as if it was a crime so the gathering and preservation of evidence was very important.
> 
> They also spend quite some time working with, mentoring and overseeing various elements of the ANP both in the field and at their various police posts or sub stations.



A useful function within a COIN theater, but what would their role be in a Ukrainian style conflict?


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All that being said, this is a useful discussion ... but  >  I still _think_ logistics, administration, finance and security/policing are all more related to one another than they are to, say, engineering, intelligence or signalling, and they _could_ be grouped into one, big, super-branch.


My only concern with lumping the MP in with another branch is that they would lose the stand off they need to do their jobs.  I belived and still do that the trade needs to be kept at a distance from possible interference from local command.  My reasoning is that there were occasions when I was with 1MPPL to have attempts from outside command elements try and run interference or obstruct ongoing investigations.  I welcomed the thought of a CF Provost Marshall as the ultimate authority with the CoC leading straight to Ottawa.  If they are separate, they are, I believe better able to provide service without outside influences coming into play and cannot have their objectivity imparied.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My only concern with lumping the MP in with another branch is that they would lose the stand off they need to do their jobs.  I belived and still do that the trade needs to be kept at a distance from possible interference from local command.  My reasoning is that there were occasions when I was with 1MPPL to have attempts from outside command elements try and run interference or obstruct ongoing investigations.  I welcomed the thought of a CF Provost Marshall as the ultimate authority with the CoC leading straight to Ottawa.  If they are separate, they are, I believe better able to provide service without outside influences coming into play and cannot have their objectivity imparied.




Fair point ...


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Nov 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A useful function within a COIN theater, but what would their role be in a Ukrainian style conflict?



Every peer on peer theatre is also a COIN theater behind about the rear of the brigade boundary. Partisans, shattered cities, refugees, enemy SOF raids, terrorism, rebuilding civil society, and all the three block war non-kinetic activities are all also happening at the same time that the peer on peer fight is trading MLRS strikes and burning each others' tanks.

A civilian population needs to be policed, by somebody, and even if our MP aren't policing them, the MP branch are probably the best people to liase with/mentor/equip/train the civilian police presence who are. And deal with the inevitable paperwork of fatalities, collateral damage, looting, and war crimes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2014)

Wolf1412 said:
			
		

> Not much for posting on the site but do visit for information as currently OutCan. One thing I have noticed RG is your continued fight against anything MP. So a little education regarding MP task in Afghanistan outside of the KAF policing and the others already mentioned.
> 
> Convoy Ops and Force Protection. Personally conducted 144 successful convoys  out of the PRT on ROTO 3. This included detainee pick up and transfers, escort duties, QRF task (yes at time an MP was QRF Commander, Accident and IED response and cordons, ANP/AUP Liaison and training (all AUP post, check points and ACPs in and around Kandahar, Panjwa and Zhari). These task complete, conducted by MP Close Support Platoon out of Nathan Smith, My counter part conducted a similar number of convoys equating into approx 250 successful convoys from Feb - Sep 2007
> 
> ...



A tad insecure? Please show, within my post, where I denigrated MPs. I stated what I knew from personal observation, and things posted by MPs, and simply asked for clarification, or delving a little deeper as you say.

So, seeing as I was doing exactly as you are requesting, you are the one that seems to have the axe to grind.

BTW, many of those tasks you relate to are also part of Armoured Recce taskings. I've also seen them done by purple trades. In our last war, no one had a lock on who did what and Unit\ Corps battle taskings appeared to be conducted by whoever was available in many cases.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Every peer on peer theatre is also a COIN theater behind about the rear of the brigade boundary. Partisans, shattered cities, refugees, enemy SOF raids, terrorism, rebuilding civil society, and all the three block war non-kinetic activities are all also happening at the same time that the peer on peer fight is trading MLRS strikes and burning each others' tanks.
> 
> A civilian population needs to be policed, by somebody, and even if our MP aren't policing them, the MP branch are probably the best people to liase with/mentor/equip/train the civilian police presence who are. And deal with the inevitable paperwork of fatalities, collateral damage, looting, and war crimes.



Thanks an interesting way to look at it.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Nov 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Every peer on peer theatre is also a COIN theater behind about the rear of the brigade boundary. Partisans, shattered cities, refugees, enemy SOF raids, terrorism, rebuilding civil society, and all the three block war non-kinetic activities are all also happening at the same time that the peer on peer fight is trading MLRS strikes and burning each others' tanks.
> 
> A civilian population needs to be policed, by somebody, and even if our MP aren't policing them, the MP branch are probably the best people to liase with/mentor/equip/train the civilian police presence who are. And deal with the inevitable paperwork of fatalities, collateral damage, looting, and war crimes.



I will disagree with this to an extent as it disregards the role of CIMIC and host nation units (Free French, standing police forces in liberated countries, the ANP, etc) in building capabilities. Integral Bde MPs, to me, are better used in a purely military context for TCPs, control of soldiers, etc with CIMIC coordinating with Other government departments, in this case the RCMP, to develop police capability.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

GR66 said:
			
		

> What I take from Mr. Campbell's comment and the response is that there has been an ongoing "blurring" of the ultimate role of the Army (and by extension the Military Police) over the years.  At one time the ultimate role of the Army was very clear - to defeat an enemy conventional force in the field.  The Army was to be designed, equipped and trained for battle with a peer or near-peer enemy conventional military.
> 
> If this is still the ultimate, primary role of the Army then the primary role of the MPs should be exactly as expressed by Mr. Campbell and other, secondary roles should not detract from their ability to effectively fulfill this primary mission.  If training for and execution of other missions (collection of evidence at crime scenes, training of civilian police forces of allied states, on base municipal police functions, etc.) mean that the MP's don't have the manpower, training or equipment to fulfill their primary function, then perhaps the trade needs to be split into two unique functions or the secondary functions should be performed by another party that has that as their primary function (RCMP, etc.).



