# MP to RCMP



## mackbolan (13 Sep 2006)

Can Reg force MP's go directly into the RCMP or other Canadian police forces??


----------



## Shamrock (13 Sep 2006)

Trying to find a back door to RCMP's strict entry requirements?


----------



## mackbolan (13 Sep 2006)

Nope, Just a hot debate at work...haha...trying to squash some rumors. I guess some MP's think they can go directly into the RCMP but I have been told otherwise by RCMP members. So I wonder what the real facts are and thought it would make a good post to see what kind of feed back there is....I'd like to get an MP's perspective on this site perhaps....and...Relax it's the army we are not all grammar queens nor are we always the most polite...didn't know we had to be so formal, please accept my apologies.


----------



## Shamrock (13 Sep 2006)

I think you'd be better suited contacting an RCMP recruiting office and asking them their policies on recruitment than asking a member of a different force.  They're generally a lot more knowledgeable about their own field than some random dude on the Internet.


----------



## mackbolan (13 Sep 2006)

Thanks Shamrock...this is what I got off their website

Lateral entry applies to two categories of candidates:

Category 1: regular member applicant, who has had more than two years of Canadian Police experience, within a year of application to the RCMP and who graduated from a Canadian, provincially recognized, applied police training. 
Category 2: regular member applicant, who has had up to two years of Canadian police experience, within a year of application to the RCMP and graduated from a Canadian, provincially recognized, applied police training. 
Non-public police agency experience alone, e.g. military police, Canadian National railway police, is not acceptable for this program.


----------



## Shamrock (14 Sep 2006)

I want 10% of your winnings for finder's fee.


----------



## 043 (14 Sep 2006)

Trying hard................can't stop self.............................must type..........................rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## twizted (14 Sep 2006)

no direct entry to rcmp ! halifax yes, fredericton yes, opp you have to do 3 weeks or full training depending on you qualifications, For the rest of Canada I don't no 

Rumors for Sureté du Québec !!! nothing confirm but they are looking for 700 police officer !

They CDN Forces will have to adapt !


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Sep 2006)

twizted said:
			
		

> no direct entry to rcmp ! halifax yes, fredericton yes, opp you have to do 3 weeks or full training depending on you qualifications, For the rest of Canada I don't no
> 
> Rumors for Sureté du Québec !!! nothing confirm but they are looking for 700 police officer !
> 
> They CDN Forces will have to adapt !



OPP were taking our Sgts and WOs from Borden at the school when I was there in 2000 right into the OPP Academy at Orillia to teach the radar and Breathalyzer etc. They were getting paid as Constables 1st class I think....it was a big problem as we were losing our senior NCOs to them. Not sure what the sit is right now.


----------



## tannerthehammer (19 Sep 2006)

Question: I have heard a rumour that OPP takes lateral transfers from MP's?

Answer: It is not true.  We do have a push on hiring however there are no lateral moves from MP's or serving sworn officers.

Darryl Wilson, Sgt.
OPP Uniform Recruiter
Deployed Thunder Bay
(807) 939-2133


----------



## X-army-cst (13 Apr 2007)

There are tons of military guys at Depot..all regular members going through the 6 months training (almost) 24 weeks...

No luck for MP into RCMP.


----------



## QV (17 Apr 2007)

I think if you are looking for a lateral hire, some departments out east do it.  Halifax takes QL5 MPs as laterals.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (19 Apr 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> I think if you are looking for a lateral hire, some departments out east do it.  Halifax takes QL5 MPs as laterals.



I know a guy that pretty much went straight to work for the HRM police


----------



## captjtq (28 Apr 2007)

We've lost a lot of troops to HRP in the last couple of years through lateral transfers. There are other agencies out there doing the same thing. As others have said, though, RCMP will still have you go through the depot. I'm hearing rumblings that their own personnel crunch may negate that requirement in the future for particularly qualified Police Officers, but it's just that at this point --> rumours and rumblings, from what I can gather.


----------



## Static (28 May 2007)

i'm interested in this as well, particularly for Ontario Police Forces.


----------



## medaid (28 May 2007)

captjtq said:
			
		

> We've lost a lot of troops to HRP in the last couple of years through lateral transfers. There are other agencies out there doing the same thing. As others have said, though, RCMP will still have you go through the depot. I'm hearing rumblings that their own personnel crunch may negate that requirement in the future for particularly qualified Police Officers, but it's just that at this point --> rumours and rumblings, from what I can gather.



Last time I heard from RCMP recruiting is that they will not take anyone as a lateral without further training them in either Depot Div or if you're in BC, Chilliwack RTC. 

One of the arguments I've heard for why MPs can't lateral into allot of the different police services is because of their lack of experience. Now, please don't jump on me for this, and let me clarify this. The argument that I've heard was that MPs do not see nearly the same amount of calls of the types of calls for service as a member (I mean all sworn police officers in a service). The likelihood of an MP dealing with members of the PUBLIC on every call is almost NIL, because MPs service those who are within the CF community. In the CF no matter what happens, a rank structure, military discipline and chain of command exists, making the procedures and methodology of handling a call, or a case very different then on the street. MPs do not actively engage in high risk vehicle stops, execute arrest/search/seizure warrants on a regular basis. 

This is all because of the population that the MPs deal with. Very different from those dealt with by their 'civilian' counterparts on the street. This is how some have argued it, and I can see their points. 

