# "MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles" and "Replace base MP with RCMP"



## Infanteer (6 Apr 2005)

Some of us discussed this earlier, but I thought I'd throw it up here for general consumption and thoughts.  There has been some discussion about creating a branch or an MOC that is responsible for static installation security.  This is something that is too important to leave in the hands of "tasked" soldiers who have other roles to perform.  It would be something akin to the RAF Regiment that polices RAF Airfields.

However, it has been pointed out that this would be a drain on scarce PY's.  As well, I'm not sure that the CF, with a unified force structure, needs to create an MOC that is essentially half-trained Infantry soldiers.  Although I'd be the first infantry-type to be glad to offload tedious base security tasks on someone else, I don't think I would want it to be some half-bake group that are basically "Infantry-Lite".  The potential for having this MOC be a "dumping ground" is too much.

My proposal is to give this task to the Military Police, who would take it along with other tasks (including most of their current ones) to be the operational *"Force Protection"* experts of the CF.  It would entail having them revert to the Provost Corps of old and take installation security as one of their primary tasks.

Going off of memory, I recall that the 4 missions of the Military Police (someone please correct me) in the CF are:
1) PW Handling
2) Maintenance of Discipline
3) Traffic Direction
4) Military Policing

It appears to me our MP's focus too much on the last one, *which is a very specialized task and basically has them doing "un-military" things at the expense of combat preparedness and operational capability.*  All I remember about the MP's on base was them running the radar gun outside of the base, setting up Roadside checks, etc, etc.  In Bosnia, they seemed to cruise around in marked patrol cars looking to give soldiers huge fines for driving too fast in an Iltis.  To top it off, the Delta between Regular and Reserve MPs is huge because only Regs are classified as Peace Officers.

I would propose that the Canadian Military Police, re-renamed the Canadian Forces Provost Corps, lose the tasking of military policing.  Like France, I think this function should be handed over to the National Police Force.  Like a municipality or a Province, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be contracted by the Canadian Forces to provide policing to the military (both CCC and QR&O).  They are the experts on policing and receive proper training that allows them to focus on it.

I believe this will offer us a two-fold advantage:
1) Policing is done by those who know how to police.
2) Higher investigative functions (NIS, etc) are handled by the Mounties - trained investigators who also have the advantage of being outside of the system.  They can be seen as being impartial.

With that duty taken care of by specialized pers, the Provost Corps can move back to its traditional operational capabilities.  They will focus on PW handling, discipline of soldiers in rear areas, traffic control and rear area security.  As well, they should be expanded and given the new fourth role of "Instillation Security".  They should, like the RAF Regiment, be trained to secure perimeters, conduct patrols, principals of Force Protections, and train to work with sensors, dogs, equipment, etc that increases their capabilities with regards to defensive awareness.

When a battlegroup deploys overseas, it should take with it a Provost contingent that is capable of providing security to Canadian Forces camps and bases overseas.  If the demand is too much for the numbers of Provost Soldiers and Officers or the AOR has multiple bases that can't be completely staffed by a single contingent, then Reg Force provost cells will be augmented with Reservists (preferably Provost Reserves, but other MOC's can help in the D&S role).  This gives us the extra advantage of keeping more of the "tip of the spear" types available for operations outside of the camp, whether it be patrolling, raids, or combat operations in distant areas.  They can do so knowing that the Camp is secured by people who train to do the "Rear Area Security" task.

Just an idea, thought it might be worth putting to discuss.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## canadianblue (6 Apr 2005)

Well, I want to become an Reg Force MP so I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents. I don't believe the military should get rid of its police service, as France has done. I think that perhaps an entirely seperate branch should be created to oversee the three duties that you would like seen done more, or perhaps those duties can be turned over to the Reserve MP's all together. But I think that in the end their may be more problems with having the RCMP do the policework on military bases, then having actaul military personal. Another possibility is that all MP recruits have to start out doing basic field work, after three years of doing that, they can get promoted to doing police work in general for the military. 

All in all, I'd say that Military should continue to have its own police service, instead of getting civilians to do that job.


----------



## chrisf (6 Apr 2005)

One major problem I see is that if the Military policing role is removed from the military police is that they loose the ability to perform their police functions when needed... in garrison and domestic situations, this isn't an issue (As you said, it's possible to contract  the RCMP within Canada, although I would submit that the RCMP is already over-burdened, but I'll be honest, I'm not that familiar with their capabilities, so I stand to be corrected), however, on deployment, and over-seas, you can't expect the RCMP to deploy paralellel to the military, they're a police force, not an army, and irritating or not, the MPs fufill a vital function of policing on deployment.


----------



## DogOfWar (6 Apr 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> But I think that in the end their may be more problems with having the RCMP do the policework on military bases, then having actaul military personal.



Serious crime and sudden deaths are already tasked out to the RCMP. The MP's are involved in the investigations as well but they are redundant if you ask me. We have a para-military national Police force that routinely deploys on peace keeping missions- why have the MP's as well?

A trade like Infanteer discussed would be a good idea.


----------



## Thompson_JM (7 Apr 2005)

Im just wondering How many MP's would release though, if they lost their ability to be police officers?

also would the MP's serving in a Garrison Role (Black uniforms and cars with whoope lights) simply transition over to the RCMP? it seems like the military has spent a considerable amount of money training said MP's and it doesnt seem economical to simply take any skills they learned and simply stop using them... 

anyways, only my .02 im a mse-op. so my only knowlege of policing is on the civie side of things at school, so please bear with me.


----------



## DogOfWar (7 Apr 2005)

Cpl Thompson said:
			
		

> also would the MP's serving in a Garrison Role (Black uniforms and cars with whoope lights) simply transition over to the RCMP?



No. Even if the MP's tell you otherwise- They would all have to go through the hiring process. The RCMP would at least half the personel at the detachments. (basing that on 30 constables for 10000 people and 45 Mp's for 1000 people)The RC's  are the epitome of "more with less"


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> although I would submit that the RCMP is already over-burdened



I would assume that if the CF contracted out the RCMP to cover off the Military Policing aspect that the funding would help to create the extra numbers of Officers in the RCMP.



> however, on deployment, and over-seas, you can't expect the RCMP to deploy paralellel to the military, they're a police force, not an army, and irritating or not, the MPs fufill a vital function of policing on deployment.



We had RCMP Officers overseas as part of the UN police monitors (which then transfered to the EU).   Obviously, a MP who requested Military Policing could be expected to deploy.

As for "irritating", this is not a hack on the MP's in the CF - I didn't put this up because I had a bone to pick or anything.   Rather, I thought it was interesting because I got the feeling that Operational "Provost-like" duties of the MP's (who, like the rest of us, are soldiers first) were being sacrificed for the Military Policing role, which could be handled by the RCMP who specializes in this.   This is a feeling I got by reading about what US MP's have been up to in Iraq in the last couple of years as well.

Just an idea for discussion, not a rant or a complaint.



			
				Cpl Thompson said:
			
		

> Im just wondering How many MP's would release though, if they lost their ability to be police officers?



If there goal is to be Police Officers and not soldiers, then maybe it is better off?   What would guys with this attitude (of any trade, really) do if they were put into an Iraq-type situation and forced to run convoys, secure the Green Zone, and do patrols?   What I am looking at is enhancing operational capabilites for this part of the CF.   Sitting on a base and manning a radar gun doesn't seem to be very proactive in doing this (not a hack, as this is part of the job, but one that could be handled by "police" and not "soldiers").

I am sure that, if something like this were to occur, the RCMP could transfer over willing members who, with a certain degree of supplementary training, wish to go the Policing route as opposed to the Soldier route.


----------



## chrisf (7 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for "irritating", this is not a hack on the MP's in the CF - I didn't put this up because I had a bone to pick or anything.   Rather, I thought it was interesting because I got the feeling that Operational "Provost-like" duties of the MP's (who, like the rest of us, are soldiers first) were being sacrificed for the Military Policing role, which could be handled by the RCMP who specializes in this.   This is a feeling I got by reading about what US MP's have been up to in Iraq in the last couple of years as well.



While I am aware that the RCMP have deployed to peacekeeping missions and continue to do so, I'm not absolutely familiar with it, so I have to ask, were they there to act as police within the peace-keeping contingent, or were they were to train the local police force? And would I be correct in assuming that they certainly weren't there until several rotos had gone through?


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

No, you are right - I was only highlighting that RCMP members can be deployed out of Canada.


----------



## canadianblue (8 Apr 2005)

How many people would apply to that new branch though, I think that I would prefer to just go Infantry if something along those lines were to be introduced. If I'm not going out on patrol, then I wouldn't really prefer to do that. Plus how many other MP's would change trades or simply quit if something like that were to happen. I'd say that I doubt we'll see it in our lifetime, but it may happen.


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Apr 2005)

Posted By Infanteer


> If there goal is to be Police Officers and not soldiers, then maybe it is better off?  What would guys with this attitude (of any trade, really) do if they were put into an Iraq-type situation and forced to run convoys, secure the Green Zone, and do patrols?  What I am looking at is enhancing operational capabilites for this part of the CF.  Sitting on a base and manning a radar gun doesn't seem to be very proactive in doing this (not a hack, as this is part of the job, but one that could be handled by "police" and not "soldiers").



Infanteer, I do agree with you that if they have that attitude that they should release. and i dont argue with that point. my thought was more about how many mp's might end up releasing and then just applying to civilian police servies? the CF could end up loosing alot of soldiers at that point. the question im wondering is would that really by in the best interest of the CF? 

as i see it, yes and no.


----------



## canadianblue (8 Apr 2005)

Or else simply reform the way MP's work, while at the same time still giving them the ability to do policework. As far as I've heard many people will say that they are a clerk not a soldier, etc. when serving in the CF. Perhaps getting it drilled in any CF members head that they are soldiers first, trade second should be a priority.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2005)

I know we have a few good MP's on this site, so I was interested to hear their thoughts.  So far it has been the peanut gallery chatting away (myself included).


----------



## chrisf (9 Apr 2005)

Cpl Thompson said:
			
		

> Black uniforms and cars with whoope lights)



Out of curiosity (you being the MSE OP) is "whoope light" a technical term? It's a serious question... as I keep hearing it...


----------



## canadianblue (10 Apr 2005)

Isn't it the same with the DND firefighters as well though. I think that perhaps their should be a new branch created such as the provost corps as mentioned. But at the same time the military police should remain doing law enforcement duties on the base.


----------



## Poppa (11 Apr 2005)

OK,
I'll toss my hat into this one. DEFINATLY we should should have a higher focus on our warfighting capabilities. But unfourtunatly this is not the direction we want to. You would have to look to the res Coys to see any real level of trg for this type of task. We are moving more in synch with our US counterparts regarding doctrine and they have no such issues about trg for war.

Look at this
       I can't express to you the pride, awe, and
respect I feel for the soldiers of call sign Raven 42.
On Sunday afternoon, in a very bad section of scrub-land called
Salman Pak, on the southeastern outskirts of Baghdad, 40 to 50
heavily-armed Iraqi insurgents attacked a convoy of 30 civilian tractor trailer trucks
that were moving supplies for the coalition forces, along an Alternate
Supply Route. These tractor trailers, driven by third country nationals
(primarily Turkish), were escorted by 3 armored Hummers from the COSCOM.
When the insurgents attacked, one of the Hummers was in their kill zone and
the three soldiers aboard were immediately wounded, and the platform taken
under heavy machinegun and RPG fire. Along with them, three of the truck
drivers were killed, 6 were wounded in the tractor trailer trucks. The
enemy attacked from a farmer's barren field next to the road, with a tree line
perpendicular to the ASR, two dry irrigation ditches forming a rough
L-shaped trench line, and a house standing off the dirt road.  After three
minutes of sustained fire, a squad of enemy moved forward toward the
disabled and suppressed trucks.  Each of the enemy had hand-cuffs and were
looking to take hostages for ransom or worse, to take those three wounded
US soldiers for more internet beheadings.

        About this time, three armored Hummers that formed the MP Squad
under call sign Raven 42, 617th MP Co, Kentucky National Guard, assigned to
the 503rd MP BN, 18th MP BDE, arrived on the scene like the cavalry.
The squad had been shadowing the convoy from a distance behind the last
vehicle, and when the convoy trucks stopped and became backed up from the
initial attack, the squad sped up, paralleled the convoy up the shoulder of
the road, and moved to the sound of gunfire. They arrived on the scene just
as a squad of about ten enemy had moved forward across the farmer's field
and were about 20 meters from the road. The MP squad opened fire with .50
cal machineguns and Mk19 grenade launchers and drove across the front of
the enemy's kill zone, between the enemy and the trucks, drawing fire off of
the tractor trailers. The MP's crossed the kill zone and then turned up an
access road at a right angle to the ASR and next to the field full of enemy
fighters.The three vehicles, carrying nine MPs and one medic, stopped in a
line on the dirt access road and flanked the enemy positions with plunging
fire from the .50 cal and the SAW machinegun (Squad Automatic Weapon). In
front of them, was a line of seven sedans, with all their doors and trunk
lids open, the getaway cars and the lone two story house off on their left.

         Immediately the middle vehicle was hit by an RPG knocking the
gunner unconscious from his turret and down into the vehicle. The Vehicle
Commander (the TC), the squad's leader, thought the gunner was dead, but
tried to treat him from inside the vehicle.Simultaneously, the rear
vehicle's driver and TC, section leader two, open their doors and dismount
to fight, while their gunner continued firing from his position in the gun
platform on top of the Hummer.

        Immediately, all three fall under heavy return machinegun fire,
wounded. The driver of the middle vehicle saw them fall out the rearview mirror,
dismounts and sprints to get into the third vehicle and take up the SAW on
top the vehicle.

        The Squad's medic dismounts from that third vehicle, and joined by
the first vehicle's driver (CLS trained) who sprinted back to join him,
begins combat life-saving techniques to treat the three wounded MPs.The
gunner on the
floor of the second vehicle is revived by his TC, the squad leader, and he
climbs back into the .50 cal and opens fire. The Squad leader dismounted
with his M4 carbine, and 2 hand grenades, grabbed the section leader out of
the first vehicle who had rendered radio reports of their first contact.
The two of them, squad leader Staff Sergeant and team leader Sergeant with her
M4 and M203 grenade launcher, rush the nearest ditch about 20 meters away
to start clearing the natural trench line. The enemy has gone into the ditches
and is hiding behind several small trees in the back of the lot.  The .50
cal and SAW flanking fire tears apart the ten in the lead trench line.

        Meanwhile, the two treating the three wounded on the ground at the
rear vehicle come under sniper fire from the lone house. Each of them,
remember one is a medic, pull out AT-4 rocket launchers from the HMMWV and
nearly-simultaneously fire the rockets into the house to neutralize the
shooter.  The two sergeants work their way up the trench line, throwing
grenades, firing grenades from the launcher, and firing their M4's. The
sergeant runs low on ammo and runs back to a vehicle to reload. She moves
to her squad leader's vehicle, and because this squad is led so well, she
knows exactly where to reach her arm blindly into a different vehicle to find
ammo-because each vehicle is packed exactly the same, with discipline. As
she turns to move back to the trench line, Gunner in two sees an AIF jump
from behind one of the cars and start firing on the Sergeant. He pulls his
9mm, because the .50 cal is pointed in the other direction, and shoots five
rounds wounding him. The sergeant moves back to the trench line under fire
from the back of the field, with fresh mags, two more grenades, and three
more M203 rounds. The Mk 19 gunner suppresses the rear of the field.  Now,
rejoined with the squad leader, the two sergeants continue clearing the
enemy from the trench line, until they see no more movement. A lone man
with an RPG launcher on his shoulder steps from behind a tree and prepares to
fire on the three Hummers and is killed with a single aimed SAW shot thru
the head by the previously knocked out gunner on platform two, who now has
a SAW out to supplement the .50 cal in the mount. The team leader sergeant,
she claims four killed by aimed M4 shots. The Squad Leader, he threw four
grenades taking out at least two baddies, and attributes one other to her
aimed M203 fire.

        The gunner on platform two, previously knocked out from a hit by
the RPG, has now swung his .50 cal around and, realizing that the line of
vehicles represents a hazard and possible getaway for the bad guys, starts
shooting the .50cal into the engine blocks until his field of fire is
limited.  He realizes that his vehicle is still running despite the RPG
hit, and drops down from his weapon, into the drivers seat and moves the vehicle
forward on two flat tires about 100 meters into a better firing position.
Just then, the vehicle dies, oil spraying everywhere. He remounts his .50
cal and continues shooting the remaining of the seven cars lined up and
ready for a get-away that wasn't to happen.

        The fire dies down about then, and a second squad arrives on the
scene, dismounts and helps the two giving first aid to the wounded at
platform three. Two minutes later three other squads from the 617th arrive, along with the
CO,and the field is secured, consolidation begins.

        Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24
heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one
unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG
launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand
grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts
of 2500 rds of PK ammo.

        The three wounded MPs have been evacuated to Landstuhl. One lost a
kidney and will be paralyzed. The other two will most likely recover,
though one will forever have a bullet lodged between second and third ribs below
his heart. No word on the three COSCOM soldiers wounded in the initial
volleys.

        Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian
Women, the rest men--one is Mexican-American, the medic is
African-American, and the other two are Caucasian-the great American melting pot. They
believed even before this fight that their NCOs were the best in the Army,
and that they have the best squad in the Army.  The Medic who fired the
AT-4, said he remembered how from the week before when his squad leader
forced him to train on it, though he didn't think as a medic he would ever
use one. He said he chose to use it in that moment to protect the three
wounded on the ground in front of him, once they came under fire from the
building. The day before this mission, they took the new RFI bandoliers
that were recently issued, and experimented with mounting them in their
vehicles.
Once they figured out how, they pre-loaded a second basic load of ammo into
magazines, put them into the bandoliers, and mounted them in their
vehicles---the same exact way in every vehicle-load plans enforced and
checked by leaders! Leadership under fire--once those three leaders (NCOs)
stepped out of their vehicles, the squad was committed to the fight.

        Their only complaints in the AAR were: the lack of stopping power
in the 9mm; the .50 cal incendiary rounds they are issued in lieu of ball ammo
(shortage of ball in the inventory) didn't have the penetrating power
needed to pierce the walls of the building; and that everyone in the squad was not
CLS trained.

         The female E5 Sergeant who
fought thru the trench line will become the anti-Jessica Lynch media poster
child. She and her squad leader deserve every bit of recognition they will
get, and more. They all do.

Do these guys sound like your typical Cops?...No they sound like soldiers and that's exactly what we should be training for.
Law enforcement...OK but lets not forget which master we serve.

Willing to hear any comments.


----------



## garb811 (11 Apr 2005)

Poppa said:
			
		

> OK,
> I'll toss my hat into this one. DEFINATLY we should should have a higher focus on our warfighting capabilities. But unfourtunatly this is not the direction we want to. You would have to look to the res Coys to see any real level of trg for this type of task. We are moving more in synch with our US counterparts regarding doctrine and they have no such issues about trg for war....



I'm working on a response to the ideas Infanteer has proposed, not sure if I qualify as one of the "good MPs" on here but I'm definitely not shy about beaking off about the Branch  .  I'm swamped IRL right now and needless to say it's taking me awhile to try to get it right but hopefully it will be up shortly.  

In the meantime, Poppa, I'd be interested to see how you feel it is that the Cdn MP doctrine is moving in line with the US doctrine, particularly given the assigned MP BTS and the USOP MP Insert which has been published.  These are definitely not in line with US MP doctrine, or at least my exposure to it.

Also, I don't want to jump to conclusions about what it is you're saying as I'm having a bit of difficulty figuring out exactly what it is you mean by â Å“You would have to look to the res Coys to see any real level of trg for this type of task.â ?  Before I say anything that is based on a false assumption, perhaps you could flesh out what you mean a bit more.


----------



## Poppa (11 Apr 2005)

Sorry,
When I was talking about the Res Coys it was a poorly worded attempt to point out the differences in our trg. As we have no police role ( you and I have talked about this) the only real trg that we did and continue to do is all of the "warfighting".
Are the Pls doing this...probably but with all of the deployments and manning issues I don't know how much they do. Not a slag just the way things are.

As for aligning with the US, I agree the USOP is a good start. Myself and others in the unit have looked at some of our BTS and compared it to some of the tasks that the US MPs are doing up on are the same. Some of this came out of the symposium 2 months ago was it? Nothing hard or fast just rumblings of things maybe to come.

Hope this helps and 
BTW about the PM   ;D thanks much


----------



## Thompson_JM (12 Apr 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity (you being the MSE OP) is "whoope light" a technical term? It's a serious question... as I keep hearing it...



heh... 

nah. definatly not a technical term. more just slang for any kind of warning or emergency light on a vehicle ie: the Amber Revolving lamps on the Wrecker or MRT, or the Red Emergency lights on any of the Emergency Vehicles in the CF fleet. like i said... its just slang. sadly being an Reserve MSE-Op, I dont usually Drive anything with said "Whoopie Lights" on it.. 

Anyways, Back onto topic!


----------



## garb811 (14 Apr 2005)

Sorry for the delay.   The proposal is obviously simply that, a proposal, which may kill some people's sacred cows so feel free to fire back.

The four traditional MP tasks are:   Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops so you weren't far off.     C Pro C always had the ability to conduct Police Ops in relation to the military (particularly with 1 Provost Coy which was formed from the RCMP) although it was overshadowed in WWII by Mobility and Detention Ops.   I'm not sure at what point it started but they also had investigators organized similar to the SIB in the RMP to do what is now done by NIS and I believe it was the 50's when a greater emphasis on Base policing was started.   

The Force Protection idea has merit and the idea of a specific unit being formed to do this was tried in the late 90's with the Airfield Security Force (ASF) which anyone on Op KINETIC or other Ops with helicopters during the late 90's will probably remember.   The ASF was based on the system the USAF uses but unfortunately it came off the rails in a rather predictable way, at least to some of us, and imploded.   â Å“Why do I have MPs guarding helicopters?â ? is a quote attributed to the then DCDS upon his arrival at the camp in Kosovo and it illustrates one problem the unit had.   Having said that, the Air Force MP are still very much in the Force Protection business on Ops, witness how long it took for the infantry to be tasked to provide D&S to Mirage, but the way they are doing it is still very much ad hoc, at least for the ground side and I don't believe it is modeled on the USAF system any longer, although I haven't really asked anyone to find out.   The Navy are in the game as well both at home and abroad, with augmentation from the non-MP reserves at bases in Canada, it is really only the Army MP who are not in there protecting installations and assets in the manner I think you have in mind.   It appears the Air Force and Navy CofC want MP doing the task, the Army CofC doesn't seem to think it's an issue.   Should we be?   I think the obvious answer is yes because in my opinion even the Pol Ops role is essentially a Force Protection role, particularly when deployed, although it isn't acknowledged as such.   

So, how to make it work?   My idea is:

First thing would be to â Å“makeâ ? the MP Branch an Army asset which provides services to all three elements.   This is already done with other trades who predominately work in the land environment but whose services all three elements need.   

The next step would be to include all MP in all of the Land development cycles (because this is the best way of developing the Leadership skill set required for true Force Protection Ops while deployed, no matter what the element), including SQ, Mod 6? of the PLQ etc.   Once SQ was completed the member would proceed on his QL3 which emphasized Force Protection (including the topics mentioned by Infanteer plus a few others I can think of), Mobility and Detention Ops.   Once they graduated their QL3 they would immediately be posted to Force Protection Pls/Coys which would be based at the â Å“bigâ ? bases of Esquimalt, Edmonton, Cold Lake, Winnipeg, Trenton, Ottawa, Petawawa, Valcartier, Bagotville and Halifax.   

At these locations their primary task would be the Protection of the high value assets in these locations, including provision of access control, search of vehicles and persons, perimeter patrols etc. and to provide a pool of resources to draw from when an Op was mounted from the element they were supporting.   They would have the secondary task of augmenting non-elemental Force Protection Ops should the need arise.   Ottawa is dispersed enough to require most of their pers full time but they would also form a reserve to fill in any manning shortfalls from the other elements.   These units would actually be Pl(+) in size, possibly up to Coy in the case of Edmonton, Pet and Valcartier due to the requirement to support the Bde, the Garrison, and possibly an Op (domestic or international), at the same time.   Ottawa would be a full up Coy.   Actual equipment would be tailored to the element supported, ie.   Edmonton would be a combination of civy pattern 4x4 and ATVs for Garrison work with G-Wagons, LS and ML's as the primary vehicles for the field, but Air and Navy would not get the field vehicles as they will not need to do the hard field tasks yet also would have the requirement to do vehicle patrols of lengthy perimeters in all terrain.   Weapons would cover the full range of the small arms family up to and including the AGL should it ever be procured.   

Without crunching the numbers too hard, ballpark increase in hard deployable MP positions would be 150-180 all ranks.   This increase in itself would permit a self-sustaining 30 pers Pl deployment force without counting the MP positions which are already deployable (80 in the MP Pls, Bn MP, the pers in guardhouses who are not in non-deployable positions), which could probably mean the total number of deployable MP would be in the rank of 350-400 pers, allowing 70-80 MPs to be deployed on a sustained basis with a much higher surge capability

Once a member has been in the Force Protection Pl/Coy for 3 years (approx 5 years total service) they will be eligible for selection for their QL5s via merit and suitability to learn the Pol Ops skills in competition with their peers.   If they are not selected for their QL5s they will not be offered a re-engagement and will be released or possibly offered the opportunity to try for an OT should they so desire.   

On their QL5s the member will be taught the Police skills that are now covered on the QL3s and on the completion of this course they would then move to a Guardhouse for a period of at least one year after which they would be eligible for a posting to a the guardhouse at their current base, a move to a non-Force Protection unit base and/or offered the opportunity to compete for a posting to any of the specialist units within the Branch.

Bases without a dedicated Force Protection unit would have a â Å“blendedâ ? guard house which would perform both roles with support from the lodger units whereas the Bases with a dedicated Force Protection unit would have a clearly defined separation in their roles, responsibilities and CofC for the guardhouse and Force Protection unit.   In other words, on Army bases the model would be the current MP Pl situation where the Pl belongs to the Bde and the guardhouse belongs to the ASU.   On the Air Force and Navy sides, this may be a bit harder to define but it could be done.   This would make it harder to end up with a â Å“blendedâ ? organization on the bases with a dedicated Force Protection unit and preserve the integrity of the deployable unit and avoiding the tendancy to "stack" the Guardhouse and shuffle the problem children to the Force Protection unit.   Having said that, the Guard House patrols would be the dedicated QRF for the Force Protection unit should an incident occur until additional Force Protection members are brought in, and the Guard House would be the receptor facility for any detainees etc which the Force Protection unit generated in the course of it's duties protecting the base.   

The requirement to have a 2 year diploma for recruitment would be dropped as they time spent in the Force Protection Pl would provide more than enough time for the individual to mature and be evaluated prior to selection for their QL5.   The end result would be a Reg Force MP with maturity and an understanding that Force Protection is the primary task of the MP yet the Pol Ops skill set would be readily available when required at home and overseas.   OT in would be possible with the time requirement between QL3 and QL5 being reduced to one year.

Primary Reserve would concentrate on the Force Protection, Mobility and Detention Ops tasks with their primary role being to augment Reg Force MP in the Force Protection role at home and when deployed on Ops.   This would be reinforced by the realignment of Reserve MP to collocate them with Reg Force Force Protection units to provide 10 Reserve MP Pls totalling approximately 300 pers all told.   This may prove problematic in recruiting in relation to Cold Lake, Petawawa and Bagotville depending on the demographics.   If this were the case, any non-sustainable locations would have their designated Reserve Pl re-located to another suitable large base of the same element where they would support the Guardhouse in its Force Protection Ops.   All other Reserve MP units would disappear.   Although this will be a dissatisfier for those in the Militia who want to get into the Pol Ops role, this will certainly fix their biggest complaint in that they will have an actual role which will be executed when augmenting us at home and abroad as they would have the same skill set as a Reg Force QL3 who deployed.   The Reserve MP would also eventually become the brain trust of Force Protection Ops as it relates to each environment as a Reservist from Winnipeg generally stays there whereas a Reg Force guy will stillbe posted through the various positions.

When deployed the MP would need to be in sufficient numbers to execute the Security Force task as well as have the ability to respond in the Police role.   This would be met by having the MP Pl divided into a Security Sect (or Sections), Pol Ops Section and a small HQ Section with the ability to tailor the size of each of these sections to the mission.   The security section would be manned by a combination of Reg Force MP QL3s and 5s and those from the Primary Reserve.   Leadership of this section would also be joint force with either the MCpl being from the Reg Force or the Sgt being from the Militia or vice versa.   This would provide deployment opportunities for Reserve MCpls and Sgts which do not currently exist as there would be no worry about them supervising Pol Ops activities.   The Pol Ops and HQ Sect would be manned solely by Reg Force QL5 and up to provide for the issues identified in the Dickson Commission report.

NIS would continue to provide the investigative expertise at home and aboard although once employed in NIS members would remain there permanently unless they specifically requested to return to the â Å“normal MPâ ? rotation.   Promotions within NIS would be filled from within to ensure you didn't have a WO with less investigative experience than his subordinates â Å“case managingâ ?.   This will be good and bad, good in that the training and experience will stay where it does the most good, bad because it could lead to even more of a separation within the Branch.

At the end of the day you end up with a Branch which has become focused on the Force Protection role while still being able to provide Police Ops on a professional basis at home and abroad.

A late breaking thought on how to solve some of the issues like: the CofC; retention of the split between the guardhouses and the Force Protection unit; and the ability to easily draw on personnel from all the Force Protection units no matter what element they were supporting, would be to stand up a higher MP Unit, such as a Bn, which would command all units which had the primary focus of Force Protection.   In this instance, the actual Force Protection unit for a base would be OpCon to the base it was supporting.


----------



## Poppa (14 Apr 2005)

Brilliant!

This is something I can get behind and I know a lot of others who think the way I do.





			
				MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Primary Reserve would concentrate on the Force Protection, Mobility and Detention Ops tasks with their primary role being to augment Reg Force MP in the Force Protection role at home and when deployed on Ops.    This would be reinforced by the realignment of Reserve MP to collocate them with Reg Force Force Protection units to provide 10 Reserve MP Pls totalling approximately 300 pers all told.    This may prove problematic in recruiting in relation to Cold Lake, Petawawa and Bagotville depending on the demographics.    If this were the case, any non-sustainable locations would have their designated Reserve Pl re-located to another suitable large base of the same element where they would support the Guardhouse in its Force Protection Ops.    All other Reserve MP units would disappear.    Although this will be a dissatisfier for those in the Militia who want to get into the Pol Ops role, this will certainly fix their biggest complaint in that they will have an actual role which will be executed when augmenting us at home and abroad as they would have the same skill set as a Reg Force QL3 who deployed.    The Reserve MP would also eventually become the brain trust of Force Protection Ops as it relates to each environment as a Reservist from Winnipeg generally stays there whereas a Reg Force guy will stillbe posted through the various positions.



This sounds a lot like what I've been having debates/arguments/drag down fights with at the acadamy. Where it has been said that training for anything but police roles was digressing and archaic.

Now MP 00161 do you honestly think that after all expenses and effort put into the reorg of the branch that we will head down this road?
Area PM are now considered CO's in relation tp MP assets. I don't know if this affects the CMBGs or not more to follow when I figure out the C2 relationship.
Maybe with a Navy guy being named the new CFPM everything thats been done in the past 10 years or so will be a moot point. Watch and shoot I guess.


----------



## Meridian (14 Apr 2005)

I did not read the replies (sorry!) but my one and only comment on the initial post is that it would seem that removing military policing from the current MP MOC and adding in force protection would be the same thing (more or less) as creating a MOC just for force protection. 

From a recruiting perspective; MANY people join up as MP"s to get the requisite experience before going off to be a Peace oFficer in a civilian life. How many people will sign up to be force protection? To basically be the guys who get shot at, but never the guys who get to do the shooting?

Realistically... How do you think these guys will be treated, vis-a-vis the "real troops at the sharp(er) end", and what kind of prestige will come from being force protection, if it is already looked at as a "menial task"?


----------



## garb811 (14 Apr 2005)

Poppa:

I have a better chance of winning the lottery than seeing the Branch move this far into the Force Protection game.  There would be considerable inertia against such a move not only from the Reg Force but also from the Reserves for reasons too numerous to mention.  Even if they do decide to stand up another dedicated â Å“deployableâ ? unit, I do not have high hopes for it given the rumours that had been floating about the Pl to be stood up in Kingston not so long ago.

Is the new CFPM going to change things?  Well...quite honestly I would say not at this point.  He definitely isn't going to be able to undo the last 10 years of changes as they are enshrined in formal legislation and case law for the most part.  Nor should he IMHO, he needs to build on them.  Unless we get a chunk of the â Å“5000â ?, the Branch is not going to be in a position to shift enough PYs around to stand up any kind of dedicated Force Protection unit.   I just hope the Kingston Pl doesn't resurface.  Also look at the Snr Officers who are left in the Branch...not too many with divergent thinking from the party line if you know what I mean.

Quite honestly, I'm not sure what the standing up of the MP Coys with control of the Guardhouses is going to do.  This will only affect the Army guardhouses, at least to my knowledge, and the Guardhouses are supposed to be immediately OpCon'd back to the bases.  About the only thing I can see this achieving is making it easier for the APM to put his finger in the force generation pie as Base Commanders will no longer be able to decline tasks to â Å“theirâ ? MPs.  Of course, this takes a step in the direction that the Dickson Commission wanted the Branch to go and it certainly must have â Å“she who shall not be named lest she reappearâ ? grinning from ear to ear as she tried to accomplish this a few times.  Time will tell I guess and it certainly is something to watch.

I'm not 100% sure what the current status of the MP Pls is.  The Pls were supposed to remain with the Bde, as opposed to being transferred to the MP Coys.  The one big change, and I'm shaking my head because we're shooting ourselves in the foot, is that the Bn Sheriffs would belong to the Pl with them being pushed back out to the Bns much like the Medical Branch is doing.  IMHO it would be a HUGE mistake to bring the MP Pls into the newly formed MP Coys.  Not only would the MPs lose their place at the Bde â Å“tableâ ?, the temptation would be too great to shuffle people back and forth between the Guardhouse and Pl willy-nilly.  â Å“Under PS investigation?  Right, off to the Pl with ya!â ? as well as â Å“You're not on Ex so you might as well be working shift...training? Bah, Pol Ops is the priority!â ?  This isn't just speculation either, it happened quite frequently in the past, at least in one of the Pls.

As for fighting with the Academy about these issues, barking up the wrong tree.  Until the CFPM, who is now the MA for the Branch, mandates the Academy to teach these subjects their hands are tied even if they wanted to do it.  Unfortunately, the school is also very â Å“policeâ ? oriented, but for a good reason, so it's not like they would even want to pursue these subjects independently.  



			
				Meridian said:
			
		

> Realistically... How do you think these guys will be treated, vis-a-vis the "real troops at the sharp(er) end", and what kind of prestige will come from being force protection, if it is already looked at as a "menial task"?



We're meatheads already, how can the treatment get any worse?   As for the prestige, make it a task worth doing and people will want to do it.  Unfortunately, you're right, many people seem to think that coming to the Branch will give them some kind of leg up in relation to getting onto a civilian service.  I think I've said this elsewhere, but those guys are the ones who seem to have the hardest time getting hired at a civilian police service as 1) they generally don't do well in the Branch as they are focused on getting out and 2) they generally don't do well in the civilian testing as they are focused on getting out and 3) they seem to have applied to every police service under the sun prior to "settling" on MP and have no hesitation about telling anyone who'll listen that the only reason they became a MP was to gain experience.  My observation is that the MPs who get hired are guys who would have got hired even if they were a plumber at the time they applied to the civilian police.  Until civilian services accept MPs as experienced applicants, although rumours abound about places that do, they really aren't gaining that much of an advantage IMHO.


----------



## Dissident (10 Jun 2005)

From my perspective, your proposal seems like a good idea. Just don't tell Coy that I've said that! But like you said, chances are, it will not happen anyway.

What I always wanted is a chance to have access to the same training as the reg. Being integrated with the reg force unit would minimize the disparities in training. Althought The realities of a reservist would still put a damper on training and exercises, we would have a much better chance to meet and maintain the standards.

I just want to add that I think a much bigger number of res MP's should be considered. Maybe as far as twice as much.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2005)

This has come up a few times in the last few days, and has obviously not been laid to rest (enough) before.

I for one think that we as a military would be better served by the RCMP, for a couple of reasons.

1) The purpose of many of the social engineering programs we are subjected to is to make the CF reflect the Canadian public. The use of the RCMP as opposed to our own in house security unit would definitely alleviate this concern of preferential treatment. This would also free up more MPs for deployments, where they could concentrate on MP duties, like route security and PW handling.

2) The RCMP are internationally recognised for their policing prowess, while the MPs are unable, as a group, to police their tiny bases for anything other than traffic offences and the odd domestic dispute. Should you wish to dispute this, I would point to the high rates of theft of and from vehicles and drug use on bases, which the MPs are unwilling or unable to clean up.

3) By having the RCMP conduct investigations and lay charges in accordance with the Canadian Criminal Code and not the CSD, we would subject our troops to the same justice system that civilians are liable to, and cut down severely the polarised punishments that are handed out by CF officers at their discretion. I'm not saying that we should do away with summary trials or court marshals, only that troops should be subjected to one or the other, not both, and that it should be done properly. (the punishment fitting the crime)

4) The cost of having a set number of RCMP officers would undoubtedly be offset by the cuts that could be made to the MP trg system, and associated operational infrastructure and maintenance costs.

I believe that having our bases policed by the RCMP would have the benefit of excellent policing by an impartial organisation, with cost reductions for the CF to boot.

Any thoughts?


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jul 2005)

abso-freakin'-lutely.


----------



## KevinB (8 Jul 2005)

110%


----------



## childs56 (8 Jul 2005)

here here


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (8 Jul 2005)

Outstanding idea, cost effective, reliable, and it would give alot of RCMP officers who may have been in the military before (such as Blackhorse7) a small way to maybe get back into what they miss so much since they got out. Send it up to Uncle Paul, it's a great idea!! Cheers!


----------



## canadianblue (8 Jul 2005)

How about this, lets get rid of the Military Police as it stands now, and then the RCMP can create a new division which is made to do police work on Military Bases. As well, if we are to lose the Military Police, what do we do with the 7th largest police force in Canada which is currently the MP's. While I want to get into law enforcement, if I enjoy the military I'd still like an avenue to to still be a part of the CF as a law enforcement member.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> As well, if we are to lose the Military Police, what do we do with the 7th largest police force in Canada which is currently the MP's.



Well, if all else fails, we are at war and 031 boots can be filled.

Other than that, if the main interest is policing as opposed to soldiering, than I'm sure the RCMP will be asking for new members if they were take on Military Policing roles.


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Jul 2005)

I can't agree with this one.  The RCMP is a civil police force, it has as its role the maintenance of law an order in civil society.  It is primarily tasked with enforcement of the criminal code as well as provincial statutes and even municipal bylaws.  The job of a civil police officer is a relatively "peaceful" one.  It can be dangerous work, but it in no way compares to the sort of commitment and responsibility required of a military police officer.  For my tastes, such a suggestion would give one agency far too much jurisdiction and responsibility for enforcement in a very complex area.  
Certainly in history one could point to the use of volunteers from the RCMP as military police in wartime, but that is quite different from having the force as a whole serve as the agent of the provost marshall.  Yes, RCMP have served on various international NATO, humanitarian and UN missions; that's a good example of using RCMP specialists in their area of expertise - mainly training civil police forces and doing forensics at war crimes. Remember that military police have responsibility for law enforcement and police work in military environments and potentially in war.  

Far from gaining the support of the civil population, I would see such a plan as a clear step towards what is popularly called a police state.  The RCMP is already very much a paramilitary police force with some military aspects to its history.  Having the RCMP serve as military police when the roles required are in my opinion, quite different, would be a terrible mistake.  No thanks.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Jul 2005)

In France, the Military Police are the police for the entire country.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Jul 2005)

I was asked once by an American what the difference was between our police and theirs.  I simplified it like this:
In the United States you have the FBI which handles matters of federal jurisdiction, you have State Police that handle State policing and interstate traffic.  You have city police that handle municipal matters and you elect Sheriffs to be the senior police officials in counties.  Each of those police agencies has a clearly defined jurisdiction with the clear aim of protecting the rights of the citizenry.  When you are dealing with an RCMP officer you are speaking to a police officer with potential and real jurisdiction in all those areas.  

For my rights, I would rather not see that extensive jurisdiction extended further.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2005)

redleaf, 

While I understand your concern in regards to the militarisation of Canadian law enforcement, I believe that you have misunderstood me. 

I am proposing a police force totally seperate from the military and it's chain(s) of command. The RCMP, would, by all terms of the meaning, police the CF. It would not be subordinate to the CDS or any other military member. The only common ground would be the location.

If anything, I think that this would detract from the possibility of the formation of a police state by making the relations of the RCMP and CF adversarial in nature, not complementary. 

If you did understand and I offered a needless clarification, I apologise.


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Jul 2005)

To add to Wes's comments, Wikepedia lists this explanation of the composition and roles of the French Police.  The French model is certainly not one that I would support for Canada.  In response to GO!!!, I believe that the military police has to be under the jurisdiction of the military and the civil police should be under the jurisdiction of the civil authority.  

Redleafjumper

Agencies

France has two national general-purpose law enforcement agencies:

    * the Police Nationale (civilian force; primary responsibility in urban areas; run under the Ministry of the Interior)
    * the Gendarmerie Nationale (military force; primary responsibility in rural areas and military installations; run under the Ministry of Defence and under operational control for most purposes under the Ministry of the Interior)

In addition, the national government has a Customs service (Douanes). Those three agencies are the only ones legally capable of making full arrests or serving search warrants.

Local governments (communes) may maintain a Police Municipale ("Municipal police") forces, which have very limited law enforcement powers outside of traffic issues and local ordinance enforcement. Rural communes may also form a garde champêtre or Police Rurale ("Rural Police"), which is responsible for limited local patrol and protecting the environment.
[edit]

Police vs Gendarmerie

The existence of two national police forces with similar goals and attributions, but somewhat different zones of activity, has at times created friction or competition between the two. Their merging has sometimes been suggested.

Since 1941, the division of the zones of activity between the Police and the Gendarmerie was that cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants were handled by the Police, and the remaining ones by the Gendarmerie. However, with the development of suburban dwellings, this had increasingly proved inadequate. Furthermore, the shifting of a town from a Police to a Gendarmerie zone was often controversial, because, typically, a gendarmerie units serves a wide area. A redistribution of competency was thus decided, and implemented between 2003 and 2005. Large conurbations will be handled by the Police in their entirety. Rural and periurban areas, as well as some smaller cities with populations ranging from 5,000 to 16,000, will be handled by the Gendarmerie.[1]

In addition, the Police and the Gendarmerie have specific zones of competency:

    * the Police handles questions regarding the entrance and stay of foreigners (border police);
    * the Gendarmerie handles all matters regarding the military, as well as police at sea, the security of airports, and the security of certain public buildings (Republican Guard).

Local Police or Gendarmerie precincts may not be capable of conducting complex investigations. For this reason, both the Police and the Gendarmerie maintain regional services dedicated to criminal investigations (police judiciaire); these are known as "regional services of judiciary police" in the Police, "research sections" in the Gendarmerie. In addition, both the Police and the Gendarmerie maintain laboratories dedicated to forensics. Most criminal enquiries are conducted by the Police. Justice may choose either service; sometimes, if the judiciary is disappointed by the results or the methods of one service, it may give the enquiry to the other service.

The National Police also features some central offices with national jurisdiction, charged with specific missions, such as the national anti-terrorist division.

Both the Police and the Gendarmerie have SWAT teams. The Gendarmerie has the foremost and best-known, the GIGN; the Police has the RAID and the GIPN groups. The Gendarmerie also has armored and paratroops squadrons.

Both the Police and the Gendarmerie have riot control forces: the CRS for the Police, the gendarmerie mobile for the Gendarmerie (which are often mistaken for the former). They intervene throughout the country.

One justification for the maintenance of a military force handling matters of civilian police is that the military cannot unionize, contrary to civilian civil servants such as the Police, which may make management easier. The gendarmes found a workaround by forming associations of spouses of gendarmes.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2005)

Wes is right, and I don't see France rolling over into a Police State anytime soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Gendarmerie

I think Italy may be the same with the Carabineri (sp?).



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Each of those police agencies has a clearly defined jurisdiction with the clear aim of protecting the rights of the citizenry.   When you are dealing with an RCMP officer you are speaking to a police officer with potential and real jurisdiction in all those areas.
> 
> For my rights, I would rather not see that extensive jurisdiction extended further.



The jurisdiction is within the Federal, Provincial, or Municipal government's hands - the RCMP is mandated to provide federal policing, while municipal and provincial services are contracted out if the relevent jurisdiction wishes to do so.

This shouldn't be an entirely huge thing - the military requires policing and it contracts the RCMP to do so.   The operational concerns you addressed can belong in the domain of a Provost Corps, where the M part of MP is emphasised.

I, frankly, have enough faith and respect for the RCMP to not hold any irrational fears of a police state because they are now to undertake enforcing law within the military (the same law that civilians are beholden to anyways).   Let the military side of the house cover the operational matters (PW's, discipline, rear area control and security) and the Police handle the Policing (criminal investigation, traffic and by-law enforcement, etc, etc).