So just how to you propose these functions be split?  Not that I agree they should be.  The simple fact of the matter is that they cannot be split.  The RCMP (or any other civpol) will not go out in the field to perform the duties you speak of.  In fact, for CivPol to go anywhere outside the wire they called upon MPs to take them.  They don't have the training, manpower or equipment necessary to perform outside the wire.  Inside the wire is just as impossible to achieve.  Just what are they going to do inside the wire?  They have no legal authority to act in any law enforcement capacity while outside Canada.  The Criminal Code of Canada does not apply outcan and the RCMP have no authority to enforce any provisions under the NDA.  In many ways the fact that CivPol (RCMP and Provincial/Municipal members) are even deployed outside of Canada is more of a political move so that "the Force" and our politicians can say "Look what else we are doing".  Like Wolf, I was also with the MP Coy on Roto 3 and other then for some photo ops I didn't see much value added having them there.  Much in the say way having two members of Corrections Canada there to advise/oversee on the running of the local prison was essentially useless considering they couldn't even travel outside of the PRT unless someone else was able to undertake a major road move for them.  



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> The above is a fine statement "in theory" but I can't fault the MPs for instead focusing on the roles that it is ACTUALLY called on to perform by the government and the CF.  The fact is that they are required to fulfill these so called "secondary" functions (doctrinally speaking anyway) on a regular basis while the supposed "primary" function is not really something that they are called upon to do even in regular large-scale exercises.



These are certainly not secondary functions.  They are all part of our primary function however its clear they don't fit into your antiquated view of what MP are supposed to be doing.  


			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> The same is true for the CF writ large.  It's the same reason we don't have Pioneer or Mortar Platoons in the infantry.  The same reason we have very limited Air Defence and Anti-Armour capabilities.  The same reason we don't have a dedicated CAS platform or attack helicopters.  Our logistics vehicles are rotting out, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> The question was asked "who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?".  A fair question I guess, but probably more fair if you also asked "who is capable of performing a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation against a peer enemy?".
> 
> ...



Actually, perhaps a better question is to ask why it's necessary for MPs to be conduct traffic control in such a situation.  Surely you can't be trying to state that nobody else is more then capable of standing in one spot and making sure traffic proceeds in an orderly fashion.  I don't know whether to be pleased you think MPs are the only ones skilled and responsible enough to perform such a function or that you feel such a task is beneath the dignity of everyone else and therefore only suited for an MP.  If you feel we are the only ones capable of such an important task then please let me know and I'll make sure to staff a service paper on the subject to get doctorin changed to reflect this important task.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> First: an apology to MPs, my problem isn't with you, the people who are MPs, it is with _why_ we have/need the MP branch, at all. I had the pleasure - right word - of commanding MPs in the past, both CProC and, a few years later, Security Branch members and they were, without exception, good soldiers doing good, useful work.
> 
> Second: I agree that convoy operations in a theatre like Afghanistan are important, vital roles for the MPs, but they _seem, to me_, to be modern or theatre specific analogs to traffic control.
> 
> ...



While I can appreciate your comments I think there is one big area that is not being considered.  Like it or not there are over riding legal reasons why the MPs are their own Branch and why, in fact, the CFPM just finely assumed operational control of all aspects of the Branch.  

Many years ago, when I started with the Branch, MPs worked for their various Base Commanders.  We recieved our funds from that Base Commander and we recieved our directions from that Base Commander.  When that Commander didn't want an investigation proceeded with because perhaps cost too much or it was perhaps getting too close to him/her or a friend....it was shut down either directly or indirectly through the cutting off of funds necessary for the investigation.  

Competing priorities were also a major issue.  If the MPs needed a new vehicle and the Base Commander didn't care to supply it we would get the hand me downs from Base Transport.  K Cars, propane powered Liminas or worse where what was provided to the MPs.  I spent my first 2 years driving an AMC Hornet.   Necessary equipment such as silent partners were denied because they were too expensive.  

The MP Branch didn't just because what it is today because it felt like it.  Reports and studies, both from outside the Branch and inside, have determined the level of independence that is necessary for the Branch to have.  Legal bodies (courts) and judicial bodies (such as the MPCC) have dictated changes as well.  I really don't think these areas you note above could be combined into one larger organization while still retaining their functionality and their effectiveness.  They are separate for a reason and it's not just within organizations such as the military.   A city has agencies that look after logistics for the city, administration of the city, finance of the city, policing for the city and urban planning for the city.  Each of them as separate departments in their own right, with their own department heads running their departments as they see fit.  Combining them all would add no value and would only serve to add another layer of bureaucracy.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My only concern with lumping the MP in with another branch is that they would lose the stand off they need to do their jobs.  I belived and still do that the trade needs to be kept at a distance from possible interference from local command.  My reasoning is that there were occasions when I was with 1MPPL to have attempts from outside command elements try and run interference or obstruct ongoing investigations.  I welcomed the thought of a CF Provost Marshall as the ultimate authority with the CoC leading straight to Ottawa.  If they are separate, they are, I believe better able to provide service without outside influences coming into play and cannot have their objectivity impaired.