This is definitely not saying that applicants with Reg MP experience should be discouraged to apply with police services, it's just that there is a high probability that they will be treated just like anyone else. However, the experience gained through investigative work, interrogation techniques so on and so forth, would most definitely come in handy when you've graduated and you're now on the street.

I don't know, that's just my 0.02 rupees. I'm sure some of our more learned colleagues would either agree or disagree with me.


----------



## QV (28 May 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Last time I heard from RCMP recruiting is that they will not take anyone as a lateral without further training them in either Depot Div or if you're in BC, Chilliwack RTC.
> 
> One of the arguments I've heard for why MPs can't lateral into allot of the different police services is because of their lack of experience. Now, please don't jump on me for this, and let me clarify this. The argument that I've heard was that MPs do not see nearly the same amount of calls of the types of calls for service as a member (I mean all sworn police officers in a service). The likelihood of an MP dealing with members of the PUBLIC on every call is almost NIL, because MPs service those who are within the CF community. In the CF no matter what happens, a rank structure, military discipline and chain of command exists, making the procedures and methodology of handling a call, or a case very different then on the street. MPs do not actively engage in high risk vehicle stops, execute arrest/search/seizure warrants on a regular basis.
> 
> ...



I see where you are going, but to a point I have to disagree.  Almost all civilian police services accept laterals from smaller civilian forces.  Some of those smaller civilian forces are even less busy then some MP detachments!!  Hard to believe, I know.  

The likely hood of MPs dealing with the PUBLIC are exceedingly high for every call.  Generally most calls I attend can be easily split 50/50 - meaning 50% chance it is a CF member or 50% chance it is a civilian.  At my last post it was more like 70% civvie to 30% military.  Most bases are wide open to the public with some places even allowing civvies to live in PMQs.   

You said:  " In the CF no matter what happens, a rank structure, military discipline and chain of command exists, making the procedures and methodology of handling a call, or a case very different then on the street. "  I disagree.  We (police officers) all have to follow certain procedures for criminal code offences and provincial offences ect..... For me, as a responding police officer it doesn't matter what rank/status the people involved hold.  I have to treat everyone the same.  So if I arrest a LCol for assaulting his spouse - he/she gets treated no differently then if I arrest the oil patch worker who did the same and is residing in the PMQs (because CFHA rents them out now).  The only time it differs is when there are NDA offences - this we only investigate and the CO decides on charges - unless NIS is involved then they can lay their own NDA charges.  When NIS is not involved, typically NDA offences are minor disciplinary matters that should be handled by the unit only anyway.   

You also said: "MPs do not actively engage in high risk vehicle stops, execute arrest/search/seizure warrants on a regular basis."  You are in part correct.  High risk veh stops are not common, but not non-existant either.  Arrest warrants are quite common actually for anything and everything.  Search warrants - depends on the member - if you have a guy that digs for shit he will likely come across more stuff to work then the guy who sits on his ass.

It is kind of strange that many civilian forces don't accept MPs as laterals, but the MPs don't accept ANY force for lateral entry either.  Some other strange and stupid stuff is this:  I can teach the RCMP use of force (UOF) techniques, I can qualfiy them and I can run their refresher training for this.  I can do this because I attended and passed the Public and Police Safety Instr course.  I CANNOT train and refresh MPs on UOF techniques because I did not attend the MP course.  UOF is the same across Canada no matter the police force, for example:  police in Vancouver don't get to automatically escalate to gun before the police in Saskatoon do in the same situation (all event details being equal).   A lot of things don't make sense across the board.  I think a lot of it has more to do with local politics then common sense.


----------



## MP 811 (29 May 2007)

QV, best post ive read in aloooong time brother!


----------



## medaid (29 May 2007)

QV, thanks for the post! I'm glad that you had attempted to dispell some of the misconceptions. like I said this is just a argument I've heard from some members. oh well  always good to hear from both sides  Cheers!


----------



## WATCHDOG75 (11 Jun 2007)

Although I do not agree,  I understand and respect the RCMP's decision for no lateral transfers.  The bottom line is when they put a constable on the street they want him/her trained to their standard.  But that certainly does NOT take away from the training/experience our MP receive.  Our Academy in Borden is second to none from what I've seen.  You should have been at CFSIS in the 80's.  We've come from the Flinstones to the Jetsons in a very short period. Just a point of interest.  An MP was posted to the RCMP depot a short while back and did a fantastic job.  In fact he marched on the graduating class.  First time in RCMP history.

Just my two cents worth from an old "Meat Head"


----------



## QV (11 Jun 2007)

There is speculation in the MP branch that RCMP will take MPs as laterals in the near future.  Apparently the MP branch is feaversihly working to impliment some retention incentives such as Spec Pay level 2 and contract renewal signing bonuses.   We will see I suppose....


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jun 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> There is speculation in the MP branch that RCMP will take MPs as laterals in the near future.  Apparently the MP branch is feaversihly working to impliment some retention incentives such as Spec Pay level 2 and contract renewal signing bonuses.   We will see I suppose....



To the rest of us, this is BS.  First they get Spec Pay, then they go and get automatic promotions to CPL.  It is just WRONG.

How is that for a rumour crusher?


----------



## QV (12 Jun 2007)

Spec Pay 2 would sure piss off a bunch of grunts and other trades.   :'(      

Oh...and the fact that you don't agree with Spec Pay 1 doesn't exactly crush any rumours of Spec Pay 2.  