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jul 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> The job of a civil police officer is a relatively "peaceful" one.   It can be dangerous work, but it in no way compares to the sort of commitment and responsibility required of a military police officer.



you may want to re-word this. I find it insulting to LEOs. They make just as big, if not bigger, commitment to their duties as we in the military do. They put on a uniform every day, making themselves targets, every day. They are on Tour EVERY DAY. To insinuate that they do not have the same drive, motivation, and dedication we do is insulting. They are responsible for the safety of Canadians, and they see to it, daily. Sounds a lot like "commitment and responsibility" to me.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> In response to GO!!!, I believe that the military police has to be under the jurisdiction of the military and the civil police should be under the jurisdiction of the civil authority.



The military doesn't fall into neat compartments like this - as mentioned above, CF members are beholden to the CCC and other laws of Canada - why does the military need to use resources to do this "in-house" when another very competent organization makes it it's _raison d'ete_.   Most QR&O topics are enforced (as they should be) by the Chain-of-Command, while Major military infractions usually lapse over into Criminal Code charges (IIRC).

As well, considering that cooperation by different government branches (what the Aussies have term "Whole-of-Government" operations) is become the norm with asymmetric, 4th generation threats, I see nothing inappropriate with this approach


----------



## KevinB (8 Jul 2005)

Ditto to Paracowboy.   LEO's are truly warriors in a never ending war.

 I must admit I have less than a modium of respect of the MP's   countless offences go unpunished due to their incompetence.   I woudl rather see the RCMP take on the LE duties and have the MP's go back into the roles that Infanteer pointed out.

We could use them for Camp Secuit/Access Control duties too


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2005)

I think the impartiality that the RCMP could bring to the CF is a big bonus as well (remember all that fracus coming out of the Somalia Investigation?).


----------



## Cyr (8 Jul 2005)

Oh wow. Are either of you an MP or do you know any MP's out there? The simple fact of the matter is that you will never see the RCMP replace the MP's because it comes down to simple manpower.. Te RCMP do not have enough to Police both cilival and Military law. There having enough trouoble replacing there aging police officer's right now.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jul 2005)

Cyr said:
			
		

> Oh wow. Are either of you an MP or do you know any MP's out there? The simple fact of the matter is that you will never see the RCMP replace the MP's because it comes down to simple manpower.. Te RCMP do not have enough to Police both cilival and Military law. There having enough trouoble replacing there aging police officer's right now.


judging by your profile, I'd say that either of them have more experience with, and knowledge of, MPs than you do. Your posts may draw more intelligent responses if they were spelled in one of the official languages, by the way.



> I must admit I have less than a modium of respect of the MP's  countless offences go unpunished due to their incompetence


preach it, brother!


----------



## Blackhorse7 (8 Jul 2005)

The RCMP is supposed to be a paramilitary Police force, but if someone could point out one aspect of the RCMP being paramilitary to me, I welcome them to.  I would love to be in the RCMP *and* be able to contirbute to the Military, but in a much larger fashion that will never happen.  IE going on ALL tours, acting as base RP's or regimental RP's.  Members of Army.ca get breaks on the speed violations, of course...  ;D


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I for one think that we as a military would be better served by the RCMP, for a couple of reasons.
> 
> I believe that having our bases policed by the RCMP would have the benefit of excellent policing by an impartial organisation, with cost reductions for the CF to boot.


I see no reason why the Base MP detachments could not be replaced by RCMP detachments while the MPs exists solely in the Bdes & units of the field force and on board ships.



			
				Cyr said:
			
		

> T[h]e RCMP do not have enough to Police both cilival and Military law.


The government can move paid positions from the CF to the RCMP.  It would be up to the RCMP to decide if they wanted to allow some MPs to transfer to the force with their positions.  If not, those MPs could be compulsorily forced to OT to another CF trade.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> It would be up to the RCMP to decide if they wanted to allow some MPs to transfer to the force with their positions.


unlikely, as the RCMP (in fact no Police force in Canada, to my knowledge) does not recognize CF MP training as a legitimate LEO qualification. (What does that tell you?)


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2005)

. . . would you see the NIS replaced by RCMP as well, or maybe a joint MP/RCMP organization?


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Jul 2005)

I agree with the above suggestions. Let the RCs handle the police work in Canada so the MPs can focus on their POW human pyramid building operationally relevant skills, that's what they wear the relish for isn't it? Did any of you MPs join to write parking tickets in Lancaster Park?


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jul 2005)

Sorry guys - I don't buy it...

As much as we may or may not disdain the work of our MP's - they still provide a more visible presence than any RCMP detachment.  In Comox - I would be lucky to see one of the 5 squad cars about - I know that on base I would see one at least every hour.  IF we did away with the MP section on base - the local RCMP detachment would get 10 more officers and the service would still remain sparse at best.

Military Police can and will place charges in accordance with the CSD and the CCC - they don't call in the RCMP when they want to arrest someone - they are big enough to do this themselves.

As for doing away with the CSD and NDA - what crack are you smoking?  As a formed military body, we require these very specific rules in order to maintain cohesion and effectiveness in all phases of deployment.  What governs a troopie to follow his section commander's orders?  Canada's Criminal Code certainly doesn't contain any laws contrary to following a superiors orders - the NDA does.

It is unfortunate that you have witnessed crimes going un-punished in your neck of the woods - why do you continue to let it happen?  You're not going to kill your career if you produce a well thought-out memo/document to the local SAMPO - why bitch about it here as a anonymous member when you could be putting your typing skills to work...


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> As much as we may or may not disdain the work of our MP's - they still provide a more visible presence than any RCMP detachment.



When I broached the subject on the MP forum, I made it clear that it was not a reform due to performance, but rather one to allow them to focus on operational duties.



> In Comox - I would be lucky to see one of the 5 squad cars about - I know that on base I would see one at least every hour.   IF we did away with the MP section on base - the local RCMP detachment would get 10 more officers and the service would still remain sparse at best.



The MP Det would still be a formed unit on the base - the only thing to change would be the guys in it.  No positions would be "bartered off" to the local municipal detachment.  The CF would be paying the RCMP for Police Services, and would expect to get it in return.



> Military Police can and will place charges in accordance with the CSD and the CCC - they don't call in the RCMP when they want to arrest someone - they are big enough to do this themselves.



Yes, but do we want to focus on this at the expense of other tasks?  Look at US MP's in Iraq - driving convoys, dealing with PW's, foot patrols, fighting and killing Hadji, and earning Silver Stars; I don't see Policing anywhere here.

Remember how you were skeptical of guys claiming a plane can do patrol/SAR/transport all in one?  I'd argue the same thing should apply here.



> As for doing away with the CSD and NDA - what crack are you smoking?   As a formed military body, we require these very specific rules in order to maintain cohesion and effectiveness in all phases of deployment.   What governs a troopie to follow his section commander's orders?   Canada's Criminal Code certainly doesn't contain any laws contrary to following a superiors orders - the NDA does.



Whoh, hold on a minute - where did this come from.  Who said do away with the CSD and the NDA.  I said that it is, and should, be enforced through the C-of-C.  When bupkiss doesn't cut his hair, is insubordinate, gets an ND, or goes AWOL we don't call the MP's, the C-of-C deals with it (at least, this has been what I've seen with all these instances).

When serious infractions are committed, they usually fall back on the CCC.  IE: When you are given your ROE briefings, you are told that if you use excessive force and kill somebody, you'll be charged in a Criminal Court in Canada.  The RCMP do this everyday when they charge criminals - if we have a criminal problem within the CF, we can prosecute as we usually do, only the guy executing the law will have a different hat on - we are all on the same team.

Obviously, Military Policing requires some specialization, but since the RCMP handle a myriad of policing (traffic, maritime, criminal, etc, etc), I'm sure the extra skill set will not be too hard for them to graft onto their organization.


----------



## childs56 (9 Jul 2005)

I have to say that allowing the MP's to focus on more job specific things such as operational jobs, Pow, and of all things base security. When was the last time you seen a MP on the base gate. When you go to other countries they have MP's and or soldiers with guns and inspection mirrors at the points of entry to all facilities. They have a job to do and that is ensuring the security of the forces with in their structure. They have failed terribly at this role over the past few years and will continue to do so until they rewrite their job description. We have all read articles on how the MP's want better pay and also more duties and be respected with in the national police authority. Well after the bungling of investigations and lack of proper training and real world experience they have seen to slipped the way side of well paid parking and speeding ticketmen and women. When a serious investigation is done it is always handed over to NIS or some other group such as the RCMP for investigation. Why cant they(MP's) do this function themselves. well they do not have the proper training nor the most important part the large enough body to maintain any skills that they do acquire for these investigations. Finger printing for an investigation is an art, you either can or cant do it. So is photo taking of a accident scene, it has to be properly or it wont stand up in court. Now how many times do MP's deal withthese scenarios. Not very often. So why not hand over the criminal side of investigations to the RCMP. Allow the MP's to fully train and carry out their assigned field duties, as mentioned earlier. The only thing i seen the MP's doing over seas was handing out speeding tickets and driving around in a new SUV. One even had the gall to complain when they had to drive an Iltis off road to direct traffic as the Brigade was on maneuvers, ha the face full of exhaust smoke made them pack up. They have done very little training with in the brigades and such need to more intregrated into such. They after all are part of the team last item i checked. The comment made about the Para Military RCMP. Last i understood the RCMP fell under the Department of National Defense for security of Canada, as does The CF, along with the Security branch of the Commas and many other departments. The RCMP can may and shall be called up to operate in time of war in a foregin country under DND. They would not be a para military outfit as insinuated earlier, but they would still a professional police force to which many country's envy in their ability to carry out on a high level of competence and efficiency. The MP's should be put back into the field and given green uniforms once again. Carry out their duties and supprot the all arms battle.   My opinion and mine only. I am sorry to say i have dealt with them to many times to give them full credit as a professional police officer.


----------



## S McKee (9 Jul 2005)

It's obvious that a number of members on this form are grossly misinformed about the capability and role of the Military Police. It is also obvious from the tone of some of the posts that a number have an "axe to grind" and don't think we are real soldiers. First before I comment my background: I have operational tours with the UN and NATO as a Military Policeman, NIS and War Crimes Investigator. I have 6 years in the CFNIS and during my tour was seconded to the RCMP GIS and Major Crime unit here in Edmonton. I have field experience (CAR)(and remuster from 011)   and base patrol experience as an MP all over the country. I have worked with several civilian police forces as a result of my job and I can tell you that in my 23 years I have never heard a disparaging word about the MPs from my civilian counterparts, once they have had an opportunity to work with us. So I feel I have a rather unique perspective on the Military Police and their capabilities in comparison with our civilian counterparts.

First I'll address the issue of professional competence, as this has been alluded to a few times with comments about unsolved crimes and MPs not doing their job. Most of these comments can be taken with a VERY large grain of salt, are allegorical in nature, and have no basis in fact. In fact most of the criticism of the branch comes not from other Police Dept's (who see us as extremely competent believe it or not) but from junior members in the CF who have very little knowledge or understanding of the concept of policing in the CF ,and have a hard time with Cpls issuing them traffic tickets. However, to be realistic all police forces have unsolved crimes and the RCMP are no better than the Military Police, probably worse, because unlike the RCMP, the military doesn't have to pay overtime and we can dedicate much more manpower and resources to a serious crime more so than they can. 

On to training, our QL 3 training encompasses 6 months plus a provisional employment program (probation). We have a code of conduct which we must abide by and a Military Police Complaints Commission (made up of civilians) where complaints can be made against military police or by military police who feel interference from the chain of command. We have the all the professional oversight, ethics and training that our civilian counterparts do. And in regards to professional competency; well we have a member training RCMP recruits at Depot in Regina at this very moment, and members seconded to the RCMP units across Canada. In the past we have also had members teach at the Canadian Police College. (So much for that myth).

Cost has been mentioned a few times. The RCMP would be vastly more expensive than the MP and bases would get less police coverage. Consider the base salary of an RCMP Constable (approaching $70,000) plus overtime, compare that to a Cpl. If a large base like Edmonton were to hand over policing to the RCMP the nearest detachment is in Morinville 20 min away. PMQ residents MAY, MAY see a Constable drive thru their area a couple of times a week, and that would only be to respond to a call (no proactive policing). The ratio of members to the civilian population is 1 constable to approx 1100 people. The static population of CFB Edmonton would be entitled to 1.5 -2 constables, vice an MP Det of 25. Simply put, PMQ residents and Base Commanders could expect a significant reduction in police service. (CFB Gagetown is a good example of this) No responce to barking dog complaints, prowlers, Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door, noise complaints, minor thefts, B&E's etc either. The CF has, to put it bluntly "Cadillac Policing Services" at this present time. Just to give you an example; recently here in Edmonton the Military Police solved the largest armed robbery in the area's history, which occurred at the Credit Union, the MP were on scene in minutes. The individual initially got away, however as a result of good police work, the MP caught the suspect, recovered almost all the money and solved several crimes for Edmonton City Police and the RCMP. The criminal's mistake: committing a robbery not in a little town with one RCMP member on duty but in a "little town"(CFB Edmonton) that could commit a task force of 25 MP plus the local NIS to solve the crime. The CF didn't have to pay overtime or worry about members getting time off etc.   

Another point that was raised; was that if we got rid of MP policing more of them could do what they were meant to do; PW handling and Route signing. That's part of our role however I've been in for 23 years and I haven't signed one route yet overseas, neither have I guarded huge PW cages or PWs at all for that manner. In fact in an operational theatre, it was my technical skills as a policeman that were requested by Commanders (solving crime)not my ability to pound routes signs into the ground. And once all the troops are in situ the MP revert to a policing role anyway, if you take the domestic policing role from them at home where will they get their experience?   

Major Crime services was another point some mentioned a combination of NIS/RCMP. Again cost and manpower would be a limiting factor as many of the crimes that are investigated by the MP would not be considered serious enough by the RCMP to commit resources to. And other than the one RCMP Inspector seconded to the NIS thee RMCP have no desire to second members to the CF because of manning issues of their own. Plus their salaries would have to be paid by the CF (expensive)

Someone mentioned that if the RCMP were policing they could charge CF members under the Criminal Code vice the NDA, well I've been doing that my whole career, MP testify in civil court all the time.   However we must realize that NDA exists for a reason; a tool for Commanders to instill discipline. I believe someone mentioned that NDA offences could be investigated by the unit, really? Would you want a member/officer of your own Regiment with a rudimentary knowledge of the law (at best) and your Charter Rights etc. investigating you? Or would you rather have an impartial third party who has training.

Finally (I have rambled on enough) one last comment I really take umbrage with the inferences by some members on this form that we (MP) are somehow not "real soldiers". I have very good friends who bombed up with the infantry in Afghanistan and accompanied them on a number of missions. As a member of the CAR, I and the other tradesmen jumped and carried the same equipment as the grunts so give me a break with all soldier stuff. Just because my fellow tradesmen wear a black uniform doesn't mean that their any less dedicated than the "real soldiers".


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (9 Jul 2005)

Jumper that was great, although i've always respected the Mp's, this gave me a greater insight as to what they do and what duties they have and will perform. Thanks for that great post.


----------



## S McKee (9 Jul 2005)

CTD you are talking out of your ass!


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Jul 2005)

Jumper:

Well said - well done.

BTW - when were you with the "Sherrif's Department" in the Airborne?  I have a niggling feeling I may have met you, shall we say "professionally", in the '80s.  That meeting was actually one of the incidents which gave rise to my defence of MPs in another thread.  PM me if you want to pursue the topic.

Gentle winds, soft landings.



Retired CC


----------



## KevinB (9 Jul 2005)

Jumper I can list at least 7 instances I know of that people walked due to the MP in question botching it.

 I know some good MP's and some bad ones - happens everywhere inc civilian policing.  We had MP's in Afghan begging to go out on stuff with us since they where sick of doing traffic accident investigations...


----------



## S McKee (9 Jul 2005)

Yes and if you read the newspaper you can probably find twice as many for the civilian police, Air India strike a cord?


----------



## redleafjumper (9 Jul 2005)

Jumper, I am glad to see your post on this topic, it helps to have someone who has that perspective provide it.

I for one remain astounded at the idea of using the civil force to replace the military.  It would be a major mistake for the reasons that have already been raised.  For me it isn't a question of investigative competence, in my view that is a red herring.


----------



## redleafjumper (9 Jul 2005)

Paracowboy, my post in no way is intended to insult civil LEOs.  In the BC Workers Compensation Board stats there are many other occupations that are regarded as having more workplace hazards than civil law enforcement - health care workers for example, generally have considerably higher workplace health problems and potential for fatalities.  

As I said police work is dangerous, whether civil or military and I have great respect for anyone who follows that form of service.  I do how ever see the two roles as completely different.  There is a different commitment from being a civilian and a soldier and like or not, RCMpolice officers are not soldiers. The civil police are generally tasked to enforce the law and conduct investigations to effect arrests, and in the larger perspective the role of the military is to close with and destroy the enemy.  The MPs are an important element of that role as well as enforcing the law and investigating violations of it.  And, no I am not interested in the French police model for this country.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jul 2005)

Good post Jumper, thanks for the perspective.

I never really considered the costs of employing an organization oriented towards a civilian environment for a military one.


----------



## TCBF (9 Jul 2005)

"When in doubt - re-organize."

No.    How about "If it ain't broke - don't fix it!"

In Alberta, we generally love the RCMP - but as a provincial Force, their days may be numbered.   They feel such attachment to the Provincial missions that they have in the past felt the need to grossly underbid what they percieved as the base threshold for an Alberta PP.   End result - too few 
ounties to do the job.   Darn good thing the ones we have are as good as they are.   But anyway, people whine, then they save money by closing crime labs.

No, the RCMP have too many missions as it is, and if we become another one, the most politically astute and connected police force in the country (at the top, virtually a Liberal palace guard) would no doubt free up a few Mounties from the forces "as a temporary measure", and we would be back to Regtl 25 man RP sections taking their turn on the main gate.

No, we need the Military police.   We are them, and they are us.   Even when they arrested me, I respected them   (1977!).   They are having some pains right now, but so are the other Arms and Services. And so are other police forces.   Sir Robert Peel has been dead a long time, or so it would seem.

Lets wish them all Good Luck and God Speed, and go slay some real dragons.

Britney, wots this about parking tickets at Lancaster Park?   I gotta go move my car...

Toronto get hit yet? ;Dt 

Tom


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2005)

There are two questions which we need to answer, it seems to me:

"¢	What 'police' services do we need in the CF - in peace and war, in garrison, in the field and at sea?

"¢	Who should provide them?

Until about the mid '60s, in the army, the primary duties of the Canadian Provost Corps were, in order:

"¢	Traffic control on the battlefield;

"¢	Custody of prisoners until they were interred; and

"¢	Assisting commanders in maintaining good order and discipline in garrisons and garrison-towns.

In most places, in Canada, when a commanding officer suspected an offence under the criminal code he was likely, on the advice of his local _Provost Marshal_, to call in the local civil police - that was still the case, just 25 years ago, when I was a commanding officer.

The Navy and the Air Force had quite different operational requirements:

"¢	Both required a high (higher than in the army) standard of garrison security - at dockyards and on flying stations.   The air force had a 'police' service which specialized in that sort of security.   The Navy, like the army, used a mix of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and military personnel - just more;

"¢	The Navy needed a 'shore patrol' to help captains maintain good order and discipline around naval bases and in ports of call; and

"¢	The Navy needed a 'security' force is some ports of call.   Each ship had a 'master at arms' (I think that's the right title) - a senior NCO from (I think) any trade who was given some extra, specialist training.   He ran security and the shore patrol.

The army also had its own 'high security' requirements - we had to provide guards for TDMs, for example, and anyone was an adjutant or IO back in the '60s will recall having to be responsible for a few highly classified _registered_ publications - kept locked in one of the five safes in the battalion (one in BHQ found in either the adjutant's or IO's office, another in the signal officer's area, one in QM, one in paymaster's office and one in the UAS, if memory serves).   Basically, however, army units were responsible for their own security and arms units provided support to service units like Ordnance Field Parks which had plenty to guard but too few soldiers for the job.

In the late '60s/early '70s the MPs went through several reorganizations - including a monumentally stupid attempt to mix MPs and Int people.   In the process we, the army, lost - *completely if our experience in the RV series of exercises in the '80s was any indication* - the traffic control skills.   The intelligence service was reborn, better, in my view, than the army's old CIntC.   The MPs were required (and it is a real requirement) to assume some new security duties - especially regarding INFOSEC, which is, I believe, a major problem, still, today.   For reasons which are not clear to me the MPs _appear_ - to me from my long retired perch - to be looking and acting more like civilian police officers; at least the ones here in Ottawa sure look and act that way.   I think they are, also, doing investigative work which was, as I said, routinely 'tasked' to civil police forces only 25 years ago.   Maybe the civilian police are not up to the task of investigating on large bases like Halifax, and, especially, in large bases in small towns like Gagetown and Borden.

I have no current knowledge of the MPs' investigative skills - I don't know how much training they receive vice, say, an OPP or Halifax or Ottawa City Police officer.   I knew, when I was still serving, that MPs were useless to the army in the field in their _traditional_ operational tasks.   In my personal experience we had general staff officers cranking out road move/traffic plans - which should have been done, as a matter of routine, by the officers and NCOs of the brigade MP platoon - because it was beyond the skills and knowledge of the MPs.   Ditto the 'exercise' PW plan - I personally recall scouring old army pams to find the checklists, etc, which were then incorporated, by general staff officers, not MP officers, into orders for the MPs.   In other words, the MPs, in the '80s, were unable to do their jobs - quite useless to an army formation commander.   Perhaps things have improved.

Clearly, the MPs have many important duties including INFOSEC and embassy security, and, according to the CFPM's 2004 annual report traffic control for the army, too.   My question would be: are all those duties being done well enough and economically enough within the existing structure?

_Alternative Service Delivery_ has been _top of the pops_ in NDHQ since the late '80s, at least.   Almost every single function has been examined and re-examined and contracting out is fair game for many.   There is no reason why police services should not be subjected to the same examination.   I think the idea of splitting _investigation_ from e.g. security and tactical operations may have some merit.   Shooting the messenger is precisely the wrong answer - it makes one wonder if the MPs are reverting to _old army_ (and navy and air force, too, I hasten to add) style and digging in to preserve their empire and hide their failures - they would not be the first.

Edit to correct typo.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2005)

Good post Jumper, out in my area the RCMP stretched pretty thin. Plus the amount of paperwork compared to other civilian agencies is apparently attrocious. As well unless their was a specific division, or a detachment in each base then the military community could really end up losing out on having a good police presence.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jul 2005)

some really good posts, here. It hasn't changed my mind in any way, but the information is appreciated.

Question for ya, though. You say that the MP training not being accepted by civil LEOs is a myth. Why then, did the local RCMP office and EPS office both tell me that no later than last month?


----------



## FastEddy (9 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Jumper I can list at least 7 instances I know of that people walked due to the MP in question botching it.
> 
> I know some good MP's and some bad ones - happens everywhere inc civilian policing.   We had MP's in Afghan begging to go out on stuff with us since they where sick of doing traffic accident investigations...




Yes Kevin, there no denying that fact, but you must be fair in also realizing that this is also a fact of life
in the best of Police Dept.s. (The O.J. Simpson Trial) (The Rodney King Incident).

As for all Police Officers (RCMP - FBI - CIA) they have their share of not quite so competent members as does
all of the Branch's of any Service.

If in your opinion, the Military Police lacks the Training and Professionalism its not the fault of the Branch
BUT THE FAULT OF THE CANADIAN ARMY for not providing it. Maybe we should be sending our MP after Basic and Corps Training to the RCMP Depot to round them off. Isn't the Recruitment standards pretty much the same for both. It would appear that in everybody's opinion we seem to be getting all the duds, if thats the case, are the Recruitment Centres out to Lunch

I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind the sentiment that the MP are not Soldier enough.
I guess this also applies to Cooks - Clerks - Mechanics - PayMasters - Medics.

It might be a coincident that the majority of those people who would like to see the MP turned into
almost nothing more than Security Guards also have axe to grind, or perpetuating the MP Myth.


----------



## CH1 (9 Jul 2005)

Sorry Guys

I have to say that Jumper has expressed things pretty closely. I have known more than a handful of MP's, including some that I went into the service with.  There is good & bad in every bunch including RCMP & Municipal forces.

To replace the meat heads, on base, I think would be a detriment.  There is occasions were other police were brought in to aid MP's in an investigation.  Due to the nature of the investigation, the "civvie" police forces, were unable to enter areas, due to security concerns, & the fact that military life can be complicated with the layers of regulations, treaties, etc.  Some of these are well out of the practical aspects of a civvie police force.  This is not meant to be  a derogatory comment on the abilities of civvie police forces.  The fact is that military are not only subject to civil & CCC, but to a myriad of other laws.  In addition to this, the military responds to a variety of scenarios that a civvie is lucky to even hear about.  We lead a lifestyle that is radically different from from "Joe Civvie".

Over the years I have seen several instances where the meatheads have made reccomendations to the Provost Marshall, Jag, or CO, that actually salvaged some careers, & made a better soldier out of the miscreant. Had these matters been handled by other police forces, there would not have been an understanding of the background that formed the offence.

One investigation I was personally involved in, the RCMP deferred to the MP's.  The MP's had point in the investigation from the start to finish.  This was a Criminal code case.  Unfortunatly the disposition was taken out of the MP's hands.

I guess in short I support the MP's.  But like all areas of the CF, trg has suffered.

Cheers


----------



## Michael Shannon (9 Jul 2005)

The problem with the MP/NIS as an investigative police force as opposed to traffic control etc. is that they lack experience dealing with crime. The CF is a pretty law abiding group and there simply isn't enough crime for investigators to cut their teeth on. The criminal volume is too low to gain the experience needed to be good investigators. The consequence of this is the almost complete inability of the MP to investigate serious matters in a timely manner. I've seen cases that would have taken a week to investigate by the RCMP drag on for 8-9 months in MP hands and then have the prosecution flounder because of poor techniques. Another downside of this low volume is that matters which would be handled by a civilian police force through informal means get blown out of proportion as the MPs have nothing else to do. 

     I propose that the "Field Police" be formed to conduct the traditional roles of the MP, traffic control and security tasks and that CF bases  fall within existing RCMP detachment areas for criminal policing. The NIS would be disbanded and it's duties handled by the RCMP. RCMP members have been peacekeeping for years and it would be no problem to attach a small cell to an operational tour for investigations.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jul 2005)

_It's obvious that a number of members on this form are grossly misinformed about the capability and role of the Military Police. It is also obvious from the tone of some of the posts that a number have an "axe to grind" and don't think we are real soldiers. First before I comment my background: I have operational tours with the UN and NATO as a Military Policeman, NIS and War Crimes Investigator. I have 6 years in the CFNIS and during my tour was seconded to the RCMP GIS and Major Crime unit here in Edmonton. I have field experience (CAR)(and remuster from 011)   and base patrol experience as an MP all over the country. I have worked with several civilian police forces as a result of my job and I can tell you that in my 23 years I have never heard a disparaging word about the MPs from my civilian counterparts, once they have had an opportunity to work with us. So I feel I have a rather unique perspective on the Military Police and their capabilities in comparison with our civilian counterparts_.

Seeing as the lower ranking members of the military are the people subjected to your conduct and behaviour on a daily basis, I feel that we have a unique perspective on MP issues and capabilities. Since the MPs do not release any statistical info about their success in preventing crime or successful charges, we are forced to rely on anecdotal evidence, which exists in abundance. 

_First I'll address the issue of professional competence, as this has been alluded to a few times with comments about unsolved crimes and MPs not doing their job. Most of these comments can be taken with a VERY large grain of salt, are allegorical in nature, and have no basis in fact. In fact most of the criticism of the branch comes not from other Police Dept's (who see us as extremely competent believe it or not) but from junior members in the CF who have very little knowledge or understanding of the concept of policing in the CF ,and have a hard time with Cpls issuing them traffic tickets. However, to be realistic all police forces have unsolved crimes and the RCMP are no better than the Military Police, probably worse, because unlike the RCMP, the military doesn't have to pay overtime and we can dedicate much more manpower and resources to a serious crime more so than they can. _ 

How about this for â Å“professional competenceâ ? if we have such a Cadillac police force, why are they unable to prevent theft and vandalism of vehicles and recreational vehicles on bases? Why are they unable to keep the shacks from being hotboxed on the weekends? Why do such a large proportion of those charged with DUI by the MPs walk on a technicality? Why is there no access control onto the bases?   In Edmonton, there is only access control on the weekends â â€œ but not at all during the week â â€œ why can't the MPs secure the base 24/7? If manning became an issue, use the reservist MP's.

_On to training, our QL 3 training encompasses 6 months plus a provisional employment program (probation). We have a code of conduct which we must abide by and a Military Police Complaints Commission (made up of civilians) where complaints can be made against military police or by military police who feel interference from the chain of command. We have the all the professional oversight, ethics and training that our civilian counterparts do. And in regards to professional competency; well we have a member training RCMP recruits at Depot in Regina at this very moment, and members seconded to the RCMP units across Canada. In the past we have also had members teach at the Canadian Police College. (So much for that myth)._

And  members of my unit are completing the  assaulter crse right now. That does'nt mean that the Canadian Infantry Corps are superior. It means that we, like all other trades, have over â â€œ achievers. In addition to this, if you have all of the same trg as an RCMP officer, why are criminal investigations handed over to the NIS? And why is MP trg not recognised nationally as the equivalent of Civilian police forces?

_Cost has been mentioned a few times. The RCMP would be vastly more expensive than the MP and bases would get less police coverage. Consider the base salary of an RCMP Constable (approaching $70,000) plus overtime, compare that to a Cpl. If a large base like Edmonton were to hand over policing to the RCMP the nearest detachment is in Morinville 20 min away. PMQ residents MAY, MAY see a Constable drive thru their area a couple of times a week, and that would only be to respond to a call (no proactive policing). The ratio of members to the civilian population is 1 constable to approx 1100 people. The static population of CFB Edmonton would be entitled to 1.5 -2 constables, vice an MP Det of 25. Simply put, PMQ residents and Base Commanders could expect a significant reduction in police service. (CFB Gagetown is a good example of this) No responce to barking dog complaints, prowlers, Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door, noise complaints, minor thefts, B&E's etc either. The CF has, to put it bluntly "Cadillac Policing Services" at this present time. Just to give you an example; recently here in Edmonton the Military Police solved the largest armed robbery in the area's history, which occurred at the Credit Union, the MP were on scene in minutes. The individual initially got away, however as a result of good police work, the MP caught the suspect, recovered almost all the money and solved several crimes for Edmonton City Police and the RCMP. The criminal's mistake: committing a robbery not in a little town with one RCMP member on duty but in a "little town"(CFB Edmonton) that could commit a task force of 25 MP plus the local NIS to solve the crime. The CF didn't have to pay overtime or worry about members getting time off etc.   _ 

The costs associated with hiring the RCMP would be more than recovered by the costs of folding the MP trg system, and doing away with   MP chains of command. Also, consider that Cpls make 53K a year, and MPs receive a bonus on top of this, the salaries are close. Also, the infrastructure that the MPs receive on bases (MP shacks, crash trucks, new patrol cars every 2 years etc.) When consolidated with the RCMP would undoubtedly contain a savings of scale. 

_Another point that was raised; was that if we got rid of MP policing more of them could do what they were meant to do; PW handling and Route signing. That's part of our role however I've been in for 23 years and I haven't signed one route yet overseas, neither have I guarded huge PW cages or PWs at all for that manner. In fact in an operational theatre, it was my technical skills as a policeman that were requested by Commanders (solving crime)not my ability to pound routes signs into the ground. And once all the troops are in situ the MP revert to a policing role anyway, if you take the domestic policing role from them at home where will they get their experience? _   

That is the problem. There are never enough MPs around who have the soldier skills (navigation, patrolling) to properly locate and sign the routes. As a result, the units do   it themselves. If the MPs were patrolling the routes, the investigations could be done by the RCMP. As for never having guarded a PW cage, we have'nt done Airborne or armoured Bde ops in 23 years either - it does'nt mean that we should'nt retain that ability.

_Major Crime services was another point some mentioned a combination of NIS/RCMP. Again cost and manpower would be a limiting factor as many of the crimes that are investigated by the MP would not be considered serious enough by the RCMP to commit resources to. And other than the one RCMP Inspector seconded to the NIS thee RMCP have no desire to second members to the CF because of manning issues of their own. Plus their salaries would have to be paid by the CF (expensive)_

If the crime is not considered serious enough for the RCMP to devote resources to, why are the MPs investigating at all? This sounds like a bit of a make work project to me... In addition, I doubt the MP/NIS Officer salaries are much less than an RCMP equivalent. 

_Someone mentioned that if the RCMP were policing they could charge CF members under the Criminal Code vice the NDA, well I've been doing that my whole career, MP testify in civil court all the time.   However we must realize that NDA exists for a reason; a tool for Commanders to instill discipline. I believe someone mentioned that NDA offences could be investigated by the unit, really? Would you want a member/officer of your own Regiment with a rudimentary knowledge of the law (at best) and your Charter Rights etc. investigating you? Or would you rather have an impartial third party who has training._

Well, we already have an officer of our regiment with â Å“rudimentaryâ ? knowledge DEFENDING us as an assisting officer, so why should we stack the investigators, but not the defence?

_Finally (I have rambled on enough) one last comment I really take umbrage with the inferences by some members on this form that we (MP) are somehow not "real soldiers". I have very good friends who bombed up with the infantry in Afghanistan and accompanied them on a number of missions. As a member of the CAR, I and the other tradesmen jumped and carried the same equipment as the grunts so give me a break with all soldier stuff. Just because my fellow tradesmen wear a black uniform doesn't mean that their any less dedicated than the "real soldiers"._

I was in A'stan in 2002, and I never once saw an Canadian MP other than at the front gate of the Canadian Biv.   Ditto on missions â â€œ and I participated in all but one as a rifleman. Not saying it did'nt happen, but I did'nt see any. In addition to this, The only time I have seen MPs at work on Bde or lower exercises is at the entrance to WATC camp from the trg area. I even saw an MP in his patrol car on red route once! I don't question the dedication of the MPs, I question the necessity of their trade, given the alternatives available. 

I also take exception to your inference that the MPs are somehow â Å“more dedicatedâ ? than their civilian counterparts. Other than the unfortunate accident with the MP car being rear ended in Suffield last year, I can think of 6 Mounties killed in the line of duty in recent memory. I cant remember an MP being shot at or injured, or even being in a situation that there was a threat of it.

Also, MPs receive spec pay, do they not? What is the justification for this?

And, not to start too much of a pi$$ing match, but if you were in the Airborne, then would'nt you be a steel/whiteleafjumper?

[Moderator edit:  OPSEC - no numbers, locations.]


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> And, not to start too much of a pi$$ing match, but if you were in the Airborne, then would'nt you be a steel/whiteleafjumper?



Uh, GO!!, I think you're confusing Jumper (who you were quoting and refuting) with redleafjumper.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jul 2005)

Damn! Indeed I have - apologies to both. :-[


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2005)

> On to training, our QL 3 training encompasses 6 months plus a provisional employment program (probation). We have a code of conduct which we must abide by and a Military Police Complaints Commission (made up of civilians) where complaints can be made against military police or by military police who feel interference from the chain of command. We have the all the professional oversight, ethics and training that our civilian counterparts do. And in regards to professional competency; well we have a member training RCMP recruits at Depot in Regina at this very moment, and members seconded to the RCMP units across Canada. In the past we have also had members teach at the Canadian Police College. (So much for that myth).
> 
> And 3 members of my unit are completing the JTF assaulter crse right now. That does'nt mean that the Canadian Infantry Corps are superior. It means that we, like all other trades, have over â â€œ achievers. In addition to this, if you have all of the same trg as an RCMP officer, why are criminal investigations handed over to the NIS? And why is MP trg not recognised nationally as the equivalent of Civilian police forces?



From what I understand MP's, and Railway Police are not recognized as an equivalent to the civilian force, simply due to the fact their is a difference in structure, duties, etc. 

As well if the RCMP did take over policing duties for the military, I would think they would need to make detachments in the bases. Otherwise their will be little police presence in your base.


----------



## dano (9 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> _Also, MPs receive spec pay, do they not? What is the justification for this?_


_

Probably because they require a post secondary diploma._


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2005)

The MP's probably lose alot of good candidates because of that post secondary requirment. I don't know of a single other Law Enforcement agency that does that, the closest is Edmonton Police Service, but even then you can still meet the requirments if you have worked for two years straight.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jul 2005)

The requirement for post secondary education would seem to be redundant, as all of the relevant topics are covered again in your MP trg. 

In addition to this, real police forces recognise that the police foundations course is just that, and not a substitute for real life experience. Which is exactly why forces like the EPS prefer to recruit slightly older recruits, with a few years of working in a job,  as opposed to a 19 year old with High School and a community college diploma. 

The Military Police take that same 19 year old, and promote him to Cpl immediately, with his peace officer bonus. 

I'm still not quite sure why this happens.


----------



## childs56 (10 Jul 2005)

If i am understanding this every member of the MP's worked for the NIS, they have all been trained in investigations and are current in their ability to carry them out. Every member has worked on numerous UN and NATO tours and asssited in the war crimes investigations, have helped to solve numerous cases to which they were an outstanding help to the civil police authorities. 

Now that i have asked those questions. I now will say this, i have dealt with the MP's numerous occasions, i have also dealt with NIS on a few more occasions then i would really want to remember. I have had good and bad experiences with the MP's, usually they have been good, usually it has been when some one was to drunk and needed to have a break from what they were about to do. So the MP's were a great help. I personally lent the MP's my video camera in Bosnia so they could carry out an investigation and document the info they needed. I have a respect for the MP's but when i see them on a regular basis speeding around in their police cars to head to town and that i kinda get disappointed in that action. I know a guy who was drunk whom gained entry to HMC Dock yard and boarded a ship by climbing over a fence when the MP's caught him they couldn't believe he got to where he was, so all charges were dropped. Great security. Dock yard is a secure and sensitive place. I really do not think all MP's are bad but i doubt very many of them have the time and experience as indicated above by other members. I think that is why people have a hard time with them. 

I would like to see the MP's go to their Depot in Regina, it would be money well spent i think, turn the MP's into a proper police force on par with any civilian force in Canada. Then teach them the Military side of their duties. That way we could eliminate the need for them to ask for outside help in laying of certain charges, they could almost be a branch off of the RCMP as they are a national Police force under the Department of Defense. 

I have one very big problem with one of the statements made above in regards to the Air India bombing, That i don't feel was a proper comment made, the fact that the reasons for the findings of that had much more to do with national security then the government has let on, then the actual investigation by the RCMP, and the other government agencies that were involved CSIS, immigration,and a few others. All a big cover up to protect our true problems with in our country. To compare that with the MP's history is absurd.  

 Now as for blowing smoke please tell me how i am blowing smoke, i would very much like to know. I really doubt as i stated above that all MP's are as well trained as you are, please inform me of the smoke i was blowing. You are one of many MP's on a force. Although you are highly trained the others that are with you are most likely not. Maybe i am wrong here but i doubt it. How about across the force, how many have the type of Police back ground as you do? just curious i would like to know just as a curiosity. 

Any ways my problems with the MP's are not axe grinding as stated above or may have been insinuated. It is from actual real life dealings with them and watching them as they perform their duties. I agree not every one is bad and all trades and jobs have good and bad people. But i do know this if i had something stolen off the base and i called the Police they would have come to look at where the object was and then also looked to see if their were any finger prints, this small but major detail was omitted from my last dealing with the MP's. How do you expect to catch any one if they didn't even look or try to gather any evidence. guess it was another Axe to grind on my part. No this is real life and the expectations on my part would have to had a police officer come over look at where the object was, maybe see if it was possible to take prints, or even foot prints. Yet they failed to do this, the rudimentary of police work done when a theft has occurred. Maybe i am wrong i am not sure. But that is what the city and RCMP have done when things have been stolen.   Any ways i want to say i don't mean to label all MP's the same way. I know their are good and bad. It is to bad the bad ones seem to be the most prevalent


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jul 2005)

Yuck, use some paragraphs - your post hurts my eyes.


----------



## CH1 (10 Jul 2005)

With all due respect Gentlemen.

Go ahead & screw with CN or CP Police. It is go directly to jail.  Provincially & Federally, they are lawful Peace officers.  There is also 1 other force, but at this moment I can't remember who.  It is now not uncommon to see them with a municipal force or RCMP, for trg.  Take note, they carry side arms in most cases.  In B.C. they go into town & on the highway with the RCMP.  They have been doing traffic stops etc, writing tickets & doing investigations.

My own opinion is that they shouldn't venture too far out of their confines.  They are hired & paid by CN & CP.  I guess they can loosely called a modified municipal force, with federal powers.

Cheers


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Jul 2005)

I don't know where the idea came fom that Civvie LE thinks less of the MP's.  It certainly didn't come from me.  I can see how _maybe some_ investigations _may_ be tossed for technicalities on an MP's part, but ONLY because they may not come across it as much as a civvie LE would.  I have all the time in the world for my fellow MP's out there.  

I'm just selfish, want my RCMP pay, while still being a part of the Big Green Machine as well.  Read into that "I should be allowed to be in the RCMP AND the Reserves at the same time."


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (10 Jul 2005)

To bad you couldn't come back.....you were one heck of a soldier!!!


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Jul 2005)

I'm not your type, FGH, but thanks for the flattery!!   ;D

Good to see you posting again!  Have not heard from you in awhile....


----------



## redleafjumper (10 Jul 2005)

Blackhorse7, the only opportunity that I am aware of for a serving RCMP member to be in the reserves at the same time as being an RCMP officer is to take a commission and become a Cadet Instructor's Cadre officer.  I know of a few who have gone this route and enjoyed it.  The rules allowing this changed a few years back to the benefit of several RCMP members and cadet corps.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Jul 2005)

That's not quite what I mean.  No offence to Cadets that post in here, but being in a theatre of Combat Ops is more along the line of what I was looking at.  Not teaching drill and advocating birth control.  Which, before the cadets raise an uproar, is exactly what I was already doing as a Reserve instructor of cadets...


----------



## Zoomie (10 Jul 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> <snip> "I should be allowed to be in the RCMP AND the Reserves at the same time."



How about the reverse?  I tried to join the Auxillary and they told me that my being in the Regular Force would pre-empt me from being a member of their volunteer corps.  All I wanted to do was carry an asp and pepper spray - bugger!


----------



## Michael Shannon (10 Jul 2005)

MP attendance at RCMP Depot is not the answer to MP failings. It is lack of volume of criminal files after training that separates experienced investigators from people who done the "course".  The real training for the RCMP is done in the field not in Regina. 

    A few posts have talked about how there are 25 MPs on a base that the RCMP would station 3 or 4 members at. Do the math the volume of work for a civilian cop is 6-8 times greater than an MP. Add to that better (lower?) quality of the client base for the RCMP and after a few years the RCMP pull away from in terms of experience.


----------



## childs56 (10 Jul 2005)

My thoughts are if they train them at Depot then they could also employ them in the local area helping with crimes and such. That way the MP's keep current with their skill sets. Plus it would be an added bonus to the local police force to have more members to assist. Just a thought.


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jul 2005)

CTD,

Interesting - you are proposing that we train the MPs to the same standard as the RCMP, then loan them to civy forces in order to get their experience levels up.

We already do this with medics working at hospitals - I can't think why it would'nt work to create a higher quality police officer. 

How would you address the (percieved) lack of field skills though? 

Of course, this would imply that we would need to screen MPs as vigourously as RCMP candidates though, and that standards that the RCMP demand (fitness etc.) would have to be adhered to.


----------



## childs56 (10 Jul 2005)

The screening of MP's should already be very vigouris as they do up hold the law, if their is any concern for them not meeting the criteia for the RCMP then maybe we need to look at the whole sysytem. After all they are police officers. 

As for the field skills. Their should be field postings and also base postings as their are in other trades. That way they can be employed in all capacities. 

Or go as far as to seperate the trade and make a field position and a garrison position. Knowing how small our force is, that would be difficult to do, but doable. I mean how many more applicants would join if they went to the RCMP training center and had the same level of training. I can think of a few that would right now.


----------



## McG (10 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Interesting - you are proposing that we train the MPs to the same standard as the RCMP, then loan them to civy forces in order to get their experience levels up.


If we could afford to loan MPs to serve in civilian forces, would that not imply that we have a surplus capacity in the number of MPs?

If investigative experience is a problem for MPs, and replacing base MP dets with RCMP is not an option, why not include RCMP in the MP det?  Michael Shannon's hypothetical 25 per base MP Pl would become 22 MP and 3 RCMP.




			
				CTD said:
			
		

> Or go as far as to seperate the trade and make a field position and a garrison position.


If the MPs could be split into field and garrison MOSs, couldn't the garrison MP duties be filled by a civilian police force?


----------



## S McKee (11 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> some really good posts, here. It hasn't changed my mind in any way, but the information is appreciated.
> 
> Question for ya, though. You say that the MP training not being accepted by civil LEOs is a myth. Why then, did the local RCMP office and EPS office both tell me that no later than last month?



I never said that MP training is being accepted at par with civilian forces for members switching over, however it has happen in the past with Calgary, Winnipeg the OPP and other smaller forces. EPS and the RCMP have their own rules and regulations regarding recruitment.