Thats an excellent point.  I recall an incident (quite vividly) that took place a number of years ago where a LAV was involved in a training accident and one soldier died.  At the time the Unit was conducting predeployment training and they had a Section of reg force MPs with them.  The local Commander told the MPs point blank that they were to secure the scene until assistance arrived after which time they were to return to their exercise duties because they had a training schedule to keep.  Upon my arrival these MPs started to leave which meant that it was essentially me and my partner left to conduct the investigation, guard the scene, deal with the remains and otherwise carry the load.  I dealt directly with the Commander but he wouldn't budge and insisted that while the accident and death were tragic, he still had a training cycle to maintain and he was not going to release "his" MPs to conduct their duties.  Needless to say I made a few phone calls and within a very short amount of time this Commander was set straight and I got the support I needed.  More importantly one of our departed colleagues had his death fully investigated and the family was able to assured of circumstances of the death.  If MPs were combined within some form of "Super Branch" I can just imagine what would have happened.  That independence of command and control and the degree of autonomy they provide for are critical in ensuring overall effectiveness.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I will disagree with this to an extent as it disregards the role of CIMIC and host nation units (Free French, standing police forces in liberated countries, the ANP, etc) in building capabilities. Integral Bde MPs, to me, are better used in a purely military context for TCPs, control of soldiers, etc with CIMIC coordinating with Other government departments, in this case the RCMP, to develop police capability.



So let me see if I understand.  You have one organization, the MP, who are trained to operate in both domestic policing rolls as well as in a deployed capacity.  You also have another organization, the RCMP in your example, who are trained in domestic policing.

Your view is that the best persons to train the ANP (which given the situation and operational environment is far from a civilian police agency) and others in a reconstruction or restoration situation is an agency with no concept of deployed policing?  Interesting.  If all things were equal and the battle was won with the enemy defeated and we were looking to rebuild civilian capabilities then I'd gladly agree with you but the way the ANP was required to operate was nowhere near the way in which a conventional police force would operate.  I think it makes more sense though to have an entity with experience in both forms of policing doing the training.


----------



## RCDtpr (25 Nov 2014)

The fact is.....the military will always want the military policed by the military.  To have the RCMP, OPP or whoever police local bases...... Well frankly Ottawa doesn't want it's dirty laundry getting out...nor will ottawa accept their bases and property policed by people who ultimately don't answer to them.

You can't realistically expect a civilian police officer to give a rats *** about military protocol etc etc....and they are all (with the exception of the RCMP) unionized.

So the military can pay that Cpl 65k/yr or they can pay the rate of a Constable at close to 100k/yr BEFORE OT.

Like it or not people....MPs doing policing is probably here to stay.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2014)

Not to mention how do you train people and retain them if they can't do their job when not deployed?


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> ...The Criminal Code of Canada does not apply outcan...






> _Offences Punishable by Ordinary Law_
> 
> 130. (1) An act or omission
> 
> ...




Just so we're all tracking things correctly, we all know that the Criminal Code of Canada, as part of the Law of Armed Conflict in general, and as noted in Section 130 of the National Defence Act quoted above, DOES indeed apply outside of Canada where CAF members are concerned.

Right? 

Whether RCMP were in theatre supporting the CAF directly or, say, a POMLT (where I can assure you that having worked with several RCMP and OPP officers in AFG, they did in fact know what they were doing 'outside the wire') mentoring ANP or other indigenous law enforcement agencies, they would be just as bound/enabled to enforce elements of the CCC.  Would that be applied in practice against CAF members?  Perhaps not, it might be left discretionarily to the militray COC, but one cannot categorically say that Canadian law enforcement officers, if deployed with CAF members and so tasked by the GoC, would not be able to carry out such tasks as assigned.


Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (25 Nov 2014)

... and I know several Canadian CIVPOL who did thier own force protection for patrols outside the walls of a base while in Afghanistan.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Nov 2014)

As do I.  Both were switched on guys who worked hand in glove with the POMLET MP, took the same risks etc.  I was disappointed to learn that they would not be awarded the GCS as they were CIVPOL but the GCM instead.  I thought it insulting.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> So let me see if I understand.  You have one organization, the MP, who are trained to operate in both domestic policing rolls as well as in a deployed capacity.  You also have another organization, the RCMP in your example, who are trained in domestic policing.
> 
> Your view is that the best persons to train the ANP (which given the situation and operational environment is far from a civilian police agency) and others in a reconstruction or restoration situation is an agency with no concept of deployed policing?  Interesting.  If all things were equal and the battle was won with the enemy defeated and we were looking to rebuild civilian capabilities then I'd gladly agree with you but the way the ANP was required to operate was nowhere near the way in which a conventional police force would operate.  I think it makes more sense though to have an entity with experience in both forms of policing doing the training.



First, Afghanistan was a unique theatre of operations for all trades, including infantry, arty, logistics, MPs, etc. In a conventional war, or COIN for that example, the CIMIC will provide the link between the civilian/OGD elements and the host nation government. In A-Stan this meant the creation of the ANP (and ANA for that matter) which created a unique requirement to build a national police forcce where one did not previously exist. If you look at the US invasion of Iraq there are many who believe that a key failing of US policy was not leaving the Iraqi police forces and army operational post-invasion and attempting to rebuild those capabilities.