I do not agree with the advanced Cpl thing.... that *is* just wrong.  But you better research how many other trades do it before blasting the MPs for it.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jun 2007)

Well.... If you want to be that way......should we also speculate on the possibility of inflationary price setting being brought into affect at Tim Horton's as a result of this rumour?    ;D


----------



## garb811 (12 Jun 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To the rest of us, this is BS.  First they get Spec Pay, then they go and get automatic promotions to CPL.  It is just WRONG.
> 
> How is that for a rumour crusher?


Well, look at the bright side, if this does happen in the timeline I'm hearing, you won't need to worry about MPs getting Spec 2 since there won't be any left to get it.  After witnessing how long it took to get Spec 1 there is no way the Branch can get any kind of retention incentives all the way through to Treasury Board approval in time to make it worth the effort.  Additionally, even Spec 2 won't cut it since Cpl 4 - Spec 2 still pays $8G less than a 3 year Cst (not counting overtime) and re-signing bonuses aren't going to do anything for the core of the Branch who are already past their initial engagement.

Actually I lie, someone will be around to collect Spec 2, me.  I won't be running for the door, I'll just wait for the RCMP to absorb the Branch not long after this policy is implemented as it'll save me the headaches of going through the application process...  I guess everyone who has been bashing the Branch and saying how much better the RCMP could do the job is about to find out whether they were right.


----------



## QV (12 Jun 2007)

Speaking of speculation.... This scenerio below is one outcome that, in my opinion, is not unlikely.  It would be devastating to the branch though:

-The RCMP will accept MP laterally
-The huge amount of releases (300-400 out of a 1200 total force) in the MP branch will cause it to not physically be able to meet its current responsibilities.  Pri 6 positions (like domestic policing) will be shut down
-The MP will turn over all domestic policing and major/sensitive crimes (NIS) to the RCMP or municipal force depending on location
-The MP will concentrate on field duties, counter inteligence and security in order to still support deployed ops
-Instead of having 2-5 duty MPs responding to calls for service on any given base you will now have the local 5-0 attending - if it is a priority call and they are not too busy
-All NDA offences will be handled from start to finish by base units (as they should be anyway)
-Base guardhouses will be typically an 8 to 10 man unit (When they used to be 20-40, or in the case of Halifax 100) for liaisons with base units on NDA offence matters and base MP security sections, or NCIU dets.  Field Platoons will be untouched or have a slight increase in manning   :skull:


*OR*

Not too many MPs will really give a damn about an RCMP lateral and nothing will change.... :-\   However, once the RCMP accept MPs laterally other municipal departments *may* follow.  Halifax already does.  This could then lead to more releases.....


----------



## garb811 (14 Jun 2007)

The official word is out from the CFPM on the issue of lateral transfers to the RCMP and several other related issues.  Look for the message to be pushed down your chain of command in the next couple of days.  

I won't be posting the message here nor will I send it via PM as I believe it's a CoC issue to address due to the impact it is going to have.


----------



## Kiwi99 (14 Jun 2007)

Before anyone believes there is a possibility of MPs having the ability to go straight into the RCMP, there are other things to consider.  Now, this is not meant to be a bash MP thing, but my observations of MPs at work lead me to believe that they will only hinder the RCMP.  They are not experianced enough to suddenly be allowed to be RCMP.  Now, many will disagree, and rightly so.  But for the average soldier, if the MPs get involved in a case then they know that they will get away free, as the paperwork or investigation will ultimately be screwed up.  Maybe as highway patrol or something, as they have great experaince at pulling people over.  But the amount of people that have gotten away with stuff due to incompetance is huge.  This is based on MPs I have seen at work both in garrison and on Operations.  And I am sure there are many MPs that would be a benefit to the RCMP.  But master the job of MP before thinking about doing anything else.
In closing, why is that a Cpl MP beleives that if they pull someone over or  conduct an investigation, they don't have to address the other person by rank?  And will someone please tell me why they get spec pay!


----------



## garb811 (14 Jun 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Before anyone believes there is a possibility of MPs having the ability to go straight into the RCMP, there are other things to consider.  Now, this is not meant to be a bash MP thing, but my observations of MPs at work lead me to believe that they will only hinder the RCMP.  They are not experianced enough to suddenly be allowed to be RCMP.  Now, many will disagree, and rightly so.  But for the average soldier, if the MPs get involved in a case then they know that they will get away free, as the paperwork or investigation will ultimately be screwed up.  Maybe as highway patrol or something, as they have great experaince at pulling people over.  But the amount of people that have gotten away with stuff due to incompetance is huge.  This is based on MPs I have seen at work both in garrison and on Operations.  And I am sure there are many MPs that would be a benefit to the RCMP.  But master the job of MP before thinking about doing anything else.
> In closing, why is that a Cpl MP beleives that if they pull someone over or  conduct an investigation, they don't have to address the other person by rank?  And will someone please tell me why they get spec pay!


/rant on

...and your ability to judge the competence of MP and their investigative abilities is based on what personal police training and experience?  Honestly, in the 10+ years I have been on this forum there have been many like you who "think" you know how "we" are incompetent due to "things" you have "seen" or "heard" and feel that this gives you the right to randomly jump into a thread and offer your uninformed comments about the trade...whatever happened to the concept of staying in your lane?  