----------



## S McKee (11 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> _It's obvious that a number of members on this form are grossly misinformed about the capability and role of the Military Police. It is also obvious from the tone of some of the posts that a number have an "axe to grind" and don't think we are real soldiers. First before I comment my background: I have operational tours with the UN and NATO as a Military Policeman, NIS and War Crimes Investigator. I have 6 years in the CFNIS and during my tour was seconded to the RCMP GIS and Major Crime unit here in Edmonton. I have field experience (CAR)(and remuster from 011)   and base patrol experience as an MP all over the country. I have worked with several civilian police forces as a result of my job and I can tell you that in my 23 years I have never heard a disparaging word about the MPs from my civilian counterparts, once they have had an opportunity to work with us. So I feel I have a rather unique perspective on the Military Police and their capabilities in comparison with our civilian counterparts_.
> 
> Seeing as the lower ranking members of the military are the people subjected to your conduct and behaviour on a daily basis, I feel that we have a unique perspective on MP issues and capabilities. Since the MPs do not release any statistical info about their success in preventing crime or successful charges, we are forced to rely on anecdotal evidence, which exists in abundance.
> 
> ...



i]Seeing as the lower ranking members of the military are the people subjected to your conduct and behaviour on a daily basis, I feel that we have a unique perspective on MP issues and capabilities. Since the MPs do not release any statistical info about their success in preventing crime or successful charges, we are forced to rely on anecdotal evidence, which exists in abundance. [/i]  

I'll try and answer your points:

There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence about UFOs, Big Foot and the Loch ness Monster, does that mean they exist? Limit your criticism to things that you know about not stories from "a friend of a friend." The CFPM does compile statistics annually (which are a matter of public record) and our statistics are included in national Crime Index Reporting. 


_How about this for â Å“professional competenceâ ? if we have such a Cadillac police force, why are they unable to prevent theft and vandalism of vehicles and recreational vehicles on bases? Why are they unable to keep the shacks from being hotboxed on the weekends? Why do such a large proportion of those charged with DUI by the MPs walk on a technicality? Why is there no access control onto the bases?   In Edmonton, there is only access control on the weekends â â€œ but not at all during the week â â€œ why can't the MPs secure the base 24/7? If manning became an issue, use the reservist MP's._

I can't really comment on the crime on base right now however the MP can't be everywhere all the time especially if the're manning the front gate as you suggest. I don't know where you are getting your stats regarding the number of people getting off with impaired driving. However, maybe you should ask the last Base Commander how his impaired charge went. Insofar as MP's at the gate, well there was Comm at the Gate 24/7 however the operating budget was cut by the ASG for that (Risk Management) which is a decision made by people with lots of bars on their shoulders not by the base MP. If you put reservists on the gate, who'll pay them and out of whose budget would that come out of? Maybe you should be sitting in on the base comptroller meetings. I have no idea what you mean by the shacks being "hotboxed" on the weekends. 


_And   members of my unit are completing the   assaulter crse right now. That does'nt mean that the Canadian Infantry Corps are superior. It means that we, like all other trades, have over â â€œ achievers. In addition to this, if you have all of the same trg as an RCMP officer, why are criminal investigations handed over to the NIS? And why is MP trg not recognised nationally as the equivalent of Civilian police forces?_

Well the NIS are MPS, so serious/sensitive criminal investigations are sent to the MP in the NIS. The NIS was set up after the Somalia Affair to have an "arms length" investigative force for the CF. Our training is recognized by some civilian forces for members wishing employment with them. Consequently we don't recognize civilian police training for members transferring to the MP. I suppose I could ask you if your infantry training is recognized at par with a British Infmn or a US Infmn, would they take you without any crossover training. Does this make you less of an Infmn?

_The costs associated with hiring the RCMP would be more than recovered by the costs of folding the MP trg system, and doing away with   MP chains of command. Also, consider that Cpls make 53K a year, and MPs receive a bonus on top of this, the salaries are close. Also, the infrastructure that the MPs receive on bases (MP shacks, crash trucks, new patrol cars every 2 years etc.) When consolidated with the RCMP would undoubtedly contain a savings of scale. _  


Really, maybe they should consulted you during the Besile and Dixson commissions. Yes a Cpl makes roughly 50 a year but plse tell me about this bonus! MP get spec 1 pay that's it. Again an RCMP member makes $70,000 ( they like to remain within the top % of police forces in Canada for pay) plus over-time which can easily approach $100,000 per constable per year and your telling me that the salaries are close..hmmmm


[i]That is the problem. There are never enough MPs around who have the soldier skills (navigation, patrolling) to properly locate and sign the routes. As a result, the units do   it themselves. If the MPs were patrolling the routes, the investigations could be done by the RCMP. As for never having guarded a PW cage, we have'nt done Airborne or armoured Bde ops in 23 years either - it does'nt mean that we should'nt retain that ability.[/i]

Should we still train to fight "the big Russian bear" too? I seem to recall a change in war fighting doctrine for the CF. We still know how to guard prisoners.


_If the crime is not considered serious enough for the RCMP to devote resources to, why are the MPs investigating at all? This sounds like a bit of a make work project to me... In addition, I doubt the MP/NIS Officer salaries are much less than an RCMP equivalent. _ 

 I doubt the RCMP would have thought a bunch of drunken rowdy Airborne Soldiers crapping and pissing on each other would be reason for an investigation, because Joe Civi in university does it all the time. However we are not Joe Civi and are we accountable to the Canadian public and are held to a higher standard. That is why the NIS does these investigations. An another example of this would be when I was the Sheriff at Vernon Cadet Camp one summer. At that time we did not have the mandate to investigate civilians (cadets) who committed a crime on DND property. Over the course of the summer there were several reported cases of minor sexual assaults. The RCMP (for monetary reasons) did not pursue these matters, because they would have to pay to bring back witnesses etc to Vernon for trial. The CF on the other hand will spare no expense to see justice is being done. Is it optics? In most cases yes, however again we are held to a higher standard.     Where do you get this â Å“pay scaleâ ?? Our officers do not get spec pay, and a Cpl in the NIS is paid the same as a Cpl in GH or platoon.   



_Well, we already have an officer of our regiment with â Å“rudimentaryâ ? knowledge DEFENDING us as an assisting officer, so why should we stack the investigators, but not the defence?_

Yes yes the MP mission statement is to screw over as many 031s as possible, I hear this all the time and frankly it gets tiresome. MPs are not there to "stack" the prosecution" MPs are an impartial third party with no vested interest in the unit. They are there to gather evidence and if there is enough evidence recommend a charge or in the case of the NIS lay a charge. It is up to the CO or Courts Martial to determine guilt or innocence. However if we screw up as much as you seem to think we do, if I was the accused I would love the MP to conduct the investigation, better yet a unit member with no training.   


[_i]I was in A'stan in 2002, and I never once saw an Canadian MP other than at the front gate of the Canadian Biv.   Ditto on missions â â€œ and I participated in all but one as a rifleman. Not saying it did'nt happen, but I did'nt see any. In addition to this, The only time I have seen MPs at work on Bde or lower exercises is at the entrance to WATC camp from the trg area. I even saw an MP in his patrol car on red route once! I don't question the dedication of the MPs, I question the necessity of their trade, given the alternatives available. _  

Maybe you should ask your BN MP who was on the Whale Back with you? Yes your right why do we need MP since you can the do job much better..it can't be that hard?



_I also take exception to your inference that the MPs are somehow â Å“more dedicatedâ ? than their civilian counterparts. Other than the unfortunate accident with the MP car being rear ended in Suffield last year, I can think of 6 Mounties killed in the line of duty in recent memory. I cant remember an MP being shot at or injured, or even being in a situation that there was a threat of it.

Also, MPs receive spec pay, do they not? What is the justification for this?

And, not to start too much of a pi$$ing match, but if you were in the Airborne, then would'nt you be a steel/whiteleafjumper?_
[Moderator edit:   OPSEC - no numbers, locations.]
[/quote]

I never said MP were "more dedicated than their civilian counter parts" I said the MP were just as dedicated to the CF as other trades. No there hasn't been as many MP killed in the line of duty as the RCMP (thank God) and to use that as a qualifier for dedication is pretty tasteless and crass. Would it be fair if I suggested because you haven't lost as many infmn as the US in Afghanistan you therefore can't be as dedicated as American Soldiers? Bullshit comparison.   You don't know of MP being shot at or in any situation like that...well that's because we don't publish it in the base newspaper and I don't think Ptes and Cpls forn the PPCLI are on MP report dist lists. 

MPs receive spec pay because 1) the higher educational requirements to get in (a post secondary diploma) 2) We are subject to a law enforcement code of ethics which if it is breached can be reason for dismissal from the CF and 3) We are subject to a Professional Standards unit (Internal Affairs if you will). So you see we a few more accountability issues than the average CF member. I like to tell people if we get in trouble we don't get a blast from the CO we're subject to a Parliamentary Inquiry. 

You sound like you have allot of "issues" with the MP, if you are unsatisfied with the way you have been treated or the way a case was handled or if you were subjected to some miscarriage of justice because of the bungling of the MP, you can go online to the Military Police Complaints Commission (civilian) and lodge a formal complaint which will be investigated.


----------



## S McKee (11 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> There are two questions which we need to answer, it seems to me:
> 
> "¢	What 'police' services do we need in the CF - in peace and war, in garrison, in the field and at sea?
> 
> ...



Have no fear Edward the MP were not spared from the ASD inquisitors. We were however, able to baffle them with INFOSEC and route signing, thus our dark but "quite useless" empire remains...welcome to the 21st. century


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Have no fear Edward the MP were not spared from the ASD inquisitors. We were however, able to baffle them with INFOSEC and route signing, thus our dark but "quite useless" empire remains...welcome to the 21st. century



Thank you for that succinct reply, Jumper.  I'm sure I'm just too old and backwards to understand that it addresses all my concerns.


----------



## Poppa (12 Jul 2005)

I can try to shed some light here. About 10 years ago around the time of the Dixon report there was a concentrated effort to improve the policing skills of the branch...Big P Little m. The actual war fighting skills were not the big priority and they haven't been. There is a new awareness now that the branch cannot go on like this. We only have to look at what our allies are doing in Iraq and A'stan.
A new Army Corps MP vision is being looked at...before anyone panics there is no plan to raise a MP Corps. However, we have stood up a MP Tactics board with a vision to drive strategic direction. New Tactics for convoy escorts were tested In Pet in prep for Roto 4 and will be validated on tour. We've changed the layout of our sections going to a 3 man team working in 2 veh dets.  Also looking at how we deal with detainees...the traditional definition of a PW is hard to find nowadays. We see a delta in our trg and we want to be the ones driving for change not being a passenger.
The law enforcement aspect will not go away regardless of anyones wishes. All we can do is get together as a branch..embrace the Army ethos..embrace transformation and soldier on.

I've always identified as a soldier first who happened to have a MOC of R811 (now MPO).

If anyone wants more ideas/clarification feel free to ask in open forum or PM.

Cheers


----------



## noneck (13 Jul 2005)

_Really, maybe they should consulted you during the Besile and Dixson commissions. Yes a Cpl makes roughly 50 a year but plse tell me about this bonus! MP get spec 1 pay that's it. Again an RCMP member makes $70,000 ( they like to remain within the top % of police forces in Canada for pay) plus over-time which can easily approach $100,000 per constable per year and your telling me that the salaries are close..hmmmm_

This statement is a little far fetched, I have 6 years service and work in a LMD detachment Drug Section. I have never made $100,000. We are also not guaranteed to be in the top third of the police pay universe, as we were led to believe. This is merely a gentlemans agreement that our pay counsel made with Treasury Board. This past December we were royally screwed over when TB refused to bring us up to that level. That all being said, we do get paid quite well (Unless you are posted in the LMD or Metro Toronto areas). At present a first class Constable makes about 65K and change.

Blackhorse 7 on the topic of changing the QR&O's to allow RCMP members to serve in the PRes. I have been personally fighting that battle for the past 6 years. I am currently waiting for a response from the CDS on the matter, as I forwarded a letter to him recently quoting a memo he drafted in support of the change when he was the A/CLS a few years back. PM me on the subject and we can talk via ROSS.

Cheers
Noneck


----------



## S McKee (13 Jul 2005)

noneck said:
			
		

> _Really, maybe they should consulted you during the Besile and Dixson commissions. Yes a Cpl makes roughly 50 a year but plse tell me about this bonus! MP get spec 1 pay that's it. Again an RCMP member makes $70,000 ( they like to remain within the top % of police forces in Canada for pay) plus over-time which can easily approach $100,000 per constable per year and your telling me that the salaries are close..hmmmm_
> 
> This statement is a little far fetched, I have 6 years service and work in a LMD detachment Drug Section. I have never made $100,000. We are also not guaranteed to be in the top third of the police pay universe, as we were led to believe. This is merely a gentlemans agreement that our pay counsel made with Treasury Board. This past December we were royally screwed over when TB refused to bring us up to that level. That all being said, we do get paid quite well (Unless you are posted in the LMD or Metro Toronto areas). At present a first class Constable makes about 65K and change.
> 
> ...



Maybe in LMD they don't make that much OT but I know many Mounties who do, even if you only make 10K-15K in OT a year it's still a sizable chunk of change when you compare it to a MP Cpl salary.


----------



## garb811 (14 Jul 2005)

I'm not going to bother to comment on everything as it's pretty much being flogged to death and people have pre-conceived opinions but I will make a few comments.

Not too long ago I had a conversation with the Garrison Addictions Counsellor and he came aboard me about the problems some of his "clients" were experiencing in shacks after their return from their addictions course.  His comment was, "The guys are complaining about how hard it is to stay clean in shacks when they have guys (or Section Commanders!) trying to deal to them in the hallway.  Why don't you guys get in there, kick some doors down and clean it up?!"  I answered that I understood he was bound by patient client confidentiality but the next time one of them made that comment to him, to counsel them to report the dealer to the MPs so the matter could be investigated.  How many guys do you think made the short walk to the Guardhouse?  This is symbolic of the main problem we face in these kinds of issues where we know there is a problem but nobody is willing to stand up and be heard.  The comment was made in this, or another, thread that MPs close ranks when a complaint is made and protect each other but the problem is much, much worse in the units as nobody wants to be seen as a snitch.  Guys know who the pothead is in the section but they won't report him, either to the MPs or the Chain of Command because they â Å“have to watch their buddies backâ ?.  The rooms in the shacks are considered to be private dwellings, we can't just walk into the hall, smell pot and then start taking down doors.  In order to enter a room, unless invited, we need a search warrant and let me assure you that we are not going to get one by saying, â Å“Well, I was walking down the hall and smelled pot so I started sniffing around the doors until I found the one which smelled the strongest...â ?  Even going along and knocking on doors in the hope someone will open it so we can get evidence â Å“in plain viewâ ? is tenuous in a court of law, we can't just go on fishing expeditions.  This issue has been discussed in other threads but at the end of the day, if you're going to get on a public board and start moaning about how the MPs are failing to clean up the shacks, maybe the first place to start looking for a solution is closer to home.  Back â Å“in the dayâ ? units had their duty personnel maintain discipline in their lines.  Since the units still want to cling to the notion that the shacks are their unit lines and get on our backs when we start being proactive and conducting walk throughs, maybe assigning a MCpl as the barrack duty NCO would be a good place to start.  Let's also not forget that each CF member has the duty to report any offences of which they are aware...

Everyone who has thrown out anecdotal evidence about MP ineptitude and misconduct as the reason to bring the RCMP in, that's pretty thin paint to be using on such a wide brush.  As previously said, yes it does happen with MPs but as also previously said, it also happens with any civilian police service.  As more examples: Edmonton Police Service has been the subject of very intense scrutiny over the past year due to some officers attempting to â Å“stingâ ? a reporter and the head of the Edmonton Police Commission.  Cost the police chief his job when he was caught lying to protect his boys; the RCMP are hardly immune to this either, anyone remember Sgt Pepper from the APEC protests?  How about Saskatoon police and their â Å“free rides to the edge of townâ ? for certain, select clients?  The BC lower mainland forces who let Pickford do his thing for so long?  How about EPS and the Edmonton area RCMP who, according to some observers, are failing to thoroughly investigate the spate of prostitute killings?  Winnipeg police conducted a flawed investigation that resulted in James Driskell being wrongly convicted and spending 10 years in jail.  How about Milgard?  The Toronto Drug Squad?  Even though some of these issues are ones of perception vice reality they are still out there in the public domain.  Obviously training, experience, leadership and oversight can be as much of an issue for the civilian police as well as the MPs and just because they are â Å“the professionalsâ ? doesn't mean they always do a good job.

I also feel that some persons posting here may have an over inflated expectation of what duties a civilian police officer is capable of and experienced in performing.  In my experience, just like MPs, the average RCMP/*PP/city police member is a "generalist" who relies on expert teams to take over complex and/or lengthy investigations.  While a RCMP member in a small detachment is liable to conduct investigations of a varied nature because their GIS is not that large, when it comes to city police it seems they tend to specialize much more with the â Å“beat copâ ? being the first responder who passes it off for follow-up if it can't be completed on the spot.

One question I have not seen fully addressed is how those who would like to see the RCMP provide police services to the CF expect policing to happen in an operational theater?  The idea was floated to have a small cell of RCMP attached to each Roto but how will this work when the RCMP cannot (to the best of my knowledge and research so please post a link to a source if you disagree) be ordered to deploy?  Please keep in mind while answering that the Canadian courts have ruled that CSD offenses, particularly those being tried at Courts Martial, must be investigated in accordance with Canadian laws, standards and procedures so where is that to come from if we don't maintain that capability in-house?  When push comes to shove all CSS functions can be provided by civilians ala ASD but the CF realizes that it is important to maintain the capability with deployable persons in case (when?) the time comes when the civilians decide they don't want to go. 



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> unlikely, as the RCMP (in fact no Police force in Canada, to my knowledge) does not recognize CF MP training as a legitimate LEO qualification. (What does that tell you?)


Uhh...I dunno, I suppose you're insinuating that we are therefore not â Å“realâ ? police.  By whose standard?  Certainly not the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police of which the Branch is a member.  Just because training isn't accepted â Å“at parâ ? by all police services doesn't mean it isn't legitimate and/or equal to what other police forces receive.  Jumper has already pointed out that we have a member instructing at Depot but you should also realize that our training was also reviewed and validated by the RCMP...also not every civilian police officer is able to do a lateral or â Å“experience officerâ ? transfer from one force to another as you seem to think.

Mr Campbell:  Sorry you felt that the MP had lost their field skills, although I know a bunch of guys from the RV time period who would beg to differ with you.  I think you may have been confusing the capabilities of the staff at the MP Coy level with what you seemed to expect the staff of a MP Pl to provide.  This was a problem I faced when I was the Ops NCO in an MP Pl.  The Bde staff seemed to think we had the equivalent of a Bn HQ in our CP and had some pretty high expectations on what we could produce for them, but that is the subject of another thread.

Finally, CTD mind providing a source for:





> The RCMP can may and shall be called up to operate in time of war in a foregin country under DND.


  And it sucks about your bike.  If you feel that strongly that the MP who attended your complaint did not conduct a proper investigation you are more than welcome to submit a complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission via the process and form you can find at this link: Military Police Complaints Commission -- Complaints


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2005)

Okay, so here is the merged thread with the new discussion on the direction the MP branch should take.  As I recall from the original discussion, MP00161 made an interesting proposal as an alternative to my original post - it's back on page 2, but I reposted it below so as to get some new discussion going (instead of just pointing fingers and flaming trades).  Let's be proactive here, folks.



			
				MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Sorry for the delay.   The proposal is obviously simply that, a proposal, which may kill some people's sacred cows so feel free to fire back.
> 
> The four traditional MP tasks are:   Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops so you weren't far off.     C Pro C always had the ability to conduct Police Ops in relation to the military (particularly with 1 Provost Coy which was formed from the RCMP) although it was overshadowed in WWII by Mobility and Detention Ops.   I'm not sure at what point it started but they also had investigators organized similar to the SIB in the RMP to do what is now done by NIS and I believe it was the 50's when a greater emphasis on Base policing was started.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2005)

Quite the variety of views.

 As stated the four traditional MP tasks are:  Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops. in that priority but over the years it has slowly moved to Police Op's which is not the perview of the Military Police.
Case in point is the new Uniform,what's with the black?We aren't the States and you are not SWATor JTF.
I and others I have talked and see your Uniforms as representing somthing evil,a threat which is not us as a Military at home.If you want to be a Police Force dress like one,a policeman is supposed to be a friend,a guardian,invisable untill needed.get rid of those SS uniforms.What ever happened with the old Red Beret just being enough to identify a M.P.?

I have never had a problem with M.P.'s (only traffic control on road moves   ;D )
You have a job which is a bitch because it's the Military especialy those posted to the Brigades and I would not like your job.

Be Fare and Just


----------



## garb811 (17 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Quite the variety of views.
> 
> As stated the four traditional MP tasks are:   Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops. in that priority but over the years it has slowly moved to Police Op's which is not the perview of the Military Police.



Here's a brief but excellent history of the Provost Corps.  Supervision and enforcement of discipline outside unit lines is just another way of saying "Police Ops" in todays world.  It seems to me that in WWII the Provost had more personnel employed in this "non-MP" function than in the "field" function by the number of MP units attached to HQs and left in Canada.  As can also be seen the movement towards police ops as we currently know them is rooted in the 50's, and this included a dedicated investigative arm for the Provost Corps (at one time they even had dedicated Provost Clerks of all things...).  It is not a role that the Branch suddenly adopted out of the blue recently but I am in total agreement that, as I've said before, the pendulum had swung to mP vice the MP we need to be.  I think (hope?) given the direction and talk that you'll be seeing a fairly substantial swing back towards the middle in the next several years.



> I and others I have talked and see your Uniforms as representing somthing evil,a threat which is not us as a Military at home.If you want to be a Police Force dress like one,a policeman is supposed to be a friend,a guardian,invisable untill needed.get rid of those SS uniforms.



Yikes!!  I knew the uniforms were going to have a divisive effect with the rest of the CF but didn't realize it was this bad.  I admit there is a very real danger that the branch is going to alienate itself from it's "clients" if some of the current ideas are left unchecked but reading this is...shocking to say the least.  All the more reason to strictly enforce the wearing of the uniform only on patrol BUT having said that, I'm only the master of my domain I have no input on what your local base may be doing.  One last point, you'll notice that most civilian police forces are going to black and if I recall correctly, our current uniform is based on what the Ottawa-Carelton police but if you start looking you'll see most have gone to black or navy blue.



> What ever happened with the old Red Beret just being enough to identify a M.P.?


Well, the first glitch was the Air Force and Navy wouldn't let MP wear a Red Beret as they felt that the cloth patch behind the cap badge was sufficient.  Second, while the military clearly understands what the Red Beret symbolizes, a civie doesn't have a clue.  Third, there were legal issues with identification as Police with guys wearing three different uniforms.  One example is the possiblity that someone could claim they didn't recognize the MP as being an MP because the last time they got stopped the guy was wearing blue and this time the guy was wearing CADPAT.  The decision was made to go with an occupational patrol dress which matched what the civilian police forces were going with in order to eliminate this problem.


----------



## McG (17 Jul 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Well, the first glitch was the Air Force and Navy wouldn't let MP wear a Red Beret as they felt that the cloth patch behind the cap badge was sufficient.


I'm pleased to see that this has changed and all MP will now wear the red beret.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2005)

If this is so,wear your Red Beret but the same uniform as the rest of us.

Tete Viand 00161 ,Re your comment;Yikes!!  I knew the uniforms were going to have a divisive effect with the rest of the CF but didn't realize it was this bad.  I admit there is a very real danger that the branch is going to alienate itself from it's "clients"

Thank you,you just proved my point by calling me and all in the C.F. "CLIENTS" meaning I and all are already guilty?

See there is the frame of mind we all see.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

Rest of who, Earl?  I didn,t realize everyone wore the same thing all the time......


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Rest of who, Earl?   I didn,t realize everyone wore the same thing all the time......



Not the black Uniform, we are all wearing the relish now except the Navy which granted are different
due to their duties at sea.,but Army and Air Force all wear the same.
The M.P. uniform is some say dark blue,bollocks it's black and along with the change in colour has come attitude.


----------



## FastEddy (17 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Not the black Uniform, we are all wearing the relish now except the Navy which granted are different
> due to their duties at sea.,but Army and Air Force all wear the same.
> The M.P. uniform is some say dark blue,bollocks it's black and along with the change in colour has come attitude.




Ahhh! yes Spr.Earl, thank you, since its origins from Provost's to its present day status as MP. It has suffered the slings and arrows of comtempt and ridicule from those who either have a problem with authority or are misinformed or misled.

But to-day you have out done all those who have gone before you, we are now described as EVIL.
This being due to a universal distinct Police Attire.

I'm sure you have won the hearts and minds of all who Serve and Protect, especially the Military Police.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> But to-day you have out done all those who have gone before you, we are now described as EVIL. This being due to a universal distinct Police Attire.



He never said you were evil, he said you had an attitude, and it's showing.




			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have won *the hearts and minds * of all who Serve and Protect, especially the Military Police.



Civilian Police aside, I wasn't aware you had either.


----------



## garb811 (17 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Thank you,you just proved my point by calling me and all in the C.F. "CLIENTS" meaning I and all are already guilty?


Nope, as in meaning you are the community that we provide MP Services to.  I put it in quotes to emphasis the civie speak that has become all too pervasive in the CSS trades and since we've gone to a civie pattern uniform on patrol and that was what was currently being discussed...  Anyways, you've obviously taken it in the sarcastic manner in which it's used to refer to miscreants, my apologies for the confusion.


----------



## McG (17 Jul 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Nope, as in meaning you are the community that we provide MP Services to.   I put it in quotes to emphasis the civie speak


I can't say I like "clients" for MPs or civillain police.  It implies a service to individuals where the civillain police should be providing a service to the community as a whole.


----------



## FastEddy (18 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Case in point is the new Uniform,what's with the black?We aren't the States and you are not SWATor JTF.
> I and others I have talked and see your Uniforms as representing somthing evil,a threat which is not us as a Military at home.If you want to be a Police Force dress like one,a policeman is supposed to be a friend,a guardian,invisable untill needed.get rid of those SS uniforms.What ever happened with the old Red Beret just being enough to identify a M.P.?
> 
> Attn. recceguy, I think the inference is quite clear.
> ...


----------



## S McKee (18 Jul 2005)

Personally I'm quite dissappointed with the new "black uniform" the Branch turned down all MY ideas which would have made it much better and less intimidating for our "clients". Your right Earl the all black concept is too much we do look like the SS. I suggested a brown shirt instead of the black with a nice black forge cap, black riding pants and boots, with a red identifying armband, riding crop, monocle and long leather overcoat for inclement weather.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2005)

Anyone got a pic for those of us not in the groove?


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Personally I'm quite dissappointed with the new "black uniform" the Branch turned down all MY ideas which would have made it much better and less intimidating for our "clients". Your right Earl the all black concept is too much we do look like the SS. I suggested a brown shirt instead of the black with a nice black forge cap, black riding pants and boots, with a red identifying armband, riding crop, monocle and long leather overcoat for inclement weather.



 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> As for your clever retort, just another stone thrown as usual.



Eddy, you really gotta learn to chill and read the emoticons man. 

As to all the rest. Well, what can I say. I have some friends that are MP's. I consider them professional and fair. I have met many others that on first glance, would also seem to fill the bill. On the other hand, I have also met quite a few, that as with all trades, are total gluebags not fit to wear the uniform let alone "serve and protect". Your trade is not pristine, you've got bad apples and your wasting your time denying it.


----------



## S McKee (18 Jul 2005)

You guys should know by now we (MP) have absolutely NO and I mean NO sense of humor :rage:


----------



## S McKee (18 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Anyone got a pic for those of us not in the groove?



If your interested there is an excellent web site with all kinds of pics and history on the MP and there is one pic of the new dress. http://www.mpmuseum.org/index3.html


----------



## FastEddy (20 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Eddy, you really gotta learn to chill and read the emoticons man.
> 
> As to all the rest. Well, what can I say. I have some friends that are MP's. I consider them professional and fair. I have met many others that on first glance, would also seem to fill the bill. On the other hand, I have also met quite a few, that as with all trades, are total gluebags not fit to wear the uniform let alone "serve and protect". Your trade is not pristine, you've got bad apples and your wasting your time denying it.




I don't believe I have ever denied that fact or have indicated that any LEA is Lily White. On reading a great number of quotes and replys which were favourable to the MP, this fact was also never denied.

But by the same token that applies to all other Branch's of the Service whether pertaining to Skills, Attitudes, Performance or reference. However, such short comings are not Harbored with such Hostility and at every opportunity displayed verbally or otherwise.

The Short Comings or Actions of other Branch's effect and impact on us all equally, but seems to pass as just water under the Bridge.

As for Emoticons, a pointed and un-complimentary statement, followered by a smiley face, does not change the contents or inference (i.e.= This is what I really mean, But I don't really mean it Ha. Ha.).


----------



## mover1 (20 Jul 2005)

And thats why no one can talk to guys like you. No sense of ha ha, and always looking for a fault.


----------



## FastEddy (20 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> And thats why no one can talk to guys like you. No sense of ha ha, and always looking for a fault.




You see, you selected to reply to a statement that could be manipulated into a jab.

The quote was to answer several of "recceguy's" statements and to suggest that smiley faces are not the best indicator of inference of a unkind remark.

I think you might be confusing "Seriousness with a lack of a Sense of Humor". And why would that prevent you from speaking to a LEO ?.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2005)

Hmmmm. I think someone has issues : So not much sense in trying to be lighthearted anymore. I guess I'll just bow out. I find being to serious 24 hrs a day just makes me cranky.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2005)

So, are we actually going to discuss any of the valid ideas put up here by other members, or are we going to argue about clothing?


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, are we actually going to discuss any of the valid ideas put up here by other members, or are we going to argue about clothing?


Oh sorry about that Inf.,my fault as I digressed but as you see we are seen as clients.


I personally would like the Queens Cowboys to take over the true POLICE work in the C.F. and the  M.P.'s deal with the Miliatry side of their job i.e Mobility etc..
Leave the real Police work to the RCMP. as the M.P.'s can't do it.


----------



## mover1 (21 Jul 2005)

good point.


----------



## S McKee (21 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Oh sorry about that Inf.,my fault as I digressed but as you see we are seen as clients.
> 
> 
> I personally would like the Queens Cowboys to take over the true POLICE work in the C.F. and the   M.P.'s deal with the Miliatry side of their job i.e Mobility etc..
> Leave the real Police work to the RCMP. as the M.P.'s can't do it.



You'll be happy to know Spr Earl as of 18 July, the CFNIS (MP) are now the primary investigative agency for all deaths (including suspicious deaths) on DND property. Obviously somebody thinks we can do "real police work".  Maybe it's the RCMP inspector that's seconded to the CFNIS.......


----------



## MILPO (24 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Oh sorry about that Inf.,my fault as I digressed but as you see we are seen as clients.
> I personally would like the Queens Cowboys to take over the true POLICE work in the C.F. and the  M.P.'s deal with the Miliatry side of their job i.e Mobility etc..
> Leave the real Police work to the RCMP. as the M.P.'s can't do it.



Yes, a police "SERVICE" is that, a service which in turn has _clients_ to "protect and serve"(the military community and assets in this case).  Why not have some pride in your own police service specifically trained to serve the military community.  It sounds like you have some major personal issues with the MP's.  MP's are trained to the same extent of the RCMP and can do the job just fine. I'm curious, could you explain to me how MP's aren't capable of doing "real Police work" when they receive the exact same training as the RCMP and other police services and how they take the exact same courses as other police officers do at the Canadian Police College, Ontario Police College and other police training centres?


----------



## DogOfWar (24 Jul 2005)

MILPO said:
			
		

> Yes, a police "SERVICE" is that, a service which in turn has _clients_ to "protect and serve"(the military community and assets in this case).   Why not have some pride in your own police service specifically trained to serve the military community.   It sounds like you have some major personal issues with the MP's.   MP's are trained to the same extent of the RCMP and can do the job just fine. I'm curious, could you explain to me how MP's aren't capable of doing "real Police work" when they receive the exact same training as the RCMP and other police services and how they take the exact same courses as other police officers do at the Canadian Police College, Ontario Police College and other police training centres?



Generally when people complain about MP's its about the person in the uniforms attitude. Not their training. Ive known som guys who've been deferred over and over by other police agencies only to be picked up by the MP's. Their attitude was "well Ill guess Ill join the military police". There are good mp's and bad Mp's Im aware but I myself have had more bad experiences then good. Although the guys in Halifax seem like a good lot.


----------



## MILPO (24 Jul 2005)

Right, like every profession or career has a few bad apples.  But, when you are on the receiving end of disciplinary action from an MP or any other police officer, then people tend to look at the whole aspect negatively and try to focus their wrongs as the fault of an MP or police officer.  You're judging negatively a profession based on your bad experiences.  

I don't know if many people realize this  , but MP's and other police officers have to be assertive and professional when dealing with the public especially with some negative flack received from someone when dealing with a situation.  More often than not you will see self control and integrity from any police officer in a stressful situation, including MP's, as law enforcement usually fall into the same training and personality category.  

Now, what "police work" would Spr. Earl have the Military Police do?


----------



## FastEddy (24 Jul 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> Generally when people complain about MP's its about the person in the uniforms attitude. Not their training. Ive known som guys who've been deferred over and over by other police agencies only to be picked up by the MP's. Their attitude was "well Ill guess Ill join the military police". There are good mp's and bad Mp's Im aware but I myself have had more bad experiences then good. Although the guys in Halifax seem like a good lot.




As not to question the validity of your statements, perhaps you could describe the unfavourable circumstances of your dealings with the MP.

You also mention the general attitude of the MP when dealing with an occurrence. Could you be more specific ?.

Just out of curiosity, how do you know the certain MP have been, as you put it "differed".

A great number of MP Officers and Sr. NCO's read these posts, so therefore this information would be benificial to them in correcting these faults/areas.


----------



## DogOfWar (24 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> As not to question the validity of your statements, perhaps you could describe the unfavourable circumstances of your dealings with the MP.
> 
> You also mention the general attitude of the MP when dealing with an occurrence. Could you be more specific ?.
> 
> ...



As a bouncer I recall having to toss one MP once a week. A troubled young man who drank waaaay to often. He would always pull that " Im a cop dont touch me" crap with me. Another MP attacked an American in my bar when he found out the yank was sleeping with his wife. We wound up fist fighting in that one. 

As a teenager I dislocated leg and was on crutches one day i was driving downtown wth my crutches in the backseat I was pulled over by an MP and he demanded I open my trunk for him- as I didnt know what he was doing was illegal I went to get my crutches and he wouldnt let me get them. I had to walk on my bandaged leg to the back and open the trunk. 

Ive worked with several former MP's as an LEO- one routinely used coercion in his investigations. He didnt see anything wrong with it. However there have been a few MP's that I have genuinely been impressed with. Mind you these instances are some at the most recent were 4 years ago and I am aware that the service as a whole has been undergoing some serious changes- and as I have said earlier I would say that my more recent experiences have been more positive.

HOWEVER many friends who have been trying to become police officers civi side for years and failing have gone on to become MP's. Its was there last chance at a badge. Did they make good cops? I would say so- BUT why is the military picking up the scraps from what the other forces wont take? 

A college diploma does a good cop not make. But its seems to me-Although ill admit I dont have the inside track- like thats all it takes to be an MP. 

Although I would say that with all the new training the MP's are getting they should be given the chance at least to handle all crime on DND property. If they show they are more than capable then let them have it. Police resources are taxed enough without having 2 tiers of cops.

The term is "deferred" Milpo. Look it up.    I wasnt attempting to slag your service- I was stating that when people complain to ME about military police it is generally because of a problem the person had with the (usually young) officer. Since my start in the military Ive found MP's to be pretty good guys. Athough Ill admit that Im not one for getting into trouble.

As for how I know the Mp's have been deffered- these are military police officers I knew before their careers in the military and whom I still am close with. 

I personally am under the impression that the military police service as a whole has made great strides in prefessionalism in the last decade. Sure they have some distance to go still but thats because there are so many different directions that various groups are trying to pull them in. Talk to most RCMP members outside of an army/airforce/or navy base and I can tell you from my own experience that they arent dying to get a hold of the responsibility of policing the base. Understaffed already they would get more members on paper- but putting the warm body in the uniform is another thing altogether.

And to further this I think that most members of the military should get uncomfortable when the governement starts trying to take away something from the CF. It starts with the MP's and goes all the way down to trying to phase out light infantry.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2005)

Aaron,  I thought that was you...............hmmmmm


----------



## canadianblue (24 Jul 2005)

> Generally when people complain about MP's its about the person in the uniforms attitude. Not their training. Ive known som guys who've been deferred over and over by other police agencies only to be picked up by the MP's. Their attitude was "well Ill guess Ill join the military police". There are good mp's and bad Mp's Im aware but I myself have had more bad experiences then good. Although the guys in Halifax seem like a good lot.



I've heard of more college grads that want to use the MP's as a stepping stone into a civilian police service. I think what might be a good proposal [keeping in mind that I'm not in the military yet] is that maybe they should allow more CT's so it is somewhat tougher to get into the MP's. For those members who would like to police the military community however are in a different trade let them do a CT without forcing them to take a Police Studies Diploma. I would like to do two things in my life, be in the military and be a police officer. If I could ever mix both, and still be seen as a soldier then I would do that.
As well don't alot of the members of the DND Fire Service come from seperate trades doing a CT correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Jul 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> As a bouncer I recall having to toss one MP once a week. A troubled young man who drank waaaay to often. He would always pull that " Im a cop dont touch me" crap with me. Another MP attacked an American in my bar when he found out the yank was sleeping with his wife. We wound up fist fighting in that one.
> 
> As a teenager I dislocated leg and was on crutches one day i was driving downtown wth my crutches in the backseat I was pulled over by an MP and he demanded I open my trunk for him- as I didnt know what he was doing was illegal I went to get my crutches and he wouldnt let me get them. I had to walk on my bandaged leg to the back and open the trunk.
> 
> ...




Well Breadwindow, very good post, comprehensive and intelligent, I would say that your opinion and concerns are well founded. I will try and give you my take on the incidents.

For the MP with a obvious drinking problem and abusing his MP status|, there is no excuse for that. I would suggest that you report the circumstances to his Detachment Commander, under lining the fact, that the next time the Civilian Police will be called and charges laid.

As for the scrap between the American and the MP, yes, it was inexcusable, but under those circumstances, the outcome probably would have been the same regardless of one's Branch.

Presuming you informed the MP of your need for the crutches, yes again I would have to agree, this is certainly not the way to properly behave or correctly appraise the situation.  And that would leave a sour taste in anybody's mouth.

With regard to the use of coercion, there is a very fine line in this matter and not knowing the facts or details of the cases, I cannot comment on this matter. However, as the Book says Coercion is out.

I have advocated in a number of my posts that Higher Education does not guarantee Caliber in the making of a good Police Officer.

Police Selection Boards are a strange thing, you can flunkout for a thousand reasons. Maybe its unfair to lump all of them who then decide on the Military as Scraps. Maybe those Departments missed some damn fine candidates because someone didn't like their face that day.


----------



## MILPO (24 Jul 2005)

It takes several attempts/applications for police applicants to get hired by any police service due to a number of circumstances.  i.e. life experience, too young.  It's a very competitive field with many qualified candidates and i can assure you that the hiring of any police officers, including MP's, isn't taken lightly.  Military Police have a lot to offer, even moreso than many police services, which is why there are many people attracted to the trade.


----------



## GO!!! (29 Jul 2005)

MILPO

I just have four questions for you in regards to a number of your posts on this forum.

1) How long have you been an MP? 

2) How many civilian police forces turned you down before you blessed St. Jean with your presence in April?

3) What's it like to get promoted to Cpl having never been a Pte?

4) Without having attended Depot in Regina, or analysed the course content in an educated manner in comparison with the standards that are enforced in MP QL3, how do you manage to draw an equivalency with the RCMP?

Keep up the good work


----------



## McG (29 Jul 2005)

MILPO said:
			
		

> Yes, a police "SERVICE" is that, a service which in turn has _clients_ to "protect and serve"(the military community and assets in this case).


I can't say I like "clients" for MPs or civillain police.  It implies a service to individuals where the civillain police should be providing a service to the community as a whole (and any transients in it).  It also implies a relationship where the police service is employed by the the individuals it provides a service to.



			
				MILPO said:
			
		

> MP's are trained to the same extent of the RCMP and can do the job just fine. I'm curious, could you explain to me how MP's aren't capable of doing "real Police work" when they receive the exact same training as the RCMP and other police services and how they take the exact same courses as other police officers do at the Canadian Police College, Ontario Police College and other police training centres?


I thought the answer to this was suggested earlier:





			
				Michael Shannon said:
			
		

> The problem with the MP/NIS as an investigative police force as opposed to traffic control etc. is that they lack experience dealing with crime.


----------



## McG (29 Jul 2005)

GO!!!,
Lets try to keep it civil.


----------



## MILPO (5 Aug 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> I can't say I like "clients" for MPs or civillain police.  It implies a service to individuals where the civillain police should be providing a service to the community as a whole (and any transients in it).  It also implies a relationship where the police service is employed by the the individuals it provides a service to.
> I thought the answer to this was suggested earlier:



I can understand were you are coming from, not liking the term client, but from a policing perspective it is about servicing the whole community and the clientele (which is the community).  Police services also operate with a business plan and provide services to the public llike any other government or private sector business..  

The MP's and NIS deal with laws and crime thats why they are there, to protect the military community and its assets and provide safety/security services to the personnel.  Because you don't see it, it doesn't mean that it isn't there.  Certainly, there is less crime committed on a base or within the military compared to a comparatively sized city/town/municipality, but you have to compare demographics with a similar sized community as well.


----------



## S McKee (5 Aug 2005)

GO I think your getting a little hung up in regards to civilian/ military police equivalency. Actually a good friend of mine ( WO Military Police member) is a RCMP recruit class facilitator/instructor at the Depot in Regina so I get a regular update on the training. He's been there for a couple of years, the branch was planning on moving all MP training to the Depot as a cost saving measure. The training is basically the same with the exception that the Military Police recruit has to learn the NDA as well as Crim Code statutes because we enforce both. And driver training is different. Law, Use of force, community based policing concepts and the nuts and bolts of police work are the same. 

I do not agree with the instant Cpl policy of our trade, but this was done in order to attract higher quality candidates by offering them pay similar to a recruit on a civilian police force. I believe this is now under review. I did a service paper arguing against this for my 6B. Once a member is a Cpl he/she soon enters the promotion zone and I feel the danger is we will have promoted a number of pers who do not have sufficient time/experience in the CF and who are not ready for promotion. The average time to reach Sgt in our trade was 12 yrs a while back now it can be as little as 7, almost like the Cbt Arms.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Aug 2005)

GO!, cool it - there is no need for you to come over and professionally insult the MPs; they aren't doing it to you.


----------



## Gunner (5 Aug 2005)

> The average time to reach Sgt in our trade was 12 yrs a while back now it can be as little as 7, almost like the Cbt Arms.



I don't think this is true (or common) anymore Jumper, but  I certainly agree it was this way back in the 80s when the cbt arms expanded.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Aug 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> MILPO
> 
> I just have four questions for you in regards to a number of your posts on this forum.
> 
> ...



1) I should'nt have asked you this one, as the answer can be found in the "see last posts of member" function of your profile. Answer - April of this year - right?

2) I can't say for sure how many times that you were tried, tested and found wanting, but your avid defence of those who fail in their applications to police forces sounds to me like someone attempting to justify a lifetime of mediocrity and failure. 

3) Make no mistake, you are an instant Cpl, no you have not earned it, and soon, you may lose it (re â â€œ assessment is coming!!). The rank of Pte exists for the purpose of training a soldier, and giving him the experience necessary to perform his duties and lead others. As you have done neither, you are supremely unqualified to comment on the actions of other enlisted personnel.

4) We've been over this one a few times in this thread and one from a while back that I started, but it is an accepted fact that the MPs are not as well trained, or as experienced as their RCMP counterparts. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible and just plain wrong.

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, just how you can imply that you somehow have the military experience and bearing that you speak so highly of is beyond me - you have yet to be in the CF a year?!?!

I've been told before to never offer criticism without a solution though, and to me it seems obvious. Revert the Military Police to a remuster -only trade. This will undoubtedly keep some of the immaturity now seen and the attitudes (pot, this is kettle) in check as the MPs would be a more experienced lot, and soldiers first. These soldiers would form the basis for an MP platoon, which would focus on MP duties (route marking, security, PW handling, base security etc) and keep a small detachment (2 maybe) of RCMP on each base to conduct investigations and press charges. Soldiers being soldiers and cops being cops. This would enable us to be far more choosy in the selection of MPs, than simply taking those who have not made it in the civpol world, but have the police foundations diploma.

Cheers


----------



## Dissident (5 Aug 2005)

I have stated somewere else before: Different police agencies have a different approach towards what trainning needs to be provided to their recruits.

Accross the country, there is just about as many different standards as there is police department. I am a little confused as to why the comparison between the MP and the RCMP keep popping up. Even though they are both federaly organized, they have a fair amount of different duties do contend with. There is only but one standard to be an MP, there is however many different ones for being a police officer.

Saying that MP's are not as well trained as RCMP constable represent a lack of understanding of the situation.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Aug 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I've been told before to never offer criticism without a solution though, and to me it seems obvious. Revert the Military Police to a remuster -only trade. This will undoubtedly keep some of the immaturity now seen and the attitudes (pot, this is kettle) in check as the MPs would be a more experienced lot, and soldiers first.



GO!, would you find MP00161's proposal back here as one that would satisfy your criticisms?  To date, I've found it to be the most interesting alternative to the "RCMP" proposal:



			
				MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Sorry for the delay.  The proposal is obviously simply that, a proposal, which may kill some people's sacred cows so feel free to fire back.