Further, in future operations/theatres we have zero/nil/no ability to predict what we may or may not need. Thats why we're returning to doctrine- it gives a base for which we can force generate other capabilities. MPs, doctrinally, provide the capabilities noted above, which should be the focus of the branch. Who knows, perhaps the next theatre we attack, use MPs for control of military and traffic, and then leave a la Iraq in 1991 or we invade a country with a standing police force.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> First, Afghanistan was a unique theatre of operations for all trades, including infantry, arty, logistics, MPs, etc. In a conventional war, or COIN for that example, the CIMIC will provide the link between the civilian/OGD elements and the host nation government. In A-Stan this meant the creation of the ANP (and ANA for that matter) which created a unique requirement to build a national police forcce where one did not previously exist. If you look at the US invasion of Iraq there are many who believe that a key failing of US policy was not leaving the Iraqi police forces and army operational post-invasion and attempting to rebuild those capabilities.
> 
> Further, in future operations/theatres we have zero/nil/no ability to predict what we may or may not need. Thats why we're returning to doctrine- it gives a base for which we can force generate other capabilities. MPs, doctrinally, provide the capabilities noted above, which should be the focus of the branch. Who knows, perhaps the next theatre we attack, use MPs for control of military and traffic, and then leave a la Iraq in 1991 or we invade a country with a standing police force.



But you still have not clarified your contention that a civilian police department would be better suited to establish and train a police department that is required to act as both it's nations military police and it's civilian police within a country still actively at war.  It certainly seems to make sense to have a MP play a big part in helping to establish and train the ANP and then one day, once they and the country have reached an appropriate level of stability, have other agencies carry on and further conduct that training.  

If I apply your logic to the Afghan National Army it seems you are saying it would have been better to have some civilian contractor train the ANA and assist them to stand up then it would be to have trained and professional soldiers do that capability building.  Having CivPol do the same for ANP is just as misguided.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> The fact is.....the military will always want the military policed by the military.  To have the RCMP, OPP or whoever police local bases...... Well frankly Ottawa doesn't want it's dirty laundry getting out...nor will ottawa accept their bases and property policed by people who ultimately don't answer to them.
> 
> You can't realistically expect a civilian police officer to give a rats *** about military protocol etc etc....and they are all (with the exception of the RCMP) unionized.
> 
> ...



Unless DND surrenders policing jurisdiction to a civilian agency, as they did for the PMQ area (but not the PMQs themselves) in Winnipeg or as they did in Oromocto you won't see a civilian agency take over as they have no legal jurisdiction to do so.  The NDA and other pieces of legislation would require changes.  As well, you would still require MPs for service offences so there would be no cost savings at all.

There was a case study made many years ago in Borden to see about having the OPP take over policing of the base.  It was done around the time of cost shedding in the 90s and at the end of the day DND recognized they would need to retain an MP Det of 8-10 MPs of various ranks just to maintain the capability to conduct all security functions as well as other roles such as ID cards, background checks, security clearances and background checks.  The cost to DND for OPP replacement of the MPs would have been, at the time, $370,000 a year.  For that DND would have had one OPP officer on the base 24/7 with one more "in the area" (meaning anywhere within the Nottawasaga Det AOR).  The cost also included the cost for the vehicle that officer would need, vacation replacement, office space they would need on the base and other assorted administrative and contractual costs.  That cost was much more then it cost to maintain the entire MP Det they were looking to replace/outsource.  

Operationally DND would have lost a tonne of control and accountability.  I don't mean in an interference with MP ops ay but under the current system if Pte Bloggins doesn't show up for work Base authorities can inquire with the MPs to see if maybe he is cooling his heals in cells and if not the MPs will start to make inquiries.  Someone from the base makes the same call to the OPP and unless they are from another police agency they are basically going to be told "I can't discuss that with you".   Additionally, the Base is having some function such as an Armed Forces Day or Air Show and unless they were willing to pay for extra policing they will have a big issue.  

Legal sense, business sense, operational sense...there is a need for an MP organization.


----------



## QV (25 Nov 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I am certain the Mr. Campbell did not mention 'traffic control' with any negative connotation.  It is not a negative thing, nor a menial task.  You should not take offence, such as you have.
> 
> Perhaps you could help us educate ourselves -- who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?



GPS


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Just so we're all tracking things correctly, we all know that the Criminal Code of Canada, as part of the Law of Armed Conflict in general, and as noted in Section 130 of the National Defence Act quoted above, DOES indeed apply outside of Canada where CAF members are concerned.
> 
> Right?



Actually, wrong.  While it is true that Section 130 of the NDA does apply, it is in fact a conduit through with other statutes can be used and it is actually Section 130 of the NDA that someone is charged with, pursuant to the applicable non-NDA statute.  The charge, and the criminal record that would go with a conviction, is for an offence under Section 130 of the NDA.  130 allowed military police to charge for other offences not already covered under the NDA while outside of Canada otherwise the NDA would have to be large enough to encompass all other laws individually articulated.  