Do MPs drop the ball on occasion?  Yes, I'll be the first to admit it but so do the RCMP (Mistakes plaguing RCMP) and every other civie force (Alleged gang boss freed over police errors, Vancouver police admit mistakes made over missing girl to name just a few) , we're human, mistakes happen but they are hardly at the gross level of incompetence that you suggest (I personally policed your unit in Garrison and on Ops and know that guys weren't getting away with anything and everything like you imply).  The real world isn't CSI: CF and every case isn't successfully solved and prosecuted in an hour and even a successfully concluded invest may lead to no percieved action because unless it's NIS doing the invest, we can't lay NDA charges as that is at the discretion of the chain of command.  Given the rank in your profile I seriously doubt you've ever been in the position to have complete access to a MP invest and resulting report (unless you've been the subject of one perhaps...?) without having access to the report you'd have no factual evidence to form your opinion with, so I'll just go with my opinon that you're just another non-MP witha beef about us talking out your ass.

At the end of the day I don't go around telling Infantry how they are incompetent in their trade because of what I perceive or have heard or think because it's your specialty not mine and I certainly don't go into the Infantry forum and start beaking off about how infantry shouldn't be allowed to do live fire because of the range accidents I have been involved in investigating nor do I go into the Logistics forum and call down the MSE Ops by saying they aren't of the same calibre as civie professional drivers because of the TAs I have investigated etc etc etc so please do me a favour and have the courtesy of doing the same for my trade and stick to your area of expertise.

Ref the rest...it's been beaten to death in other threads in this sub-forum, I'm sure if you do a search you can find a suitable thread and continue the bashing there.

/rant off


----------



## Dissident (14 Jun 2007)

Wow. Where do we keep getting these people from? Oh wait, its the internet, there is an endless supply.


----------



## QV (14 Jun 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Before anyone believes there is a possibility of MPs having the ability to go straight into the RCMP, there are other things to consider.  Now, this is not meant to be a bash MP thing, but my observations of MPs at work lead me to believe that they will only hinder the RCMP.  They are not experianced enough to suddenly be allowed to be RCMP.  Now, many will disagree, and rightly so.  But for the average soldier, if the MPs get involved in a case then they know that they will get away free, as the paperwork or investigation will ultimately be screwed up.  Maybe as highway patrol or something, as they have great experaince at pulling people over.  But the amount of people that have gotten away with stuff due to incompetance is huge.  This is based on MPs I have seen at work both in garrison and on Operations.  And I am sure there are many MPs that would be a benefit to the RCMP.  But master the job of MP before thinking about doing anything else.
> In closing, why is that a Cpl MP beleives that if they pull someone over or  conduct an investigation, they don't have to address the other person by rank?  And will someone please tell me why they get spec pay!



*OK there were a couple replys before I got mine in so take it for what its worth....*


I guess you are not familiar with clearance rates of other police departments?  Just from what you observed... or from what your friends told you... you have come to the conclusion that MPs suck.  Right.  Military justice is more riddled with conflict of interests then civilian justice.  Have you looked at the court marshals site?  How many serious offences have been dropped in favour of NDA 129?  Not all are as a result of a piss poor investigation... piss poor investigations usually don't make it to trial.  Go have a look and see how many child porn related cases have been dropped.... 

I always use rank (if known) when talking with someone, or I default to "sir/maam"..... why is it many military members think that their rank is going to somehow give them a position of advantage when being dealt with by the police?   I find it entertaining when I am dealing with a suspect and that suspect thinks that because he is a Sgt or Maj or whatever and that this fact is somehow going to change how I investigate.  If you have a beef with the MP, why don't you use the chain of command and file a complaint?  Beaking off doesn't solve anything.  When I am on duty and some guy comes up screaming and taking an agressive posture, dropping F bombs and using the excuse that I don't have my beret on, I treat him like an aggressive, possibly violent person.  I am not going to just assume you are NOT having other issues.  Instead of trying to have a confrontation with the police - phone and bitch at the MPs boss....     

We get Spec Pay 1 because we deserve it.... and by the sounds of it people a lot higher then me (and likely you) think that we deserve Spec Pay 2.  Here is a message to all the people that are angry because other trades make more money:    REMUSTER to something with higher pay.


----------



## noneck (14 Jun 2007)

MP 00161  +1 

I did some follow up yesterday with the E Div Staffing person in charge of laterals. It was confirmed that here is a move in progress to bring over Reg F MP's. I work with a Reg F NCIU MP Sgt and he mentioned that that the rumour is that the lateral transfer will be offered to  MCpl's and above with at least 6-7 years of service. 

Recently the lateral courses have lasted anywhere from 2-6 weeks, and I believe that last year they ran them at the PRTC in Chilliwack. In E Div we have 860 vacant Regular Member positions, I have worked with numerous MP's and welcome all that are interested to throw their hat in the ring. I also think that other PD's/PS's will also follow suit and offer similar lateral transfers, after all we are in major competition for the same pool of good applicants. 

One major factor that may bring more MP's over to the Force is the pension issue, if an MP laterals over he/she can roll their CF pension right into the RCMP pension plan. I did it for 4.5 years of service and it will make a huge difference being able to retire with 24 + a day with a 30 year pension.

Noneck


----------



## QV (14 Jun 2007)

A friend of mine that just finished Depot (full course) said that he wasn't sure if the lateral course was 6 or 8 weeks.  He opted to do the full Depot course because he would have had to wait longer to start the lateral course.