----------



## MILPO (5 Aug 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> 1) I should'nt have asked you this one, as the answer can be found in the "see last posts of member" function of your profile. Answer - April of this year - right?
> 
> 2) I can't say for sure how many times that you were tried, tested and found wanting, but your avid defence of those who fail in their applications to police forces sounds to me like someone attempting to justify a lifetime of mediocrity and failure.
> 
> ...



Sounds like your looking for an easy way in (insert smiley scratching head here)....should i be so bold as to suggest that you could not get into policing and that is the reason why your infantry?  Why don't you stick to the facts and not attempt to attack ones personal life that you know absolutely nothing about and by not making yourself look foolish. I have more experience in law enforcement before joining the MP's than you would like to think, spanky. So please keep your personal issues with the MP's to yourself and try to discuss the situation at hand, not your hang ups.

And I would assume there is nothing wrong with encouraging people who have had bad luck in making it into the competitive world of policiing now a days.  Something called "comradeship" or leadership.

Cheerios.


----------



## McG (5 Aug 2005)

On that note.  Any more personal attacks in this thread will result in a temporary lock & the involved parties receiving verbals.


----------



## S McKee (6 Aug 2005)

It's too bad this has devolved into useless jabs and personnel attacks. It's obvious members are not reading all the posts and are not interested in the facts just flaming each other. The fact is the MP do not require validation from an outside agency i.e. the RCMP (who are not an accredited police service, like the Edmonton Police Service)  to do our job. Just like other trades i.e. the Cbt Arms do not need the validation of the Cbt Arms of let's say the Brits who one could argue have far more war-fighting experience than us, to qualify or give a seal of approval to a CF Infantrymen's training.  To use the argument that we are not real police because we do not do "real police work" (although the people who have stated this haven't given me a definition of what constitutes "real police work") is analogous to me stating your not real infantrymen (sorry for picking on the 031s) because you aren't out killing anyone or involved in big battles.  We are all on the same team, I believe we are all soldiers first (so I have to know the rudimentary skills of an infantrymen, does he/she have to know the rudimentary functions of an MP. No.) Regardless of the personal feelings of members who posted on this to this topic, the MP in their current incarnation are here to stay. In fact as I stated before we now have primary investigative jurisdiction over any and all deaths on DND property. We have our own (civilian trained) forensic ID techs, polygraph operators and the means to call on any outside expertise if so required. We have evolved over the last ten years. I have the utmost respect for all trades in the CF and no one should assume that they have the "inside scoop" on how this one or that one operates until they've walked a mile in their shoes. I'm all open to useful and critical suggestions, however our trade is so much more than the preconceived ideas that many have suggested. Hey I happen to think that one of the most hardest working trades in the CF are the Cooks, (I really got to see those guys and gals in action Kosovo Roto 0) now they deserve spec pay.


----------



## Roy Harding (6 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> .... Hey I happen to think that one of the most hardest working trades in the CF are the Cooks, (I really got to see those guys and gals in action Kosovo Roto 0) now they deserve spec pay.



ABSOLUTELY.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> It's too bad this has devolved into useless jabs and personnel attacks. It's obvious members are not reading all the posts and are not interested in the facts just flaming each other.



Agreed.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> The fact is the MP do not require validation from an outside agency i.e. the RCMP (who are not an accredited police service, like the Edmonton Police Service)  to do our job.



Huh?  Can you expand on this accreditation further?  I'm not sure I'm understanding this (actually I AM sure that I'm NOT understanding this).  What is this accreditation you speak of?  Why isn't the RCMP accredited?


Retired CC


----------



## S McKee (6 Aug 2005)

POLICE PROFESSIONALISM AND ACCREDITATION 

    It is important to distinguish between the word (noun) profession and the word (adjective) professional because it is doubtful if the police will ever become a profession, but they can probably obtain the level of professional policing. The following chart summarizes some of the important distinctions:

Policing as a Profession 
 Professional Policing 

1. an occupation with high social status and prestige (doctors, lawyers, clergy, professors, etc)
2. a specialized, white collar occupation that requires considerable formal education, strict entry standards for membership, a self-generated body of theoretical knowledge, a socially enforced code of ethics, and political autonomy to control its own destiny  1. an occupation consisting of people with special skills who are usually recognized for their non-amateur talents with money (athletes, plumbers, electricians, repairmen)
2. a specialized, any collar occupation with a defined area of expertise, its own professional associations, codes of appropriate conduct, and a sense of customer service (like the service ideal of a profession) 

    Professional organizations tend to indicate their desire to become a profession in various ways. Some of these include: civilianization (a high degree of staff professionalism); a "peer group" control structure (democratic leadership); a relatively flat hierarchy of authority (wide span of control); a low degree of bureaucratic rules and regulations (less paperwork); and incentive systems designed to increase autonomy (research grant opportunities or professional development funds). It is important to think of professional organizations as the opposite of bureaucratic organizations. One of today's biggest social problems is that emerging professions get siderailed by becoming bureaucracies instead of professions (a process that sociologists call the increasing bureaucraticization of professional organizations).

    Accreditation is but one of three (4) ways to achieve recognition of efforts at professionalism. The four ways are: 

licensing - results in a little slip of paper you post in your workplace (barbers, cosmetologists, etc.) 
certification - results in a framed award you post in your office or filing cabinet (social workers, etc.) 
registration - results in your name and some indication of your performance record being kept in a database by a private or public organization (dietitians, chiropractors, etc.) 
accreditation - results in a large, framed certificate you post in your front office (schools, police agencies, etc.) 
    A license is permission to do something that is otherwise forbidden.  Licenses are usually required or mandatory.  The permission is power to engage in some dangerous activity, like use of deadly weapons, tools, or something that has life-and-death implications.  Licenses are always privileges, not rights, bestowed by the government at the federal, state, or local level.  They tend to accomplish restricting entry into a profession quite well. 

    A certificate is a statement or declaration that one has completed a course of study, passed an examination, or met the conditions of some competency-based or skills-based criteria.  A certificate is a private, civil matter based on the idea of right to work.  It is a statement of qualification that is intended to provide the consumer with some information about the professional.  It also allows the professional to advertise or market themself in a competitive marketplace.  Other purposes of certificates are to set standards in emerging professions and to educate the public.

    A registration record is similar to certification.  Database records are kept by private groups such as watchdog foundations or non-profit organizations, and some of the information (like the names of professionals who have been sued) is released to the public.  Other groups, particularly state and federal agencies, who maintain such databases ordinarily do not release information to the public. 

   Accreditation is the receipt of a certificate formally recognizing the agency as conforming to some specific body of regulations and standards. It is also a status awarded to agencies that meet or exceed all requirements of the standard. It is essentially a compliance audit. It is good for five years, then you must get reaccredited. 

    In practice, many agencies (like policing) use a combination of methods. At the completion of basic training at an approved police academy, cadets usually take some sort of state board exam which is their "license" to practice as a police officer. This license (called the BLET certificate in North Carolina or the POST certificate in other states) is generally good in all 50 states and for life. Police agencies do not require re-licensing after a period of service.

    Upon the completion of various in-service training programs (firearms qualification, CPR, investigation skills, VICAP profiling, to become an academy instructor), officers receive certification via a "certificate" that details the number of hours (6 hours-40 hours) of training received. Some certifications, like firearms qualification and CPR, require recertification after a period of service, but most are for life and placed on your resume in hopes that it helps with promotion and/or with articulating for college credit. 

HISTORY OF ACCREDITATION 

    The idea of police agency accreditation began around 1979, and today, about 600 police departments are accredited because they are in compliance with 436 CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.) standards. CALEA is a non-profit organization that started out as an innovative idea conceived by the IACP and funded by a LEAA grant. The CALEA commission is a unique blend of civilians (university professors, business leaders, politicians) and professionals appointed by the executive boards of IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police), NOBLE (National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives), NSA (National Sheriffs Association), and PERF (Police Executive Research Forum).

    Once an agency applies for accreditation, they receive a copy of the standards and must begin a self-assessment study. This internal audit may take a year or more to complete; it is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Policies, procedures, and directives must all be in place and appropriate for an agency of its size. CALEA standards also specify certain kinds of equipment that the agency may have to purchase. Recruitment, selection, training, and termination of personnel are all areas of special importance. Then, once the agency is ready, CALEA agents make a site visit to observe operations, collect and read all the agency's documentation, and try to uncover anything the agency might be hiding or ashamed of. Then, the whole process repeats itself every five years.

    Standards are usually classified as "mandatory", "essential", or "recommended" on the basis of the language used by the writers of the standards. If the standard reads "Agencies must have Crown Victoria vehicles that are no less than a year old", then the must statement makes this standard "mandatory", and there must be 100% compliance. If the standard reads "Agencies should have personnel policies for the hiring of 4-year college graduates", then the should statement makes this standard "recommended", and it is up to the agency whether it wants to meet this standard or not. The reading and classification of standards is more of an art than a science; it is more complex than the simple dichotomy of must and should statements. But, it is often made simple like this to involve employees in the self-assessment part of the process. With regard to compliance, all assessments rate the agency, on any given standard, as being in "full compliance", "partial compliance", or "not in compliance". Agencies are allowed to explain in writing why they are not in compliance or only in partical compliance on some standards, and CALEA makes the final determination by using both quantitiative and qualitative decision-making. 


Benefits of Accreditation: 
 Disadvantages of Accreditation: 

1. Nationwide recognition of desire for professional excellence
2. Increased community understanding and support
3. Elevation of employee confidence, esprit de corps
4. Increased confidence in agency by politicans & gov't officials
5. "State-of-the-art" phrase can be used about the agency
6. Clearly articulated policies and procedures manuals
7. Decreases in insurance premiums
8. Deterrence of liability litigation, lawsuits by citizens
9. Improved communication with other community agencies
10. Access to information about modern law enforcement  

1. Fear that standardization of all police departments may lead to a national police force
2. Some standards set too low or too elastic, and an agency can always say standard goes beyond what local laws or conditions merit
3. Some police chiefs resent the implication that their rules and policies are somehow inferior or not up to par
4. Financial backlash: some politicians may see the agency's ability to get accreditation as the ability to do more with less
5. Resistance: some line officers and unions in particular resent accreditation if it's used as a shield for poor management, demands higher education or advanced technology training, risks job security 

CIVILIANIZATION

    Civilianization (the hiring of civilians to free trained police officers to work in the field) tends to occur as an aspect of movement toward professionalism or occupational differentiation when restructuring goes on in a police department.  Currently, about 22% of municipal police employees are civilians (36% in county-level police agencies).  Civilian police employees are allowed to dress as civilians, and there are never any expectations that they dress up as mock officers (with insignia or rank).  

    The practice of "farming out" sworn police jobs to nonsworn personnel saves money and frees up sworn personnel for other duties.  Civilianization has been an integral part of the community policing movement from the beginning.  Proponents of the idea, such as Guyot and Klockars, say it makes police departments more flexible.  Evidence bureaus and Public Relations units tend to be the two areas that are civilianizing the most.  Unfortunately, the spotty record of police agencies on civilianization is due in large part to the practices of using uneducated civilians and/or viewing desk jobs as the kinds of places appropriate for sworn officers who are relieved of their regular duties for whatever reason.

There are several Canadian Police Forces that have gone through this process, they will dosplay the CALEA accreditation sticker on their police vehicles. This is a highly sought after achievement.


----------



## Roy Harding (6 Aug 2005)

Thanks, Jumper.

Can you post the link to the source?  I have a feeling that there may be more discussion on the subject.

You've certainly given us something to chew on - once I've digested it, I'll probably have more to add.


----------



## McG (7 Aug 2005)

> The CALEA commission is a unique blend of civilians (university professors, business leaders, politicians) and professionals appointed by the executive boards of IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police), NOBLE (National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives), NSA (National Sheriffs Association), and PERF (Police Executive Research Forum).


The accreditation authority of a profession is typically apolitical (mind you, most professions also have a politicised organization, which remains divorced from the accreditation process and which members may opt to join).  While I appreciate your effort to emphasise the police as professionals and not members of a profession, I do not hold any stock in accreditation given by a commercially & politically motivated commission (which the make-up of CALEA appears to be).



> "Agencies must have Crown Victoria vehicles that are no less than a year old"


I certainly hope this is not a real example of a requirement.  It may as well simply state that the requirement is for police agencies to financially back specific commercial enterprises.  This is hardly professional.



> Professional organizations tend to indicate their desire to become a profession in various ways. Some of these include: Civilianization (a high degree of staff professionalism);


This seems ludicrous.  Was this qualifier invented by CALEA in order to validate its policy of civilianization?  Aside from the police & the military, what non-civilian organization is out there that can claim to have put itself though "civilianization?"


----------



## S McKee (7 Aug 2005)

> [author=MCG link=topic=29313/post-249297#msg249297 date=1123385642]
> The accreditation authority of a profession is typically apolitical (mind you, most professions also have a politicised organization, which remains divorced from the accreditation process and which members may opt to join).   While I appreciate your effort to emphasise the police as professionals and not members of a profession, I do not hold any stock in accreditation given by a commercially & politically motivated commission (which the make-up of CALEA appears to be).



I'm not quite sure why you believe CALEA is a commercially and politically motivated organization? Anyway the International Association of Chiefs of Police as does the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (of which the MP belong) do make political statements; however they are usually to raise awareness of issues concerning the police community at large and law enforcement trends and provide information to governments. 



> I certainly hope this is not a real example of a requirement.   It may as well simply state that the requirement is for police agencies to financially back specific commercial enterprises.   This is hardly professional.



I think if you were to read the post again this was given as an example. Having said that, the Crown Victoria (police package version) is the standard for police vehicles both in Canada and the US. Services used to rotate between the big three, GM, Ford, and Chrysler however, GM and Chrysler stopped making police orientated vehicles some time ago. 



> This seems ludicrous.   Was this qualifier invented by CALEA in order to validate its policy of civilianization?   Aside from the police & the military, what non-civilian organization is out there that can claim to have put itself though "civilianization?"



You should find out all the information at http://www.calea.org/. If you look on the 2005 board of directors there is a Canadian (Ex Chief of Police for Lethbridge). Anyway as I stated before this is a highly sought after accreditation for civilian police forces and it is voluntary. A CALEA accreditation would not really be appropriate for the MP, allthough there was a rumor us going through the process a few years back.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure why you believe CALEA is a commercially motivated commission and politically motivated organization.
> 
> I think if you were to read the post again this was given as an example. Having said that Crown Victorias (police package version) are the standard for police vehicles both in Canada and the US. Services used to rotate between the big three, GM, Ford, and Chryster, however, GM and Chryster stopped making police oreintated vehicles some time ago.



DaimlerChrysler has re-entered the Police market with the Charger.


----------



## S McKee (7 Aug 2005)

If it where to be acceptable as a police vehicle it would have to go through a trial process, I don't know if DC has a police market in mind for this vehicle because it would require a different wiring package/ suspension etc. A few year back Volvo tried to squeeze in on the market we had a nice Volvo at the Guardhouse, although it spent more time in the shop than on the road.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Aug 2005)

It's already being trialed, here in Windsor. Wiring and police packages aren't a problem, they've been in this game before.   The biggest complaint so far seems to be, is that it may be to powerful for a regular patrol vehicle. ;D


----------



## GO!!! (7 Aug 2005)

Hehehe - cops driving a "Charge-r"


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure why you believe CALEA is a commercially and politically motivated organization? Anyway the International Association of Chiefs of Police as does the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (of which the MP belong) do make political statements; however they are usually to raise awareness of issues concerning the police community at large and law enforcement trends and provide information to governments.


Those political statements are exactly the thing that should not be coming from a proffesional acreditation board or any organization it is responsible to.


----------



## S McKee (8 Aug 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's already being trialed, here in Windsor. Wiring and police packages aren't a problem, they've been in this game before.    The biggest complaint so far seems to be, is that it may be to powerful for a regular patrol vehicle. ;D



I'm all for more power.


----------



## S McKee (8 Aug 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Those political statements are exactly the thing that should not be coming from a proffesional acreditation board or any organization it is responsible to.



Again I'm not quite sure what your driving at? I don't believe CALEA makes political statements nor do any of the organizations that support CALEA like the IACP make any statements on it's behalf, as they are a separate entities with their own agendas etc. Let's be clear; The IACP (which is a reputable organization)along with other police organizations/ associations merely support the accreditation process. The statements made by the IACP or the CACP aren't any different than the ON College of Physicians making a statement about the dangers of smoking etc. hardly radical political activism.


----------



## canadianblue (26 Aug 2005)

I've been reading through the past pages of this thread and noticed that alot of members think that with the RCMP their bases will have more with less. I don't think this is true at all, while I have little military experience, I have made observations both as a civilian, and as a volunteer with Edmonton Police Service. First things first, it doesn't matter which police service it is criminals will sometimes get away on technicalities, its happened out in my area. As well if anybody here thinks that the RCMP will give their bases better service I very much doubt this. The reason why is simple, in my area the RCMP are stretched thin, and bogged down with paperwork. Sometimes RCMP members can take hours to respond to a call. While my brother was a firefighter, the RCMP would often be unable to show up to call's of service, etc. While their have been complaints about the MP's on here, and many are valid, I think that the bases probably are safer with the police presence then lets say a town with the same size. I think that instead of getting rid of the MP's entirely, find a new way of training so that they can ensure that high standard that many of you look for in your police officers, this will give your community a better chance to use the resources at hand, as well as have a high standard of policing many communities would die for. 

Once again just the opinion of a soon to be recruit in the CF.


----------



## McG (26 Aug 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I've been reading through the past pages of this thread and noticed that alot of members think that with the RCMP their bases will have more with less.


I don't think so.  I think a lot of members want a 1 for 1 switch (ie: better with the same number).  A base MP Pl would be replaced by a base RCMP det of the same size.


----------



## canadianblue (26 Aug 2005)

> I've been reading through the past pages of this thread and noticed that alot of members think that with the RCMP their bases will have more with less.
> I don't think so.   I think a lot of members want a 1 for 1 switch (ie: better with the same number).   A base MP Pl would be replaced by a base RCMP det of the same size.



I can see that, but with the current situation the RCMP is facing would it work. I can see perhaps municipal services taking over the police work on military bases, for example Edmonton Police Service taking over CFB Edmonton. As well don't other countries have civilian LE Agencies which oversea the policing aspect of the military such as in the United States and Great Britian. Would that perhaps work better??? As well the MP's are I think that 7th largest police force in the country, that would be alot of bodies to fill.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2005)

Futuretrooper

I don't know where you got your info on the US and UK, but both have large Military Police forces.  British Red Caps are well known as are the humungous MP Bns in the US.  Funny how we get by on only having MP Pls.


----------



## canadianblue (26 Aug 2005)

My mistake, I thought that they were starting to get more civilian's to do policework for their militaries. A question though, how do they compare in relation to law enforcement on bases???


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> A question though, how do they compare in relation to law enforcement on bases???



It is outside my lanes to comment on law enforcement in other nations militaries......but then you question does not make any sense either......compared to what?.


----------



## canadianblue (26 Aug 2005)

What I meant was how do the MP's here in Canada, compare to their counterparts in Great Britian, Australia, and the United States. I am unknowledgable on the topic which is why I'm asking about it as it hasn't been brought before on this forum from what I've read.


----------



## McG (28 Aug 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I can see that, but with the current situation the RCMP is facing would it work.  ...  As well the MP's are I think that 7th largest police force in the country, that would be alot of bodies to fill.


I'm sure if a force transfer program were offered, some (many?) MPs would be willing to transfer to the RCMP, complete a "delta" trg package at the depot, and then be dispursed through the force.


----------



## canadianblue (28 Aug 2005)

That's a good idea. Maybe putting the MP's in for example a new Division that would work on CF Bases around the country and the world.


----------



## GO!!! (28 Aug 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> I'm sure if a force transfer program were offered, some (many?) MPs would be willing to transfer to the RCMP, complete a "delta" trg package at the depot, and then be dispursed through the force.



This is under the assumption of course that many MPs would meet the RCMP entrance standards, and be able to pass an RCMP course.


----------



## canadianblue (29 Aug 2005)

Of course, however from what many have told me for physical standards the RCMP isn't extremely tough [PARE]. As for other standards such as the RPAT, I think it would be harder to make the switch as many know that the test standards vary in each division. What could be a pass in Alberta could be a fail in Ontario. As well to the best of my knowledge MP's could and should be able to pass Depot with little problems as they have the necessary training.


----------



## GO!!! (29 Aug 2005)

By reading the rest of this and other threads on the topic of the MPs, you will find out that the entrance standards are lower, and that the MP's do not study the same material as the RCMP. In addition to this, for many aspiring LE candidates, the MPs are the employer of last resort, having been turned down by municipal and national forces before. 

The MP trade was never intended to do police work. MP duties include the guarding and handling of PWs, route marking and security and base security. The  efforts that have been made to make the MPs into actual police officers have been somewhat un successful, leading to the creation of this forum in the first place!

In short, the MPs may wish to become RCMP, but I doubt the Mounties want them!


----------



## canadianblue (29 Aug 2005)

I don't believe so, I've heard some applicants to municipal police forces say that the RCMP is a last chance police force. As well some of us that are interested in the MP's are so because we would like the chance to become part of the military as well as law enforcement. I was involved with a youth program to get more young people interested in Law Enforcement, and we had a presentation from CFNIS. In short some services do in fact will give MP's a lateral transfer. Whenever I've talked to recruiters at EPS they have said they have just as much respect for the job an MP does as they do any other police officer in Canada.


----------



## FastEddy (29 Aug 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> By reading the rest of this and other threads on the topic of the MPs, you will find out that the entrance standards are lower, and that the MP's do not study the same material as the RCMP. In addition to this, for many aspiring LE candidates, the MPs are the employer of last resort, having been turned down by municipal and national forces before.
> 
> The MP trade was never intended to do police work. MP duties include the guarding and handling of PWs, route marking and security and base security. The   efforts that have been made to make the MPs into actual police officers have been somewhat un successful, leading to the creation of this forum in the first place!
> 
> In short, the MPs may wish to become RCMP, but I doubt the Mounties want them!




I don't know ! but you seem to protest too much, the first thought that comes to mind, is SOUR GRAPES.


----------



## garb811 (29 Aug 2005)

GO!, it is quite obvious you have a hate on for MPs, and you have some firmly entrenched misconceptions about the trade which you are unwilling to drop no matter what facts are presented to you.   This is understandable as I have no doubt there are many out there who still subscribe to the stereotype of the infantryman being an uneducated heathen for whom the Army is the employer of last resort after the EI has run out.   Even though I know this is not the case, it never ceases to amaze me how hard some posters try to prove otherwise.

Contrary to your mistaken interpretation of why this sub-forum was created, it happened because I requested it as a means to consolidate the MP threads and to provide a location for those interested in the Branch to ask questions and discuss various aspects of my trade.   What I fail to understand is why you have decided that this is a forum where you can troll and post misleading and/or outright wrong information with impunity.   If an MP were to go into the Infantry forum and start debating the effectiveness of the training and experience levels of CF infantry simply on the basis of "from what they heard", "from what they read", "from what they saw in a movie", the results would be quite predictable and if they kept at it, they would make their way through the warning system very quickly.   

As is pointed out to everyone else, anyone can come here and read what is posted and a casual reader has no way of filtering out what is fact and what is fiction so posters are required to only post information that they know is factual unless the thread is clearly "opinion" in nature.   Unless you are willing to actually do some research and start backing up your statements with hard facts and references, please stay in your lane and cease with the disinformation campaign.


----------



## Cyr (29 Aug 2005)

I totally agree with you on what you have to say MP 00161.


----------



## MILPO (29 Aug 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> By reading the rest of this and other threads on the topic of the MPs, you will find out that the entrance standards are lower, and that the MP's do not study the same material as the RCMP. In addition to this, for many aspiring LE candidates, the MPs are the employer of last resort, having been turned down by municipal and national forces before.
> 
> The MP trade was never intended to do police work. MP duties include the guarding and handling of PWs, route marking and security and base security. The  efforts that have been made to make the MPs into actual police officers have been somewhat un successful, leading to the creation of this forum in the first place!
> 
> In short, the MPs may wish to become RCMP, but I doubt the Mounties want them!



Buddy, where do you get your info from?  The MP's were created to police the military but i'm sure you knew that.  It all started with the Naval Shore Patrol then slowly filtered out to include the Royal Canadian Air Force Police, and the CproC.  They combined sometime later to become the Canadian Forces Military POLICE. I somehow doubt that they put the Police word in there for shits and giggles.  The entrance standards are as tough as any police process, as you may already know..  People get turned down from civi forces all the time and get picked up by civi forces just as quickly.  There's nothing wrong with the training considering it is a higher standard than any police service in Canada and unlike you, I and many others have the facts and experience to back that up.  
Personally, I wouldn't slightly consider joining a police service that doesn't pay their recruits for training. Maybe someday you'll remuster and change your mind   :dontpanic:

I find it amusing you say that the entrance standards are lower considering the MP's are one of the only police services in Canada that actually REQUIRE college/university education related to policing i.e. Police Foundations, Law and security, criminology and have a three day assessment program along with going through basic training.  Most police services have a high school requirement only and train you for a maximum of 3 months for some police colleges.  But if you feel safer having a university graduate with a doctorate in Modern Art or Opthmaology policing your streets in civi land, then by all means fill your boots...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Aug 2005)

Quote from GO!!,
_By reading the rest of this and other threads on the topic of the MPs, you will find out that the entrance standards are lower, and that the MP's do not study the same material as the RCMP. In addition to this, for many aspiring LE candidates, the MPs are the employer of last resort, having been turned down by municipal and national forces before. 

The MP trade was never intended to do police work. MP duties include the guarding and handling of PWs, route marking and security and base security. The  efforts that have been made to make the MPs into actual police officers have been somewhat un successful, leading to the creation of this forum in the first place!

In short, the MPs may wish to become RCMP, but I doubt the Mounties want them! _ 

MODERATOR NOTE: GO!!...unless you have some "facts" to back these assumptions up then I suggest you stay in your lane. Consider this a warning.
Bruce


----------



## GO!!! (30 Aug 2005)

It's also interesting how many well thought out suggestions as to the alternative service delivery, the service that MPs provide, anecdotal evidence and documented facts you manage to dismiss under the aegis of "an isolated incident" or "not all MPs are like that".

The requirement for a police foundations certificate was an easy way around the dropping of the requirement of previous service, to prevent the qualification of 17 year old MPs.

Just ask yourselves, "why are we, as a trade, scoffed at by 50 thousand other members?" Because of your high level of training or competence? It's the same reason I've beaten three of your tickets in court, the same reason DUIs on the base so often go unpunished, the same reason one troop crashed his SUV, filled with stolen weapon components while drunk and high, and only get a 129 to stick  - YOU WERE WRONG!!!  

Anyway, keep up the great work. 

<slams door, leaves thread>


----------



## Dissident (30 Aug 2005)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## S McKee (30 Aug 2005)

GO!! The Military Police Compliants Commission will be holding an open forum at the LTF in Edm on the 9th Sep at 1400 hrs, maybe you should attend and air your concerns.


----------



## MILPO (3 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> It's also interesting how many well thought out suggestions as to the alternative service delivery, the service that MPs provide, anecdotal evidence and documented facts you manage to dismiss under the aegis of "an isolated incident" or "not all MPs are like that".
> 
> The requirement for a police foundations certificate was an easy way around the dropping of the requirement of previous service, to prevent the qualification of 17 year old MPs.
> 
> ...



Many people do not respect any type of authority when they are caught doing something wrong and will try to take the emphasis off themselves by attempting to make their crime or situation look like the fault of somebody else.  Accept responsibility for your actions, you stated that you have had quite a few run ins with the MP's so I consider your opinion biased and tainted.  Tickets get beat in civi land as well...  I call bs on your three tickets though.  And unless you're at every base and there to witness every DUI that happens on every base, then you couldn't reliably give me the statistics could you and expect anyone here to believe that unfound statement?


----------



## cdnbravery (19 Aug 2006)

Should the military police be considered equal and empowered like any other law enforcement in Canada, like local police, OPP, RCMP, etc. when they are not on any CF base or other CF property?  ....In my opionion, with the shrinking numbers of man power in almost every section of law enforcement and the growing population with it's growing problems, and all the other situaions,  I say WHY NOT! If these guys are trained officers then there are certainly specifique duties that they can perform...Right now we need all the intelligent law enforcers we can use...The debate is opened in this forum...


----------



## kincanucks (19 Aug 2006)

This has been discussed before.  Do a search or read the MP threads.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (20 Aug 2006)

I could be wrong... but don't MPs out of the Academy have "Peace Officer" status?

I know here in Halifax, they partake in op's like when the HRM police and RCMP do spot-checks on the bridges for MV infractions...cause it was in the local news.

MPs correct me if I am wrong...

Mud


----------



## Shamrock (20 Aug 2006)

Though I'm not an MP, I'll try to confirm Mud Recce Man's Peace Officer status

Criminal Code of Canada, Section 2, Definitions:
     “peace officer” includes 
          ( g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are
               (i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or
               (ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers.

National Defence Act
            PART III: CODE OF SERVICE DISCIPLINE
               DIVISION 3: ARREST AND PRE-TRIAL CUSTODY
                  Authority to Arrest
Powers of military police
 156. Officers and non-commissioned members who are appointed as military police under regulations for the purposes of this section may

(a) detain or arrest without a warrant any person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline, regardless of the person’s rank or status, who has committed, is found committing, is believed on reasonable grounds to be about to commit or to have committed a service offence or who is charged with having committed a service offence; and

(b) exercise such other powers for carrying out the Code of Service Discipline as are prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 156; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), ss. 49, 60; 1998, c. 35, s. 41.



As Peace Officers, they have authority under Criminal Code of Canada Section 495
Criminal Code
            PART XVI: COMPELLING APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED BEFORE A JUSTICE AND INTERIM RELEASE
               Arrest without Warrant and Release from Custody
Arrest without warrant by peace officer
 495. (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence;

(b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or

(c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.

Limitation
 (2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for

(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553,

(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or

(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,

in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the person,

(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or

(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

Consequences of arrest without warrant
 (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a peace officer acting under subsection (1) is deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of

(a) any proceedings under this or any other Act of Parliament; and

(b) any other proceedings, unless in any such proceedings it is alleged and established by the person making the allegation that the peace officer did not comply with the requirements of subsection (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 495; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 75.


----------



## Shamrock (20 Aug 2006)

It's legalese for "Yes, MP's are peace officers." There's more, such as the MP's right to ticket your sorry speeding ass, etc. but I think you get the idea.


----------



## paperworkletdown (17 Nov 2007)

I have look pretty much everywhere to find the answer to this. Does the military police patrol and respond to calls at the PMQs. Not sure but i heard that at some bases they do and some not, anyone know the answer.?


----------



## FastEddy (17 Nov 2007)

paperworkletdown said:
			
		

> I have look pretty much everywhere to find the answer to this. Does the military police patrol and respond to calls at the PMQs. Not sure but i heard that at some bases they do and some not, anyone know the answer.?




During the 5o's in Germany  & Borden the later also which had a RCMP presence we did, and that was quiet interesting to say the least.

But with the present day Reg's, who can't, who should, only Regular, no Reserve etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, and the way the Branch seems to be Ham Strung at every turn, your guess is as good as mine. Only current MP Personnel can effectively answere that.

Cheers.


----------



## RHC_2_MP (17 Nov 2007)

Well, it depends on the base really, from coast to coast certian bases have given up thier Q's to civilian police forces completely, other bases will police certian patches and turn over jurisdiction in others.  I have heard that Gagetown's PMQs are all in the RCMP jurisdiction now because of a contract the CF signed while they were doing the big downsizing a while back and the RCs won't return them.  Also Winnipeg MPs don't have any PMQs in their juisdiction, i don't beleive.  For certian i know, Borden, Esquimalt, Edmonton, Wainwright, Kingston, Trenton do for sure.  Hope that helps.


----------



## navymich (17 Nov 2007)

This question was brought up at a recent meeting at CFB North Bay where they are trying to implement a Neighbourhood Watch program.  There were reps from both the MPs and the local police.  The Q's here fall under the MPs but the roads around the Q's are local police.  However, everyone was told that if something happened and you weren't sure who to call, just to call one or the other and it would be passed over correctly.


----------



## Franko (17 Nov 2007)

In Pet the MPs have jurisdiction....they're just never around when guys are racing, fighting in the streets.

They do the odd patrol, but it's never a 24/7 presence. They do respond to domestic disturbances in the PMQs.

Regards


----------



## navymich (17 Nov 2007)

I really noticed a difference after moving from Esquimalt.  In Belmont Park, there seemed to always be an MP patrolling.  Speeders/racers/annoying teens were at a bare minimum, and any situation that did occur was resolved quickly.  Here in the Bay, I do see MPs around, but it seems much like RBD said above, odd patrol and not 24/7 presence.  The speeders are the worse, especially down the "main" street of the Q's which is also another route off the base.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Nov 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> In Pet the MPs have jurisdiction....they're just never around when guys are racing, fighting in the streets.
> 
> They do the odd patrol, but it's never a 24/7 presence.



One time, when I was living in Pet, I drove to Chalk River to Ryan's camp ground.  An MP car followed me the whole way.  Wonder if they have any jurisdiction out there?
I just thought that it was no wonder you didn't see them on base if they were driving that far for nothing.  Maybe they were just putting some "highway miles" on the vehicle.   :


----------



## missing1 (17 Nov 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> One time, when I was living in Pet, I drove to Chalk River to Ryan's camp ground.  An MP car followed me the whole way.  Wonder if they have any jurisdiction out there?
> I just thought that it was no wonder you didn't see them on base if they were driving that far for nothing.  Maybe they were just putting some "highway miles" on the vehicle.   :



Did you ever pause to think he had little or no interest in you but had to see or do something in Chalk River.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Nov 2007)

I didn't mean to infer that he was following me in particular and if he had something to do in Chalk, I don't know.  I just know that at a point past town, he pulled a U-turn and headed back in the other direction.


----------



## garb811 (17 Nov 2007)

This question is a little complicated:

If the PMQs are built on a DND establishment, the MPs are the sole authority.

If the PMQs are leased or built on land which is leased, the roads are the jurisdiction of the civilian police while the leased land and PMQ proper are the jurisdiction of the MPs.

If a road running through the base is designated as a Provincial Highway then the jurisdicion is with the civilian police.

Local MPs and Base Commanders do not have the authourity to enter into any agreements to either waive or assume jurisdiction, this has to happen at the National level, a former Grn MPO in Gagetown learned that the hard way not too long ago.  What happened in some places, such as Gagetown, Edmonton, Suffield etc, was that local agreements that had been in place for years were voided upon review by NDHQ and MPs ceased patrolling areas they never officially had jurisdiction of in the first place.  My understanding is at least some of these are being re-negotiated but it is a long, slow process.

For those who are unsatisfied about the coverage you are receiving in your PMQs where the MPs are the ones who should be patrolling there, contact the Guardhouse and ask to speak to the NCO ic Pol Ops and let them know.  They should either sort it out or let you know what the problem is.  I'll admit, it seems kind of strange that the young MPs aren't all over issues such as that, since it's the "cop stuff" most joined to do...

Edit:  _Grammar_


----------



## QV (18 Nov 2007)

Short manning and a high op tempo plague most MP dets.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Nov 2007)

Here's my unpopular 2 cents:

Strip them MPs of their credentials.  Hire the RCMP to police the PMQ patch.  Restore the M in the MP to its proper prominence.

And replace the NIS with an RCMP det that's fully outside the CF chain of command.

Oh, and lose the black "wanna be OPP" uniform, while we're at it...


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Nov 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's my unpopular 2 cents:
> 
> Strip them MPs of their credentials.  Hire the RCMP to police the PMQ patch.  Restore the M in the MP to its proper prominence.
> 
> ...



dapaterson, if you have points to make about what you think of current MP status / role validity, perhaps a less antagonistic tone would be a better tact...that or at the very least, back up your statements with reasoned arguments.  Anything less is coming across as trolling.

Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Lumber (18 Nov 2007)

I don't think I can make sense of or agree with  all the legal intricacies, so I'm going to tackle the logistical ones. From the two bases I've had the time to get to know, at least a litte, (CFB Kingston and Borden), I've noticed that the bases, and more so the PMQ "patches", are someone out of the way from the local town. Now, if I remember correctly, Borden's PMQ's were like a closed in survey, connected internally to the base, so I'm assuming the MPs would have full jurisdiction there, right? Well in Kingston, the PMQs are actually just off base (atleast I think its 'off' base), built right next to a highway and roads that enter and exit off that highway. Even if the land is still actually DND land, the roads definitely seem to be local gov. owned (again, correct me here). Further, CFB Kingston is well segregated from most of the rest of Kingston, with only a single two lane highway connecting CFB Kingston and RMC to Kingston major. If the roads around the PMQs are suppose to be the jurisdiction of the local gov. (and lets assume for the moment they are), then wouldn't it be easier to just hand over jurisdiction to the MPs, who with their closer proximity could more readily provide patrols, security, responses and whatever else it is that police do? Why all the fuss about who's got what jurisdiction. Aren't MPs and local police all just trying to "serve and protect"?


----------



## navymich (18 Nov 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Why all the fuss about who's got what jurisdiction. Aren't MPs and local police all just trying to "serve and protect"?



If I understand the situation in North Bay correctly (MPs/Q's and local/roads etc), it started out with road maintenance (ie. snow removal etc).  In the city taking over that aspect, they then took over the whole jurisdiction of the roadways themselves including the maintenance of them.  CFB North Bay is a fair distance from city centre, almost a town on it's own, and that is why I suspect that you don't see many local police actively patrolling.  I don't know all of the details as to why the base doesn't take it back, or take care of it's own roads etc.  It could be because of funding or lack of personnel.  I know that many of the residents of the Q's would like to see it given back over to the base.


----------



## FastEddy (19 Nov 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> In Pet the MPs have jurisdiction....they're just never around when guys are racing, fighting in the streets.
> 
> They do the odd patrol, but it's never a 24/7 presence. They do respond to domestic disturbances in the PMQs.
> 
> Regards




That's probally very true, however it doesent say very much for the Residents or Troops at Petawawa.

And as for the 24/7, believe me there can be some very, very good reasons for that !,

Cheers.


----------



## Shamrock (19 Nov 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't think I can make sense of or agree with  all the legal intricacies, so I'm going to tackle the logistical ones. From the two bases I've had the time to get to know, at least a litte, (CFB Kingston and Borden), I've noticed that the bases, and more so the PMQ "patches", are someone out of the way from the local town. Now, if I remember correctly, Borden's PMQ's were like a closed in survey, connected internally to the base, so I'm assuming the MPs would have full jurisdiction there, right? Well in Kingston, the PMQs are actually just off base (atleast I think its 'off' base), built right next to a highway and roads that enter and exit off that highway. Even if the land is still actually DND land, the roads definitely seem to be local gov. owned (again, correct me here). Further, CFB Kingston is well segregated from most of the rest of Kingston, with only a single two lane highway connecting CFB Kingston and RMC to Kingston major. If the roads around the PMQs are suppose to be the jurisdiction of the local gov. (and lets assume for the moment they are), then wouldn't it be easier to just hand over jurisdiction to the MPs, who with their closer proximity could more readily provide patrols, security, responses and whatever else it is that police do? Why all the fuss about who's got what jurisdiction. Aren't MPs and local police all just trying to "serve and protect"?



That highway is frequently patrolled by KPF and OPP -- the city extends further east and north of the base.  The PMQ's are on base and MP's often have a visible presence there (read, parked up the hill from the Canex).  The road leading to Fort Henry is under Parks Canada jurisdiction; however, the MP's will use it as an alternate route to RMC.  Kingston MPs are also responsible for the armouries downtown, Fort Frontenac, and the Brockville armouries.


----------



## The_Falcon (19 Nov 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Why all the fuss about who's got what jurisdiction. Aren't MPs and local police all just trying to "serve and protect"?



Because if you don't have proper jurisdiction, then you may not have the proper authority to make arrests/lay charges, and that can lead to all sorts of problems, charges being voided, civil suits etc.


----------



## FastEddy (20 Nov 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's my unpopular 2 cents:
> 
> Strip them MPs of their credentials.  Hire the RCMP to police the PMQ patch.  Restore the M in the MP to its proper prominence.
> 
> ...




Boy ! if I ever heard a statement from a person with a axe to grind, the above sure fits the bill. ( I wonder why ??) 

Some how I get the impression that you wouldn't be satisfied with what ever sort of LE Agency was in place.

As for your unpopular 2 Cents, it isn't, its Unqualified.

Have a Nice Day and Buckle Up.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Nov 2007)

I suppose I should know better than to post after a long irritating day, or at least to provide some context if I'm going to be particularly contrary...

My comments, rounded out, in reverse order...



> Oh, and lose the black "wanna be OPP" uniform, while we're at it...


"Uniform" means just that - everyone the same.  Different dress does breed divisions; if there is a desperate need for a garrison dress for MPs make it similar to extant CF uniforms - to remind both the CF population at large and the MPs that they are all part of the same team.



> And replace the NIS with an RCMP det that's fully outside the CF chain of command.



As long as there is potential chain of command involvement in investigations there is potential chain of command interference.  Not a good thing.  In addition, the MP population is small enough ,with significant churn in the lower ranks, that building the requisite depth of competence for the requisite investigative skills is a problem, particularly since the military posts on a regular cycle - most civilian LEAs have long-serving officers engaged in sensitive and complex investigations, not the steady churn the military provides.

Some would argue that this could be avoided by extending tours at the NIS; I'd oppose that (and initiatives to extend tours in other occupations as well) as eroding the experiential pillar needed for professional development - a good military has a small nucleus of specialists, but most should be generalists within their trade.



> Strip them MPs of their credentials.  Hire the RCMP to police the PMQ patch.  Restore the M in the MP to its proper prominence.



I have never seen any adequate justification for all MPs to be credentialed peace officers.  Domestic policing is not a military function, and it can be readily contracted out, freeing up some of the limited military PYs we have available to meet other military requirements.  Vital point security?  Yes, a valid role for the MP.  Route marking?  Another valid role (that modern MPs don't care to do).  Care of PWs?  Yet another fine task for MPs.

We have now an MP branch whose focus is almost exclusively on the policing aspect of their job.  What's needed is a renewed emphasis on the combat service support aspect of their job.

Or, to put it in its most basic form:

Are they cops, or are they soldiers?  They can't be both.


----------



## Lumber (20 Nov 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Different dress does breed divisions; if there is a desperate need for a garrison dress for MPs make it similar to extant CF uniforms - to remind both the CF population at large and the MPs that they are all part of the same team.
> 
> Are they cops, or are they soldiers?  They can't be both.



I can't recall if it was my PL commander or PL 2ic on BOTP this summer, but whichever it was, they outlined to me what they perceived as a growing issue with MPs forgetting that they are soldiers. He said that the CF has been enrolling new recruits as MPs who have had previous experience in law enforcement, and that this gave them a greater attitude of "I'm the law" you do what _*I*_ say. Apparently on one occasion, a couple MPs actually walked right into the CFLRS CO's office without showing proper respects, to have a chat with the LCol. He reminded me that, of course, this isn't all MPs, but that it seemed to be a growing trend, at least amongst those he worked around. 

I have to agree with dapaterson that, if indeed MPs are having an issue realizing that they are infact soldiers first, then a similar uniform to the rest of the CF may be an reasonable solution. I mean, isn't the red berret a dead enough give away?


----------



## lawandorder (21 Nov 2007)

Well since the RCMP are hard up for members themselves I doubt they'd be able to provide the needed members for the job.  If the RCMP ran the show you probably wouldn't see 2-3 MPs on patrol per shift, but 2-3 MP's per det period.

As for the credentials, its rather hard to lay criminal charges on the Criminal Code of Canada if you're not a credited Peace Officer.

The black uniforms help distinguish the MP's as POLICE.  While MP's are on patrol that's very much what they are, POLICE.  It aids people on the base to easily pick, aids civilians who may be on base to distinguish the police from everyone else and can aids in allowing civilian police agencies to relate to the MPs.

As to say MPs can't be soldiers and Cops i'd disagree.  If by Soldiering you mean the "field" side of the trade the people I have worked with know their stuff.  The "Cop" MP's I have worked with also seem to know their stuff.  MP's can be both.  Yes the branch is having some issues with that but that is going to be changing fairly soon.

So the MP's can Police the PMQ's then switch their hat for a Helmet and be a soldier ready to "route sign" as some people seem to believe is the more appropriate task for them to do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> So the MP's can Police the PMQ's then switch their hat for a Helmet *and be a soldier ready to "route sign" as some people seem to believe is the more appropriate task for them to do*.



When was the last time you saw the MPs, with a dog house on their vehicle, stapling the suits of cards on phone poles in Ontario? I haven't seen a route sign for about five or six years. Matter of fact, it was about the time they got all those specialized Milcot trucks. Now everything is free runner or Unit designated packets and routes.


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When was the last time you saw the MPs, with a dog house on their vehicle, stapling the suits of cards on phone poles in Ontario? I haven't seen a route sign for about five or six years. Matter of fact, it was about the time they got all those specialized Milcot trucks. Now everything is free runner or Unit designated packets and routes.



I have seen route markers recently (last couple of months), can't recall exactly were but it was somewhere in York/Peel Region.  I have actually seen quite a few in the last 5 or 6 years, but granted it wasn't until maybe 3-4 years ago, I learned what the heck those playing card symbols I randomly saw on the road were.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When was the last time you saw the MPs, with a dog house on their vehicle, stapling the suits of cards on phone poles in Ontario? I haven't seen a route sign for about five or six years. Matter of fact, it was about the time they got all those specialized Milcot trucks. Now everything is free runner or Unit designated packets and routes.