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Whether RCMP were in theatre supporting the CAF directly or, say, a POMLT (where I can assure you that having worked with several RCMP and OPP officers in AFG, they did in fact know what they were doing 'outside the wire') mentoring ANP or other indigenous law enforcement agencies, they would be just as bound/enabled to enforce elements of the CCC.  Would that be applied in practice against CAF members?  Perhaps not, it might be left discretionarily to the military COC, but one cannot categorically say that Canadian law enforcement officers, if deployed with CAF members and so tasked by the GoC, would not be able to carry out such tasks as assigned.



Actually, feel free to have a face to face discussion with any CivPol member who deployed and they will tell you quite clearly that they had absolutely no policing authority while outside of Canada.  Given the fact they were accompanying the CAF they were in fact subject to the NDA and should one of them have violated the NDA or any other Canadian law they could have been charged either under the NDA directly or through Sec 130, depending upon the offence they were alleged to have committed.  

I can actually say they would not be able to carry out law enforcement duties specifically for the reasons I have articulated before.  They have no authority to act under the NDA, and the CC does not apply on it's own.   They may, as any individual/soldier can, place someone under arrest and turn them over to the MP or make a report to the MP but in order for CivPol to be able to act independently outside of Canada they would need to be able to issue Appearance Notices or PTAs to any individual they wished to arrest and charge under the CC.  In order to do so you require a suitable legal structure present to be able to swear informations, register charges and process the matters further.  Since there is no Canadian civilian legal system while outside of Canada, and CivPol have no standing under the military system, not only do they not have the authority to act but they don't have the mechanisms required as well.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and I know several Canadian CIVPOL who did their own force protection for patrols outside the walls of a base while in Afghanistan.



I can only speak to the time I was there and if your observations and experiences were different then I accept that and I'm glad to hear it was different.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> But you still have not clarified your contention that a civilian police department would be better suited to establish and train a police department that is required to act as both it's nations military police and it's civilian police within a country still actively at war.  It certainly seems to make sense to have a MP play a big part in helping to establish and train the ANP and then one day, once they and the country have reached an appropriate level of stability, have other agencies carry on and further conduct that training.
> 
> If I apply your logic to the Afghan National Army it seems you are saying it would have been better to have some civilian contractor train the ANA and assist them to stand up then it would be to have trained and professional soldiers do that capability building.  Having CivPol do the same for ANP is just as misguided.



I clarified my statement in that unless we deploy into a failed state, such as Afghanistan, where organized local police forces dont already exist, than there is no real need to train a police force as a pseudo-militia as is what occurred with the ANP. If war broke out in the Ukraine, this capability wouldn't be required as Ukraine has the capability to conduct its own policing at a civilian level. In this scenario, it would make as much or more sense to deploy civilian police to assist Ukrainian police as it would to divert MP assets needed forward. The same is true of the requirement to build an army- the ANA needed building from the bottom up as there was no real standing army in A-stan. In Ukraine there is a military, so a small role in assisting/advising may exist to assist the Ukrainian army in force generation, but it wouldn't be the same level as what the ANA required. Further, the US used private contractors to assist in training the ANA and I'm not against that either at a basic level.

So, the point is, as we DONT know what role MPs, or arty, infantry, armour, etc will play in future war or conflict its more beneficial on the whole to focus all trades on doctrinal roles instead of attempting to cement niche roles from the last war.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Nov 2014)

Step one: Stand up the Special Force.
Step two: Appoint RCMP Constable Bloggins to the Special Force.


OK, We now have an RCMP officer able to police under the terms laid out in the NDA while deployed overseas.

Next problem?


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2014)

Your attestation that a charge under Sect. 130 of the NDA would likely be the vehicle through which CAF member would be charged for an offense committed under the Criminal Code of Canada that was not otherwise covered by the NDA in now way means that the CCC does not apply to CAF members OUTCAN. 

This issue was that you said the CCC does not apply OUTCAN. That is not true. Your point as to how charges might be laid does not correct your earlier incorrect statement.  As I stated earlier, the CCC absolutely applies to CAF members, whether in Canada or outside its borders.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2014)

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> So the military can pay that Cpl 65k/yr or they can pay the rate of a Constable at close to 100k/yr BEFORE OT.



And that does not include Paid Duty. 

P.D. does not come out of the city treasury, so is not shown on the Sunshine List as OT. But, in Toronto alone, P.D. came to over $26 million last year.


----------



## Tibbson (26 Nov 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Your attestation that a charge under Sect. 130 of the NDA would likely be the vehicle through which CAF member would be charged for an offense committed under the Criminal Code of Canada that was not otherwise covered by the NDA in now way means that the CCC does not apply to CAF members OUTCAN.
> 
> This issue was that you said the CCC does not apply OUTCAN. That is not true. Your point as to how charges might be laid does not correct your earlier incorrect statement.  As I stated earlier, the CCC absolutely applies to CAF members, whether in Canada or outside its borders.
> 
> ...



I'd agree with you if you can find me any service member who has been charged outside of Canada that actually has a CC charge on his/her record.  The CC itself does not apply.  The NDA does apply and it is an NDA offence, namely Sec 130, that a service member is charged under and convicted under (if convicted that is) when outcan.

I'll give you another example and this applies within Canada too.  Under the Criminal Code a warrant can be issued for obtaining DNA as long as the offence being investigated is designated in Sec 487.04 of the Criminal Code.  Using the offence of Sexual Assault, for the longest time when MPs wanted to obtain a warrant for DNA for a crime that was going to be tried under the NDA they would get the appropriate Criminal Code warrant because the service member was going to be charge Under Sec 130 NDA pursuant to Sec 271 CCC.  This was done because Sec 271 CCC is one of the designated offences under 487.04 CC.  