----------



## garb811 (14 Jun 2007)

Noneck:  I have the message from the Provost Marshal ref this issue that has quite a bit of detail but like I said, I firmly believe the subject is currenlty a CofC issue due to the impact this is going to have and I personally wanted to have my thoughts in order prior to pushing it to my guys so I want to give other Snr Leaders the chance to do the same.  In a couple of days when I think it should be out to most people I'll put some detail up.  Thanks for the vote of confidence, who knows, I might be trading in Green for Serge. 

Kiwi99:  My apologies for unloading on you, you just happened to be the proverbial straw in relation to the issue of sniping at MPs in this forum.  I respect your professional opinions and normally enjoy your posts, finding them informative and well thought out and I look forward to reading more of your stuff.


----------



## medaid (14 Jun 2007)

I like MPs  infact that would've been my career path of choice had I not decided not to go Reg F. Congratulations are in order though, because the MPs have been fighting long and hard to be able to lateral, and being able to do it with the RCMP is a gigantic step forwards.


----------



## Kiwi99 (14 Jun 2007)

Understood, but I have to let you know that we all learn from these types of comments based on perception.  An outside view can sometimes work wonders, and resolve issues.  Like I stated, it was not an MP bash.  A lot of MPs have forgotten what the M stands for, and thats the issue.  Spec pay, its always gonna be an issue.  People could care less if you get it or not, but why.  There are plenty of tades that do spec things but dont get it.  Its a comparison issue, is all. You know, reading some posts that followed mie, i dont recall saying MPs suck.  That a pretty big defensive measure to assume that was the intent.  The reason why forums exist is to give opinions and ideas, and constructive criticizm.  I am sure that you all sit around wondering what the hell the grunts are up to, just as medics wonder what the hell the air force is up to.  We have this opportunity to converse in a non formal enviroment and we shouild make the most out of it.

kiwi out!


----------



## QV (14 Jun 2007)

Kiwi99 I understand what you are saying about "forgetting what the M means".  I myself experienced that with some subordinates in A'stan just recently - drove me nuts.  I feel that phrase has far more application in a theatre of ops, or field duties, then domestic policing.  However, too many people throw that phrase around when they don't get their way with respect to the MPs.  In my opinion (and I am probably the minority) the "M" takes a second seat to my duties as police in domestic policing operations.  I think one can only understand what I mean when I say that, if you have done or are doing the job as an MP on general patrol duties.  

Comments from outside the org are welcome, however when they are predominantly negative like your first post, then like any other group there are some of us who will jump up to defend our organization.

No you didn't say "MPs suck".... but it sure sounded like it to me.  Agree to disagree I suppose.

Anyway... I think I have dragged this thread far enough off topic........ Now back to talking MP 00161 into posting that message up so we can all see it!!!!


----------



## garb811 (15 Jun 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> And will someone please tell me why they get spec pay!


Well, there is no one reason why Spec pay was granted to the MPs.  I have not seen the multiple binders of the submission to the Treasury Board, however my understanding is the main reasons are:

1)  Recruiting incentive (not the original reason for Spec pay when it was tied to mobilization MOCs but it has become one of the uses today)
2)  Addition of the MP Code of Conduct to the NDA.  No other trade has a code of conduct published in a federal statute
3)  Legislation of and standing up of a quasi-judicial body to oversee and investigate complaints in relation to the MP Code of Conduct
4)  Implemention of the requirement of a post-secondary degree in order to qualify for the trade off the street

Surprisingly, "because we deserve it" doesn't seem to be on the list.  At the end of the day the Branch made the proposal (multiple times over several years to be truthful) and finally made a case which all the powers that be with the CF, DND and the Treasury Board agreed with, hence Spec 1.

Ref the Mp/mP/MP debate, this has been going on for as long as I have been in the trade.  At the end of the day, it's up to us as leaders to bring everyone on line with the expectations of the rest of the CF in relation to what is and what is not acceptable dress/deportment/decorum when dealing with the rest of the CF in the conduct of our duties.  While I agree with QV that in many instances, members on general patrol duty do not conform to certain "expected" military decorum due to officer safety, imposition of authority and related reasons, many, many MPs push the boundary and think that because "civie cops don't do it" they don't have to either.  A good example of this is headdress, many young MP try to refuse wearing it at any time because it is an "officer safety" issue, which is a ludicrous argument in my mind, particularly when I'm jacking them up for not wearing their headdress from the patrol car to the Guardhouse at 12pm on a weekday at the main gate in plain view of everyone driving off base at lunch.  At the end of the day, the Provost Corps motto of "Discipline By Example" applies just as much to the MP Branch as it does to 1 MP Pl (if they still have the motto after becoming part of 1 MPU).  My experience has always been that the best way to earn the respect and cooperation of other CF members has been to act in a manner which is above reproach in all my dealings with them, not once has this let me down unlike many young guys I've seen in action...  At the end of the day it comes down to professionalism, if you want to be treated as a professional, deal with everyone in a professional manner and abide by the rules of the profession you have joined.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Jun 2007)

Agreed MP......I think that dress and deportment in many civie forces is absolutely deplorable at the best of times. the RCMP have gone a long way to cleaning up their act in the last little while. One notices that they never appear on a news interview anymore without proper head dress and looking properly turned out now. When outside the car invesitgating accidents etc they are wearing their uniforms properly etc. 
I was down at Perk's the other night in Halifax and two HRP folks went by "on the beat" with hands jammed in pockets...slouching and jackets wide open etc ...it wasn't a very positive appearance in public.
IMHO a police officer should have a bearing that suggests authority and discipline.....bellies hanging our under ill fitting flak jackets, stained clothing or untidy appearance suggests an attitude of unprofessionalism.