Well, I have worked with them in the Regt, and have done the Route Signing for some major moves.  It is still done.  Now, there is also the fact that not only do they do the Route Signing, but they are also SUPPOSED to follow up behind the last packet and remove all those signs.  It makes for a very long day, if you are doing both the Signing and Removing along a route.


----------



## lawandorder (21 Nov 2007)

I was trying to be sarcastic, it was in reference to a previous post.   But route signing, right now, is done for admin routes on base, and domestic road moves, from my understanding anyways.


----------



## QV (23 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *When was the last time you saw the MPs, with a dog house on their vehicle, stapling the suits of cards on phone poles in Ontario?* I haven't seen a route sign for about five or six years. Matter of fact, it was about the time they got all those specialized Milcot trucks. Now everything is free runner or Unit designated packets and routes.



Yup, and hopefully never again.  Route signing is carried over from post WWII Germany as a way of quickly funnelling troops to the front in the event of a Soviet invasion.  It is not exactly practical in the new war on terror.  As for local admin moves back in Canada? ... a gps or a map comes to mind ...


----------



## Emenince Grise (23 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When was the last time you saw the MPs, with a dog house on their vehicle, stapling the suits of cards on phone poles in Ontario? I haven't seen a route sign for about five or six years. Matter of fact, it was about the time they got all those specialized Milcot trucks. Now everything is free runner or Unit designated packets and routes.



We see them on the roads around Owen Sound and Meaford all the time. More frequently in the summer.


----------



## chrisf (23 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When was the last time you saw the MPs, with a dog house on their vehicle, stapling the suits of cards on phone poles in Ontario? I haven't seen a route sign for about five or six years. Matter of fact, it was about the time they got all those specialized Milcot trucks. Now everything is free runner or Unit designated packets and routes.



Road move to ARCON in 2005. We were following club route if I remember right, and the service batallion/infantry were following maple leaf route. The MPs were waiting in Gagetown to wave us in through a back gate as well.


----------



## MP 811 (20 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suppose I should know better than to post after a long irritating day, or at least to provide some context if I'm going to be particularly contrary...
> 
> My comments, rounded out, in reverse order...
> "Uniform" means just that - everyone the same.  Different dress does breed divisions; if there is a desperate need for a garrison dress for MPs make it similar to extant CF uniforms - to remind both the CF population at large and the MPs that they are all part of the same team.



Just to jump in here late on this issue.  The reason why the Occupational Patrol Dress came out for the MP's is that quite simply, so civilians could identify the MP's from the rest of the bunch.  Any switched on troop can see a beret with the thunderbird on it and know that he/she's an MP, but when your all in relish wearing different modes of headress, the average civy cant make out who's who in the jungle.

As bases are open and the military generally has more civilians working on base, there was a need to establish a way to indentify MP's to the average civilian.  The uniforms provide said civilians with an ability to "recognize" the MP's....hence the OPD.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2007)

How about a brassard that says "Military Police" on their arm?  Seems quite straightforward to me.  Cheaper, too...


----------



## Franko (20 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How about a brassard that says "Military Police" on their arm?  Seems quite straightforward to me.  Cheaper, too...



Worked for a few decades as well.

Regards


----------



## MP 811 (20 Dec 2007)

and from a distance??...............whats more distinguishable, a brassard in your arm or an actual uniform that is pretty much standard across the country?

I went from wearing a brassard on my shoulder to wearing the OPD.  Believe me, the public notices the uniform, not an armband.  Armbands dont work, period.  For the military personal I would agree the armband is sufficient, but the public needs more.  Like it or not my friends, OPD is here to stay.  I've had people ask me where CFB Esquimalt is when we're standing right in front of the main gate beside the base sign.  I've also been standing in downtown Toronto and have been asked where the CN tower is.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2007)

PLeased though I am that the public now feel free to ask MPs for directions, I'd still much rather seem them as an integral part of the Combat Service Support funcion, vice providing domestic policing that distracts and detracts from their fulfilling their miltiary role.

We've already got ample domestic police forces, be they national (RCMP), provincial (OPP and SQ) or municipal.  Having a wannabe civvy cop branch in the CF does nothing for military effectiveness.  The MP branch today claims it is stressed to meet the supprot to operations mandate.  Great.  That's the #1 role for the military.  So put the OPD on a hanger, slide back into the CADPAT, and remember what the M in MP stands for.

Otherwise you're serving no military function.  So we can stand down the branch, and re-invest the PYs into something that can be used to support operations.


----------



## QV (20 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Otherwise you're serving no military function.  So we can stand down the branch, and re-invest the PYs into something that can be used to support operations.



Do you think that all those police services the RCMP or muni services provide to their communities are free?  What makes you think that it would be cheaper to contract it out?



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Having a wannabe civvy cop branch in the CF



Well, someone has to do it.  Why don't we just get rid of all those wannabe doctors and wannabe lawyers and wannabe pilots while we are at it.... 
 :


----------



## QV (20 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'd still much rather seem them as an integral part of the Combat Service Support funcion, vice providing domestic policing that distracts and detracts from their fulfilling their miltiary role.



So what would the "military role" be then if it wasn't providing military policing services?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2007)

Policing the PMQs is not "military policing services".  It's coffee and donuts policing - still important, but lacks the M nexus that MP operations should entail.

We have a finite authorised ceiling for military personnel.  If we create a vast tail to fulfil functions that we need not perform, that we can easily acquire through other means, we are wasting those PYs.

I'm not 100% down on MPs - I think the recent initiatives to improve close protection are long overdue.  And the rising entry standards are having a positive impact overall on the quality of MPs and MPOs, and their perception among others.


I'm just concerned we're spelling the branch name *mP*, where we should be spelling it *MP*.


----------



## QV (20 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm just concerned we're spelling the branch name *mP*, where we should be spelling it *MP*.



A lot of people are concerned about that it seems.  Many of the MP functions on deployed ops are investigative functions.  Without doing those things back home we couldn't maintain or develop our expertise in this area in between deployments.  From my perspective MPs are fullfilling functions that MPs need not perform, one example: guarding parked CF-18s in a secure and monitored restricted area in Canada while the crews sit around and watch TV or drink coffee in the next building over.  Because of that task that particular unit is limited to the number of MPs it can deploy.  I have never seen this type of task on an army base or a navy base because they guard their own equipment. 

As far as domestic policing goes, personally I could care less if we give it up.  If we did, our job would become far less complicated real fast and we could stack our other obligations.  Unfortunately providing a policing service is a pretty important thing and we will have to make due for the time being.


----------



## FastEddy (20 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Policing the PMQs is not "military policing services".  It's coffee and donuts policing -
> 
> I'm not 100% down on MPs -




Your reference to "Coffee and Donuts Policing" and other remarks lead me to believe you have more of a axe to grind than a genuine concern for the disposition of Military Police Deployment and Responsibilities.

After saying that, I can assure you that CF's Personnel and their Dependents would and are better off being dealt with by Members of the Military Police instead of any other Civilian Law Enforcement Agency.

Case in fact, having Policed PMQ's here and abroad, many CF's Personnel and Dependents avoided arrest and confinement simply due to the fact they were dealing with the MILITARY Police (that's with a big M) and not a Civilian Agency.

If confinement and removal or arrest was required we were and are far better equipped to carry out such procedures rather than subject Military Personnel to unnecessary Criminal Arrests and Records.  We are there to Serve and Protect and Police. Who better to Deal with Military Personnel than Military Personnel ?, I know having seen and required to use SOP's as a Civilian LEO.

However, your concern as to the employment of the resources of the Branch, I'm sure are greatly appreciated by its members.

Cheers.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Jan 2008)

I like the MP's having the distinct uniform.Not only for the public reconition but for children in the military community as well.
Children may not notice the red beret or an arm band,but they would notice the uniform.

I'm glad the MP's are here patroling when I cant be home to look after my family.

Thank you.


----------



## Bigrex (21 Jan 2008)

I was a base brat, who then signed up, so I've lived in Q's the majority of my life and MPs have always had a presence in the community. In Halifax, we now only have one PMQ area, Shearwater and I believe it is still patrolled by MPs, and before selling it off completely Wallace Heights was patrolled by both MPs and city police because, as military personnel moved out, they were filling those units with low income families, until it was all civilian occupied and call "Ocean Breeze Estates" with no breeze, and no clear view of Halifax Harbour let alone the ocean. 

Basically, any group of houses that are maintained by DND or subcontractor, (such as Self Help housing in Ottawa), and rent is deducted directly from your pay, should have MP presence, regardless of who has jurisdiction in the surrounding areas. I just wish we had more gated military communities to keep out the riffraff and provide better protection for our families while we are deployed.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Jan 2008)

I could be wrong here, and some deeper research is required but when the MP's were recognized as a national police force and as such credentialed were they not also given the same arrest rights as the rcmp i.e. if an offence to public safety were to occur right in front of them they have the obligation/right to take immediate action and turn the situation over to the jurisdictional authorities after the fact.
And for you guys in the black patrol dress out in Esquimalt, keep it up, I like seeing MP's in front of my house every hour or so all night, the odd check stop on fridays wouldn't hurt, haven't seen them in a while, but still, hell of a job.


----------



## garb811 (21 Jan 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I could be wrong here, and some deeper research is required but when the MP's were recognized as a national police force and as such credentialed were they not also given the same arrest rights as the rcmp i.e. if an offence to public safety were to occur right in front of them they have the obligation/right to take immediate action and turn the situation over to the jurisdictional authorities after the fact.



OK, you even have me confused.  Say what?  ???


----------



## missing1 (21 Jan 2008)

"We've already got ample domestic police forces, be they national (RCMP), provincial (OPP and SQ) or municipal.  Having a wannabe civvy cop branch in the CF does nothing for military effectiveness.  The MP branch today claims it is stressed to meet the supprot to operations mandate.  Great.  That's the #1 role for the military.  So put the OPD on a hanger, slide back into the CADPAT, and remember what the M in MP stands for."

We could do the same for the Walmart clerk wannabe and save some money on the logistic side also. No??


----------



## MP 811 (21 Jan 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I could be wrong here, and some deeper research is required but when the MP's were recognized as a national police force and as such credentialed were they not also given the same arrest rights as the rcmp i.e. if an offence to public safety were to occur right in front of them they have the obligation/right to take immediate action and turn the situation over to the jurisdictional authorities after the fact.
> And for you guys in the black patrol dress out in Esquimalt, keep it up, I like seeing MP's in front of my house every hour or so all night, the odd check stop on fridays wouldn't hurt, haven't seen them in a while, but still, hell of a job.



MP's were recognized in the criminal code long before we became recognized as a "national police force".  And you hit it on the head about the public safety thing.


----------



## MP 811 (21 Jan 2008)

*"We've already got ample domestic police forces, be they national (RCMP), provincial (OPP and SQ) or municipal.  Having a wannabe civvy cop branch in the CF does nothing for military effectiveness.  The MP branch today claims it is stressed to meet the supprot to operations mandate.  Great.  That's the #1 role for the military.  So put the OPD on a hanger, slide back into the CADPAT, and remember what the M in MP stands for."

We could do the same for the Walmart clerk wannabe and save some money on the logistic side also. No??*


+1.  I happen to be know that the trade is not listed as a stressed trade at the moment.  MSE Op's are stressed......Should we source out there job?  







[/quote]


----------



## c_canuk (21 Jan 2008)

Personally I don't want civy police on base.

I haven't had a problem with RCMP, but I get a little choked up at how the OPP/QPP conducts business. ie tailgating me at 3 am on the nbr 11 hwy after I've passed 5 moose in a couple hours, one was hit by a semi. 

I pulled over to let him go around because I thought he wanted to tail the guy ahead of me driving erradically, but no he stayed on my bumper. I continued on and pulled over again 5 minutes later as I was seriously concerned about having an accident with him so close. After I stopped he put on his lights. He then came up and asked if I knew why he me why he pulled me over  : 

I bit my tounge and said I don't know, he said I was swerving... 

he was probably 19 years old, out alone, in the middle of no where, tailgating a half ton truck in a moose infested area... if I had a moose in front of me he probably would have decapitated himself. Not to mention if I was a criminal he might not have been able to deal with me... he should have had a partner as this is a main conduit for traffic and may see some pretty seedy types.

Then there was the QPP chick who was compensating for her 5' stature... mirrored shades, swagger, hand on gun as she told me I couldn't change my passenger side tire and ordered me back into my truck. 640 dollar tow truck bill didn't make me happy, nor did the 430 dollar fine for my registration running out the day before... 

Yes I know my fault for letting it expire, but I was in Manitoba and extended past my original tasking date, because my address had changed I had to go into the office in person to re register my vehicle, they wouldn't do it over the phone or internet. I wasn't paying 1000 dollars to fly home and back just to re register.

I've always found that MPs are a good bunch of guys generally other than sometimes being a little overly zealous in enforcing the speed limit on base. I'll take that anyday over the run ins I've had with Civy police.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Jan 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I've always found that MPs are a good bunch of guys generally other than sometimes being a little overly zealous in enforcing the speed limit on base. I'll take that anyday over the run ins I've had with Civy police.



Who ever is dumb enough to speed on a base deserves getting a ticket.Why the heck would you be going even 10km over when you KNOW you will see the MP's somewhere?

People who speed on base are idoits.


----------



## 211RadOp (21 Jan 2008)

Personnaly, on base or the Q's, if the sign says 30, I do 30.


----------



## MP 811 (21 Jan 2008)

I tend to think im quite liberal with officer descretion.  I dont bother with pulling people over for anything less than 20 k over the limit and believe me, there are plenty of yahoo's going that fast and faster around the bases and Q's.  I can remember doing radar out at Belmont Park at the firehall in Esquimalt  and most the volators were off duty RCMP members!


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Jan 2008)

ah the drag strip known as belmont road,  of course Zelous is just as bad, my wife offers to man a spike belt for you guys by the way.  keep it up though, I know its often a thankless job


----------



## c_canuk (21 Jan 2008)

I think it's over zealous to get pulled over for doing 40km/h 10 feet before the 50km zone sign as you come into the CFB Gagetown at 1 am, or doing a rolling stop at 3 am in front of the old German Shacks at CFB Shilo.

I have no problem with and applaud any LEO that pulls people over for doing 10 or over in an area there may be pedestrians.

One of my pet peeves where I used to live off base was the sport bikes flying by trying to catch air on the hills by my house where there were a lot of kids. The city police were not interested even after my buddies car was totalled by a hit and run there.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Jan 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think it's over zealous to get pulled over for doing 40km/h 10 feet before the 50km zone sign as you come into the CFB Gagetown at 1 am, or doing a rolling stop at 3 am in front of the old German Shacks at CFB Shilo.
> 
> I have no problem with and applaud any LEO that pulls people over for doing 10 or over in an area there may be pedestrians.



A bar,the canex,the base theatre,guard shack,pedestrian crossing.These are all along that small peice of road in the Gag.The limit is there for that reason.

Believe me I was pulled over doing 56 in a 50 on base.It's aggrivating however its the law.I spoke to a good friend who was an mp there then and found out the scoop on the MP who pulled me over anyway.Every trade has its share of guys like him.


----------



## QV (23 Jan 2008)

So with all this big 'M' little 'p' stuff I keep hearing about that many CF members think the military police should emphasize, what exactly do you mean?  

What does going back to big 'M' mean?

What historically did military police do if it wasn't domestic policing?

The reason I ask is that I cannot think of anytime in recent history (like within last 40 years) did military police focus so much on the field type role that they now play in Afghanistan, so I am trying to understand what all this big 'M' little 'p' means to some of you.  For example you wouldn't send a platoon of postal clerks to A'stan to run convoys, and neither would you send a platoon of airframe techs to do the same.  I think the postal clerks would be doing postal stuff and the airframe techs well you get the picture.  No other trade in the CF is tasked and expected by everyone to do a role that they are not trained in nor is their function...for example you wouldn't take a bunch of combat engineers and task them to police CFB Borden in a domestic policing role for the next nine months... would you?  So why are the military police tasked with so many non-police related duties?


----------



## c_canuk (24 Jan 2008)

well a few things come to mind

1. soldier first, trade second. When they say big M they don't mean light infanty they mean roles that are only done by MILITARY police, not regular police.

2. in WWII MPs did some domestic policing, but from what I understand mainly they were there to deal with PWs this so the guys who were fighting the PWs didn't have to gaurd them. They also handled interogations and red cross issues.

3. They provided security for sensitive areas, escorts for valuable rations, pay & VIPs, staff for charges and gaurds in the stockades.

I don't see those as tasks for the local police detachment, and combat arms don't seem to be well suited to those duties either.

Personally I think the MPs do a bang up job, and tend to remember we're on the same team a lot more than civy police, especially locals and provincial who see the uniform and automatically see a threat. I don't want to see the bases and Qs turned over to civy police because it will cause more friction.


----------



## R031button (24 Jan 2008)

Personally, and I'll admit that this is from a limited experience living on base, but I feel that the MPs have developed a degree of resentment among other trades. I say this based on conservations with other CF members, several of them reservists on work up right now. Now you could say that this is just young troops not accustomed to living on base, but I feel the points are valid regardless. 

 The sight of several MP cars patrolling an area which is essentially free of random crime, such as (to my knowledge) CFB Edmonton, and pulling over troops at  night for driving 5 K over the speed limit is not something that inspires respect. Several of my good friends are, or wish to be, police officers in the future, and understand this as a requirement. However, when it is the sum visible role of the MP domestic role, it seems as though the trade is filled with, and excuse me if this is offensive, the caste offs of more "legitimate" police agencies who have decided to spend their lives enforcing petty restrictions or busting drunk troops in shacks. Now, argue this as you may, I'm open to the opinions of MPs, and I don't doubt the requirements of busting drunks around base. That being said, their are other roles relating to the security of bases, such as CFB Edmonton, that are deplorable.

 CFB Edmonton has deployed at minimum one company for every deployment in Kandahar to date. Yet there is no force protection in place for the base itself. The *sole* defenses the base has is either a) the off chance that an MP picks up a suspicious person, unlikely since their are many civilian employees who work on base; or b) an attacker comes through the front gate during non business hours, unlikely since that's when the most targets will be gathered. Now, the solution to this, in my mind, would be to beef up the domestic force protection role of the MPs, in both manning the gate, ideally in FFO with C7s, and patrolling the base proper to guard against threats to the base. Just think about it, we've had a serious threat of a devastating terrorist attack in Canada, the "Toronto 17," and if a terrorist element truly wanted to hurt the mission in Afghanistan, all that would be required would be a quick internet search, a drive to a mounting base, and a suicide vest. The role of the *M*Ps should be guard against attacks such as this in the domestic theater of operations.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Jan 2008)

R031button said:
			
		

> Personally, and I'll admit that this is from a limited experience living on base, but I feel that the MPs have developed a degree of resentment among other trades. I say this based on conservations with other CF members, several of them reservists on work up right now. Now you could say that this is just young troops not accustomed to living on base, but I feel the points are valid regardless.
> 
> The sight of several MP cars patrolling an area which is essentially free of random crime, such as (to my knowledge) CFB Edmonton, and pulling over troops at  night for driving 5 K over the speed limit is not something that inspires respect. Several of my good friends are, or wish to be, police officers in the future, and understand this as a requirement. However, when it is the sum visible role of the MP domestic role, it seems as though the trade is filled with, and excuse me if this is offensive, the caste offs of more "legitimate" police agencies who have decided to spend their lives enforcing petty restrictions or busting drunk troops in shacks. Now, argue this as you may, I'm open to the opinions of MPs, and I don't doubt the requirements of busting drunks around base. That being said, their are other roles relating to the security of bases, such as CFB Edmonton, that are deplorable.
> 
> CFB Edmonton has deployed at minimum one company for every deployment in Kandahar to date. Yet there is no force protection in place for the base itself. The *sole* defenses the base has is either a) the off chance that an MP picks up a suspicious person, unlikely since their are many civilian employees who work on base; or b) an attacker comes through the front gate during non business hours, unlikely since that's when the most targets will be gathered. Now, the solution to this, in my mind, would be to beef up the domestic force protection role of the MPs, in both manning the gate, ideally in FFO with C7s, and patrolling the base proper to guard against threats to the base. Just think about it, we've had a serious threat of a devastating terrorist attack in Canada, the "Toronto 17," and if a terrorist element truly wanted to hurt the mission in Afghanistan, all that would be required would be a quick internet search, a drive to a mounting base, and a suicide vest. The role of the *M*Ps should be guard against attacks such as this in the domestic theater of operations.




I am sure there are many Members of the Branch out there still scratching their heads trying to figure out how to answere your Post. I know I did.

However I will address several comments you have made.

1.  During and since your indoctrination into the Armed Forces and so early in your carears, you and your friends have already developed resentment and if not hostilities towards the Military Police.

2.  That you openly admit, that you have limited or no experience in Camp Life but yet feel qualified to comment and advise on it, let alone the Roll or Duties of the Military Police.

3.  That being aware of the possible and existing Terrorist Threat, you openly suggest and note a soft area for attack (which might not have occurred to those IDIOTS), you might have well told then about the big hole in the Fence in the back quarter, that has no Security or MP Patrols, ahhh!!! now I regress, my apologies. Although that  comment might be trivial, you might be a bit more careful in what you mention on this subject and Military matters. 

But on a lighter side, I think you meant "Conversations" not "Conservations", theres a hell of a big difference.

Cheers.


----------



## garb811 (24 Jan 2008)

One of the major reasons there is a lack of “random crime”, as you call it, in the PMQs in Edmonton…actually most Q patches…is due to a number of factors.  One is the fact that Qs are generally removed from the other population centers in the area, although this is changing as the city expands northwards.  Another is the fact that these are unknown locations in the minds of most civies, civies generally don’t take a random turn into base housing areas, those that go there generally need to go there.  The residents of the Qs themselves are a huge help, it’s a small community and it is very easy for them to spot outsiders, a built in neighbourhood watch if you will.  Probably the biggest factor though, is the fact that there are several MP cars patrolling the area.  If you’re Joe Criminal, where are you going to do your work, in a location where they are lucky to get a drive through once a day while the EPS is transiting from one call to the next or one where an aggressive patrolling routine is in place?  But having said all that trust me, there is random crime in the Qs, albeit not at the level of Edmonton.

You feel Edmonton should be at a higher security posture.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Provision of security is a balancing act.  Manpower to put MPs (or Commissionaires) on the gates costs money as does security enhancements such as lighting and fencing.  Where does that money come from?  Divert it from supporting the actual Ops in Afghanistan?  Take it out of unit training funds?  Reduce ammo allocations?  In addition to monetary costs, there are other costs as well.  Require 100% ID checks as a condition of access to the base and suddenly you have traffic backed up from the main gate to the off ramp on 97th.  This point isn’t a guess; it’s what happened after 9/11 when the base in Edmonton was locked down.    Require all commercial vehicles entering the base to be physically searched and suddenly, it is impossible to get anything delivered to the base because companies will simply refuse to send their vehicles into a situation where the only cargo they can carry is that destined for the base because all the boxes are going to be opened.  Put up a fence around the PMQ patch and control access and suddenly the PMQ residents are upset; not only are they unable to access their house during the morning and evening rush when everyone is tied up trying to get onto or off the base through the three access points, but anytime they want to have a civie, or off base, friend over for dinner, they need to phone the guardhouse with the name of their guest otherwise they will be held at the gate while the phone call is made to you…and don’t forget they all have to have valid photo ID.  These are all measures which can be taken, and have been in the past, to make our bases and PMQs secure fortresses insulated from the world outside but it comes at a a very high cost, higher than 99% of the people affected are willing to pay.

The question then becomes, what is actually required to guard location “X” against threat “Y”?  The mechanism to do this is via a process called a Threat and Risk assessment which systematically assesses the likely threats and the probable risks.  It then lays it all out for the Commanders so they can make an informed decision about what resources they are willing to devote to security given the perceived threats and judged risks and the local MP advisor presents COAs for various options, some of which are obvious when implemented and some of which are not.  This is not done in isolation by the CF but brings in all the players, local and national.  Sometimes the Commander’s final assessment is that he is in agreement with everything and sometimes they aren’t, but at the end of the day the security posture and resources devoted to security is a Commander’s decision, not a MP one and sometimes they have to make hard choices.

BTW, you probably don’t realize it but MPs pulling cars over for going 5 km/h over the speed limit IS a security measure as the vehicle and driver are then ID’d and entered into our system and it gives the MP a LEGAL means of conducting a close inspection of the vehicle and its visible contents and occupants without the requirement to tie a MP up at the front gate 24/7.  Of course, this is clearly one of those not so obvious security measures that you find irksome; I’d hate to think what you’d be saying if you had to leave for work 30 mins early in order to ensure you made it through the front gate in time for duty like happened after 9/11.


----------



## garb811 (24 Jan 2008)

QV said:
			
		

> So with all this big 'M' little 'p' stuff I keep hearing about that many CF members think the military police should emphasize, what exactly do you mean?


I obviously can't speak for anyone but me, particularly since I'm one of the Branch, but my experience has been that this is in reference to those in the Branch who are so focused on the Police Ops aspect of the job that they start to look, act and think like they THINK our civilian counterparts do and forget that they are, first and foremost members of the CF.  This manifests itself in many ways; disregard/disrespect for rank and the CofC, noncompliance with the dress code when there is no operational reason to do so, open disdain for and outright avoidance of non-police related tasks and duties, failure to learn and respect the roles, history and traditions of the remainder of the CF etc.  I even attended a MP funeral where the person giving the eulogy proudly declared the deceased member was a "small M big P" MP fully aware of the connotations of that statement...  

This isn't necessarily a bad thing in some respects (ie. rank has no place in the interview room) but when carried too far, it alienates the members of the Branch from the community we serve.  This happens at all levels, all the way up to the CFPM in days past when one of them had the declared goal to make us a "police force" vice the Security Branch and lost sight of the other services the Branch and its members provide to the CF and it's members.  It has also been my observation that the longer one stays in, the more balanced the Mp/mP internal debate becomes and the member ends up in the true realm of the MP, a specialist member of the profession of arms.  Personally, from that standpoint I felt "Security Branch" was an apt name for our Branch as it reflected all the aspects of our trade where as "Military Police Branch" emphasises the Pol Ops function, IMHO.

The current Ops in Afghanistan has brought the pendulum back a little ways as I think most people in the Branch realize that no matter where you serve you better be able to operate in cooperation with the remainder of the CF as your life may depend on it one day.  Other developments, like the decision to send all MP on the PLQ(L) no matter what the uniform will help to institutionalize it a little bit, but until the recruiting and training system are changed, it is going to be an ongoing problem as the young guys come out of the Academy looking to kick some ass and take some names...but that's a problem which dates from the formation of the Branch I would guess.


----------



## QV (24 Jan 2008)

The phrase "soldier first, trade second" could be applied to every trade.  So if that is the case then a company of cooks should be brought together and trained to provide force protection for the next deployment - they could take a couple of cooks from every base to make up the numbers.  They won't cook anything, they will spend the entire tour providing force protection and running the routes.  Would this be wrong?  

Historically 'field' duties included:

POW handling - this I can see continuing because handling people in custody is a police related duty
Route signing - not really applicable anymore, however it was a traffic control related duty which police usually handle

And I really can't think of anything else.  So if there are any long serving, or not, MPs out there who could add to this, please feel free.  

garb811

Just caught your post.  Good post.  A couple of points though.  Our whole trade is based around providing police services to the property and personnel we....well... police.  The QL3 is all about policing.  The national MPPTP (policy and technical procedures for those that don't know) is all based on police duties and authorities - the what, when, where, why and how of the existance of our trade.  Every base has a guardhouse staffed with members assigned to provide police services and we have national assets dedicated to that (NIS, Spin Team...PS/MPCC).  Just like any other police service, our meat and potatoes is providing this police service.  Everyone (well 95%) starts out on patrols and for the most part will probably always be back in the police aspect after a stint in the field or NCIU sooner or later.      

When you mention the rank vs authority thing or that some members have alienated our branch from the community we serve, I suggest that this is a personality thing specific to individuals.  That sentiment can go both ways.  Poeple in any community are critical of the police no matter what, mostly as I am sure you know, because of enforcement action the police take.  Whether it be a stupid parking ticket or arrests for something more serious.  Hell, even I wonder "wtf does this guy want" when there is a patrol car tailing me in the city.  

You mentioned that the pendulum is swinging back because of Afghanistan.  I disagree.  IMHO the pendulum has not moved _back _ but it is going in a new direction.  Because I believe the MPs have been re-tasked and reassigned new roles in Afghanistan that MPs never have done before.  

IMHO someone has to provide the police services to the military communities.  And MPs have been doing it all along, nothing has changed there.


----------



## garb811 (24 Jan 2008)

Indeed "soldier first, trade second" could be applied to every trade and in all cases in a Bde, it is.  You are a mechanic and get posted to 1 Svc Bn and you are expected to be able to perform the full scope of field duties, up to and including Pl attacks...I don't recall them practicing at the Coy level at least, maybe someone who was actually posted to the unit could clarify.  This including being able to man LPs/OPs, conduct Recce Patrols, defensive ops...with the full scope of weapons available to a non-combat arms unit.  This is because 1 Svc Bn was part of the Bde RAS (Rear Area Security) plan and they were ordered by the Bde Comd to develop and maintain those skills as part of their yearly training cycle.  They worked hard at doing it and the Bde didn't hesitate to test them, I even remember 3 PPCLI doing a heliborne assault onto 1 Svc Bn during one Bde Ex.  Further to that, if the mech is working at his primary function and the unit gets bumped, he doesn't merrily keep on turning the wrench, he moves to his defensive position and assumes the role of soldier.  A coy of Infantry wasn't normally detached to provide protection to CSS units, they were expected to perform that task themselves, including keeping the surrounding area clear.  If a Bn or Recce Sqn was in reserve they could be tasked to augment the RAS plan but primarily, the Bde plan was that the CSS units took care of the rear areas so the Cbt Arms could concentrate on the main event.

Extrapolate that to 1 MP Pl and guess what, 1 MP Pl was part of the RAS plan as well.  The level of training and testing for this role varied over the years but some of my peers who were posted to 1 MP Pl off our 3's "fondly" recount their time posted to "1 More Patricia Platoon" due to the Bde Comd at the time having the expectation that they would have the ability to perform those functions and they trained to achieve that.  Fast forward to today and the fluid situation in Afghanistan and suddenly, the training for the RAS role doesn't seem so out to lunch anymore.  In theatre, EVERYONE has to be able to perform the function of a soldier and the idea that MP should not have to do this is ludicrous and stems, in part, I believe from the exclusion of MP from normal base duties, notwithstanding that this is really only supposed to apply to those on shift and their immediate supervisors, investigators or already on a MP duty roster.  I know quite a few MPs had a lip on when they were tasked to the kitchen on Ex because it was beneath them to do that sort of work and they were not supposed to do "duties".

So, moving to historical "field" duties...I'll have to dig out my bush cap and see if I can remember them all...oh, wait, I can sum it up...every MP duty was a field duty.  This is a problem in the Branch, nowhere are our "roots" taught to those joining the Branch and people really have no idea of where the Branch has come from, they simply look at it today and assume that this is how it always has been.  Going all the way back, the C Pro C was primarily about supporting the Army in the field and maintaining the Army as a fighting force (aka Force Protection).  The initial reason Provosts did Criminal Investigations and General Policing Duties was to maintain discipline and by maintaining discipline, they kept soldiers in their units vice having them cool their heels in the digger.  That is why the digger was so strict and the routine so harsh...it had to be worse than remaining with their unit, otherwise guys would simply commit a crime to avoid combat.  Because Provosts required this ability in the zone of operations, it also quite nicely allowed them to provide this service outside the zone of operations as well.  Currently we call this domestic policing, back then it was simply providing Force Protection by ensuring as many bayonets made it to the zone of conflict as possible.

Move a few years forward and the role hadn't changed all that much.  When 1 MP Pl was in Calgary, the CO was also the B Secur O and the Pl manned the guardhouse and the actual field Pl.  Guys were swapped around freely, one day you're on patrols then you'd get a phone call at home and be on your way to Wainwright for three months the next morning.  In Edmonton, things changed as the Pl was no longer responsible for the guardhouse but with the manning issues in Wainwright, Suffield and the other training areas, the Pl provided/provides the full spectrum of MP support.  Believe it or not, the majority of these tasks relate to Force Protection.  This included Police Ops which covered the gamut from Investigations to discipline patrols which, surprise, surprise, was essentially doing what MP do in the PMQ patch but in the field; Mobility Ops which covered route recces, route signing, TCPs, straggler and refugee control, enforcement of light lines...; Security Ops which could be anything from conducting security surveys for special temporary facilities, providing vital point security, providing escort for VIPs and high value assets; and finally, Detention Ops which also spanned the realm from PWs to custory of CF personnel should the need arise.  And at the end of the day, unless you were involved in a "No Duff" and simply reacting to Exercise input, if the poop hit the fan, you became a soldier first and specialist second.

I've referred a few times to Force Protection so I'll now clarify my interpretation of the term and how it applies to the Military Police Branch.  The primary goal of Force Protection should be to ensure a fighting force retains its effectiveness and ability to fight by reducing non-combat losses as far as possible.  Not the official definition but it'll do for this.  How does Force Protection apply to roles conducted by the MP Branch?  Police Ops retains combat effectiveness by helping commanders maintain discipline through the deterrence, detection and investigation of crimes by service members both domestically and overseas.  This ensures commanders have the most bayonets possible by reducing the number of members who are sentenced/released for disciplinary reasons while also helping to ensure that undisciplined members are identified and either given the incentive to improve their discipline though punishment if convicted, re-trained through a stint in the digger if so required or, if the CO so decides, released as unsuitable for further service.  Domestically this includes provision of Police Services to military member's families who reside on base and this is also a Force Protection issue because if the member is deployed and concerned about the safety and security of their family, their mind is not 100% on their primary task and this could get themself or others killed AND it allows us, the MP, to gain and maintain the skillsets we require to perform the Pol Ops function while deployed.  Mobility Ops is a force protection measure because providing these functions enables a Commander to concentrate their force through mobility while reducing loses due to lost drivers, congestion on the routes etc.  Some say mobility ops are going the way of the Dodo due to the wonders of GPS and the experience in Afghanistan.  To those I would respectfully point out that every member of the combat arms is still taught basic map and compass for the day their GPS fails (or the Chinese take the entire system out) and we cannot simply throw away a skillset due to the experience of one theatre of operations.  If this was the case, we'd be in a world of trouble when it came to detainees in Afghanistan because we certainly didn't utilize that skill set very often in the Balkans, particularly in the latter years.  Security Ops should be self evident and Detention Ops, by providing the ultimate disincentive to commit crime, should be as well..the fact we can also hold the bad guys is gravy.

So what does that really mean in today's context?  When Samson started her transformation of the Branch in the mid-90’s it coincided with the impact of the general downsizing of the CF.  Samson’s goal was to professionalize the provision of Police Ops by the Branch.  That was fine however, in doing so she threw the baby out with the bath water and lost sight of the raison d’être of the Branch – to support the CF in the conduct of its operations.  By becoming so narrowly focused on the provision of domestic policing she completely dismissed and disregarded (and belittled) the fact that the Branch had a mandate for three other functions other than Police Ops and she also conveniently ignored the fact that the Branch still needed to be able to perform the Police Ops task while deployed.  FRP didn't help either because it encouraged ASD in the guardhouses, generally by hiring Commissionaires to do jobs formely done by MP such as Ident, Security Surveys, Evidence Custodian etc etc.  The problem is, who does this when we deploy and where do they get the experience to do it from??  Commanders love the fact that we can provide professional domestic policing, they really do, but the fact that the Branch has reached to the point that we are really unable to operate in a Operational Zone gives them, particularly the Army Commanders, a huge problem.  The expectation is that the Branch will conduct Security, Mobility and Detention Ops in the Zone of Operations, not simply Police Ops and, in line with the RAS concept discussed previously, that MP will be able to operate independently and provide their own protection.  If we can’t do that, we’re a huge liability because SOMEONE still has to provide those services and if its not the MP Branch, who will it be and if those are tasked to someone else, the MP Branch is going to really become irrelevant because, as many others are quick to point out here, there are a bunch of options out there for the domestic policing role.  Although usually applied to the concept of Universality of Service in relation to an individual, the saying also applies to an element of the CF, "If it's not deployable, it's not employable" and the Army will lead a push to disband the Branch and form a Branch which is capable of meeting the obligations of the deployed roles while dropping the domestic policing function.  I don't think this would be entirely successful but it has been an issue which has reared its ugly head in the past, with some Base Commanders go so far as to get quotes from civilian police agencies to ASD the domestic policing mandate.  This was headed off by Ottawa but it shows that some Commanders believe its a viable option.

The chickens have finally come home to roost with the CF is demanding the Branch fulfill all of its roles and the Branch is struggling to make it happen due to the domestic policing focus of not only the Branch, but many individuals at all rank levels.  I would also note that the current Branch leadership seems to think that ensuring the survivability of MP in theatre is an Army problem and not a Branch one and if the Army isn’t happy with the standard of the MPs who are tasked for the Roto it is their issue to deal with and fund?  And this coming from the same guys who want to assume complete command and control of all MP.  Whose problem would it be then? 

Do you get the feeling that I completely disagree with your contention that our meat and potatoes is provision of the police service domestically?  And…did you ever stop to think that perhaps the minimum manning levels of the guardhouses is directly tied into the requirement to provide security and response to sensitive and attractive assets housed on the base, to the requirement to provide a “police” response or a combination of both?  Think about it and ask around the senior members of your guardhouse…

Anyways, way too long yet again but I’d like to close with this quote from the footnotes of a paper submitted by a senior officer in the Branch to CFC entitled Governance of the Canadian Forces Military Police:


> In 2001, the Security Branch would be renamed Military Police Branch as a better reflection of the occupation’s function.


It’s nice the Branch sees that as our primary function, unfortunately I think the rest of the CF expects something different and this is reflected in the fact that we officially retain every role we had pre-Samson (less the conduct of investigations in support of the security clearance programme), notwithstanding attempts by the Branch to ignore them.

Oh, ref the national MPPTP, you should also know that there is a corresponding document for field ops, the MP insert to the Army's Unit SOP green book.  You can find it on the Army Electronic Library  on the DWAN.  Have a read, it'll be quite enlightening.


----------



## c_canuk (24 Jan 2008)

garb811,

that was very enlightening, thank you for that information.

I feel that the disregarding of soldier first trade second is a bit of a cancer that needs stomping out in all the support trades, an argument that I've had with some of my fellow Sigs in the past, I think your explanation was most elegant and articulate in expressing the need for every uniform to be able to perform basic soldiering duties.


----------



## QV (25 Jan 2008)

Wow, that was quite the post.
For clarification I never meant that MP primary role was providing policing services domestically only, although I see how it could be construed that way.  So to clarify I meant the MPs primary role is providing policing services to the CF everywhere including theatre of operations.

The MPs are more jack-of-all trades then any other support trade that I have seen and again, my opinion only, this makes it very difficult to excell at anything.  Take for example the latest MPs training for deployment.  A number of them are being delayed in deploying now because they have been completely re-roled at the last minute and now have another month or two of extra pre-deployment training to learn how to operate new equipment.  What a waste of a good part of the first 7 (?) months of pre-deployment training.  On the topic of primary roles, I agree that every CF support trade member MUST be able to revert to soldier skills when required, but I am also saying support trades should be primarily employed in their normal role in order to support the mission.       

IMHO it appears to me that the branch is overstretched and over tasked.  Sooner or later something is going to give.  Like I have said before I really think the branch needs to focus more on one direction.  Whether it be providing police services in Canada and abroad for the CF or whether it be providing Force Protection services (and losing the policing thing altogether).  I wish the branch would choose a direction and focus, because I don't think we will ever really excell at both.  

Part of the problem I suspect is the command and control structure for MPs.  The Army, Air Force, Navy, and CFPM office are all pulling us in different directions constantly and they all have different ideas on what they want out of MPs and how they want it.  There are only a little over 1100 of us.         
  
Another thing that bothers me a lot is that there is zero branch history taught at the academy whatsoever.  But that is another topic on another day.
    
garb811 put together a real good post and it is definately food for thought.  Thanks for the two links by the way.


----------



## garb811 (27 Jan 2008)

A combat capable MP trained to the standard expected by the Army is a bonus to the Air Force and Navy due to the increased capabilities they bring to the table in the Port Protection and Airfield Protection roles, they just fail to recognize that.

I, personally, think the major problem is the CFPM is out of step with what our major employers expect of us.  At this point in time, the Army is the main game in town and its up to the Branch to adjust to providing the services they are demanding.  I do not believe the solution to the problem is to bring all MP under the CFPM, doing so is simply going to bring the focus even tighter in on Police Ops to the detriment of our other 3 roles.

Finally, I see no problem with retaining all 3 roles, they are not mutually exclusive and in many ways share many of the same skillsets.  Unfortunately I don't think the CFPM organization is currently organized to be able to give those three roles the same level of interest and support as it gives Police Ops.  This "might" change if they were suddenly accountable for all MP and all associated TTPs but I'm not holding out much hope.


----------



## RHC_2_MP (27 Jan 2008)

As has been stated before, wouldn't a simple solution, in keeping with the CFPM's Retention working group's mission statement, " ensure the Military Police remains an employer of choice",  separate the branch into two trades, domestic policing and field ops.  Or further still, to negate the military C of C influence in policing duties, cut the domestic policing from the CF all together and create the DND Police Service, as some of the fire houses did.  That way we would gain more relevance in our fellow LEO eyes across Canada and no longer would there be a hassle to get MPs on tour as you would most certainly know what your getting yourself into when you sign up for CFMP set specific for the field.


----------



## FastEddy (27 Jan 2008)

RHC_2_MP said:
			
		

> As has been stated before, wouldn't a simple solution, in keeping with the CFPM's Retention working group's mission statement, " ensure the Military Police remains an employer of choice",  separate the branch into two trades, domestic policing and field ops.  Or further still, to negate the military C of C influence in policing duties, cut the domestic policing from the CF all together and create the DND Police Service, as some of the fire houses did.  That way we would gain more relevance in our fellow LEO eyes across Canada and no longer would there be a hassle to get MPs on tour as you would most certainly know what your getting yourself into when you sign up for CFMP set specific for the field.




You mean just like the proposed two tier Medical System ?, you must be out of your mind.

 I strongly agree with Soldier First, Specialist Second. Every MP as in days of old, should and must be able to pick up his Sten and defend the Perimeter. 

 CFPM's should be raised from the Ranks of the Branch, we should stop raising Lt.Col's mostly from Infantry Units or someone who's ready to get booted up. (that's not to say they aren't excellent Soldiers and qualified in the their respective field). You wouldn't make a Tanker a Surgeon General.

They sure have come a long way from the days when a MP, could and had to Police, Patrol, Sign, Investigate, Interrogate, Arrest, Confine,Convoy Escort, Security, Discipline and Traffic Control and be a Soldier when ever and where ever. If Deployment workups are required then get them done like any other Units are.

Over the years, the MP has been Butchered, Nit Picked and Fracture enough. Keep it up and you won't have to worry about retention. 

Its strange, I've noticed every Tom, Dick and Harry feels free to suggest, recommend and advise on the MP  Branch, but unless I've missed it, I've haven't seen a MP being critical or recommending Organizational procedures for the Infantry, Artillery or Armoured.


----------



## Shamrock (27 Jan 2008)

RHC_2_MP said:
			
		

> As has been stated before, wouldn't a simple solution, in keeping with the CFPM's Retention working group's mission statement, " ensure the Military Police remains an employer of choice",  separate the branch into two trades, domestic policing and field ops.  Or further still, to negate the military C of C influence in policing duties, cut the domestic policing from the CF all together and create the DND Police Service, as some of the fire houses did.  That way we would gain more relevance in our fellow LEO eyes across Canada and no longer would there be a hassle to get MPs on tour as you would most certainly know what your getting yourself into when you sign up for CFMP set specific for the field.



Like the RCMP?


----------



## garb811 (27 Jan 2008)

*RHC_2_MP*:  

You're ignoring the fact that to the rest of the CF, the fact that we can do domestic policing and look after Police Ops on the base is a valued added task, it is not the primary reason for the Branch.  Even in the guardhouses, domestic policing is not the driving factor in how minimum shift manning is calculated which should tell you something.  The MP Branch, like every other CS/CSS Branch, exists to support CF operations at home and abroad.  If we do split, who is going to do Police Ops while deployed, domestically and abroad?  Do we contract that out to a civilian agency?  What happens when nobody is willing to take it on?  Is it going to be the "Field MP"?  If so, where are they going to hone and maintain the Police Ops skill sets?  Further, what value is there to the CF for the 2-300 positions that would be dedicated solely to domestic policing and why not simply do away with the domestic Police Ops role and free those positions up for other trades?

The simplest way to make sure new MP know what they are getting themselves into is to stop feeding them the lines of bullshit at CFRCs, MPAC and CFMPA and tell them the true story.  The recruiting video is an excellent example.  The first line is "A career with Canada's Military Police is a job in law enforcement providing policing, investigative and security services to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces..." From that point on, the prospective recruit isn't going to hear anything but "cop, cop, cop..." and although there are a few images of MP in the field (normally doing TC wearing high-vis vests emblazoned "Police"), 99.8% of the narration and images are Police Ops focused.  They should be selling the fact that we're cops who are soldiers and THAT is what should make us the employer of choice for folks who are up for that; the fact we are more than simply a small town cop with opportunities and possibilities that civie cops will never have unless they join the Reserves.  We need to stop going after people who want to be cops and go after the people who want to be a soldier who is also a cop with the unique challenges and opportunites that brings.  