Eventually this was challenged and the Courts held that a civilian DNA warrant could not be used because the actual charge being laid was under Sec 130 of the NDA and NOT under Sec 271 of the Criminal Code.  Sure, the CC exists but it is not in effect on it's own.  It must be used through the NDA and it is the NDA that applies.  

To rectify this situation re warrants though there were provisions added to the NDA a few years ago where a Military Judge could grant a DNA warrant under the NDA.  This just further substantiates my contention that service members overseas do not fall under the CC.  All charges are through the NDA.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Nov 2014)

So NDA 130(1)(b) is improperly written then?


----------



## Tibbson (26 Nov 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So NDA 130(1)(b) is improperly written then?



No, it certainly is not written improperly.  It means exactly what it states but you are not reading it in the correct context.

Yes, the CC exists however one is not charged under the Criminal Code when overseas and even when NDA Sec 130 is used in Canada an individual is not charged under the CC.  If a 130 charge is laid it would be laid within the military justice system pursuant to the Criminal Code (or any other Act of Parliament) but not under the Criminal Code.  The charge will always be Sec 130 and the punishment given will always be under the NDA because the CC has no force and effect.  That rests with the NDA and as the NDA is written CivPol have no authority to act under it.

Overseas CivPol have not legal mechanism to use the Criminal Code and they have no jurisdiction under the NDA therefore they have no policing authorities while deployed with the CAF.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Nov 2014)

QV said:
			
		

> GPS



Really? Against any half switched on opponent, I can pretty much garauntee your GPS will be having issues. In short, you had better know how to read a map and use a compass.

We won't always get the free ride that we got from the Taliban in that regard.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> No, it certainly is not written improperly.  It means exactly what it states but you are not reading it in the correct context.
> 
> Yes, the CC exists however one is not charged under the Criminal Code when overseas and even when NDA Sec 130 is used in Canada an individual is not charged under the CC.  If a 130 charge is laid it would be laid within the military justice system pursuant to the Criminal Code (or any other Act of Parliament) but not under the Criminal Code.  The charge will always be Sec 130 and the punishment given will always be under the NDA because the CC has no force and effect.  That rests with the NDA and as the NDA is written CivPol have no authority to act under it.
> 
> Overseas CivPol have not legal mechanism to use the Criminal Code and they have no jurisdiction under the NDA therefore they have no policing authorities while deployed with the CAF.



So we're agreed then.  An act (or omission) [by a CAF member or someone subject to the Code of Service Discipline] that takes place outside of Canada, and would, if had taken place in Canada, be punishable under [Part VII of the NDA,] the Criminal Code [or any other Act of Parliament] is an offence under the NDA, i.e. CAF members would be held accountable under the NDA for acts committed outside of Canada that would be a punishable offence under the Criminal Code.

We are also agreed that the CAF member would be charged under Section 130 of the NDA, for such an act punishable under the Criminal Code.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Alberta Bound (26 Nov 2014)

I wanted to say that I don't feel that the RCMP or other police services could ever replace MPs in 95% of the roles that MPs are tasked to do. For roles that are purely military in nature (detainee handling, convoy control, force protection) we don't get the training and wouldn't get the practice regularly enough to even match what could be provided to Reserve MPs so why would you want us to? 

For MP duties that mirror operational civilian policing (Criminal, Federal or Traffic investigation to name a few) we can never match you on the cost basis. What does a 5B MP Cpl make? $70,000 a year? RCMP Cst 1st class is $82,000 (without OT).  Never mind an MWO vs a S/Sgt. $90,000 vs $107,000 (OT is Different in mission where CIVPOL doesn't get OT as you are attached to the CF. Only civilians in mission NOT to get OT. You should have seen some of the pay stubs for CIDA, DFAIT and CSC as well as the extra travel allowances. But I digress). The CF would never want to consider those cost differences and keeping those duties allows a much larger pool of MPs to draw on for non Base-Investigative taskings. More opportunities and areas of experience for MPs. 

So why replace one for the other? Now don't get me wrong. Most RCMP members who have spent time in front line policing at 10 years have significantly more well rounded experience in general investigations that the average municipal police officer or MP.  They have no choice. You have little to no access to specialty sections so you handle almost all investigations from the first call to concluding the file after all the post court tasks and everything in between. You become good generalists. Often in busy postings where you handle several hundred files as lead each year. Do I think there are areas where we could enhance (not replace) MPs. Absolutely.   ** gotta take a work.


----------



## Alberta Bound (26 Nov 2014)

**Sorry work call.

I was fortunate to deploy as an RCMP member March to December 2009 in Kandahar. I spent the first three months working out of the PRT at CNS attached to Stabilization Company A (R22R). Generally this entailed long walks in the moon light around KC. I also pulled my turn on QRF usually one 24 period every 5-7 days. Also to get the full experience I used to fill my spare time taking long drives around KC with the US patrols stationed at the PRT. A number of us filled in wherever an extra body was needed. Outside the wire and not as another tactical tourist just filling a seat. Luckily most of the NCM CIVPOL when I got there were ex CF and wanted to carry our share. We had ex RCD, MP, R22R, CAR and some ex militia amongst us. 