All my dealings with MPs in my career have been mostly positive and I've found them to be a disciplined and well turned out group.


----------



## garb811 (19 Jun 2007)

Since it has been a week and as the meat is now on another website, find below the relevant portion from the email sent by the CFPM on 13 Jun 07.  If you have not yet seen or been briefed on the entire message, go through your chain of command and ask for the email entitled "*A Message from the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal---Message du Grand Prévôt des Forces canadiennes*"



> …
> Police services in the Maritimes have had the practice of accepting MP as lateral transfers.  Commencing this fall, the RCMP plans to re> view MP applicants and subject them to a 5 week or 24 week training program in place of the regular Depot training depending on their training and experience.  MP accepted under this program would enter the RCMP at the Constable rank regardless of their military rank held.
> …


Obviously much remains to be learnt from the RCMP side of the house but the intent is clear.


----------



## garb811 (20 Jun 2007)

What, you figure the CFPM is in the business of CCing every RCMP constable out there?  Or the CFPM decided to shake things up a bit to see what fell out of the tree, maybe like a bit of an April Fool's joke?  Trust me, there are those in the RCMP who have known about this issue much, much longer than the email has been on the street.

Newsflash for you:  We never stopped being Green, just most of the Branch forgot and the obsession with recruiting "cops" vice "MPs" and trying to ignore those of us who did the dirtly, smelly job that everyone else tried to ignore is coming back to bite the Branch, hard.


----------



## MPwannabe (19 Dec 2010)

I know this is an old thread, but I figured I'd keep this one going instead of starting a new one.

I know that it's been about three years since this discussion, but recently I was talking to some MP's and they were saying that more and more MP's were transfering out of the Forces. Can anyone confirm this?

Also, is there any news on the RCMP lateral transfer? I read some Civi Cop forums once in a while and they seem to think it's becoming more common.


----------



## garb811 (19 Dec 2010)

MPs are doing laterals but looking at the stats provided by the Career Manager this year, I don't think it is the epidemic that some were afraid of.


----------



## MPwannabe (19 Dec 2010)

That's good to hear. I was told that we're losing more MP's to civilian detatchments then we are to retirements. I know civilians make more cash, but I thought that our benefits were much better? I know this sounds goofy, but I figured the boys in the red berets would have a bit more loyalty to the job then that. (I'm just talking out my behind though, I don't actually know what it's like to be an MP yet.)


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2010)

MPwannabe said:
			
		

> Also, is there any news on the RCMP lateral transfer?



In case you have not seen this. My apologies if you already have:
"The lateral entry program is under review. Please check back in January 2011 for an update on the status of the program.":
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruiting-recrutement/rm-mr/lateral-eng.htm

"*Our program now welcomes applications from the Canadian Forces Military Police."


----------



## MPwannabe (20 Dec 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> In case you have not seen this. My apologies if you already have:
> "The lateral entry program is under review. Please check back in January 2011 for an update on the status of the program.":
> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruiting-recrutement/rm-mr/lateral-eng.htm
> 
> "*Our program now welcomes applications from the Canadian Forces Military Police."



Ah, I didn't see that before. Thanks for the information! I'm sure others will appreciate it as well.


----------



## noneck (20 Dec 2010)

The reason the program is under review is that we currently have a 2-3 year backlog of recruits in the pipe. Recruiting is only sending forward those files that are squeaky clean, a lot of really good applicants are in a holding pattern at the moment. As a result they haven't run any lateral courses, it's too bad because these members usually go to GD spots and bring a wealth of experience with them.

There are a few reasons for this, when we hit a period of recession two years ago the forecasted retirements just didn't happen also the money has dried up for Depot and new applicants. We are also supposedly fully staffed...! This will turn around to bite us in the ass in the next few years, when all those retirees put in at the same time and overnight 15-20% of the Force retires. We aren't the only ones in this boat, out here on the West Coast most police and fire services are in the same boat with very limited hires.

Noneck


----------



## garb811 (20 Dec 2010)

Noneck:  The exact same set of circumstances hit the CF as well.  We're all in the same boat and when people get over the fear of getting out and trying their hand in the great big world out there, I believe there will be a sharper spike of experienced pers getting out of both orgs which will be even greater than what was forecast prior to the recession.  I also think it is going to institutionally hurt more than if this blip hadn't happened because more people are in the position to walk out the door at the drop of the hat than ever before.


----------



## MPwannabe (20 Dec 2010)

So what you two are saying is that due to the recession a couple years ago, the people that would have retired decided to stay with their respective police force? That does make sense. These older Police Officers will eventually bottleneck and spill out of the force all at once, leaving a very large gap to fill. How many more years do you think these older cops are going to wait before retiring?


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2010)

MPwannabe said:
			
		

> So what you two are saying is that due to the recession a couple years ago, the people that would have retired decided to stay with their respective police force? That does make sense. These older Police Officers will eventually bottleneck and spill out of the force all at once, leaving a very large gap to fill. How many more years do you think these older cops are going to wait before retiring?



Forever. So mind as well start doing something else right now.


----------



## Dissident (28 Dec 2010)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Forever. So mind as well start doing something else right now.



LOL

Something else like corrections perhaps? I think the sherriffs might be a good choice too. Maybe even CBSA...