Finally, who gives a flying fart what the civilian LEO think of us.  We have our mandate, they have theirs and I certainly don't have any penis envy when I look at the 43 year old constable duking it out in the Byward Market with the 18 year old dirt bag.  I suppose if your whole purpose in life is to do a lateral transfer then, yeah, it is important that our civilian counterparts count us as equals.  If your goal is to be the best MP possible, it really shouldn't be an issue and I certainly didn't lose any sleep over it back when I was a Pte.

I do agree that there is scope for specialization within the Branch, such as making NIS a sub-Branch much like used to happen with the C Pro C and the RMP do today but in a Branch our size, there are some pretty big cons to going that route.

*FastEddy*:

The CFPM does come from within the Branch and I believe this has been the case since Unification.

_Edit:  Deleted extraneous word_


----------



## RHC_2_MP (27 Jan 2008)

garb811:

Well as the branch has evolved, the domestic side of the house has been moved to the forefront, I'm not the one who created the recruiting video or gave the retention working group their mandate, but if that's what the CFPM wants, then that's the way we're headed.  The idea of splitting the trade is to allow for the field MPs to concentrate on *all* the skill sets required for their job, you don't need a polygraph expert or breath tech overseas just as you don't need some patrolman that's gunner qualified.  The field MPs would be the ones deploying with the troops while the domestic force would be dedicated to all the "big P" side of the house.  It would allow the branch to train its troops more effectively for their trade.  As for the domestic policing side of it, contracted civy cops wouldn't touch half of the files we get with a ten foot pole, such as somebody's missing ID card or someone told his CO to go f*** himself.  So if the CF desired the same quality of service, it would require a dedicated domestic policing force, i.e. my suggestion for a DND police service, staffed by cops who are outside the CF.  So that, let's just say if one day the Base RSM was arrested for Impaired, he couldn't take revenge out on the member or the det...don't say it doesn't happen, because I've seen it first hand! 

 In terms of trying to recruit cops as opposed to troops that sometimes are cops; a separate trade would alleviate the whole debate because you know when you sign up your either a cop or a troop.  Finally as for the civy LEO thing, I worded my prior post poorly, as MPs, we are viewed by provincial governments along the lines of let's say CN police and therefore we don't require the need to enforce certain provincial regulations because the majority view of MPs is we're not really police.  In that lies the problem because, as the CN police don't seem to have a requirement to enforce the mental health act or other provincial regulations (this has since changed), I do and have had to on occasion, but was unable to detain anyone under its regulation because I was not recognised as a peace officer, among other examples.  A theoretical, dedicated domestic ops police force would be nationally recognised as peace officers and therefore be allowed all the tools a civilian police force is allowed to use in their respective provinces.  Is essence our being viewed as lesser police has rendered some of our MPs partially impotent, dependant on their respective postings.


----------



## garb811 (28 Jan 2008)

You're right, domestic policing HAS moved to the forefront but only in the mind of the Branch.  Unfortunately, the rest of the leadership of the CF doesn't see it this way.  They like the fact that we can provide a professional level of policing domestically but their primary concern is that the Branch can support the CF while on Ops.  This is why the Guardhouses are being stripped bare to meet the demand for MPs in theatre as opposed to the theatre going short to allow the Guardhouses to remain at full strength.  It is also why positions in the field Pls are Pri 1 for manning while those in most guardhouses are Pri 3.  

Further, the CF leadership expects MPs in theatre to be able to perform as both soldiers and police, depending on the task at hand.  You are aware that the Armed Forces Council has ordered that *ALL* MP regardless of uniform or element they are serving with will take the PLQ(L) from this point on, right?  I’m pretty sure this isn’t because Armed Forces Council expects the PLQ(L) to enhance the policing skills of MP…  Same goes for MPO, there’s a reason all MPO take CAP no matter what the uniform.

I’m not really sure how the RWG is relevant in this issue.  I certainly don’t remember anything in the RWG proposals which recommended shedding all but the domestic Police Ops task.

Polygraphers have been into theatre.

I personally know a MP who processed a Base Commander for impaired and obtained a conviction with 0 repercussions.  I’m highly sceptical that a Base RSM was actually willing or able to take any sort of revenge on the MP due to the mechanisms in place to prevent this and his extremely limited authority over the MP in questions.  If the Base RSM did, something went wrong on a number of different fronts and the young MP should be laying a formal complaint or three.

The problems you are citing WRT Provincial statutes have absolutely nothing to do with our being or not being recognized as a “police force” and in fact, being a “federal” police force only makes the situation harder to resolve.  The problem stems from the fact that Provincial statutes have no/no application to Defence Establishments because Defence Establishments are only legally subject to Federal statutes.  If an enabling Federal Statute or Regulation does not exist, such as the Contraventions Act or GPTRs, you are legally unable to enforce the Provincial law.  Two other options are MP being specifically mentioned in the Provincial statute as being eligible to enforce the statute (which is ulnikely since it would empower MP to enforce that statute throughout the province) or they are empowered as Special Constables in that specific province in relation to a very specific set of circumstances.  That is why things like GPTRs exist and that is why you write traffic tickets pursuant to GPTRs vice the Provincial Highway Traffic Act.  If it makes you feel any better, RCMP face the same restrictions we do which is why they have to be appointed Special Constables in Ottawa in order to enforce the Ontario HTA while not on Federal property.

You still haven’t articulated how you expect field MP to gain and maintain the Police Ops skill sets required for overseas deployments in your proposed split.

I’m not really sure why people are having a hard time accepting the fact that you can be a competent soldier AND a competent police officer at the same time.  There are numerous civilian LEO on these forums who are members of the reserves in Cbt Arms units and they manage to pull off both.  Noneck, Gate Guard and zipperhead_cop spring immediately to mind.

Finally, everyone who signs on the line as Military Police should be fully aware that they aren’t joining OPS, CPS or the RCMP and there will be more to their job than just riding around in the shiny white patrol car.  If they aren’t aware of that, they certainly haven’t’ done their homework and deserve to be surprised when they have to do their time in a non-Police Ops position.


----------



## Future Prodigy (21 Feb 2009)

I am a bit confused as to what the exact roles of the MP’s are within the Canadian Forces. There seems to be no commonly held definition of what their roles are. The role stated by Kurhaus, in an older thread, was that the MP’s role is “to support commanders on operations by conducting Mobility Ops, Police Ops, Security Ops and Detention Ops." This seems in line with what the forces.ca website says:

WHAT THEY DO
Military Police with the Canadian Forces (CF) serve a community of 200,000 Regular and Reserve Force members, Department of National Defence (DND) civilian employees, cadets, and family members residing on military establishments in Canada and abroad. Whether at home on CF bases or abroad on international missions, Military Police, in conjunction with civilian and allied military police forces, protect and support all components of the CF. With over 1,250 full-time members, they form one of the largest police forces in Canada.

The international scope of the CF requires that Military Police provide services in Canada and around the world. All Canadian citizens are entitled to the same rights, privileges and protection under Canadian law, and Military Police are qualified to provide these services to the same standard as every other Canadian police service. Military Police routinely function within the civilian criminal and military justice systems, and are recognised as peace officers in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Specific tasks of Military Police may include:
•  Supporting CF missions around the world, by providing policing and operational support
•  Enforcing provincial and federal laws and regulations on DND establishments
•  Investigating and reporting incidents involving military and/or criminal offences
•  Performing other policing duties, such as traffic control, traffic-accident investigation, emergency response, and liaison with Canadian, allied and other foreign police forces
•  Developing and applying crime prevention measures to protect military communities against criminal acts
•  Coordinating tasks related to persons held in custody (including military detainees and prisoners of war)
•  Providing security at selected Canadian embassies around the world
•  Providing service to the community through conflict mediation, negotiation, dispute resolution, public relations and victim assistance

However, after reading a thread posted by Infanteer about" MPs or Provost" (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29313.0.html) the roles seem to have become once again unclear.


----------



## chris_log (21 Feb 2009)

How is the recruiting site explanation not specific enough?


----------



## Future Prodigy (21 Feb 2009)

Because other threads which discuss the roles of MP's such as the one listed, say otherwise. There does not seem to be a consensus.


----------



## dantheman (21 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Specific tasks of Military Police may include:
> •  Supporting CF missions around the world, by providing policing and operational support



to what extent are MP's soldiers? in what capactity do they serve as fighting units? I always thought they were strictly cops whose jurisdiction was the military


----------



## leroi (22 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Because other threads which discuss the roles of MP's such as the one listed, say otherwise. There does not seem to be a consensus.



Future Prodigy, that's a long time to be in "existentiel crisis" as you claimed to be last year over the same career choice topic.

You may not get black and white answers here because this forum is not an absolute authority for the Canadian Forces. It's a discussion forum. You may get good opinions and nuances of meaning in answer to your questions--if you're respectful and not overly demanding. 

If you re-read Infanteer's comments in the thread you cited, you'll note he was thoughtfully re-considering or re-visioning the role of MP. He was not making a definitive, absolute claim about the role of MP. He was carefully examining a premise.

I just did a keyword search in the tri-university trellis library system (Waterloo, Guelph and WL) for "Canadian Forces Military Police" and got 9976 hits--of course that search needs to be refined.

Nvertheless, the words you cut and paste WRT the role of MP make the role seem clear to me.


----------



## chris_log (22 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Because other threads which discuss the roles of MP's such as the one listed, say otherwise. There does not seem to be a consensus.



I shouldn't be doing this since I ain't an MP (was a wannabe once though). The threads here are merely discussion forums for ideas while the DND material is official material detailing their actual roles. So, using that university educated brain of yours you should be able to differentiate between discussion (i.e. posts here) and what they actually do (via official DND publications).


----------



## Future Prodigy (22 Feb 2009)

leroi said:
			
		

> Future Prodigy, that's a long time to be in "existentiel crisis" as you claimed to be last year over the same career choice topic.
> 
> - I feel honored that you remember my posts. To answer your sarcasm, I have resolved much of my existential crises. I have firmly decided on policing and fire fighting after numerous discussions with professors and people in those trades. I am getting refractive surgery done soon and hope to help out the community, and make a difference via that route, as a fire fighter or police officer.
> 
> I just did a keyword search in the tri-university trellis library system (Waterloo, Guelph and WL) for "Canadian Forces Military Police" and got 9976 hits--of course that search needs to be refined.



- That is partially incorrect. If you look at the trellis system you will see that there is only one book on the history of the MPs by Andrew Rictchie-  "1  Canada--Armed forces--Military police--History " -  and which I have put on recall so as to read more into it. There are documents by the military police and there governing bodies but not history ones.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I too am unfamiliar with the roles of soldiering within the MP trade - in relation to the comment posted by dantheman. I talked to the recruiter and she basically made the job sound like a police career as well. After having read other peoples posts though I understand there is quite a large chunk of soldiering one can do as well. How does this factor into the roles? I am just trying to 'discuss' and broaden my knowledge base, and get a better understanding of what MPs do. I started a previous thread where the answer was simply jurisdiction but other posters have posted a lot about the soldiering side of the coin and i would like to hear more on this. (If i come across disrespectful or overly demanding, I do not mean to. That is one of the problems with internet communication. I am just blunt and to the point)


----------



## leroi (22 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy,

I did say the search needed to be refined; I did a quicky search for "you" not for me.

Anyway, I responded out of a concern that you might mistake comments given here as CF gospel. That might make it difficult for people to come forward with insightful perspective.

I also wanted to point out that in your original post you seemed to want a "consensus" on the job of MP--and, IMHO, I don't think this would be the place for that. It seems people come here with many points of view that don't always agree--that gives the site a healthy vibrancy.

Good luck in your career choice. It's good that you're rationally exploring options.


----------



## chris_log (22 Feb 2009)

Now that the threads have been merged, I'm going to ask a question.

From my understanding, down in the US they have both MP's/Security Forces/Provo Marshalls for your traditional 'big M little P' and security tasks tasks while there are DoD Police and the various investigative arms (US Army CID, NCIS, USAF OSI) who are civilian employees who engage in the more 'big P' tasks. Am I on the right track here wrt roles (I know this isn't a CF MP question...but I couldn't think of a better place)?


----------



## garb811 (23 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I started a previous thread where the answer was simply jurisdiction but other posters have posted a lot about the soldiering side of the coin and i would like to hear more on this. (If i come across disrespectful or overly demanding, I do not mean to. That is one of the problems with internet communication. I am just blunt and to the point)


Your other question was too generic to give an answer which hasn't already been provided.  Same-same for MP and soldiering, there is lots of info already covering many issues related to that.  If you have specific questions that haven't been answered, ask away and we'll do our best to answer them.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> Now that the threads have been merged, I'm going to ask a question.
> 
> From my understanding, down in the US they have both MP's/Security Forces/Provo Marshalls for your traditional 'big M little P' and security tasks tasks while there are DoD Police and the various investigative arms (US Army CID, NCIS, USAF OSI) who are civilian employees who engage in the more 'big P' tasks. Am I on the right track here wrt roles (I know this isn't a CF MP question...but I couldn't think of a better place)?


Roughly speaking:

Army CID=CFNIS
USAF OSI and NCIS=SIU when it had the serious/sensitive criminal investigation mandate


----------



## chris_log (23 Feb 2009)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Army CID=CFNIS
> USAF OSI and NCIS=SIU when it had the serious/sensitive criminal investigation mandate



Gotcha. How does the MP/DoD Police system work and how does it compare vis a vis what we have?


----------



## KevinB (23 Feb 2009)

Keep in mind down here a lot of Police tasks have been civilianized to free up MP's for Green Army convoy escrot tasks - hence the DoD Police.


----------



## Future Prodigy (23 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind down here a lot of Police tasks have been civilianized to free up MP's for Green Army convoy escrot tasks - hence the DoD Police.



Why then do MP's not receive SQ? Med Tech, Combat Eng, Infantry, Artillery, and Armored all do. The recruiter I talked to said this is because they all will see on field action but the MP description under "working environment" says "war fighting" so shouldn't by this criteria, MP's also receive SQ?

This is why I ask in what capacity do MP's serve as soldiers. I can not seem to find the answer elsewhere. 

garb811 - I have searched the other threads but can still not find an answer to the above question. The recruiter says one thing  (essentially police whose jurisdiction is military), and then I read multiple answers on this board (some the same as aforementioned definition, some as a hybrid police/soldier). 

Edited: due to typo mistake.


----------



## chris_log (23 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind down here a lot of Police tasks have been civilianized to free up MP's for Green Army convoy escrot tasks - hence the DoD Police.



Do US MP's/Security Police etc have police powers like Canadian MP's do? If so do they, for lack of a better term, have a paralell system with both military and civilian LE policing DoD property?

Edit: By civvie I mean the DoD Police.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> ............ The recruiter I talked to said this is because they all will see on field action but the MP description under "working environment" says "war fighting" so shouldn't by this criteria, MP's also receive SQ?
> 
> This is why I ask in what capacity do MP's serve as soldiers. I can not seem to find the answer elsewhere.
> 
> garb811 - ............. The recruiter says one thing  (essentially police whose jurisdiction is military), and then I read multiple answers on this board (some the same as aforementioned definition, some as a hybrid police/soldier).



First off; is the Recruiter a MP?  If not, then their perceptions of what a MP does will vary to differing degrees from what they really do, and may in fact be totally wrong.  Take what they say with a grain of salt.


----------



## KevinB (23 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Do US MP's/Security Police etc have police powers like Canadian MP's do? If so do they, for lack of a better term, have a paralell system with both military and civilian LE policing DoD property?
> 
> Edit: By civvie I mean the DoD Police.



They are both Federal Law Enforcement.  Due to the manpower needs of Big Army a lot of the bases have been switched to DoD Police who are civilians in a Federal LE job.  Some other bases still use MP's, Air Force Security Forces, USMC Military Police, and USN Military Police.

In Canada, the Corps of Comissionares...


----------



## chris_log (23 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> They are both Federal Law Enforcement.  Due to the manpower needs of Big Army a lot of the bases have been switched to DoD Police who are civilians in a Federal LE job.  Some other bases still use MP's, Air Force Security Forces, USMC Military Police, and USN Military Police.
> 
> In Canada, the Corps of Comissionares...



Neato, thanks for the help.


----------



## Dissident (23 Feb 2009)

Did the last Provost Marshal (Capt Moore) not decree that all MPs would attend SQ? I wonder how many MP RegF members do not have SQ?

In the army reserve, MPs all get SQ. What about ARAF MPs?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Feb 2009)

ARAF members will follow the same training progression as Reg F MPs.


----------



## garb811 (23 Feb 2009)

I-6, thanks, I haven't had contact with DOD police so all I knew was they were at some bases and they were civilians vice service members.  Might be something to consider for places like Moose Jaw, North Bay, Dundurn...

For MP and SQ, not sure of the status of that.  A couple of years ago all MP were being sent through SQ, now, we have guys coming into the Guardhouse who have not, primarily it seems because they need to get as many pers onto basic MP training ASAP.  All MP do attend PLQ(L) though, no matter what the environment of their uniform or the base they are at.

In what capacity do MP's serve as soldiers?  The same as any other trade serves as soldiers, where ever and however the CF needs us.  Are we Police?  Yes.  Are we soldiers?  Yes.  Is our task to close with and destroy the enemy?  No but currently in Afghanistan there are MP mentoring the Afghan Police in conjunction with Infantry pers and this requires them to be combat capable as they are stationed in Afghan Police Sub-Stations in various locations with Inf Pers and they are responsible for their local defence and accompanying the Afghan Police on patrol...


----------



## McG (24 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Infidel-6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are aware than, in stating "down here," Infidel-6 was letting you know that he was speaking about US Army MPs.  Right?



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Why then do MP's not receive SQ? Med Tech, Combat Eng, Infantry, Artillery, and Armored all do. The recruiter I talked to said this is because they all will see on field action but the MP description under "working environment" says "war fighting" so shouldn't by this criteria, MP's also receive SQ?
> 
> This is why I ask in what capacity do MP's serve as soldiers. I can not seem to find the answer elsewhere.





			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Also, I too am unfamiliar with the roles of soldiering within the MP trade - in relation to the comment posted by dantheman. I talked to the recruiter and she basically made the job sound like a police career as well. After having read other peoples posts though I understand there is quite a large chunk of soldiering one can do as well. How does this factor into the roles? I am just trying to 'discuss' and broaden my knowledge base, and get a better understanding of what MPs do. I started a previous thread where the answer was simply jurisdiction but other posters have posted a lot about the soldiering side of the coin and i would like to hear more on this.


1.  Combat Engineer is shorted as 'Cbt Engr.' 

2.  Something you seem to be overlooking in your quest for information is that MPs are not a hard Army occupation.  You can find them on all bases, supporting all environments (Army, Navy & Air), and in green or blue uniforms.  The location to which an MP is posted/deployed will have an impact on the degree that MP is expected to act as a soldier.

You might be interested in a few excerpts (and an illustration) from the Army's doctrine for MPs.  The following is from B-GL-362-001/FP-001 Military Police,  10 Nov 2000.

Chapter 1, Para 3


> The role of Military Police is to provide commanders with an
> essential element of command and control, through the conduct of four
> functions: Mobility Support, Security, Detention, and Police
> Operations.



Chapter 1, Para 5


> Military Police assigned to the Army are all soldiers, with a
> dual responsibility, that of a soldier policeman. They are professional
> police persons and professional soldiers. They participate in operations
> through the spectrum of conflict and help the commander in achieving
> ...



Chapter 1, Para 7


> The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s policy dictates that
> all Military Police persons employed in police operations possess
> peace officer status in accordance with approved training standards.
> Some Reserve Force Military Police personnel may be trained to these
> ...


----------



## McG (24 Feb 2009)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Why then do MP's not receive SQ?


According to CANFORGEN 101/08 CMP 040/08 031334Z JUN 08, MP are required to complete SQ and PLQ-L.  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22558/post-721409.html#msg721409


----------



## StudentGrant (20 Dec 2010)

Hi

I tried a few searches but perhaps didn't get the search strings right...

If I recall correctly (not having been in Canada for a good few years) the Military Police handed over some responsibility for policing to civilian police forces a few years back.

Can someone tell me:

     a)     when this was, and

     b)     what was handed over, and what was retained.

TIA


----------



## Container (20 Dec 2010)

Im sure some MP's will be in to correct me shortly- but having worked with, and around MP's I dont recall them giving anything over to Civi's. There was a rumour a few years ago but I dont think it turned into anything??

What responsibility specifically?


----------



## StudentGrant (20 Dec 2010)

Hi 

Thanks - my memory is a bit hazy on this, having only seen something on-line.

My recollection is that there was a move to hand over, for example, patrolling of PMQs, thefts not involving military property, etc. and that the first trial was meant to be somewhere out West, possibly Edmonton?

The context (again, from hazy recollection) was that the civilian police could deal with such matters in a more cost-effective manner, and leave the MPs to deal with issues that were purely military in nature.  

SG


----------



## Cdnleaf (20 Dec 2010)

Recommend posting this question to The Canadian Association of Military Police Veterans Forum:  http://www.campvets.ca/


----------



## garb811 (20 Dec 2010)

Don't bother with CAMPVETS unless you want to tell an old war story...

SG:  What you recall is absolutely false.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Dec 2010)

For what its worth, PMQs in Gagetown are policed by the RCMP.


----------



## garb811 (20 Dec 2010)

PMQs aren't policed by RCMP, the roadways are.


----------



## Franko (21 Dec 2010)

garb811 said:
			
		

> PMQs aren't policed by RCMP, the roadways are.



So for domestic disturbances troops call the MPs unless it's on the road in front of the PMQ?

Regards


----------



## garb811 (21 Dec 2010)

Pretty much.  I've never been to Gagetown so don't know the exact legal intricacies involved but it is something along the lines that the PMQs are not on the Base proper so DND doesn't own the roads.  At one time MPs did everything in the patch but it was not a properly approved MOU so that ceased 10-15(?) years ago.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (21 Dec 2010)

If two of my Troopers get in a fight at Griffin's (on the base proper) they get arrested by the MPs. If they get in a fight at a PMQ they get arrested by the RCMP.


----------



## garb811 (21 Dec 2010)

If you have first hand experience of that happening, I can't rebut that other than to say that it "shouldn't" be happening like that; anything owned, leased or rented by DND is MP jurisdiction.


----------



## Container (21 Dec 2010)

I know both an MP and an RCMP member in the area of Gagetown. The memorandum of who does what has gone back and forth a few times over the last few years.

I dont know where it is RIGHT now. But in the last four years its switched a few times. So you can both be right at different times.

Its very frustrating for the people who live in Gagetown, and demoralizing for the police (on both sides). But Gagetown aside...


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> I know both an MP and an RCMP member in the area of Gagetown. The memorandum of who does what has gone back and forth a few times over the last few years.
> 
> I dont know where it is RIGHT now. But in the last four years its switched a few times. So you can both be right at different times.
> 
> Its very frustrating for the people who live in Gagetown, and demoralizing for the police (on both sides). But Gagetown aside...



Not to be pickie or anything, but the town of Gagetown does not have PMQs, nor do Upper and Lower Gagetown.  The PMQs are all in Oromocto.


----------



## Container (21 Dec 2010)

I apologize. Not being from the area, and only visiting my mother there a few times I only know it as Gagetown. I thought they were interchangable. 

I am sure you've saved me future embarassment. The intoxicated lamentations of the mountie and MP remain the same though. Just move it a town over.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2010)

No apology necessary.  Most of us know what you meant, and usually do use the name Gagetown to refer to the whole locale as opposed to the proper place names even though officially it is Oromocto, with Gagetown (the town from which the Camp took its name) being well off the beaten track further down the river.


----------



## Tibbson (2 Jan 2011)

As some have noted, there are certain areas where the policing responsibility has been handed over to civilian police but that was more due to geography and local politics then anything else.   

The PMQs in Gagetown were handed over although word is the Base wishes it had never happened and would like to get it back because of the poor quality of policing.  Also, the roadway areas of the PMQs in Winnipeg was turned over to WPS while MPs retain jurisdiction of the actual PMQs (you can see how much of a mess that turned out to be).

A number of years ago the Base Commander in Borden did a cost study on turning over all policing for the base to the OPP.  He quickly found that it would cost almost 4 times as much to have the OPP do it and all he would get in return was one constable on the base 24/7 with another on call in the area.  The base would have to pay for the salaries, an office, the vehicles and all costs associated with the civilan cop AND still have 6-8 MPs just to handle those matters that the civilan police could not (strictly military issues).  

On top of more money being spent the CF authorities would also lose any opportunity for info on what was going on within the Base.  Right now, Col Bloggins phones over to the MPO and says "Pte JONES didn't report for work this morning.  Any idea what is going on?" to which the MPO would answer "Yes Sir, we have him here for X offence(s)" but the OPP officer would just say "Oh yeah?  Well, thats too bad, have a nice day.....*click"

This was all years ago mind you and much has changed since then.  More will also change in April when the PM gets full operational control over all MPs regardless of element.  No longer will Base Commanders be able to deny things to the MPs just out of spite or apathy.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2011)

Tibbson said:
			
		

> No longer will Base Commanders be able to deny things to the MPs just out of spite or apathy.



Yes because the MPs are soooooo hard done by. Base and Wing commanders are just out to "get them".

 :



Edited to remove the needless cheapshot.


----------



## garb811 (2 Jan 2011)

Tibbson said:
			
		

> As some have noted, there are certain areas where the policing responsibility has been handed over to civilian police but that was more due to geography and local politics then anything else.


Nothing has been "handed over" to civilian police.  If civilian police are now "policing" certain areas where MP used to do it, it is because MP shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.  In the good old days, a lot of arrangements were made at the local level that were not done properly which led to MPs "policing" areas where they shouldn't have been or responding to calls from the local police where they had no jurisdiction or authority to do so.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yes because the MPs are soooooo hard done by.
> 
> :
> 
> Careful what you wish for, you might have to start working for a living.




*There is absolutely no need for a shot like this at an entire trade, you wouldn't except it, why should others have too?

Bruce*


----------



## Kokanee (27 Nov 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> To take it a step further, do we really need the Military Police? :stirpot:
> 
> The pre-unification RCN saw no need for a military police force.  Why can't the RCMP, a federal police force, provide domestic police services and criminal investigation while a smaller "provost corps" made up of personnel (drawn from the combat arms) who are trained for the tactical aspects of the MP function serve for a posting or two and then return to their regiments?  For example an infantryman would leave his rifle company for three years, do a tour with the provost company and then go back to a rifle company (with a better understanding of the bigger picture).



That is one of the best ideas I have ever heard, period.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Nov 2011)

In the "olden days" 2 PPCLI had an MP/RP Section - the MPs had a Sgt, MCpl and a Cpl posted and the remainder were Patricias.

It worked well. MPs/RPs manned the Info Post outside BHQ - like they are supposed to. MPS also manned checkpoints during road moves - like they are intended to do.


----------



## medicineman (27 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> In the "olden days" 2 PPCLI had an MP/RP Section - the MPs had a Sgt, MCpl and a Cpl posted and the remainder were Patricias.
> 
> It worked well. MPs/RPs manned the Info Post outside BHQ - like they are supposed to. MPS also manned checkpoints during road moves - like they are intended to do.



There was one just like that with 2RCR when I was there in the not so distant past.

MM


----------



## garb811 (27 Nov 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> To take it a step further, do we really need the Military Police? :stirpot:
> 
> The pre-unification RCN saw no need for a military police force.  Why can't the RCMP, a federal police force, provide domestic police services and criminal investigation while a smaller "provost corps" made up of personnel (drawn from the combat arms) who are trained for the tactical aspects of the MP function serve for a posting or two and then return to their regiments?  For example an infantryman would leave his rifle company for three years, do a tour with the provost company and then go back to a rifle company (with a better understanding of the bigger picture).


To continue down the path you are taking, the same argument could be made of any CSS trade.  CANCAP proved pretty conclusively that with the exception of a very few positions, any of those trades can be replaced by civilian contractors in theatre and in the SLOC.  Hell, why do we even bother to have orderly rooms full of RMS Clerks in Canada?  Make them all PS positions, then they'll be able to actually get some work done instead of taking time out of their day for PT, parades, hair cuts, trips to supply, career manager visits etc etc.  It's not going to have an affect when we deploy, all we need to do is take a couple combat arms folks and make them the company scribe for the tour.

But really, do we have to have the "Replace MPs with the RCMP" tirades ad nauseum?  If you want to join on the pile on, there are a ton of threads in the MP sub-forum you can add your thoughts to.  I doubt any of them are going to be original though.


----------



## McG (28 Nov 2011)

garb811 said:
			
		

> To continue down the path you are taking, the same argument could be made of any CSS trade.


I don't buy your slippery slope.  CANCAP and Public Service are civilian.  Members of the RCMP are members of a service.  Like CF service members, they have patroled with weapons & armour outside the wire in Afghanistan.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (28 Nov 2011)

At first I was very upset at the very idea.  The RCMP could lose some contracts as provincial forces if other were to adapt a OPP/QPP regime.
So to maintain the giant machine and empire there has to be conquests.  As the monster grows.  
From my limited exposure since I retired as an MP, I see that the MP has maybe gone from a Mayberry type homey feel with a Big M, Little P to a big P.
So now it is a spec trade and most applicants are direct entry college trained Police Foundations and I tend to believe has possibly grown as a stepping stone to a civilian police career. Always an issue.
Our MPs have done an excellent job now and always as demonstrated in ALL taskings, past present and future.  I still recall the RP/MP regimental set-up.  It was an excellent option for  combat arm types to have transition in a viable civie trade.  But the remuster format is different now with the spec issue and police foundations.  To go RCMP would be a major mistake, to drop some young rookie kid into a military community would not be the best option.  A constant influx of persons on a learning curve at the expense of the military community and the labour intensive process of liaison and implementation.  More wasted effort, if it ain't broke don't fix it or leave it alone. 
There are limited options to a person who does years and years in either a field unit or at sea.  So 30 yrs of humping a rucksack or sail after sail.  And what to do upon retirement.  
To think you will have a person go to a RP section and return to a field unit would be a hard sell.  
We experience constant change for the sake of change or to satify the annual review for some HR specialist in RCMP HQ.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Nov 2011)

This was looked at by TB in the 90's.  It was called the FLUR or Federal Law Enforcement Under Review.  TB came to the conclusion that they were indeed paying for numerous organizatons to do LE for the Federal Gov't and there were many duplications and layers.  ie.  RCMP and CBSA have some overlap.  It was thought that if they could dovetail everyone under one umbrella there would be considerable cost savings to be had.  Great idea in theory, but here we are almost 20 years later, still the same.  The idea did not fly then and I doubt it will fly now.  IIRC the idea we heard was that the MP would be absorbed into the RCMP and would carry on as normal under their umbrella as would the other agencies such as Federal Fisheries, Corrections etc etc.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2011)

garb811 said:
			
		

> To continue down the path you are taking, the same argument could be made of any CSS trade.  CANCAP proved pretty conclusively that with the exception of a very few positions, any of those trades can be replaced by civilian contractors in theatre and in the SLOC.  Hell, why do we even bother to have orderly rooms full of RMS Clerks in Canada?  Make them all PS positions, then they'll be able to actually get some work done instead of taking time out of their day for PT, parades, hair cuts, trips to supply, career manager visits etc etc.  It's not going to have an affect when we deploy, all we need to do is take a couple combat arms folks and make them the company scribe for the tour.



Can you order a civilian to pick up a weapon and defend themselves?
Can you order a civilian to deploy to start to a theatre of ops - or even on exercise?
Can you demand a civilian be physically fit?
Can you order a civilian to do some of the tasks military pers do as a matter of course?

I would say No to all the above.

As for your comment WRT to making cbt arms folks company clerks - not a fat chance. Administration is the job of the RMS world, not for an infantry, arty , cbt engr or armoured soldier. They belong with the F ech.  Administration is complex - and us infantry guys are "short words, small sentences types".


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2011)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> At first I was very upset at the very idea.  The RCMP could lose some contracts as provincial forces if other were to adapt a OPP/QPP regime.
> So to maintain the giant machine and empire there has to be conquests.  As the monster grows.
> From my limited exposure since I retired as an MP, I see that the MP has maybe gone from a Mayberry type homey feel with a Big M, Little P to a big P.
> So now it is a spec trade and most applicants are direct entry college trained Police Foundations and I tend to believe has possibly grown as a stepping stone to a civilian police career. Always an issue.
> ...




That, too little military too much police, is my (outsider's) perception of the 21st century MP vs, say, the 20th century Canadian Provost Corps. There was no doubt that the CProC were *MILITARY* - they looked it and they acted it. Here in Ottawa I routinely, as late as Remembrance Day, near the National War Memorial, see overweight, sloppily dressed and lackadaisical MPs who cannot possibly have the respect of real soldiers. If we need *police* then the RCMP are *real police* with all the right training and so on. I'm not saying we don't need MPs but I think their duties might be better focused on security (physical and computer security*), where I hear there are real problems, rather than policing which, it seems to me might be done by a relatively few *real police officers*. (When I was a CO I had one serious 'criminal' case - the base MPs allowed that they could not handle it and they called in the regional RCMP would could and did. That was a long time ago, but ...)

______
* Which is vastly different from COMSEC which is not and should not be a MP responsibility.


Edit: typo


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2011)

The MP branch lacks the critical mass to do all the things it would like to do.  Add to that the need to post MPs around, and it becomes difficult to build the long-term experience within sub-fields of police work that is needed to sustain a credible, fully-featured police force.

I tend to agree with ERC; a more focussed MP capability with RCMP to provide more of the heavy lifting in the more technically challenging police areas would probably be preferable to our current system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2011)

garb811 said:
			
		

> To continue down the path you are taking, the same argument could be made of any CSS trade.  CANCAP proved pretty conclusively that with the exception of a very few positions, any of those trades can be replaced by civilian contractors in theatre and in the SLOC.  Hell, why do we even bother to have orderly rooms full of RMS Clerks in Canada?  Make them all PS positions, then they'll be able to actually get some work done instead of taking time out of their day for PT, parades, hair cuts, trips to supply, career manager visits etc etc.  It's not going to have an affect when we deploy, all we need to do is take a couple combat arms folks and make them the company scribe for the tour.
> 
> But really, do we have to have the "Replace MPs with the RCMP" tirades ad nauseum?  If you want to join on the pile on, there are a ton of threads in the MP sub-forum you can add your thoughts to.  I doubt any of them are going to be original though.



IIRC and I might be mistaken, but somewhere in my foggy memory I seem to recall that the RCMP were\ are still listed on the Order of Battle. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were accorded the status of a regiment of Dragoons in 1921, with its first guidon presented in 1935.

So, not quite civilian contractors.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> IIRC and I might be mistaken, but somewhere in my foggy memory I seem to recall that the RCMP were\ are still listed on the Order of Battle. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were accorded the status of a regiment of Dragoons in 1921, with its first guidon presented in 1935.


As recently as WW2, it appears a detachment of RCMP was listed on the order of battle for the 1st Canadian Army (as 1st Provost Company (RCMP)) - here's a list of the WW2 fallen, as well as a bit more history of 1 Provost Coy, from the RCMP web site



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> So, not quite civilian contractors.


Not even close - based on the Depot training alone, they're quite military in their orientation.  I think the only thing keeping the RCMP from being considered paramilitary police, like some European gendarme forces, would be the fact that they don't "work for" DND.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Nov 2011)

garb811 said:
			
		

> To continue down the path you are taking, the same argument could be made of any CSS trade.  CANCAP proved pretty conclusively that with the exception of a very few positions, any of those trades can be replaced by civilian contractors in theatre and in the SLOC.  Hell, why do we even bother to have orderly rooms full of RMS Clerks in Canada?  Make them all PS positions, then they'll be able to actually get some work done instead of taking time out of their day for PT, parades, hair cuts, trips to supply, career manager visits etc etc.  It's not going to have an affect when we deploy, all we need to do is take a couple combat arms folks and make them the company scribe for the tour.
> 
> But really, do we have to have the "Replace MPs with the RCMP" tirades ad nauseum?  If you want to join on the pile on, there are a ton of threads in the MP sub-forum you can add your thoughts to.  I doubt any of them are going to be original though.




but you will get more grievances, people going on strike, etc. The clash of cultures could be a problem. Maybe a new tradegroup for disabled vets who are non-deployable, still military but do the admin work instead. It won't work for all but it may help to keep good people and allow the Regimental family to look after it's own.


----------



## garb811 (28 Nov 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't buy your slippery slope.  CANCAP and Public Service are civilian.  Members of the RCMP are members of a service.  Like CF service members, they have patroled with weapons & armour outside the wire in Afghanistan.



Not a slippery slope statement but rather one dripping with sarcasm.  Each Most Branches remain in existance for the very reason that their capabilities and skills are required on order; those that could be replaced by civilians because they weren't critical for deployment, were mostly cut back in the 90s, such as the PERIs.  Although some CIVPOL did patrol outside the wire with weapons and armour, nobody was able to order them to do so, nor was anyone able to order them to deploy to Afghanistan, period.  If enough CIVPOL had failed to volunteer or been repated/failed to return from leave, the positions would have remained vacant (as has happened on other missions) or the MP Coy would have been tasked to supply, as happened on several occassions.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That, too little military too much police, is my (outsider's) perception of the 21st century MP vs, say, the 20th century Canadian Provost Corps. There was no doubt that the CProC were *MILITARY* - they looked it and they acted it. Here in Ottawa I routinely, as late as Remembrance Day, near the National War Memorial, see overweight, sloppily dressed and lackadaisical MPs who cannot possibly have the respect of real soldiers. If we need *police* then the RCMP are *real police* with all the right training and so on. I'm not saying we don't need MPs but I think their duties might be better focused on security (physical and computer security*), where I hear there are real problems, rather than policing which, it seems to me might be done by a relatively few *real police officers*. (When I was a CO I had one serious 'criminal' case - the base MPs allowed that they could not handle it and they called in the regional RCMP would could and did.  That was a long time ago, but ...)


Exactly.  As with many "justifications" of this type it is based on your perceptions based upon limited experiences years ago which do not reflect the reality of today.  Ref the "*real police*" shot and the insinuation that all MP must be improperly trained, sloppily dressed and lackadaisical because you routinely see them in Ottawa comments, I thought you were above that Mr. Campbell.  You're one of the few on this board who is usually able to stay out of that proverbial mud. 



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> But really, do we have to have the "Replace MPs with the RCMP" tirades ad nauseum?  If you want to join on the pile on, there are a ton of threads in the MP sub-forum you can add your thoughts to.  I doubt any of them are going to be original though.


Yep, nothing new.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Nov 2011)

I have to agree with garb811 on what the MP bring to the table operationally wise.  While the CivPol are great guys and fantastic police officers, they are domestic professionals first and foremost.  Domestic policing is not operational policing.  They are apples and oranges.  And I'm sorry, but there are things that the CivPol will not be able to provide the CF that the MP do unless they have come into the civilian market from the CF originally.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have to agree with garb811 on what the MP bring to the table operationally wise.  While the CivPol are great guys and fantastic police officers, they are domestic professionals first and foremost.  Domestic policing is not operational policing.  They are apples and oranges.  And I'm sorry, but there are things that the CivPol will not be able to provide the CF that the MP do unless they have come into the civilian market from the CF originally.



Enlighten us to those 'things' that only an MP is capable of please, and why a paramilitary LEO (RCMP) placed under command couldn't do them. I'm truly intrigued.


----------



## J.J (28 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Enlighten us to those 'things' that only an MP is capable of please, and why a paramilitary LEO (RCMP) placed under command couldn't do them. I'm truly intrigued.


The RCMP will never allow their members to be put under command of anybody. JFO's in Ontario the RCMP generally don't "play well" with others. They are accustomed to doing things their way.
The RCMP are drastically under staffed and if the RCMP took over policing for bases I would suggest the members per base would be less than desired. The CF would have control for the number of MP's, not RCMP on bases.
http://www.burnabynewsleader.com/opinion/letters/114144934.html
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/duxbury-eng.htm
http://colinkenny.ca/en/The-New-RCMP-Commissioner-Restoring-Respect-Wont-Come-Cheap
http://colinkenny.ca/en/Would-a-Real-Law-and-Order-Government-Let-the-RCMP-Crumble
http://colinkenny.ca/en/p102221

It was also commented that the RCMP would not "understand" the military sub-culture and you may have issues, I have to agree with that comment. The RCMP are a professional police force that is a *para*military organization, not a military organization such as the MP's.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2011)

We're not talking about the RCMP as gate guards to a base. We're talking an operational setting and they have come under command of the military before. South Africa 1900-2, France & Flanders 1918, Siberia 1918-19, Europe 1939-45 to name four instances.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2011)

From what I'm reading the MILITARY Police have become the military POLICE. They need to become MILITARY again and do things like man the Bn Info Post, take care of PW handling and traffic control in the FIELD.

We don't need Starsky and Hutch driving an MP vehicle hither and yon to investigate things the RSM could take care of.

We need MPs who do Military Police things.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Nov 2011)

I concur with Jim.  I have met and continue to meet outstanding MPs.

I am dismayed at the fixation on CP and the drain it places on MP Dets.  I cannot understand the active avoidance of traditional field MP tasks such as traffic control and route signage.  Above the local level, the MP leadership does not seem much interested in Force Protection- unless it is overseas. Why do MPs still do embassy work?  Should DFAIT not grow up at some point and hire their own security guards?

the CF MP Gp is becoming a reasonably good, if not excellent federal police force.  The question that we the CF must ask is- how many Police officers does the CF really need?  Do we need over 1000 credentialled law enforcers in CF of 100,000 (including Reserves and Cadets?).  Are we that crime ridden?


----------



## McG (28 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> From what I'm reading the MILITARY Police have become the military POLICE.


I'd take it a step farther - in many ways military police have become garrison police.  The uniforms, equipment, and vehicles cast the image of civilian community police -  the focus of duties also seems to match.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> The RCMP will never allow their members to be put under command of anybody.


If the RCMP were given the garrison policing mandate from the MPs, you could expect that there would be RCMP Act and NDA changes that would make irrelevant what the RCMP want to allow.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> The RCMP are drastically under staffed ...


A transfer of mandate should also come with a transfer of resources (ie. the RCMP would get PYs, and a selection process would allow military pers to transfer to the RCMP and fill those positions).


----------



## Dissident (28 Nov 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I cannot understand the active avoidance of traditional field MP tasks such as traffic control and route signage.



Although I share the dismay about the lack of focus on hard field skills (I don't see them being maintained beyond the current Afg mission) it is hard to justify maintaining route signage skills when we are unlikely to use those skills ever again. Traffic control doesn't require a whole lot of practice to be proficient at and we can pick that up as required.

What is really shocking to me is that we were not 100% (or at least close to be) able to document and process the detainees when we hit the ground in Kandahar. I not critical of roto 0 here, I think there was a lack of foresight on the part of the branch to refine the detainee/PW process to account for the new realities of our operations and the domestic political angle. My IBTS on PW STILL revolves around the PW cage (up to the DIV level on rare occasions) and what I think is WWII legacy documentation. If there is ONE thing the MPs will always have to deal with operationally is just that, PWs.

Edited for clarity and wording. Couple of typos also.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Nov 2011)

NinerSix- You have raised a good point.  My list of overlooked MP field skills was not meant to be exhaustive.

BTW- you would be shocked by some of the road moves that I have seen recently.....


----------



## Dissident (29 Nov 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> BTW- you would be shocked by some of the road moves that I have seen recently.....



No I would not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> I'd take it a step farther - in many ways military police have become garrison police.  The uniforms, equipment, and vehicles cast the image of civilian community police -  the focus of duties also seems to match.
> 
> If the RCMP were given the garrison policing mandate from the MPs, you could expect that there would be RCMP Act and NDA changes that would make irrelevant what the RCMP want to allow.
> 
> A transfer of mandate should also come with a transfer of resources (ie. the RCMP would get PYs, and a selection process would allow military pers to transfer to the RCMP and fill those positions).




Notwithstanding garb811's disdainful view of my perception and experience I think you are on the right track.

I think our *M*ilitary Police need to be responsible for _inter alia_ garrison/base security (which is a pretty serious requirement in a few places) - all aspects of physical _security_, for prisoner handling (PWs in operations, service prisons in Canada), for route and traffic control and for computer security - about which my _experience_ is almost certainly greater and more recent that garb811's and my perception of which leads me to conclude that there is a real, serious and inadequately met (not unmet, just insufficient resources assigned) threat to DND.

I think we should do as you suggest - transfer some (*real police* (criminal investigation, domestic violence, etc)) responsibilities and some PYs to the RCMP and make them partners with the MPs in maintaining good order and discipline and security in DND and the CF.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (29 Nov 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why do MPs still do embassy work?  Should DFAIT not grow up at some point and hire their own security guards?



They did.  My father did it for 35+ years from the early 50s to 89.  Ottawa, London, Moscow, Rome, Stockholm, Kuala Lumpur, Washington, Baghdad, Islamabad, Belgrade, Athens, back to Ottawa for 4 years doing TDs to China, Baghdad (again), Pretoria, Dublin, et al.

Often he was only guard, un-armed and not always in a friendly place.  I would have been glad to get a job like he had.  Unfortuantely when he retired I believe he said there were around three of classification left in Foreign Affaires and the RCMP and MPs (later to be MP only) were taking over the jobs.


----------



## lawandorder (10 Dec 2011)

It amazes me that so many people think they can still tell the Military Police how to do their job or how not to do their job without having any experience, recent or otherwise, in dealing with them besides being pulled over.