As a bonus I was then asked by the CF to go to Dah-e-Bah with Stab Coy B. More long walks in the moonlight, route clearance drives and usually sentry every 3rd day or so in the tower by the front gate (most times all by my lonesome during the night). On the upside I was the only Civie and didn't have to listen to the DFAIT people complain about everything. For my last 2 months I was attached to a US MP unit to see the West Country and the beautiful arghandab valley. 

So what's my point to this?  I was lucky. For an RCMP member to get on a tour is hard. Except for some of our Ottawa types who get cushy spots on missions most members try for 10 to 15 years to get on one mission. I waited 15 years and have been thankful ever since. The busier the spot your posted in, the less likely to be released. Did we have some poor quality people in AFG. Sure. Can we do good work in missions. Yes. Better than MPs. In the right mission or tasking. Better. In Bosnia and Kosovo mentoring police on investigations. Absolutely. We get daily operational experience in that work every shift here in Canada. Often in communities that are hostile to us, with tribal cultures and many not speaking French or English. Living in poor conditions, poverty, corruption, isolated and with support often a long flight away. Sound familiar? In a much more intensive environment than any base MP. Look up Hobbema AB, Pukatawagan MB, Davis Inlet Nfld or Assumption AB. For some examples. Was AFG the correct mission for us. No. Trying to imbed us in barely literate, mostly untrained, ANP units to mentor them on policing?! Give me a break. MPs weren't helping them much as far as civilian policing. The ANP was a para military security force for the most part. Just trying not to get blown up and keep their higher ups from stealing their pay. 

I worked with some terrific US and CF members. I have huge respect for many. From Van Doos to reserve MPs (who mostly ended up as drivers? and gunners? on the T Lavs that I often spent my time as an air sentry on) to the couple reg MPs ( 1 great WO from Quebec) I dealt with often. I was also disappointed in some. Some NIS guys who had what seemed like a tiny amount of serious investigative experience compared to most of my Csts and some MPOs who's depth of experience apparently came from books and courses without ever arresting anyone or having any real part in an investigation. Some of their "thoughts" on mentoring the ANP were to say the least laughable and ideas that we had thrown away years before were routinely presented to TFK as the absolute solution.  

L.S. If you don't think the CIVPOL can do it. BS. We already did. FYI legal authority for policing can be granted by the appropriate govt if they want to. If Parliament wanted they could reinvest the RCMP with powers to act as MPs whenever the govt wants. The RCMP had a reserve tasking to the C Pro C up until the 50s. Our PMPD gets authority to act as peace officers in the US whenever the PM goes there. Same as we grant to the US Secret Service when they come north. Also, back in 94-95 the RCMP had policing powers granted by the Haitian govt for our members deployed there at the time. Full policing powers. 

I will reiterate my previous invite to you. If you ever wish to expand your policing experiences and are going to be in Alberta just drop me a line. 

Mike (my B in L)( a TF 1-09 type). If you are reading this. I also liked the occasional medic. Not many. But a couple. Lol. 

And to the rest. You have my undying gratitude for your service.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Nov 2014)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> Look up Hobbema AB, Pukatawagan MB, Davis Inlet Nfld or Assumption AB.



Small world.  I have a guy from Puk working for me lol.  Thanks for the insightful post.


----------



## Scott (26 Nov 2014)

Smaller world, I fought fires up by Lynn Lake with a crew from Puk. I also worked in Assumption for brief periods. I second your thoughts abut these places and put forward that there are many more.


----------



## Alberta Bound (26 Nov 2014)

Thanks.

Agreed. Many beautiful spots (northern lights on a cold winters night). But some wild policing.


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Nov 2014)

Sorry I was remiss earlier. For the record there was also one great Navy NSE guy who made some hot miserable days bearable and even funny. I didn't need the GCS to feel like part of the team with guys like him around.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2014)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> Sorry I was remiss earlier. For the record there was also one great Navy NSE guy who made some hot miserable days bearable and even funny. I didn't need the GCS to feel like part of the team with guys like him around.


Was that Smith?


----------



## Furniture (27 Nov 2014)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> **Sorry work call.
> 
> I was fortunate to deploy as an RCMP member March to December 2009 in Kandahar. I spent the first three months working out of the PRT at CNS attached to Stabilization Company A (R22R). Generally this entailed long walks in the moon light around KC. I also pulled my turn on QRF usually one 24 period every 5-7 days. Also to get the full experience I used to fill my spare time taking long drives around KC with the US patrols stationed at the PRT. A number of us filled in wherever an extra body was needed. Outside the wire and not as another tactical tourist just filling a seat. Luckily most of the NCM CIVPOL when I got there were ex CF and wanted to carry our share. We had ex RCD, MP, R22R, CAR and some ex militia amongst us.
> 
> ...



There is an interesting point in here that I think needs to be the key point when discussing the merits of a small m capital P (mP) service in the CF. Investigation experience, and frequency... Do we as the CAF need to spend the time and money to train MPs to the level of civilian police forces when they in the normal execution of their duties will deal with disciplinary investigations for minor drug use and traffic violations? Would our training time and budget not be better spent on having MPs who are trained mostly in security, POW handling, Convoy Ops, etc.. and have a few RCMP members seconded to the CAF to fill the role of the NIS, and to conduct investigations of a serious nature? It seems to me that having a few experts from the RCMP and a general body of well trained capital M small p (Mp) MPs might be the better choice for quality investigations, as well as preparing the CAF for any possible theatre of war. It might mean a few less MPs get to switch over to local police after their mandatory service, but it on the surface looks like a wiser path...