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2010)

Dissident said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> Something else like corrections perhaps? I think the sherriffs might be a good choice too. Maybe even CBSA...



Brother, you be quiet and enjoy your sunny awesome weather and shark feading  

You're already doing something else  ;D

Unfortunately CSC/CBSA/Sheriffs aren't hiring in the province of BC right now . Although MPWannabe's in ONTARIO which has way more peace officers appointed for enforcement purposes then we do out here. He should look into those positions vice sitting as a Commissionaire somewhere. Not that it's a bad thing that you're doing, but if you want exposure and experience get into the field of enforcement. Lots of fun that.


----------



## MPwannabe (28 Dec 2010)

I won't be a Commissionaire much longer. I was just sworn in and I start my MP trade course in January.


----------



## medaid (29 Dec 2010)

MPwannabe said:
			
		

> I won't be a Commissionaire much longer. I was just sworn in and I start my MP trade course in January.



Congrats!


----------



## user681 (3 Feb 2011)

MPgonnabe said:
			
		

> I won't be a Commissionaire much longer. I was just sworn in and I start my MP trade course in January.



Do you mind telling the rest of us who wants to become an MP the qualifications/education background that you have?
It'd be really useful for us
thanks


----------



## Jetta MP (11 Feb 2011)

It appears that you build your resume by wasting tax dollars that could be spend on another applicant that will stay the longterm but instead you serve first as military police so you can leave early to serve with civilian police - - it serves no purpose but to banish those before you and after you so that you can serve yourself first  ????


----------



## aesop081 (11 Feb 2011)

Jetta MP said:
			
		

> It appears that you build your resume by wasting tax dollars that could be spend on another applicant that will stay the longterm but instead you serve first as military police so you can leave early to serve with civilian police - - it serves no purpose but to banish those before you and after you so that you can serve yourself first  ????



 :

If a guy joins, serves the terms of his contract and moves on, i have no problem with that. If the military demanded that you serve an entire career, they would make you sign a 25 year contract right from day one.


----------



## Jetta MP (11 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :
> 
> If a guy serves the terms of his contract and moves on, i have no problem with that. If the military..



The question than is if the military is inform that your intention is to serve with another branch other than them in the same context would they still accept your application ?


----------



## mariomike (11 Feb 2011)

Jetta MP said:
			
		

> It appears that you build your resume by wasting tax dollars that could be spend on another applicant that will stay the longterm but instead you serve first as military police so you can leave early to serve with civilian police - - it serves no purpose but to banish those before you and after you so that you can serve yourself first  ????



Everyone is free to "follow their dream$". Have you heard of "retention pay"?:
http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1471257

"...the practice began in 2002 when Toronto police negotiated a bonus for officers to prevent them leaving for other police services."


----------



## Jetta MP (11 Feb 2011)

Everyone has will to do career path as they see fit.. !! Do you sign up for life until retirement ? Do you sign up to achieve basics and to get experience to ride out contract to be release to whatever is wait for you after ? Transitions are difficult but life is to everyone that dreams for more than what is before today... Ok with today generation !!


----------



## aesop081 (11 Feb 2011)

Jetta MP said:
			
		

> The question than is if the military is inform that your intention is to serve with another branch other than them in the same context would they still accept your application ?



You don't get it do you.

Let it f*****g go. The military willingly takes in people who only intend to serve a relatively short period. If the CF were not ok with that, they wouldnt accept that kind of people.


----------



## Shamrock (11 Feb 2011)

Jetta MP said:
			
		

> The question than is if the military is inform that your intention is to serve with another branch other than them in the same context would they still accept your application ?



I shall speak to this. Individuals whose intent is to complete one TOS then release provide the system ample time to recoup its loss; this is why TOS renewals are offered so far in advance. Individuals who join one trade to transfer later are less easily replaced, but it is still doable. Individuals who break a contract are again problematic but replaceable. 

I deal with the administrative problems presented by those three scenarios often. The CF easily copes with these; certainly none of my commanders have had concerns. Why do some individuals of some trades take such umbrage towards using their trade as a springboard to civilian employment?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (11 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You don't get it do you.
> 
> Let it f*****g go. The military willingly takes in people who only intend to serve a relatively short period. If the CF were not ok with that, they wouldnt accept that kind of people.



I actually thought that Jetta MP brought up a valid point.

If I were to go in for an interview to become a Military Policeman, and when asked what my plans are I responded by saying, in essence:

"Well, I'm planning on attending the Military Police Academy and working as an MP for a year or so to help bolster my experience on my resume. Then I'm going to f#%k off to a local Dept using the training you're going to give me."   ..... I really don't expect that I would be seen as a very desireable candidate...


----------



## ballz (12 Feb 2011)

How many civilian employer's expect you to stay 25 years? Or commit long-term without a trial period? And how many would interview you, and ask if you are going to stay for 25 years, and if you say "no" then count you out?

As with any career, military or civilian, you may apply for a job and go through the hiring process, and I think both parties know that no matter how much you "want this job," it's still going to be a feeling out process for a few years before you make any long-term decisions. If an interviewer asks "what are your future long-term plans?" and you say "outside the next 2-3 years I only have ideas, not long-term plans that I am committed to," I think they would be happy knowing you're going to give it a 2-3 year shot to see if it's for you.