For the member who stated that the CF should get "real police".  Try explaining to an Ontario constable that he should write a report up on a lost NDI 20 because its lost public property.  Or that a member should be arrested for being involved in a quarrel or fray.  They won't, and the don't care and its not worth the time.  Oh and by the way, cancel all major purchases in the CF because Civilian Constables expects to be paid almost double what a Cpl 4 makes.  That doesn't include overtime or court pay.  MP's are also "Peace Officers".  Want better experienced ones?  Don't promote them and extend their Cpl pay increment past 4.  Once you hit Sgt, sometimes MCpl, your patrolling days are gone, generally.  The 6 month trainng program at CFMPA is an excellent package and I would put a Rookie MP up against a Rookie of any other Police Service.

Also the history of the CProC and MP's bleed in to that of the RCMP because many of the NWMP acted as CProC in both the great wars.  They were the defacto Military Police if I am not mistaken.  But that was a long time ago and Policing has changed, both inside and outside of the Military. Also any argument that says the RCMP can do the job of an MP and one of your References is the Boer War, rethink the argument.

While I don't have time to go through and collect all the posters quotes, someone else mentioned that there is no field work anymore. There is a fairly well stocked field platoon in Petawawa right now.  I guess they don't count. Probably in Edmonton and Valcartier too, but I guess they don’t count.  Most of the reserve platoons also focus on field work.  I guess they don't count.  Rout Signing is still taught at the school, but look what happened to American Private Jessica Lynch.  Yep, the bad guys moved some rout signs around.  Ooops!

As for Bn MP's and the Sheriffs, I think it is a shame they aren't there and is a disservice. 

I have seen sloppy road moves, mostly because MP's aren't requested at the higher level, so the base Provo isn't even invited to the O Group, and when MP's are involved, the Convoy Commander, and Crew Commanders don't follow direction.  They drive too fast, sometimes take different routes then indicated, and try and lead their packet off early.  It may be a Jr Cpl with an orange traffic wand telling you to stop, but he has the timings list.

As for fat MP's, yep they're their.  But so are Fat armour guys, Fat Infantry guys, Fat clerks, Fat Cooks, Fat Supply techs.....I'm not picking on anyone but it is what it is.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> It amazes me ...


Feeling better now?   op:


If you feel that an untoward number of people are picking on the MP branch, then perhaps there _is_ a problem with the service provided.


----------



## lawandorder (10 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Feeling better now?   op:
> 
> 
> If you feel that an untoward number of people are picking on the MP branch, then perhaps there _is_ a problem with the service provided.



Absolutely.  And hopefully the new MP C2 can help correct that.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> And hopefully the new MP C2 can help correct that.



Stovepipes rarely do.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Dec 2011)

Uhhhhh, have you guys seen the RCMP lately?

I'd like to stay as far away from them as possible thanks.


----------



## Dissident (10 Dec 2011)

L&O, we do have Reg Force field platoons, but I have generally been underwhelmed by the proficiency demonstrated by those. Being a reservist for not quite 10 years, what we focused on in my formative years was the field side of the house. Sure, the combat arms trade re muster were head an shoulders above anything I will ever achieve, but somehow the sum of these parts always seem lackluster. There is a difference between having field platoon survive in the field and having a true field capable platoon. 

To be fair: I/We use to be quite proud of having field proficient troops/platoon in the reserve, but with attrition, cuts in the training time, Afghanistan deployements and the transient refocus on domestic police ops, I am now surrounded by a couple of generations of Ptes and Cpls who are barely qualified to run a Coleman stove, never mind the rest of the IBTS. Which embarrasses me a great deal. 



> I have seen sloppy road moves, mostly because MP's aren't requested at the higher level, so the base Provo isn't even invited to the O Group, and when MP's are involved, the Convoy Commander, and Crew Commanders don't follow direction.  They drive too fast, sometimes take different routes then indicated, and try and lead their packet off early.  It may be a Jr Cpl with an orange traffic wand telling you to stop, but he has the timings list.



I don't know anything about the coordination at higher levels, but yes absolutely, the responsibility of the sloppy road moves should not solely be rested at the feet of the trade. A lot/most/all of the problems with road moves that I have seen were not the results of individual or section lack of skills. (Maybe some MPs could learn to be a touch more forcefull, others more diplomatic?) Typically the problems were as you stated: Convoy commander diregarding the timetable, packet speed and in general just doing as they pleased.

All in all L&O, that was a very good post, if a touch defensive.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Dec 2011)

I guess that my criticism was observing several outright refusals by certain MP Units to participate and assist in traffic control duties on some recent rather large scale road moves that I recently observed.  The unspoken subtext seemed to be that it wasn't "real" police work...

If that attitude spreads throughout CFMP Gp, the question might very well begin to be asked- why are we paying for a second federal police force that does essentially the same thing as the first (the RCMP)?

I want to make it clear that I am a big supporter of the MPs- so long as they remember that the "M" is there for a very important reason.  If CFMP Gp focusses on policing, to exclusion of all else, then I feel that they will create an existential threat to the very concept of MPs in the CF.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> I have seen sloppy road moves, mostly because MP's aren't requested at the higher level, so the base Provo isn't even invited to the O Group, and when MP's are involved, the Convoy Commander, and Crew Commanders don't follow direction.  They drive too fast, sometimes take different routes then indicated, and try and lead their packet off early.  It may be a Jr Cpl with an orange traffic wand telling you to stop, but he has the timings list.



And I've seen road moves set up by MP's that are absolute goat rodeos. Even though it's not rocket science.

Armoured Recce does TCPs as part of their RAS taskings and BTS and are extremely adept at them. There is no fancy police training needed.


----------



## Dissident (11 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Armoured Recce does TCPs as part of their RAS taskings and BTS and are extremely adept at them. There is no fancy police training needed.



Awesome! Take it over!


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> It amazes me that so many people think they can still tell the Military Police how to do their job or how not to do their job without having any experience, recent or otherwise, in dealing with them besides being pulled over.
> 
> For the member who stated that the CF should get "real police".  Try explaining to an Ontario constable that he should write a report up on a lost NDI 20 because its lost public property.  Or that a member should be arrested for being involved in a quarrel or fray.  They won't, and the don't care and its not worth the time.  Oh and by the way, cancel all major purchases in the CF because Civilian Constables expects to be paid almost double what a Cpl 4 makes.  That doesn't include overtime or court pay.  MP's are also "Peace Officers".  Want better experienced ones?  Don't promote them and extend their Cpl pay increment past 4.  Once you hit Sgt, sometimes MCpl, your patrolling days are gone, generally.  The 6 month trainng program at CFMPA is an excellent package and I would put a Rookie MP up against a Rookie of any other Police Service.
> 
> ...



A bit sensitive are we? Then I would really like it if everyone outside the infantry would do the same as you ask of anyone not a Military Police NCM or officer.


----------



## Tow Tripod (11 Dec 2011)

I'm not fat! My mother said I was Big Boned!!


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Dec 2011)

I'm guessing that we've lost an appreciation for what MPs do because we're not a big enough Army. I can't imagine a civilian cop handling thousands of PWs or doing even the basics of an MP's job in a field situation. The thought of having to rely on the RCMP vs. a real 'Army' cop is truly horrifying.


----------



## McG (11 Dec 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The thought of having to rely on the RCMP vs. a real 'Army' cop is truly horrifying.


But, if we transfered the garrison policing mandate to RCMP, would that allow what is left of the MP to better focus on the specific military needs of the work?


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Dec 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> But, if we transfered the garrison policing mandate to RCMP, would that allow what is left of the MP to better focus on the specific military needs of the work?



I see the advantages, but I can't get my head around someone who is not a soldier arresting a soldier on a military base. I've seen civvy police try to over exert their authority on military establishments before, and they've cause far more harm than good. 

I'd prefer to give the MPs the trust, resources and training they need to do their jobs right on the base, and make sure they can liase effectively with civilian police off the base as required.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2011)

...and to be blunt, with over 9 years on this site, the lack of respect that a rather large number of posters have shown for civilian law enforcement desn't bode well for having civi cops on the base either.


----------



## Dissident (12 Dec 2011)

Would the RCMP be willing to locally adapt their policing models? Would they be willing to use the local CF CoC to solve some of the issues? 

You have to imagine that an RCMP detachment would be mostly composed of members posted in and out every 4-5 years, from the patrol constable to the staff sergeant. Would they be able to gain and maintain the corporate knowledge of how best to deal with members of different units/ships and their RSM/SSM/Coxswain? Would they care too?

I am really curious about this now and will engage the people I know about their thoughts on this.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (12 Dec 2011)

In my experience*, the RCMP locally adopts its policing model in any detachment that serves a municipality or province, as each area has local and provincial statutes and bylaws that need to be learned by incoming officers to adequately police the populace.  That being said, there are many more cultural differences in a military environment versus a civilian town, which would probably be harder to adapt for RCMP members with no military background.  

I would see no issues with completing routine general policing tasks (impaired drivers, domestics, etc) but even in those, the military has other processes within the CofC rather than just dealing with the criminal justice system, which would be hard for non-CF members to keep up on.  The military only tasks that MPs conduct would be a little harder...




*each RCMP Detachment does things a little different, based on the community, leadership and office morale, among other things.


----------



## Container (12 Dec 2011)

1. Soldiers are no more difficult to arrest than anyone else no matter where Im "exerting my authority". Ive arrested plenty.

2. The RCMP would have no problem working with CoC about issues that arrose with service people if there was an expectation that it gets sent that way. We do police communties close to military bases and have dealt with that before.

3. Nothing about police work is rocket surgery. You guys are complicating a very uncomplicated thing- with the rules surrounding half the things the police are required to be involved in the base politics and "corporate knowledge" are the least complicated things. There would be no reason a civi police officer couldnt do your living areas and leave the military stuff to the military police.

4. That being said- youre everyday military police officer from their academy is in the general vicinity of you everyday civi police officer. Over and above that- you have a veritable shit tonne more military police on every base than you would ever see if you had a civi detachment. You woould have between 5 and 7 police officers for your average military base. unlike the numbers you have now. 

5. I have worked with the Military police on high profile complex criminal investigations. Two in particular stand out and in one case they were an absolute gong show. On the other they did an excellent job. I have been involved in numerous high profile investigations with my own organization- I've seen more than one of our own gong shows so I dont put too much weight on it. It has more to do with whos running the case than the color of the uniform.

6. Generally speaking, a 10 year civi cop has more criminal experience then most 10 year military police officers Ive met. This says more about the general safety of a military base than it does about the military police officer. There are a few military police officers who've seen their share of criminal garbage.

There would be no reason for the switch beyond the CF trying to get rid of the "police officer" from the MP. If thats what you guys want- professional field MP's than go hard. I have no opinion on that because I dont know enough about their field duties., But you wont get a better police officer in your communities. The holes in MP experience on the street, such as major crime, could be plugged by increasing their exposure to major case management and investigations beyond checking doors and attending alarms. (more exposure- dont read into that comment)


----------



## dapaterson (12 Dec 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> There would be no reason for the switch beyond the CF trying to get rid of the "police officer" from the MP. If thats what you guys want- professional field MP's than go hard. I have no opinion on that because I dont know enough about their field duties., But you wont get a better police officer in your communities. The holes in MP experience on the street, such as major crime, could be plugged by increasing their exposure to major case management and investigations beyond checking doors and attending alarms. (more exposure- dont read into that comment)



And that is why I favour more of a hybrid model for policing than our current one - we want MPs to do too much.  They lack the time and numbers to develop all the skillsets we need for the big P policing functions, since we still need them to maintain the big M functions (PW handling is to my mind the big one).

The military career management system, with folks moving every 3-4 years, also prevents the development of in-depth knowledge and experience in key areas.  A course does not make an investigator; experience conducting investigations does.

What is the perfect model and mix?  I don't know.  Getting co-lcoated MP/RCMP dets to do on-base functions might be a start.  Of course, it would cost more to add some RCMP to our bases, and there's little appetite to spend more right now.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The military career management system, with folks moving every 3-4 years, also prevents the development of in-depth knowledge and experience in key areas.  A course does not make an investigator; experience conducting investigations does.



Isn't this what the RCMP does?


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Dec 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And that is why I favour more of a hybrid model for policing than our current one - we want MPs to do too much.  They lack the time and numbers to develop all the skillsets we need for the big P policing functions, since we still need them to maintain the big M functions (PW handling is to my mind the big one).
> 
> The military career management system, with folks moving every 3-4 years, also prevents the development of in-depth knowledge and experience in key areas.  A course does not make an investigator; experience conducting investigations does.
> 
> What is the perfect model and mix?  I don't know.  Getting co-lcoated MP/RCMP dets to do on-base functions might be a start.  Of course, it would cost more to add some RCMP to our bases, and there's little appetite to spend more right now.



And therein lies the rub.  Not every base is as active as others.  Base policing is like small town work, you may not get a chance to investigate much.  And of course the really big ticket cases go to CFNIS.  In my day, they said that 4 years in Germany was worth 10 in Canada for experience.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Dec 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> There would be no reason for the switch beyond the CF trying to get rid of the "police officer" from the MP. If thats what you guys want- professional field MP's than go hard. I have no opinion on that because I dont know enough about their field duties., But you wont get a better police officer in your communities. The holes in MP experience on the street, such as major crime, could be plugged by increasing their exposure to major case management and investigations beyond checking doors and attending alarms. (more exposure- dont read into that comment)



There's a good idea in there: set up an RCMP 'OMLT' for our MPs to make sure that they get exposure to the cases they wouldn't normally through the course of their daily work.

I assume there are similar issues with other military professions that cross the line into civvy street, like lawyers and doctors.


----------



## noneck (17 Dec 2011)

D&B there is already an exchange or secondment in place. There is at least one qualified RCMP Major Case Management (MCM) Team Commander with NIS in Ottawa and I know that the have attached other RCMP investigators for long term projects in the past. 

The USMC has recently started up LEO Bn's for international operations utilizing the civilian skill sets of marine reservists. This could definitely be done here in Canada with the number of reservists that are full time LEO's. they could augment our Reg F MP units with specific skill sets and experience. 

Noneck


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There's a good idea in there: set up an RCMP 'OMLT' for our MPs to make sure that they get exposure to the cases they wouldn't normally through the course of their daily work.
> 
> I assume there are similar issues with other military professions that cross the line into civvy street, like lawyers and doctors.



Paramedics/Med Techs come to mind.

But yeah, reciprocal exchanges between MPs and RCMP on a broader scale could actually be a rather neat idea.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Paramedics/Med Techs come to mind.
> 
> But yeah, reciprocal exchanges between MPs and RCMP on a broader scale could actually be a rather neat idea.



Yes, I'd love to see an RCMP Staff Sergeant digging a trench at 0300hrs in a rainstorm  ;D

Wait a minute... our MPs still do that kind of stuff, right?


----------



## marshall sl (18 Dec 2011)

Cant he get a Inspector to dig it? Not  very good Sgt


----------



## RJS2511885 (25 Oct 2012)

As a retired MP Branch member I have read comments about the RCMP. In fact the RCMP used to police many Cdn Forces bases about 50 years ago. Usually the RCMP Det on a base would consist  of 1-2 members...in fairness hardly enough to provide proper police support to the military community.


----------



## Container (23 Nov 2012)

They would most certainly be under-manned. Its pretty much our MO.


----------



## Mountie (8 Jul 2013)

Could the RCMP not act in a similar manner to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Police in the UK?  Seems they do much of the basic policing, although not all of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOD_Police


----------



## Dissident (8 Jul 2013)

Could they? Sure. Should they? This thread has not come to a concensus.

I thought this photo was interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Female_with_SA80A2.jpg


----------



## AmmoTech90 (12 Jul 2013)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Could the RCMP not act in a similar manner to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Police in the UK?  Seems they do much of the basic policing, although not all of it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOD_Police



The Brits can have up to four guard services on a base.  MOD Plod which is a police force (and who the PC in the picture belongs to), Military Provost Guard Service which is a reserve organization made up of ex-Reg or TA soldiers and is armed, Military Guard Service which is the equivalent of CCoC, and Royal Military Police.
Not sure if having four guard organizations help, but when three of them are armed at least you can be sure of having an armed presence at entry points.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2013)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Could the RCMP not act in a similar manner to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Police in the UK?  Seems they do much of the basic policing, although not all of it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOD_Police



Yes they could.  The RCMP could roll about half of the MP branch over and the remainder could be left to the CF for field ops such as detainee handling.  By putting policing with an entity entirely outside of the control of the CF many of the problems encountered now would disappear.  Base policing would be rolled in to regular RCMP postings and all the experience in domestic policing and the assets that the RCMP has access to would be a huge improvement.  I don't think this is really debatable, I mean a huge organization with its own budget, resources and independent chain of command, focused on policing...boat loads of experience...yes, I think it would be far better than the status quo.  

Not so sure how much the CF would like having an arms length outsider policing them.  With absolutely no control or influence, would the CF be ok with this?  Based on my experiences, I would say "no".  But this, I think, is really where the debate is.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jul 2013)

QV said:
			
		

> Yes they could.  The RCMP could roll about half of the MP branch over and the remainder could be left to the CF for field ops such as detainee handling.  By putting policing with an entity entirely outside of the control of the CF many of the problems encountered now would disappear.  Base policing would be rolled in to regular RCMP postings and all the experience in domestic policing and the assets that the RCMP has access to would be a huge improvement.  I don't think this is really debatable, I mean a huge organization with its own budget, resources and independent chain of command, focused on policing...boat loads of experience...yes, I think it would be far better than the status quo.
> 
> Not so sure how much the CF would like having an arms length outsider policing them.  With absolutely no control or influence, would the CF be ok with this?  Based on my experiences, I would say "no".  But this, I think, is really where the debate is.



Interesting proposition.  With a few tweaks it may be a very valid proposal for implementation.  As the RCMP send members off on UN, other Humanitarian Missions, and Tours around the world, the opportunities to have some form of cross training and pre-deployment training done would be significantly improved.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2013)

I've met  (and been "interrogated" by) some wonkey MPs (and as a caveat I have acquaintances and great friends in both RCMP and MPs) but I would trust MPs handling policing in the CF way way before the RCMP.

The RCMP appear to often have an "untouchable" mindset.  Some of the stuff they get caught doing, especially out west, really blows my mind.


----------



## Mountie (13 Jul 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> The RCMP appear to often have an "untouchable" mindset.  Some of the stuff they get caught doing, especially out west, really blows my mind.



Don't paint us all with the same brush.  There are always a few bad apples.  Today's access to cell phone cameras combined with the internet makes the problem seem magnified. There area always bad apples in any organization.  We have approximately 20,000 sworn police officers.  That's 1/3 of the police in Canada (62,000).  So do we have 1/3 of the bad apples.  Probably.  I don't dispute that.  I just think too many people compare us to other police services on an even playing field, when our numbers aren't even close to the same.  I say fire everyone of those bad apples.  But its still a very small percentage of the Force.

I've also been policing around a Canadian Forces Base for the past 7 years.  I've had more than one soldier get out of line with me.  I usually ask them if they would treat the MPs like this back on the base.  The usual answer is "NO...I'd get shit kicked if I acted like that to them".  Then for fun we ask them if they would like us to call their RSM to straight them out? For some reason this garnishes instant cooperation and respect.   ;D

I'm not saying the RCMP should necessarily take over policing the CF bases, but if the budget and/or PYs must be cut from somewhere and this is a cost saving option that would prevent frontline units from being cut then I think the RCMP could easily handle the task.  I think it would be fair to say that half the personnel from most bases live off base anyway.   Is there really a huge difference between the RCMP responding to a domestic dispute 5 miles off base or on base?  Or the RCMP responding to a bar fight in town with CF personnel vs at the junior ranks mess?  I don't really think so.  

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Jul 2013)

Some bases (Halifax, Esquimalt, Winnipeg, Edmonton, etc) are located within or very close to an urban center. Do Municipal police (Victoria PD, etc) then take over in areas where there is not a significant RCMP presence? My det has roughly 40 badged officers. Thats four (understrength) shifts, as well as Comm R, Trg, etc. sections. Can Westshore RCMP (a slightly larger sized det) be able to take over? The CF by its very nature has some very unique challenges both for policing and MP tasks. 

Will the RCMP/Municipal Police then do the tasks not typically expected of "cops" such as Security Screenings, Responding to Building Insecurities, Lost IT hardware with classified materials on it, etc. What about Close Protection, Tactical Aircraft Security, and other MP tasks? 

I'm not trying to start a bunfight, I'm legitimately curious. In any given day, CFB Esquimalt and its lodger units can have upwards of 15 000 people in its AOR. That can include cadet camps out at Albert Head, Rocky Point Ammo Depot, the ships, foreign ships docked, etc with some very unique security challenges. 

Personally, I have seen many poor MPs and many outstanding MPs. Like Mountie said, the bad apples often are a disservice to the excellent ones. I *think* the CF would see their level of service drop rolling over MPs serving specifically the CF to the RCMP or OPP or what have you, which will be serving a much larger AOR.

My 2 cents.


----------



## RCDtpr (13 Jul 2013)

If the MP's were to give up policing roles on CFB's I would imagine policing would be taken over by the closest police service.  I highly doubt the RCMP would create det's at CFB's in Ontario just to police bases.  You would, in my opinion, see the OPP Upper Ottawa Valley take over Pet, Nottawasaga OPP in Borden, Quinte West OPP in Trenton etc etc.  Is this a bad thing?  Maybe not.

That said, having children, I like being outside and in the course of a few hours see the MP's drive by my house 3-4 times.  I can GUARANTEE if Upper Ottawa Valley OPP took over policing at CFB Petawawa, I would MAYBE see a cruiser drive past my house once a day.  Do the MP's in their current role potentially waste money? Sure.  Have probably 85% of MP's forgot what being a field soldier is like?  Sure, but I like knowing that if I called 911, MP's would be at my house in under 5 minutes.  Call the OPP for a 911 and you are looking and potentially much longer wait times.

Have fun explaining to a victim that they couldn't receive help earlier because higher ups didn't like the fact that the MP's primary was was policing not soldiering, and they cost a few extra $ and therefore changed their mandate.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Some bases (Halifax, Esquimalt, Winnipeg, Edmonton, etc) are located within or very close to an urban center. Do Municipal police (Victoria PD, etc) then take over in areas where there is not a significant RCMP presence? My det has roughly 40 badged officers. Thats four (understrength) shifts, as well as Comm R, Trg, etc. sections. Can Westshore RCMP (a slightly larger sized det) be able to take over? The CF by its very nature has some very unique challenges both for policing and MP tasks.
> 
> Will the RCMP/Municipal Police then do the tasks not typically expected of "cops" such as Security Screenings, Responding to Building Insecurities, Lost IT hardware with classified materials on it, etc. What about Close Protection, Tactical Aircraft Security, and other MP tasks?
> 
> ...



I would think MP would retain all those tasks with the exception of domestic policing.  Policing requires an organization's full attention.  The MP have too many other jobs that the CF would have them do and that takes away commitment to policing.  Give it to a civilian police agency, all of them only exist to police domestically.  

As for all the little extra services MP do, well I doubt any independent separate organization free and clear from the CF chain of command would do any of it.  I'm talking about all the non police minutia every guardhouse deals with on a daily basis to keep people happy.  And that is just an unfortunate (or fortunate?) consequence of getting rid of MP from domestic policing.


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Jul 2013)

Out of curiousity...  QV, are you an MP?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jul 2013)

In my experience, the basic problem the MPs suffer from is that their policing role often puts them in conflict with their security and force protection roles.

MPs are not answerable to the CoC for how and when they police.  They are, however, answerable for the other two roles.  The problem is, the MPs will often abandon security and force protection for policing, hanging a Base Commander out to dry in the process.

My solution?  Contract out the  policing role to the RCMP.  Even in non-RCMP provinces, there is always a federal RCMP presence. They can work  for those Divisions.  The remaining MP PYs can then focus on field policing, POW handling, force protection and security. We can then get rid of CFMP Gp and put MPs back where they belong- accountable and responsible to the CoC.


----------



## RCDtpr (13 Jul 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In my experience, the basic problem the MPs suffer from is that their policing role often puts them in conflict with their security and force protection roles.
> 
> MPs are not answerable to the CoC for how and when they police.  They are, however, answerable for the other two roles.  The problem is, the MPs will often abandon security and force protection for policing, hanging a Base Commander out to dry in the process.
> 
> My solution?  Contract out the  policing role to the RCMP.  Even in non-RCMP provinces, there is always a federal RCMP presence. They can work  for those Divisions.  The remaining MP PYs can then focus on field policing, POW handling, force protection and security. We can then get rid of CFMP Gp and put MPs back where they belong- accountable and responsible to the CoC.



I highly doubt the government will go for it.  Whetherthe RCMP or CF polices the CFB's ultimately the government pays for it.  I can't see them paying an RCMP Constable 80k a year plus overtime when they can pay a Cpl 65k/yr with no OT.

Economics will win


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Jul 2013)

Not sure if this has been brought up recently or not as well, what about the NDA? Most civilian police forces have no clue how it works, charging under it, CRO's, etc.

Removing the policing portion of the MP branch causes the first step on the pillar of the Military Justice system to weaken.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2013)

Yes I'm an MP.

SKT, I agree where you say policing and other functions come in to conflict.  They do.  But a police force cannot be under the command and control of the very group of people it polices.  There needs to be independance.   If policing was to be contracted out away from MP, then MP need a name change as their function is no longer about policing.  There is no problem with a guard force falling under direct command and control of local CF commanders.  

RCD, I think it would be cheaper to contract police services out then budget for a full detachment at every base.  Police agencies near CFB may not even increase staffing.  If it is only emergency response and police related duties, I don't see a huge jump in their work flow.  There would be a significant reduction in police presence, however.  

As for the NDA comment, all matters under the NDA should be disciplinary matters anyway which unit's can handle themselves.   Any crime should be prosecuted properly under the CCC or other appropriate statute, like it is for every other person in this country.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jul 2013)

The NDA is not that difficult.  Non-police officers (ie, the rest of use in the CF) manage to learn it, apply it and even make charges stick in a summary trial setting.

An online course could be developed (wait- we already have one!) for RCMP officers posted to a military Det. 

Even as things stand now, do MPs posted fom province to province not have to learn (on their own time) the vagaries of their new province 's laws and acts?  How would this be much different?

QV- I happen to agree with you that the policing function should not be under the CoC, to avoid a conflict of interest.  What I am saying is that, regardless of how we solve this problem, the non-policing roles held by the MPs (and the associated PYs) need to flow back to the CoC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jul 2013)

Personally, and only from my perspective, MP's already act like they don't belong to the CF.

They get special police looking uniforms, vehicles, schools and promotion incentives. Either they are military and do what they did 20 years ago, policing, signing routes, escort etc.

Or they are pseudo civvie cops.

The MP hat and regular service uniform sufficed for ever. Why did it need changing? Why are they special?

They are soldiers, doing a military occupation. Unfortunately, most don't think themselves soldiers. They think they are cops. They, in reality, are nothing more than service people with an MOC. 

Nothing anymore special than infantry, sigs, bosun or any other trade.

You can't be military and civvie at the same time.

You are either *MILITARY* *P*olice, or your a flat faced civvie LEO.

I don't see any in between position.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Personally, and only from my perspective, MP's already act like they don't belong to the CF.
> 
> They get special police looking uniforms, vehicles, schools and promotion incentives. Either they are military and do what they did 20 years ago, policing, signing routes, escort etc.
> 
> ...





Police and Military do not mesh well.  Military requires a strict command structure, police require individual thought and action.  

In the military, the officer is ultimately accountable.  A police officer ( even an MP) is individually held accountable.


----------



## TCBF (14 Jul 2013)

QV said:
			
		

> Police and Military do not mesh well.  Military requires a strict command structure, police require individual thought and action.
> 
> In the military, the officer is ultimately accountable.  A police officer ( even an MP) is individually held accountable.



- Disagree. I would say we need both a strict command structure and individual thought and action, with accountability up and down - throughout - the chain of command.

-


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jul 2013)

QV said:
			
		

> Police and Military do not mesh well.  Military requires a strict command structure, police require individual thought and action.
> 
> In the military, the officer is ultimately accountable.  A police officer ( even an MP) is individually held accountable.



So that is different from other trades how?

We've had MPs forever. What's changed in the last 15-20 years that they should become different all of a sudden?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jul 2013)

Instant rank of Cpl and no time to get acquainted with military part in Military police...?


----------



## Dissident (15 Jul 2013)

RG:

While I've met my fair share of MPs who were much happier in patrol cars than in a trench, your slight against the different uniform has been debunked by others before. 

For better or for worse the trade changed, with these changes a new uniform was deemed necessary. How many trades have different/specialized work dress?

FWIW I don't get to wear the blacks all that often at all and I much prefer Cadpat myself anyways. 

In any case, I get the feeling that you look down upon MPs and would find whichever way you can to disparage MPs.


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Jul 2013)

My question: What kind of cost savings are to be had by taking the policing duties away from MP's. If another force still has to be contracted, what are those costs? 

If there are huge savings to be had in terms of PY's and money,  go for it. If not...not a chance. I like the fact that MP's are visible and frequent patrollers of bases. Plus not all of them are fresh from basic training, I've met quite a few that were OT's and have done their time elsewhere. They get it.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2013)

Any change is not only a question of money.  The CF, Reg F, is capped at a paid strength not to exceed 68 000.  That is more of a limiting factor than the cost.

A reduction in one place can permit increases in others.  So, for example, if we need 100 fewer Reg F MPs, we can get 100 more pilots.  Or vehicle techs.  Or Bos'ns.  Or whatever the priority is.

Or, maybe we're going to need increased security because our next generation of fighter aircraft will be so whizz-bang high tech that we have to prevent foreign spies from snooping around.  So we'll need more MPs - and to get them, we'll reduce AVN techs because we'll contract out much of the maintenance function.

But it's playing with the 68 000 that is the limiting factor, not the cost.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2013)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> My question: What kind of cost savings are to be had by taking the policing duties away from MP's. If another force still has to be contracted, what are those costs?



Only cost savings will be in the fact that the costs will not be solely out of DND budget, but an arrangement with the RCMP with their Budget.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2013)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> RG:
> 
> While I've met my fair share of MPs who were much happier in patrol cars than in a trench, your slight against the different uniform has been debunked by others before.
> 
> ...



You're reading way too much into my comments and trying to 'demonize' me instead of discussing the points.

They're not civie police, they are military police, no matter how much they try to emulate the former.

I don't look down on anyone that does the job that their military trade requires in a professional manner, so you can quite playing that game.


----------



## Dissident (15 Jul 2013)

I don't think I'm reading too much into what you wrote, you need to reconsider the way your message come across.

Your questions regarding the need for MPs to have a distinctive uniform have been answered before. Are you deliberately being obtuse or would you care to share your appreciation of the (lack of) need for a distinctive uniform?

Right now MPs provide police services in and around military establishments, such as all the CFBs which operate under the open base policy. Lots of civilians access the facilities and there is a need for the public to be able to easily identify MPs. It's not about the CF at large or the role MPs USE to do back in the old days. It's about the job that needs to be done now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2013)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I don't think I'm reading too much into what you wrote, you need to reconsider the way your message come across.
> 
> Your questions regarding the need for MPs to have a distinctive uniform have been answered before. Are you deliberately being obtuse or would you care to share your appreciation of the (lack of) need for a distinctive uniform?
> 
> Right now MPs provide police services in and around military establishments, such as all the CFBs which operate under the open base policy. Lots of civilians access the facilities and there is a need for the public to be able to easily identify MPs. It's not about the CF at large or the role MPs USE to do back in the old days. It's about the job that needs to be done now.



Think what you have to, to get you through your day.


----------



## Dissident (15 Jul 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Think what you have to, to get you through your day.



What grinds my gear in this case, because really I don't have a dog in this OPD/Cadpat argument of yours, is that you have singled out new members in the past for spouting off ill informed opinion which could have been answered by a simple site search. Since you have stated this opinion before and had a proper reasonable explanation given to you, why would you bring it up again without some more substantiation?

You are failing to meet the standard which you have previously help set on this website. Underwhelming.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Jul 2013)

That big old black brassard with MP in 4" high white letters, red hat, and white crown vic with the monkey bar on top wasn't enough to differentiate a military policeperson from a Paladin security guard?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That big old black brassard with MP in 4" high white letters, red hat, and white crown vic with the monkey bar on top wasn't enough to differentiate a military policeperson from a Paladin security guard?



Having seen some of the posts on this site recently, I would think not.  How many of our illiterates could read the big letters spelling "MILITARY POLICE" on the car?   >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2013)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> What grinds my gear in this case, because really I don't have a dog in this OPD/Cadpat argument of yours, is that you have singled out new members in the past for spouting off ill informed opinion which could have been answered by a simple site search. Since you have stated this opinion before and had a proper reasonable explanation given to you, why would you bring it up again without some more substantiation?
> 
> You are failing to meet the standard which you have previously help set on this website. Underwhelming.



Put your ruler away. I don't care how big you think your dick is.

Spout off all you want, you're not getting a rise out of me.

Thanks for proving my point though.


----------



## RCDtpr (15 Jul 2013)

If you look at case law these days, courts are more and more granting acquittals, withdrawing charges, and finding offenders not guilty for assault peace officer because their lawyer was able to provide reasonable doubt that the offender could identify the officer as a peace officer.  It's is the reason you are seeing the opp and other civvies police services with POLICE in big white letters on the back and front of their body armour.

MPs arrest civvies just as they do service members.  Civvies are dealt with through civvies courts....I can only imagine how easy it would be for a lawyer to raise doubt the person couldn't I'd the guy in Cadpat as a police officer.

Most if not all of the MP group orders are the way they are because of precedence set by the legal system.


----------



## QV (15 Jul 2013)

These threads are useless when the usual suspects chime in with their antagonistic posts.


----------



## Tibbson (22 Aug 2013)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Yes because the MPs are soooooo hard done by. Base and Wing commanders are just out to "get them".
> 
> :
> 
> ...



Been a while but that doesn't mean this is worth a return comment on.  Nobody ever said anything about MPs being hard done by.  That is not my point.  My point is that there have been instances when a Base Commander didn't want something investigated so he would just cut them off at the knees because perhaps it was getting too close to him/her or would embarrass him/her as the BComd.   I remember a certain invest involving illegal maintenance being done on civilian vehicles at BMaint.  Resources were needed but the BComd knew his vehicle was one of them and he tried to cut things off.  THAT's what I was referring to by outside pressures effecting MPs.


----------



## Tibbson (22 Aug 2013)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> My question: What kind of cost savings are to be had by taking the policing duties away from MP's. If another force still has to be contracted, what are those costs?
> 
> If there are huge savings to be had in terms of PY's and money,  go for it. If not...not a chance. I like the fact that MP's are visible and frequent patrollers of bases. Plus not all of them are fresh from basic training, I've met quite a few that were OT's and have done their time elsewhere. They get it.



There actually is no savings believe it or not.  This was proven by the Base Commander in the late 90s who had the OPP "bid" on policing services for the base.  I must admit I cannot remember the exact amounts but I do remember that the base commander had a 32 person MP det for approx $170 k a year.  This was the cost of the building, the vehicle fleet, supplies and other costs EXCEPT wages which were paid for by the CF.  32 people, trained and available (in shifts) at any time of the day or night.  

The OPP quote to cover the base was closer to $700 k a year and for that the Base Commander got coverage that consisted of 24/7 by one officer at a time (so lets say 5 officers on full time wages to allow for a shift rotation) and one more "in the area available to assist when needed".   It also included the cost of office space on the base, a vehicle, computers, radio, clerk and other expenses required to have an office on base.  To top it all off the Base Commander would still need to have 6-7 MPs for security duties and other strictly MP duties.  

So, on top of 4 times the cost he would get 25 times less manpower at his disposal AND he would still need to pay for MP MOC pers.  With the MPs he can call up and ask questions on policing matters.  With the OPP he gets to pay more AND have some Staff Sgt tell him to mind his own business.  Oh, and when they had such things as an Armed Forces Day or other event that needed more policing he would be paying for OPP officers on double overtime.  

The grass isn't always greener.  While my numbers may be off the analogy is still valid.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2013)

The CF cost was significantly higher (one of the problems with our methods of accounting).  If we assume $60k per MP in pay & benefits (a very low estimate, even for the '90s), that's an additional $2M/year the CF is paying - to say nothing of the costs of operating the MP school, career management (cost moves) and all the other corporate costs that are sustained to maintain any occupation.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Aug 2013)

Our local weekly in North Grenville just did a bit on our new OPP contract, which is hideously expensive for a population of 15,000 plus. One of the clauses that is devastating our budget is that the OPP contract has a clause that the service must be the highest paid police force in Ontario. I could dig the details out, but it would not matter. It seems to me that using MPs is the best solution for normal duties, and they can be also posted to more military roles.


----------



## garb811 (22 Aug 2013)

I'd love to see the look on a CO's face the first time he got an invoice billing him for the 3rd false alarm response to his weapons vault...   ;D


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2013)

garb811 said:
			
		

> I'd love to see the look on a CO's face the first time he got an invoice billing him for the 3rd false alarm response to his weapons vault...   ;D



Maybe then he'd learn...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2013)

Tibbson said:
			
		

> Been a while but that doesn't mean this is worth a return comment on.  Nobody ever said anything about MPs being hard done by.  That is not my point.  My point is that there have been instances when a Base Commander didn't want something investigated so he would just cut them off at the knees because perhaps it was getting too close to him/her or would embarrass him/her as the BComd.   I remember a certain invest involving illegal maintenance being done on civilian vehicles at BMaint.  Resources were needed but the BComd knew his vehicle was one of them and he tried to cut things off.  THAT's what I was referring to by outside pressures effecting MPs.



 :


----------



## McG (23 Aug 2013)

Tibbson said:
			
		

> There actually is no savings believe it or not.  This was proven by the Base Commander in the late 90s who had the OPP "bid" on policing services for the base.  I must admit I cannot remember the exact amounts but I do remember that the base commander had a 32 person MP det for approx $170 k a year.  This was the cost of the building, the vehicle fleet, supplies and other costs EXCEPT wages which were paid for by the CF.  32 people, trained and available (in shifts) at any time of the day or night.


A base commander's determination that it costs him less to use MP than to use RCMP is not the same as determining it costs the CF less to use MPs over RCMP.  A lot of the actual cost of an MP is transparent to the base commander, but the CAF pays for that MP to be trained, to recieve his pay & benefits, to be moved about the country, to be provided office space, etc, etc, etc.  An acutal cost comparison for the CAF may find a different result.

Maybe the right answer is hybrid RCMP/MP base detachments.


----------



## jitterbug (21 Feb 2018)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> "reports are then scrutinized by people that had minimal time on the road and minimal real policing experience".  Really?
> 
> I am one of those you speak of and I'd put my 11 years on the road plus 9 years of Invest/CFNIS experience up against yours any day.  Reports get reviewed and approved in order to ensure completeness and to ensure patrol MPs and investigators have thoroughly examined the matter and done their job in a thorough manner.
> 
> Comments like the ones you make show either your inexperience in the trade or your personal bias.  If you had a problem with a particular supervisor then keep your comments in context.  If you had problems with multiple supervisors then perhaps the problem was you.



11 years on the road as an MP is peanuts compared to 11 years on the road civi side.  In alot of civiian police services you are looking at a minimum of 12 years of high volume calls just to be a Patrol Sgt.  You then go through an extremely competitive vetting process where candidates are often separated by a single point and they interview people you worked with your entire career to see what they think of you.  
You can't possibly compare MP experience with civi side police officer experience.

The MP standard of entry as well as promotion is much lower than civi side aside from having a college diploma that anyone with a high school diploma could pass with minimal effort.

I only ever had one supervisor that I truly disliked with the MPS and he was the most pompous douchebag I've ever met in my life. I'm not labeling all of management with the MPs as that same person however I must admit that most of the leadership in the MPs that I had come across had very little policing experience yet numerous years as an MP.  I had seen a changeover in leadership within a single guard House of approximately 7 times yet it was still always the same story. The MP simply don't get enough call volume to have experience at policing.  This permeates through the entire trade both officers and ncm's.  Some of the best MP's I had ever seen were former police officers because they understood the courts they understood the paperwork and they understood a lot of different types of crimes and investigations as they had experience in them.  I'm sorry but I have not witnessed a great deal of competence in the MP trade as well I have not seen senior leadership understand the community because the leadership often changes they don't understand the people they don't know the places and they don't know the community very well. Spending a year or two or three or four in any given place doesn't really allow you to know the people because you have no connection to the community you're merely just passing through yet situations arise where you need to know the local justice system yet you never truly will because you're not experienced in it.

I've seen MP's try and get warrants signed off in a particular area and they aren't able to do so because they don't understand the local justice system and how the justices prefer the warrants to be written and what gets signed off and what doesn't.  There is really only so much you can pass on to the next guy posted in but if that guy hasn't actually experienced that area is extremely difficult unless they've spent a considerable amount of time there to be effective.

In my opinion the entire MP trade is essentially the blind leading the blind due to the overall lack of experience. This will never change due to the fact that the call volumes are too low and the mobility of the members.


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

jitterbug said:
			
		

> 11 years on the road as an MP is peanuts compared to 11 years on the road civi side.  In alot of civiian police services you are looking at a minimum of 12 years of high volume calls just to be a Patrol Sgt.
> 
> The MP simply don't get enough call volume to have experience at policing.
> 
> This will never change due to the fact that the call volumes are too low and the mobility of the members.



For reference to the discussion.

Call Volume  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/104516.0


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Feb 2018)

jitterbug said:
			
		

> In my opinion the entire MP trade is essentially the blind leading the blind due to the overall lack of experience. This will never change due to the fact that the call volumes are too low and the mobility of the members.



Your word here is only as good as your experience... Your posting history and profile indicate you are? were? an MP and are now attempting to become or have become a Health Care Administrator. Did you ever figure out what badges to wear as an OCdt? I only ask based on your posting history.

What is your experience in civilian policing? You talk like you've been with a civilian department and have loads of experience under your belt to judge us lacking. You mention "a lot" of civilian police services, and some magical threshold of "12 years of high volume calls" to be a Patrol Sergeant. I'm curious where you got this information, since I know quite a number of patrol sergeants in civilian services... I'll have to ask them if they had 12 straight years of "high volume calls" before the department came knocking chevrons in hand. If your experience with a civilian department is solely outside looking in, I'm not going to give it a lot of weight. 

 I know lots of bases that are pretty busy, and whose members are pretty well checked in with their local court system, and one of the burdens virtues of the unit I work for is I get to travel to all these guardhouses and see for myself just how checked in people are with their local Crowns and Courts. 

You talk a lot about warrants, so I'm going to too. Not to put too fine a point on it, but warrant reviews are becoming more and more regionalized. Going or gone are the days where one could drive on down to the town courthouse and request to see the Hon. Judgey McJudgkins in his chambers to review a warrant. BC is almost exclusively the regional Telewarrant Centre now, and others are moving in that direction too. 

If a Judge doesn't like an ITO, make the changes he wants, throw in a paragraph about how it's your second attempt and try again... I have a hard time seeing how this makes someone less effective. I've certainly never seen a Judge or JPs specific idiosyncrasies be a problem. Warrants aren't that different province to province even.
What your comment does do is make me pretty certain you don't actually understand the legal system very well and are posting outside the realm of your experience.

Yes, civilian police tend to have a higher call volume (in most urban areas), but I know lots of RCMP officers posted to Podunk, Nowhere that have exactly the same issues the MP branch does, and they still seem to be as effective as we are. There are lots of options to specialize in specific fields, and at least in the unit I'm in - I'm pretty friggan busy. 

Finally, you are replying to a post that is 3 years old... and taking a swipe at the entire trade while doing it (maybe it's good you left). If you were so concerned about the blind leading the blind, why'd you go HCA instead of using your clearly vast amounts of judgment and experience to right the ship?


----------



## Pusser (22 Feb 2018)

Without wanting to cast aspersions on the Military Police, I've often thought that the model used in France, Italy, Spain and a host of other nations might be a better model for military policing in Canada.  The French Gendarmerie National, the Italian Carabinieri and the Spanish Guardia Civile are all national police forces that have both a military and civil policing role.  Perhaps the RCMP could assume a similar role in Canada?  It's a national paramilitary force and in fact, the origins of the Canadian Provost Corps came from NWMP personnel who enlisted during WWI.  I see two major benefits of having the RCMP assume policing services for the CAF:

1) RCMP personnel would have the opportunity to have had a much greater breadth of experience in a variety of situations; and 
2) one of the major criticisms of the MPs is that being an internal policing agency, they are perhaps not as independent for the CAF chain of command as they should be.  Completely removing them from the CAF would resolve that.  NB: I'm aware that the MPs have been made more independent of the chain of command than they have been in the past (i.e. with creation of CFNIS), but the fact remains that they are still CAF members.

Some of the tactical functions of the military police (i.e. the more military, less police type roles such as POWs and route marking) could probably be assumed by specially trained personnel drawn from the combat arms.


----------



## mariomike (22 Feb 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I see two major benefits of having the RCMP assume policing services for the CAF:



See also,

"Replace base MP with RCMP"
https://army.ca/forums/threads/29313.0;nowap
16 pages.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Feb 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Without wanting to cast aspersions on the Military Police, I've often thought that the model used in France, Italy, Spain and a host of other nations might be a better model for military policing in Canada.  The French Gendarmerie National, the Italian Carabinieri and the Spanish Guardia Civile are all national police forces that have both a military and civil policing role.  Perhaps the RCMP could assume a similar role in Canada?  It's a national paramilitary force and in fact, the origins of the Canadian Provost Corps came from NWMP personnel who enlisted during WWI.  I see two major benefits of having the RCMP assume policing services for the CAF:
> 
> 1) RCMP personnel would have the opportunity to have had a much greater breadth of experience in a variety of situations; and
> 2) one of the major criticisms of the MPs is that being an internal policing agency, they are perhaps not as independent for the CAF chain of command as they should be.  Completely removing them from the CAF would resolve that.  NB: I'm aware that the MPs have been made more independent of the chain of command than they have been in the past (i.e. with creation of CFNIS), but the fact remains that they are still CAF members.
> ...