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Nov 2014)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> There is an interesting point in here that I think needs to be the key point when discussing the merits of a small m capital P (mP) service in the CF. Investigation experience, and frequency... Do we as the CAF need to spend the time and money to train MPs to the level of civilian police forces when they in the normal execution of their duties will deal with disciplinary investigations for minor drug use and traffic violations? Would our training time and budget not be better spent on having MPs who are trained mostly in security, POW handling, Convoy Ops, etc.. and have a few RCMP members seconded to the CAF to fill the role of the NIS, and to conduct investigations of a serious nature? It seems to me that having a few experts from the RCMP and a general body of well trained capital M small p (Mp) MPs might be the better choice for quality investigations, as well as preparing the CAF for any possible theatre of war. It might mean a few less MPs get to switch over to local police after their mandatory service, but it on the surface looks like a wiser path...



Three branches of the US military, USAF, USMC and USN either use blended investigative agencies (AF-OSI, USMC CID) or mostly civilian (USN-NCIS).  If the NDA doesn't currently allow it, well laws aren't set in stone, amend the NDA.


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Nov 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Was that Smith?



No Dand District Centre. 

All the NSE That I remember at CNS at the time were 5 Brigade types. 

Only Navy guy I really remember there was a computer guy. Again, another great guy although a Canucks fan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2014)

LOL, Smith is his name (the guy I was thinking of)


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Nov 2014)

Now that's funny. No it wasn't. 

But by chance my NSE guy par takes in this site ( as I just found out yesterday). 

I don't remember any Smiths. You couldn't swing a stick without hitting a Caron though.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2014)

MS Bryan Smith, works for NIS and I believe was there during 2009


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2014)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> It might mean a few less MPs get to switch over to local police after their mandatory service, but it on the surface looks like a wiser path...



How common is that? I read here ( the post was five years ago ) that the RCMP, Calgary and Halifax accept MPs for lateral entry. Have things changed / improved since then? :

http://army.ca/forums/threads/83404/post-805253.html#msg805253


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Nov 2014)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> There is an interesting point in here that I think needs to be the key point when discussing the merits of a small m capital P (mP) service in the CF. Investigation experience, and frequency... Do we as the CAF need to spend the time and money to train MPs to the level of civilian police forces when they in the normal execution of their duties will deal with disciplinary investigations for minor drug use and traffic violations? Would our training time and budget not be better spent on having MPs who are trained mostly in security, POW handling, Convoy Ops, etc.. and have a few RCMP members seconded to the CAF to fill the role of the NIS, and to conduct investigations of a serious nature? It seems to me that having a few experts from the RCMP and a general body of well trained capital M small p (Mp) MPs might be the better choice for quality investigations, as well as preparing the CAF for any possible theatre of war. It might mean a few less MPs get to switch over to local police after their mandatory service, but it on the surface looks like a wiser path...



Some benefits that would also certainly follow if small units of RCMP were on attachment with the CAF ( at larger bases and the NIS) above the odd one that happens now. 

Closer, more user friendly access to associated RCMP support sections. Often at a better cost ratio than what it would be for the CF to provide. Collision reconstructionists, Forensic Ident, Polygraph, Police Dog Service to name a few. 

Again closer, more user friendly interoperability to RCMP Detachments (850 ish) across Canada. 

A vast pool of regular members (about 20,000. with a huge cross section of expertise) who would be available on short attachments (1 day to 1 year) as needs arouse or on longer attachments (1 year plus) to bring a robust amount of diverse current operational experience in investigative areas. 

Lastly a perception of non bias in any investigation. Although well schooled and respectful of the use of the chain of command. RCMP members would also not be under the influence of local commanders and it would be hard for CF members or the public to substantiate command influence. 

The RCMP has fulfilled this same style of role with many other agencies, Federal and Provincial as well as a number of First Nations Policing Services. 

Just thoughts


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Nov 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> MS Bryan Smith, works for NIS and I believe was there during 2009



Sorry I don't remember him specifically


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Nov 2014)

mariomike said:
			
		

> How common is that? I read here ( the post was five years ago ) that the RCMP, Calgary and Halifax accept MPs for lateral entry. Have things changed / improved since then? :
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/83404/post-805253.html#msg805253



Last I heard the RCMP still does. Also credits up to five years towards promotion after 2 years RCMP service. Case by case basis.  

Unless I missed an email in the last few months.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2014)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> Last I heard the RCMP still does. Also credits up to five years towards promotion after 2 years RCMP service. Case by case basis.
> 
> Unless I missed an email in the last few months.



It looks like the RCMP still does: "We regularly seek experienced police officers for vacancies across Canada (including Canadian Forces Military Police trained after the year 2000)."
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruiting-recrutement/rec/lateral-eng.htm


----------



## mikeninercharlie (28 Nov 2014)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> Mike (my B in L)( a TF 1-09 type). If you are reading this. I also liked the occasional medic. Not many. But a couple. Lol.
> 
> And to the rest. You have my undying gratitude for your service.




Actually it was TF 1-08 OMLT, I had some time for the CIVPOL, well except for the numpty who spent 6 months teaching CPR to the ANP and ANCOP.


----------