I agree that the military is a lifestyle but some people act like it's a marriage, and you're marrying the Queen B***h, and God knows you're going to hell if you get a divorce too.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (12 Feb 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> How many civilian employer's expect you to stay 25 years? Or commit long-term without a trial period? And how many would interview you, and ask if you are going to stay for 25 years, and if you say "no" then count you out?
> 
> As with any career, military or civilian, you may apply for a job and go through the hiring process, and I think both parties know that no matter how much you "want this job," it's still going to be a feeling out process for a few years before you make any long-term decisions. If an interviewer asks "what are your future long-term plans?" and you say "outside the next 2-3 years I only have ideas, not long-term plans that I am committed to," I think they would be happy knowing you're going to give it a 2-3 year shot to see if it's for you.
> 
> I agree that the military is a lifestyle but some people act like it's a marriage, and you're marrying the Queen B***h, and God knows you're going to hell if you get a divorce too.




I agree with your post, but when the interviewer asks about the future long-term plans, and you clearly answer that you're only interested in staying in the forces long enough to get a job outside of the forces.... that is when asking if they would still hire you becomes a legitimate question.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Feb 2011)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> I actually thought that Jetta MP brought up a valid point.
> 
> If I were to go in for an interview to become a Military Policeman, and when asked what my plans are I responded by saying, in essence:
> 
> "Well, I'm planning on attending the Military Police Academy and working as an MP for a year or so to help bolster my experience on my resume. Then I'm going to f#%k off to a local Dept using the training you're going to give me."   ..... I really don't expect that I would be seen as a very desireable candidate...



Lots of people join to leanr skills that will get them into something on civvy side, just like alot of people join for the free education. The CF have established terms of service lenghts to ensure it gets an approrpiate level of retun on its investment.

Why is that last point so f*****g hard to understand ?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (12 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Lots of people join to leanr skills that will get them into something on civvy side, just like alot of people join for the free education. The CF have established terms of service lenghts to ensure it gets an approrpiate level of retun on its investment.
> 
> Why is that last point so f*****g hard to understand ?



I could also ask you why it is so f*****g hard to understand how admitting to the interviewer that you are only applying for a trade such as an MP for the training to become a member in a civi dept the instant you are able to would make you a less desireable candidate?


----------



## mariomike (12 Feb 2011)

The police services are not shy about recruiting from each other. Check out "Lateral Transfers" on the right-side centre, if interested.
"What if I am currently serving as a Police Officer with the RCMP?":
http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/Careers/Sworn/


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Feb 2011)

Because the recruiter doesn't care.  Many people join with the intention of a test drive, with no desire to be a lifer.  That's why there are BEs.  Plenty of people complete the BE and leave.  It's a business deal; we get someone to put on a uniform and do what we tell them, they get useable training for the real world.


----------



## garb811 (12 Feb 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Because the recruiter doesn't care.  Many people join with the intention of a test drive, with no desire to be a lifer.  That's why there are BEs.  Plenty of people complete the BE and leave.  It's a business deal; we get someone to put on a uniform and do what we tell them, they get useable training for the real world.


Exactly.  And, in many cases, folks who join with the intention of only doing their initial engagment like the test drive and hang around.  Not to mention the links the Branch gains into civilian police forces via ex-MP.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (12 Feb 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Because the recruiter doesn't care.



Fair enough.

The scenario I had been trying to describe (I probably could have described it better) was an applicant admitting that s/he has no real interest in serving in the CF, and is applying to become a Military Policeman solely to attend the CF M Police Academy for the training, rather than applying to attend a civilian academy such as Holland College or JIBC...


----------



## aesop081 (12 Feb 2011)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> The scenario I had been trying to describe (I probably could have described it better) was an applicant admitting that s/he has no real interest in serving in the CF, and is applying to become a Military Policeman solely to attend the CF M Police Academy for the training, rather than applying to attend a civilian academy such as Holland College or JIBC...



Yeah, we understood. My knucles may drag when i walk but i could manage to understand enough of you posts to know what you meant.

How many more serving members have to tell you the same thing before *YOU* get it ??


----------



## ballz (12 Feb 2011)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> I agree with your post, but when the interviewer asks about the future long-term plans, and you clearly answer that you're only interested in staying in the forces long enough to get a job outside of the forces.... that is when asking if they would still hire you becomes a legitimate question.



Considering the CF lists "Related Civilian Occupations" and whatnot on it's official recruiting website for all the different trades? 

I would say the whole "this is a great first step to your ultimate goal" is more of point recruiters would try and make, than it is a reason that somebody shouldn't be hired (or, since this is what the argument is about, shouldn't even bother to apply because their "intentions" are somehow dishonest?).


----------



## midget-boyd91 (12 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yeah, we understood. My knucles may drag when i walk but i could manage to understand enough of you posts to know what you meant.
> 
> How many more serving members have to tell you the same thing before *YOU* get it ??



You really don't need to use that same condenscending attitude in every single post you make in every single thread. Not every discussion requires it...

"Fair enough," means exactly that: Fair enough. I understand and *get* it. 



> I would say the whole "this is a great first step to your ultimate goal" is more of point recruiters would try and make, than it is a reason that somebody shouldn't be hired



That is where I was looking at the issue from the other end. I was looking at it more like it was "So you're only using us for the free training with no interest in serving with us?" 
I didn't think that a recruiter, or whoever accepts your application into a particular trade, would look as kindly upon someone with that plan as they would someone who is open to or planning on a career with the CF.

I guess in my mind I had the priorities of the recruiter reversed.... Fair enough. 

That's the difference between an interview for a small organization and an interview for a large organization like the forces...


----------