That was looked at in the 90s with the Federal Law Enforcement Under Review or FLUER.  The idea was to streamline all Fed LE under the umbrella of the RCMP.  It was something l and my fellow MP in my unit were behind and hoped for but alas.  It made a good deal of sense from certain vantage pionts.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Feb 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Some of the tactical functions of the military police (i.e. the more military, less police type roles such as POWs and route marking) could probably be assumed by specially trained personnel drawn from the combat arms.



Route recce/marking/signing and TCPs have been a duty of Armd Recce for decades.  

I wonder, though, if this would work.  You'd have to put RCMP, which on average get paid more than a MP Cpl, on the bases to respond quickly to things like 1 or 2 bells on airfields, as a quick example.  Wouldn't this mean it would effectively cost more for the Mounties to do the job?  I think we should look for ways to spend less, not more, for the same services/deliverables/call it what you want.

As a CAF mbr, I don't give 2 donkeyballs about 'the RCMP having a greater breadth of exerience'.  I don't expect them to be overly familiar with military stuff, because they are police not military.

I think we'd be better off improving the MP branch than handing it over to the RCMP because that would be easier for us.  I've driven hours on the highway before and not seen a single Mountie on the roads;  if they get more money I'd rather see it used policing the 'rest of Canada', not our bases.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Feb 2018)

IIRC, we would have carried on doing what we did for the CF as would have Fed Fish, Corrections Canada, Customs etc.  There would have been some savings as there wouldn't have been overlap per se of several agencies doing the same tasks.  There was talk of being able to move onto other areas.  What we found most appealing was we would have been outside the Command structure and not answerable to or have interference from local authority.  There was many occasions of meddling during my time with 1 CMBG and l hated it.


----------



## Piece of Cake (22 Feb 2018)

I wonder what the late Colonel James Stone, DSO, MC, CD would have thought about replacing MP's with the RCMP....


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Feb 2018)

It's not like RCMP members haven't done MP roles before.


----------



## JesseWZ (23 Feb 2018)

I'd encourage everyone currently involved in this discussion to check out the thread Mariomike posted - regarding replacing Base MPs with the RCMP. Or perhaps we could get a merge? The topic seems to have jumped the shark here. 

The RCMP over base MP was shot down primarily for one big reason: Cost for services.

Most CF establishments have a minimum MP manning of 2 or 3 members on shift at *all times*. Factor in a recall and other units which run on duty schedules (such as mine) and Base/Establishment Commanders can see a swell of MPs up to nearly the entire guardhouse (20-40 persons) when required, plus the call in of investigators for specific types of offences. 

When the CF approached the other large police forces about maintaining this level of service (2-3 on or about a Defense Establishment at all times), the quote they received was quite high, and, the members would be out of the Base Commanders control. I know as a branch we are more independent from the Base Chain of Command then perhaps ever before, but we still follow *a* chain of command. With RCMP policing the bases, Base Commanders, and Commanders at all levels won't get the same kind of buy in and access they have now. Gone would be the request for extra security checks, checks of deployed members PMQs, traffic control for military functions, escorts of military goods when outside a defense establishment, speeding or traffic safety enforcement on demand, etc. All of these extra services would then cost money - out of the Base Commanders budget. 

In the CFNIS (the unit I'm from), one of the steps of most of our investigations includes a backbrief to the Base Commander. The details of the brief scale dramatically depending on the sensitivity of the investigation, but almost always, we brief local commanders on our files as they unfold. It's part of our SOPs. You won't see that be an SOP at a civilian service.

Commanders and MPs have a unique relationship. MP have a law enforcement/security/provost role, which has to be balanced with the mission - and the mission is the Commanders focus. If we ever move to an RCMP policed military, I can forsee a lot of Commanders pulling out their hair, not knowing the reasons why Pte McPrivatestein suddenly didn't show up for work up training or a deployment, or why his passport has been seized, or countless other reasons why law enforcement activities might *effect* planning or execution of the mission.


----------



## brihard (23 Feb 2018)

MP pay is garbage compared to most civilian police forces, even the RCMP. And they don’t get overtime, either. Going to RCMP or other police services on a contracted basis would be quite a cost increase.


----------



## garb811 (23 Feb 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> ...in fact, the origins of the Canadian Provost Corps came from NWMP personnel who enlisted during WWI...


I think you are confusing WWI and WWII.  WWI, the Canadian Military Police Corps (CMPC) was authorized in 1917 and disbanded in 1920.  While it is possible some former NWMP pers transferred into it on establishment, they were not the origin of the Canadian Provost Corps as it did not exist by that name.

On the other hand, the Canadian Provost Corps (CProC) was established 15 June 1940 with No 1 Company (RCMP) and No 2 Provost Company.  That is the strong tie in between the history of the MP Branch and RCMP.  It is also the reason why the MP Branch now considers 15 June 1940 to be our birth date, as opposed to amalgamation in 1968.


----------



## garb811 (23 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I wonder what the late Colonel James Stone, DSO, MC, CD would have thought about replacing MP's with the RCMP....


Considering he was a life long infantry officer who served as the Provost Marshal as one of his many postings, that's a good question.


----------



## Piece of Cake (23 Feb 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Considering he was a life long infantry officer who served as the Provost Marshal as one of his many postings, that's a good question.



Also, a philanthropist and an Order of Canada recipient.

But I digress.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Feb 2018)

JesseWZ and Brihard’s notes about cost should not go un/under appreciated.  On a tangential note to general policing, having seen first-hand the transition of Dom CT from RCMP to military and being aware of the mounting cost that a Supt., a couple Insp., a few Staffs, several Sgts and a working force roughly split between Cpls and Sr.Consts, I can only imagine what the inter-Departmental Vote 1 transfer between DND and PSC would be for DND-wide policing.  As well, perhaps practice might be different, but the point JesseWZ makes about NIS backbrief/link to the implicated CoC is important. Having benefited from professional comms w/ the NIS I note my appreciation with their professional conduct that might not exist to the same extent were such services to be provided from a non-Defence-aligned investigatory capacity.  That’s not intended as a dig at theoumties by any stretch; I respect that Force greatly. 

I will opine slightly for a moment, in that the MP/MPO organization while often taking significant criticism from many, is but one player in the play.  Command often abrogates true responsibilities to the enablers (I can think of the CoC letting Signals run as though a panacea, when some clear leadership, stewardship and direction was more appropriate) and I think that the case of military policing is no exception. I would say that on the whole, with MP/SI and more recently CP, the Branch is not as broken as some make it out to be.

Sorry, not able to offer meaningful suggestions per se to adjusting how the MP/provost function is performed, but at least wanted to provide some feedback to those providing the service and others, as a means of providing an indication of “layman appreciation” to the work performed by the MP Branch. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## RCDtpr (24 Feb 2018)

People are quick to slag the MP branch for doing substandard work but a lot of the times it isn’t necessarily us (although we certainly have our deficiencies).  I can’t count the number of times I’ve investigated something, found no grounds to recommend a charge, annotate that in my report, only to have the CO basically say well that guy is a **** rat and I’m charging him anyways.  Member elects CM and charges are withdrawn.  MP are then blamed as we didn’t do a “solid enough” invest.

A lot of people will now counter argue me that that’s impossible since JAG reviews before charges are laid.  Without opening a can of worms or slagging an entire trade.....JAG does not always make correct decisions and I’ll leave it at that.

Replacing MP with any civilian police service may be done in the near future and I can all but guarantee that within a year that decision would be regretted by the CAF as a whole.  Cost aside, base commanders will begin being told by young constables to do an access to information to get any info on files AFTER the invest is done, the CAF can no longer control what is released to the media, and units will become inundated with UDI’s as civilian police are not going to investigate some of the nonsense MP are forced to investigate.

I’m a firm believer the CAF is going to make a rash decision within the next decade or so and drop the MP from policing duties only to regret that (for reasons listed and others) once it’s too late.


----------



## brihard (24 Feb 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Cost aside, base commanders will begin being told by young constables to do an access to information to get any info on files AFTER the invest is done, the CAF can no longer control what is released to the media, and units will become inundated with UDI’s as civilian police are not going to investigate some of the nonsense MP are forced to investigate.



Definitely this. Civilian police constantly use discretion to write off silly little matters where there is no public interest justifying the time and expense of an investigation or prosecution. Nor would military rank or appointment carry any real weight in terms of getting certain action or results or information. I could see that not going over well. But units would adjust, using the tools available to them that have perhaps gone underutilized.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Feb 2018)

But ExRCD, as l alluded to in my earlier post, during my time in Calgary there were a number of times we had pressure applied from the outside the unit to shut things down or sweep under the carpet.  Much to our (those of us in the shifts) frustrations.  

If the guys can do their job today without outsiders sticking their nose in, then that's progress.


----------



## RCDtpr (24 Feb 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But ExRCD, as l alluded to in my earlier post, during my time in Calgary there were a number of times we had pressure applied from the outside the unit to shut things down or sweep under the carpet.  Much to our (those of us in the shifts) frustrations.
> 
> If the guys can do their job today without outsiders sticking their nose in, then that's progress.



I’m all for it.  Nothing frustrates me more than when the trade spews this illusion that we are free from influence from the CAF CoC because it’s hogwash.

I’m more referring to the CAF higher ups who would be VERY unhappy if they lose their sphere of influence over internal policing because I can assure you the OPP, RCMP or whoever couldn’t care less that Col Bloggins is a Col.  In the CAF world of egos and inflated self value based on rank, it won’t go over well if the switch was made from MP to civvie police.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Feb 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I’m more referring to the CAF higher ups who would be VERY unhappy if they lose their sphere of influence over internal policing because I can assure you the OPP, RCMP or whoever couldn’t care less that Col Bloggins is a Col.  In the CAF world of egos and inflated self value based on rank, it won’t go over well if the switch was made from MP to civvie police.



You're an MP right?  MPs making statements like the stuff I've highlighted in yellow is part of the reason you guys suffer from the opinion some of the CF have of you.  The CAF is a power/authority based organization and people of higher ranks have higher power and influence; it is the way it should be and needs to be.  

Believe me, the worst 'ego and inflated self value based' I've witnessed personally was actually a MP Cpl years ago.  I was in a different trade at the time and a Sgt and I took the time to educate the Cpl on the fact he was still a Cpl and I was a superior officer IAW the QR & O.  Careful using wide strokes - remember the M in MP means Military - you're not exempt from the rank structure or the CSD either.  I could easily change your statement to say "inflated self value based on a badge"...and you've provided an example.  A CO deciding to lay a charge even though your report didn't recommend it.  Maybe the CO is aware you don't see an actual Commanding Officer, just someone with an ego and inflated self value based on rank.


----------



## RCDtpr (24 Feb 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You're an MP right?  MPs making statements like the stuff I've highlighted in yellow is part of the reason you guys suffer from the opinion some of the CF have of you.  The CAF is a power/authority based organization and people of higher ranks have higher power and influence; it is the way it should be and needs to be.
> 
> Believe me, the worst 'ego and inflated self value based' I've witnessed personally was actually a MP Cpl years ago.  I was in a different trade at the time and a Sgt and I took the time to educate the Cpl on the fact he was still a Cpl and I was a superior officer IAW the QR & O.  Careful using wide strokes - remember the M in MP means Military - you're not exempt from the rank structure or the CSD either.  I could easily change your statement to say "inflated self value based on a badge"...and you've provided an example.  A CO deciding to lay a charge even though your report didn't recommend it.  Maybe the CO is aware you don't see an actual Commanding Officer, just someone with an ego and inflated self value based on rank.



I will agree with your statement we do have Cpl’s who tend to think they are more than they are, however those tend to be younger direct entries who haven’t quite grasped the fact that they have the unique challenge of policing within the military.  They will learn the hard way eventually.

However, I’ll assume you’ve never been an MP and therefore have never had to navigate the minefield that is doing our job when an individual thinks their rank affords them immunity to the law (this may shock you but those people exist).  Further, when I stated people with egos and inflated self worth I’m referring to individuals like a LCol I had make his way over to a domestic I was at and began demanding information.  When he was told to leave he made it very clear I was a Cpl, he was an LCol and I was to obey his every directive.  At this point, I had to counsel him that while I may be a Cpl and him a LCol, I was engaged in my policing duties and therefore him interfering constituted the criminal offence of obstructing a peace officer.  He was then given the choice of walking away or being arrested.  Needles to say the phone rang on Monday morning with him very upset I dared stand up to him. (Of course had I been a civvie cop I doubt he’d have even approached let alone begin interfering)

While I despise the saying “don’t mistake your rank with my authority” (and have no problems issuing my Cpls a 5b if they say that nonsense) the saying does have merit.  While I agree with you the CAF is a “power/authority” based organization, there are times when the power of the police supersede that of the Military.  Just accept it because that’s the way it is whether you agree or not.

I’m not going to get into this pissing match that’s happened over and over on these boards.  The discussion was in regards to Military vs RCMP having policing DND establishment and once again someone takes the time to hijack it to let everyone know what they think of the MPs.  

And people wonder why MP’s walk around with the attitudes they do.....


----------



## FJAG (24 Feb 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> . . .  At this point, I had to counsel him that while I may be a Cpl and him a LCol, I was engaged in my policing duties and therefore him interfering constituted the criminal offence of obstructing a peace officer.  He was then given the choice of walking away or being arrested.  Needles to say the phone rang on Monday morning with him very upset I dared stand up to him. . . .
> 
> . . .  While I agree with you the CAF is a “power/authority” based organization, there are times when the power of the police supersede that of the Military.  Just accept it because that’s the way it is whether you agree or not.
> 
> ...



The issue that you seem to miss completely is that the administration of discipline is a function of the chain of command and that you as an MP are a  part of that function but not by any stretch of the imagination the foundation of it.

The actual foundation of the disciplinary system, under the Code of Service Discipline, is the commanding officer to whom most of the discipline functions and powers have been given. Even Superior Commanders have less powers than a CO albeit that they apply to a subset of the military over which the CO has no or limited jurisdiction.

MPs have the authority to investigate disciplinary matters and to provide reports of their findings to the appropriate chain of command. It is the chain of command that principally lays charges and administers discipline (and CFNIS who have powers to charge but not administer discipline)

I think that a Cpl who feels it is necessary to "counsel" a LCol (commanding officer) who was "demanding information" respecting what I presumed was a situation involving one of his subordinates has perhaps lost the point of the whole exercise and is perhaps a little intoxicated with the power/authority that he thinks he has. I don't know all the circumstances of what happened but, quite frankly, from the way that you make it sound, I think that you were lucky to get away unscathed in this event. MPs and the chain of command work best when they work cooperatively and not with chips on their shoulders. 

As far as the topic of MP v RCMP is concerned, I will always be on the side of retaining the MPs because they are more versatile than the RCMP. the RCMP, at this point, simply offer the basic policing function without any of the universality of service elements that enable us to use the MPs in all the military functions that they are designed for from the investigation of offences to traffic control on the battlefield.

[cheers]


----------



## trooper142 (24 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The issue that you seem to miss completely is that the administration of discipline is a function of the chain of command and that you as an MP are a  part of that function but not by any stretch of the imagination the foundation of it.
> 
> The actual foundation of the disciplinary system, under the Code of Service Discipline, is the commanding officer to whom most of the discipline functions and powers have been given. Even Superior Commanders have less powers than a CO albeit that they apply to a subset of the military over which the CO has no or limited jurisdiction.
> 
> ...




I think the main point I took away from exRCDcpl's post was that, while conducting a *policing* function, he was interrupted by someone of a higher rank. Although you are correct FJAG that MP's are a function of the system, it is clear that while conducting strictly policing functions, a LCol was wildly out of place demanding information during what was, presumably, an acute situation. That very same LCol could have just as easily waited for the situation to be over and politely and respectfully addressed the situation through the proper channels. 

I will agree that some MP's have a tendency to be a bit headstrong, but I believe, IMO, it is because of this very same sense of entitlement. Yes we are all Military, but as of 2011, when the branch became independent of the CoC, I do not have to explain myself to anyone outside my chain of command while conducting strictly policing duties.

I personally have had a similar situation happen to me, and I would have been well within my discretion to arrest and charge the member, a higher rank than me, with obstructing a peace officer. 

There is a reason the trend has been to move further and further away from the CoC in respect to policing, and it is this exact problem that crops up again and again. I am sorry, but even as a CO, you are not entitled to information from an MP on scene of an incident, and any attempt to gather information while an MP is dealing with something, puts you at risk of arrest, and having to answer to your chain. Just wait, be polite and respectful, and get the information through the channels that are already in place.

Just my  :2c:, I'm open to seeing it from someone else's view.


----------



## FJAG (24 Feb 2018)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> I think the main point I took away from exRCDcpl's post was that, while conducting a *policing* function, he was interrupted by someone of a higher rank. Although you are correct FJAG that MP's are a function of the system, it is clear that while conducting strictly policing functions, a LCol was wildly out of place demanding information during what was, presumably, an acute situation. That very same LCol could have just as easily waited for the situation to be over and politely and respectfully addressed the situation through the proper channels.
> 
> I will agree that some MP's have a tendency to be a bit headstrong, but I believe, IMO, it is because of this very same sense of entitlement. Yes we are all Military, but as of 2011, when the branch became independent of the CoC, I do not have to explain myself to anyone outside my chain of command while conducting strictly policing duties.
> 
> ...



Fair enough and very well said.

What set me off with ExRCDcpl is primarily his tone when he uses words like:



> . . . an individual thinks their rank affords them immunity to the law . . . people with egos and inflated self worth . . . demanding information . . . I was to obey his every directive  . . . him very upset I dared stand up to him. . . . While I despise the saying “don’t mistake your rank with my authority” . . . there are times when the power of the police supersede that of the Military.  Just accept it because that’s the way it is whether you agree or not. . . .And people wonder why MP’s walk around with the attitudes they do.....


 
During my early years when I was prosecuting I dealt with many MPs and can say that the vast majority were consummate professionals while some fell a little short of the mark (same goes for COs and prosecutors - in fact once I was sent in to replace a prosecutor on a court martial because the MPs were of the view that they simply couldn't work with the prior prosecutor and made their objections known to the AJAG in charge of the case (this was prior to DMP))

The point is when I sit down to analyse what a given person is saying I take a very close look at what is said and how it is said and what my general experience is in similar circumstances to see if my bulls*** meter goes off.

I don't doubt that there are occasions when a more senior officer engages with the MPs in order to obtain information in the course of an investigation. Generally this is because they too have a role to play in the process (or at least they honestly think that they do) and not because they simply want to throw their weight around or because of their "egos and inflated self worth". How the individual MP deals with that--for example "discretion" versus "power of the police"--tells me a lot about the individual MP's attitude and professionalism.

The fact is I think highly of our MPs and, even though I have a son-in-law who is an RCMP officer, I would not want to see them taking over any of the MP's policing functions.

 :cheers:


----------



## RCDtpr (25 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Fair enough and very well said.
> 
> What set me off with ExRCDcpl is primarily his tone when he uses words like:
> 
> ...



It would seem you’re taking some of my quotes out of context here.

I am not saying higher ranks do not have a place and a purpose within the day to day procedures of the MP’s.  What I am saying is there is a time and place as well as a need to know.  In this particular instance this LCol was attempting to enter this Pte’s residence, during an ongoing and volatile situation, giving no more info than “I’m a LCol and you will do what you’re told.” 

Had he approached me after the fact, properly identified himself as his CO and asked for a small update, I would have certainly informed him Pte Bloggins was under arrest for assault and would be held for bail.  As it was, however, this particular LCol handled it terribly unprofessionally, and after the fact I learned he wasn’t even this Pte’s CO, giving him absolutely no need to know on the situation.  Had we been the OPP at this residence I can all but guarantee he wouldn’t have attempted it.  It was nothing more than weight trying to be thrown around based on rank and status and whether you want to believe it or not, it happens a lot more than you would think.

With regards to your surprise I was not administratively dealt with, well by his own admission to my CO, I was not rude to him in anyway, he just felt a Cpl had no place telling a LCol no and didn’t think it was appropriate I informed him of his possible jeopardy of being arrested if he didn’t leave the vicinity of the residence (of which he had no right to even be at).

Another common problem we have at this base is the Base Duty Officer demanding information they are not entitled to and getting very upset while trying to use rank to get what they want.  A prime example is demanding information on the spouses of service members who are victims of assault.  These people are not in the military and as such are entitled to certain privacy rights.  I have had more than a few Base Duty Officers screaming at me over the phone when I refuse to give them the personal information of Mrs. Bloggins.  It’s a rock and a hard place for us as the military is demanding we give that info, but if we do and she makes a professional standards complaint for giving her personal information to the military without her consent, we run the risk of being suspended or other administrative measures taken against us.

Just because someone in the military decides they want information does not mean they are entitled to it automatically.  Surely you as an attorney understand that better than anyone.

While I may come off as having a problem with authority etc. it couldn’t be further from the truth.  I have been in the military well over a decade and have never had so much as an extra.  I respect the rank structure and shake my head at the new Cpls coming into the trade thinking they are all that and a bag of chips.  Having said that, I have a job to do and I do it to the best of my ability.  I conduct myself professionally and expect the same of higher ranking members of the CAF I come into contact with during the course of my duties.


----------



## FJAG (25 Feb 2018)

Look. I don't want to get into a bun fight with you over this. 

I'm sure you've got your viewpoint on all these things but random LCols showing up and inserting themselves into investigations and "Base Duty Officers screaming at me over the phone" stretches my credulity. 

I don't think that I'm taking your words out of context. They were your words. 

I don't doubt for a minute that there are situations where MPs have to deal with officers from the chain of command who are seeking information about a case you are working on. 

The difference between you and me is that I see this generally as a situation where the officer is of the honestly held belief that he has a responsibility or a duty to gather that information in order to properly do his job and inform the chain of command of an ongoing situation. There are frequently occurences where the chain of command needs situational awareness and can't wait for a fully completed investigation to work it's way over to them.

You on the other hand see "screaming duty officers", "an individual [who] thinks their rank affords them immunity to the law" and  "people with egos and inflated self worth". Those are strong words to use against people who are professionals in their own right, and, by virtue of the Queen's Commission, your superiors even if not in the MP chain of command.

Obviously, if the applicable procedures do not allow you to answer the questions (and frequently they do allow it) then the simple and best response is to say "Sir. I'm not authorized to disclose that information at this time and you'll need to contact my supervisor." In my time I've had disagreements with someone else's subordinates (Not MPs) and I have never ever had a bun fight or screaming match with a corporal or any NCM for that matter. It's much more satisfying to yell at one of their superior officers who is of equal rank to yourself.

 [cheers]


----------



## RCDtpr (25 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Look. I don't want to get into a bun fight with you over this.
> 
> I'm sure you've got your viewpoint on all these things but random LCols showing up and inserting themselves into investigations and "Base Duty Officers screaming at me over the phone" stretches my credulity.
> 
> ...



Well it seems we’ve hit a stalemate.  You quite obviously think I have nothing better to do than make up grandiose stories and that’s your prerogative.

In your world a Base Duty Officer being told at 3am to contact my supervisor in the morning is more than sufficient and they are always more than willing to accommodate.  In your world higher ups are always consummate professionals and nothing will change your view.  That’s fine, I’m envious of you for never have had to deal with any of this sort of hassle during your time in the CAF.

It would seem this discussion has gotten way off topic and is not getting anyone anywhere so I will respectfully bow out and get some sleep.


----------



## FJAG (25 Feb 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Well it seems we’ve hit a stalemate.  You quite obviously think I have nothing better to do than make up grandiose stories and that’s your prerogative.
> 
> In your world a Base Duty Officer being told at 3am to contact my supervisor in the morning is more than sufficient and they are always more than willing to accommodate.  In your world higher ups are always consummate professionals and nothing will change your view.  That’s fine, I’m envious of you for never have had to deal with any of this sort of hassle during your time in the CAF.
> 
> It would seem this discussion has gotten way off topic and is not getting anyone anywhere so I will respectfully bow out and get some sleep.



I've prosecuted a few officers so I know that the word "always" doesn't apply. 

I agree. We've gone ff topic: too far. Have a good night.

 :cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Feb 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> It would seem you’re taking some of my quotes out of context here.
> 
> I am not saying higher ranks do not have a place and a purpose within the day to day procedures of the MP’s.  What I am saying is there is a time and place as well as a need to know.  In this particular instance this LCol was attempting to enter this Pte’s residence, during an ongoing and volatile situation, giving no more info than “I’m a LCol and you will do what you’re told.”
> 
> ...



I'll go out on a limb and say I've personally seen this sort of thing happen before and it's mostly down to ignorance of policy on the part of the CoC.

We had a case at my unit this year where an individual was arrested for DUI and the CoC was all ready to jump all over them without knowing the facts.  They got real ticked at me when I told them to wait for the MP Report and started pestering the MPs who told them to screw off.  If you read the DMCA aide memoire, there is a clear process for dealing with DUIs.  

Part of it involves waiting for the police investigation shadow file to be released by the MPs.  These are always sent to the CO and the Adjutant is supposed to draft a case synopsis which is the document that is used as the basis for issuing remedial measures.  

In the case I mentioned, the unit basically wanted remedial measures drafted the day after the member informed the chain of command; however, the reason one should wait is because there are things that could come out in the police investigation that were unknown i.e. member had a prohibited weapon on them and was also getting charged for that.  Or even, maybe the member isn't getting charged with anything and it all gets dropped, now you have someone on administrative action that stays on their file for something they didn't even do.

Everyone always throws around administrative action like it's candy and says "lower burden of proof" however if you read DAODs and actual policy burden of proof needs to be higher before Administrative Action can be taken in certain instances i.e. a criminal investigation.  A pretty serious matter that shouldn't be dealt with lightly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Feb 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I will agree with your statement we do have Cpl’s who tend to think they are more than they are...



My experience is that every trade and rank has people who fit that mold as well.



> However, I’ll assume you’ve never been an MP and therefore have never had to navigate the minefield that is doing our job when an individual thinks their rank affords them immunity to the law (this may shock you but those people exist).



I've never been an MP, no, but I do get that MPs have a difficult job to do, where as they are both peace officers and subj to the CSD.  



> While I despise the saying “don’t mistake your rank with my authority” (and have no problems issuing my Cpls a 5b if they say that nonsense) the saying does have merit.  While I agree with you the CAF is a “power/authority” based organization, there are times when the power authority of the military police supersede that of the Military chain of command.  Just accept it because that’s the way it is whether you agree or not.



I agree with the statement but more so in line with the words I've used above; and I've accepted that as fact for many years.  On the flip side, I expect that MPs who are a lower rank than me also accept there are or may be times when I am addressing them as a Snr NCO, thereby making me the superior officer IAW the QR & O definition and if they aren't conducting some policing function at the time, they are in that instance subordinate to higher ranks.  It is a 2 way street and shouldn't be a problem provided both parties are acting professionally and IAW CAF policy, regulations and customs.  



> once again someone takes the time to hijack it to let everyone know what they think of the MPs.



Please, don't assume I have a poor opinion about the MP branch.  Everyone knows every trade and rank can have people who's conduct or performance is less than what is expected, mine included.  I did have an issue with a part of your post I replied to yesterday, nothing more than that.  I've dealt with, directly or indirectly, MPs including (back then) SIU before perhaps a dozen times, and only twice did I find the pers I was dealing with to be...coloring outside the lines.  Both instances were dealt with at the lowest level possible and no one was worse for the wear after. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in an attempt to get things back on track here;  considering the applic parts of the posts above from 2 serving MPs and the difficulties they encounter when dealing with the CofC sometimes, are those issues significant and regular enough that the idea of having civil LEOs take over CAF policing in whole or in part has merit?

What about the other services MPs do outside of 'normal' partrolman/woman duties;  close protection, TASO, etc.  Who would do those if the RCMP took over all policing in the CAF?  Is it possible?


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Feb 2018)

HB, I have to say that your experience with the CoC’s lack of familiarity with the applicable DAOD(s) is, while disappointing to me, not a surprise.     Add to that, the potential for inappropriate conduct by the more senior members of the CoC such as the example cited by ExRCDcpl, and one can really shake one’s head.  As a CO, I can tell you that I had both DAODs 5019 and, sadly, 5018, pretty much memorized, but when events warranted their use, I was glad that I (and my RSM) were well-versed in them.  This included in my experience very professional conduct by the men and women of 2 MP Pl, in all applicable cases.  That is why I fully support the continued provision of policing services from within the CAF.  

I get that there can be some folks either in the rank and file, leadership or policing branch that can be “that guy/gal”, but I do appreciate the challenges that an MP has that a civilian peace officer would never have to (substantively) deal with...”don’t you know who I am? I’m...insert some socially imfluemtial position here)!”  When considering rank and lawful orders, I don’t think anyone would do anything other than roll their eyes at a hypothetical “2Lt ordering a MWO from another unit or base, for example, to do some technically legal action,” yet increase the rank spread to a LCol/Maj-Cpl in a situation that conceivably deals either with NDA or CCC issues, and there aren’t nearly as many eye rolls...in fact almost the opposite.

Hopefully at your unit, HB, the CoC will continue to develop a better appreciation of issues relating to some of the more challenging aspects of dealing with “members being members.”

Regards
G2G


----------



## Infanteer (25 Feb 2018)

First off, I'd like to commend everyone in the discussion.  This is the type of thread the Milnet.ca forums wants to have - even where there is debate, it is civil and professional.  Everyone else learns by reading the posts in threads like these.

Secondly, if I did hoist anything aboard, its this:



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> As far as the topic of MP v RCMP is concerned, I will always be on the side of retaining the MPs because they are more versatile than the RCMP. the RCMP, at this point, simply offer the basic policing function without any of the universality of service elements that enable us to use the MPs in all the military functions that they are designed for from the investigation of offences to traffic control on the battlefield.



If somebody is going to argue handing police duties over to the RCMP, they need to address the issue of flexibility that the MP Branch brings to the CAF.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (25 Feb 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> First off, I'd like to commend everyone in the discussion.  This is the type of thread the Milnet.ca forums wants to have - even where there is debate, it is civil and professional.  Everyone else learns by reading the posts in threads like these...



Agreed. This is *exactly* what we like to see.

I (and I know others) have been watching this thread closely. I’ll be honest—I was perfectly expecting DS to have to intervene, as similar discussions have become very heated and personal. 

Thank you to the contributors who shared their insights, personal examples and job knowledge relatively calmly. This makes it incredibly enlightening to those of us who wish to learn more about certain issues which exist within CAF. Even when contention was building slightly things circled back around solely because members chose to de-escalate. It’s a win-win for everyone.


----------



## coyote489 (25 Feb 2018)

Would also like to thank everyone for this post. I’m on my MP QL3 right now and this thread has been discussed quite a bit at the mess hall dining table in recent days. I frequent the threads here to find these kinds of discussions involving senior or more experienced MP members and then further discuss it with the other candidates to see what we all think. It helps in getting a better idea as to the ups and downs of the trade as well. Anyways keep up these kinds of discussions cause they actually do help the new guys see things in a different light other than what is taught in course. 

It has also been a great opportunity for us to hear both sides of the story when it comes to how MP deal with other members of the CAF.


----------



## Piece of Cake (25 Feb 2018)

I too have enjoyed this thread.  The debate between a Senior Legal Officer and a MP is of great significance.  What I find even more fascinating is the amount of attention this topic has received.  If a discussion took place replacing any other purple trade with their civilian counterparts, I don't believe it would garner the same attention.


----------



## Pusser (26 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> As far as the topic of MP v RCMP is concerned, I will always be on the side of retaining the MPs because they are more versatile than the RCMP. the RCMP, at this point, simply offer the basic policing function without any of the universality of service elements that enable us to use the MPs in all the military functions that they are designed for from the investigation of offences to traffic control on the battlefield.
> 
> [cheers]



The trouble with this (and this was noticed in Afghanistan) is that the MPs have (or perhaps, had) largely shifted their focus in recent decades away from the "military" part of the Military Police.  In many cases, the MPs had lost their military policing skills and this proved very problematic.  I've actually been led to belied that the most effective MPs in Afghanistan (at least initially) were the Reserve MPs because, as they are not considered to be Peace Officers under the Criminal Code, they continue to focus their training and employment on military vice domestic policing.


----------



## Pusser (26 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> As far as the topic of MP v RCMP is concerned, I will always be on the side of retaining the MPs because they are more versatile than the RCMP. the RCMP, at this point, simply offer the basic policing function without any of the universality of service elements that enable us to use the MPs in all the military functions that they are designed for from the investigation of offences to traffic control on the battlefield.



In the examples that I gave earlier (Carabinieri, Gendarmerie nationale, Guardia Civile, etc) it is worth noting that although these forces have a large domestic role in rural/smaller town policing (they generally don't cover major cities) and national policing (two roles almost identical to those of the RCMP), they also fall under their respective defence departments and have a clear military role.  

Obviously, turning over CAF policing to the RCMP is not as simple as saying, "make it so." Many things would have to be worked out, including access to information by the chain of command and the level of service required by the CAF.  I would never suggest anything that would endanger CAF operations.  I just wonder if we can do this better.  Having said this, I will concede that my opinion on this has softened in the last few minutes in reading this thread.  Well done to everyone for an intelligent debate.


----------



## Remius (26 Feb 2018)

My take is that he RCMP has a man(people)power  issue.  Adding bases and any other jurisdiction to their plate would only cause more issues.


----------



## Pusser (26 Feb 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What about the other services MPs do outside of 'normal' partrolman/woman duties;  close protection, TASO, etc.  Who would do those if the RCMP took over all policing in the CAF?  Is it possible?



Why do these roles need to be assumed by the MPs?  Close protection is not really a police function and I would argue that just anyone (who is so inclined) can be trained.  A detailed knowledge of the Criminal Code is not required to be able keep a VIP safe.  Likewise for many of the escort and guarding functions we have.  We are an armed force after all.  There is nothing wrong, or illegal, about having other personnel providing armed escorts for various things or guarding things.


----------



## Pusser (26 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> My take is that he RCMP has a man(people)power  issue.  Adding bases and any other jurisdiction to their plate would only cause more issues.



Obviously, their establishment would have to be increased (complete with a budget transfer).  Presumably, a large chunk of this increase would effected by transferring MPs (those who wanted to) over to the RCMP.  This is not dissimilar to cases in the past where the RCMP has absorbed police officers from other forces when assuming their jurisdictions.


----------



## Haggis (26 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> My take is that he RCMP has a man(people)power  issue.  Adding bases and any other jurisdiction to their plate would only cause more issues.



Another concern is where the money paid to the RCMP to provide dedicated garrison policing would really go.  Would it go into general revenues to pay for all policing within a given area (which might include a CAF garrison - or not)?  Would RCMP detachments all over the country now take on the services provided to Reserve units in their detachment areas? (e.g. NDI 20 (permanent) I cards, security surveys, investigations, education and outreach services etc.)

An example is the money the RCMP receives for border patrol.  How much of this actually goes towards border integrity? If you ask the CBSA's union, the answer is "not enough" as they are calling for an expanded role for the CBSA to patrol between ports of entry.  (Yes, I know why unions ask for stuff, particularly unions that have been without a contract for almost four years, but it's still a valid concern.)


----------



## Pusser (26 Feb 2018)

coyote489 said:
			
		

> Would also like to thank everyone for this post. I’m on my MP QL3 right now and this thread has been discussed quite a bit at the mess hall dining table in recent days. I frequent the threads here to find these kinds of discussions involving senior or more experienced MP members and then further discuss it with the other candidates to see what we all think. It helps in getting a better idea as to the ups and downs of the trade as well. Anyways keep up these kinds of discussions cause they actually do help the new guys see things in a different light other than what is taught in course.
> 
> It has also been a great opportunity for us to hear both sides of the story when it comes to how MP deal with other members of the CAF.



A little off topic, but I will give an example of a "situation" I once had that you and your buddies can discuss if you like.

There was a fire in an ammunition depot.  The MP who responded, drove straight through the first gate of the depot and only briefly stopped at the gate to the Explosives Area and ordered the commissionaire to get in with him (to show him where the fire was?) and then proceeded into the Explosives Area without authorization.  I should point out at this stage that when we have fires (thankfully rarely) in Explosives Areas, we tend to evacuate them, not go charging in blindly - just saying.

Luckily by the time we saw the police car scream by the Command Post, I had been able to ascertain what had actually happened (minor fire in a building that had actually been emptied of all explosives, but the MP didn't know that).  When I caught up to the MP and politely asked what he thought he was doing, he told me that he was investigating the fire.  Are MPs trained in fire or explosives occurrence investigations?  I then proceeded to point out to him that he was in an explosives area, which had been evacuated and in which only trained firefighters were supposed to be (even firefighters wouldn't have been in the area he was at the time).  I also pointed out that he was in possession of both firearms and unauthorized radios in an Explosives Area (both prohibited).  He left rather sheepishly and his chain of command was informed (who no doubt, had a one-way conversation with him later on).  

This was a case where an MP was confused about what authority he actually had and as a result, put both himself and others at risk.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Feb 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> This was a case where an MP was confused about what authority he actually had and as a result, put both himself and others at risk.



Yes, but it sounds like a matter of lack of knowledge of rules and policies vice willful ignorance.  Anybody could make this mistake.  This is something to be fixed with training and orientation, not getting different uniforms in to (possibly) make the same mistake for the same reasons.


----------



## brihard (26 Feb 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In the examples that I gave earlier (Carabinieri, Gendarmerie nationale, Guardia Civile, etc) it is worth noting that although these forces have a large domestic role in rural/smaller town policing (they generally don't cover major cities) and national policing (two roles almost identical to those of the RCMP), they also fall under their respective defence departments and have a clear military role.
> 
> Obviously, turning over CAF policing to the RCMP is not as simple as saying, "make it so." Many things would have to be worked out, including access to information by the chain of command and the level of service required by the CAF.  I would never suggest anything that would endanger CAF operations.  I just wonder if we can do this better.  Having said this, I will concede that my opinion on this has softened in the last few minutes in reading this thread.  Well done to everyone for an intelligent debate.



We can take it as a given that RCMP will not shift departments from PS over to DND. The RCMP Regulations, under the RCMP Act, do provide regulatory powers for RCMP officers to theoretically be ordered to serve outside of Canada to assist other Canadian departments, or to protet Her Majesty's property, or to protect certain Canadians. In practice, while RCMP members do serve outside of country, it's always voluntary either in the immediate sense or the specific task, or in the sense that on going to certain units (E.g., PM's protective detail) you're gonna travel. For the RCMP to have a shift where members would be ordered to go to foreign soil to do deployed law enforcement on a base or what have you would be a radical change, however given the pretty significant financial incentives, finding Mounties to step up for overseas gigs has not been too difficult.

RCMP could absorb domestic policing-on-base with little difficulty. They already have municipal policing detachments in such lovely locales as Oromocto, Cold Lake, Wainwright, etc. The actual workload from adding domestic law enforcement within the jurisdiction of bases would be pretty minimal. While there would be some learning curve in understanding certain applicable legislation or regulation, this is really no different from the radical shifts in duties Mounties already undergo- a guy policing Alberta could get posted to the Integrated Border Enforcement Team in Cornwall and have to learn IRPA, Customs Act, and various other things. A member posted to VIP protection has to learn all the laws around that. Likewise anyone going to a child exploitation, or proceeds of crime, or tech crime unit. Mounties learn new parts of the law and assume new duties all the time. That would not be a show stopper if they were to be told "OK, now you're going to enforce the Defense Controlled Access Area Regulations and the Government Property and Traffic Regulations".

So- 'policing' as cops think of it? Absolutely RCMP could do that on bases and in the PMQs.

As identified by others, the problem would be having the deployed capabilities - the 'provost' work. I would also add that there will still be some uniquely military contexts needing military police with investigational experience. You can't knit that experience. It has to come from somewhere. And that's probably going to be routine, mundane investigative files on bases- files that have little real import, but which build up a police officer's ability to conduct an investigation, take statements, deal with crown and the courts, and so forth. Detachment policing on bases is a necessary 'farm team' for the stuff NIS does.

The MPs are like the RCMP in one interesting way- they have a lot of different jobs, some of which are not necessarily related to each other, but which draw from a common baseline skillset that is difficult to acquire other than doing the stupid, routine, annoying day to day police stuff. The foundational skills have to be there, whether investigative or tactical, in order to move on to other things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Why do these roles need to be assumed by the MPs?  Close protection is not really a police function and I would argue that just anyone (who is so inclined) can be trained.  A detailed knowledge of the Criminal Code is not required to be able keep a VIP safe.  Likewise for many of the escort and guarding functions we have.  We are an armed force after all.  There is nothing wrong, or illegal, about having other personnel providing armed escorts for various things or guarding things.



They don't 'need' to be, but as of now they are MPs roles - not sure about present day but back when I wore a black beret, Convoy/VIP escort and TCPs were part of what armoured recce did.  Close Protection and TASO - I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion as to who could/should do this if not the MPs.  Could it be like TacHel does for door gunners and draw from the cbt arms?  Perhaps...

Any CP or TASO types who could chime in?  Why, historically, have CP and TASO functions been part of the MP toolbelt?


----------



## RCDtpr (26 Feb 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They don't 'need' to be, but as of now they are MPs roles - not sure about present day but back when I wore a black beret, Convoy/VIP escort and TCPs were part of what armoured recce did.  Close Protection and TASO - I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion as to who could/should do this if not the MPs.  Could it be like TacHel does for door gunners and draw from the cbt arms?  Perhaps...
> 
> Any CP or TASO types who could chime in?  Why, historically, have CP and TASO functions been part of the MP toolbelt?



I have a fair bit of experience in the TASO world and while I can’t speak to why it’s been historically an MP taksing, I can say the job itself could certainly be done by the combat arms.  In reality the bread and butter of TASO is essentially 5s and 20s and then watching arcs.  If the infantry got handed the tasking on Monday, by Wednesday I’m sure they’d be more than ready to do it operationally.

The fundamental job of CP itself could certainly be handled by combat arms units once they had enough qualified people.  Having said that, I am unsure the legalities of having non police officers armed while in plainclothes both in and out of country.  That could potentially be why it remains an MP based gig.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Feb 2018)

A CP operator is going to need the same MOU to carry firearms in a foreign country as anyone else. Being a MP doesn't make them magically exempt from permission, especially considering that CP was recruiting from all trades up to a few years ago.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (26 Feb 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> ...That could potentially be why it remains an MP based gig.



I’m confused by this point as a member of our unit went for CP quite recently. He’s not MP and is not OTing either. (Actually, multiple pers applied but he was the only one selected to attend the training.) Can you offer more insight?


----------



## mariomike (26 Feb 2018)

For reference to the discussion,

Close Protection Training  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/35757.100
8 pages.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Feb 2018)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I’m confused by this point as a member of our unit went for CP quite recently. He’s not MP and is not OTing either. (Actually, multiple pers applied but he was the only one selected to attend the training.) Can you offer more insight?



The reason for this is because the MPs don't have enough officers to do all the CP tasks required so they recruit outsiders to fill pers gaps in their ops.  The capability is owned and managed by the MP branch; however, others do get the opportunity to take the training and do the job when manpower isnin short supply.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The reason for this is because the MPs don't have enough officers to do all the CP tasks required so they recruit outsiders to fill pers gaps in their ops.  The capability is owned and managed by the MP branch; however, others do get the opportunity to take the training and do the job when manpower isnin short supply.


How nice of them. If the trade is that strapped, perhaps they should give up all the high speed stuff and focus on core tasks?


----------



## mariomike (26 Feb 2018)

From 2017,

DISCLAIMER

May not be up to date. Just something I read in the Close Protection discussion. 

Adding for reference, "for those curious."



			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN 120/17 CDS 032/17 181849Z JUL 17 - CP Recruiting
> 
> For those curious



"Unofficial site, not associated with DND."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> perhaps they should give up all the high speed stuff and focus on core tasks



Maybe this is the best COA;  or, something in the middle.  If a CP 'team' consists of say, 4 - 5 pers (I have no idea, I am pulling that out of my arse), maybe 2 of those could be MP pos'n and the rest cbt arms. Same for TASO.  If the MP branch wants to remain at the pointy end of those tasks, they could be the team leads and draw from cbt arms (or any MOSID, cbt arms preferred).

This would take the pressure off the MPs to 100% man CP and TASO, but not toss it aside completely.  Cbt arms/other MOSIDs could provide the other pers.  I mention the door gunners from TacHel...I know not only Reg Force cbt arms folks are getting those positions too.  You could even open it up to PRes folks.

Lots of options...but the first real question is...are the MPs feeling stretched with the core functions (patrolmen/women), CFNIS, etc on top of the high speed/low drag 'stuff'?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Feb 2018)

The MP branch also has a significant chunk of its PML doing security work at embassies overseas, for GAC.

A legitimate question could be asked: is that the best use of police officers? Are there other alternatives that would free up scarce MPs for duties either on bases or for CF deployments?


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Feb 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The MP branch also has a significant chunk of its PML doing security work at embassies overseas, for GAC.
> 
> A legitimate question could be asked: is that the best use of police officers? Are there other alternatives that would free up scarce MPs for duties either on bases or for CF deployments?


As I recall, in the mid seventies - say circa 74-76 - FMC was offered the opportunity to provide embassy security details, which would have provided an opportunity to reward good guys and gals and broaden their experience. The Commander turned it down for whatever reason, but let's say the view of the utility of the task from the coal face differed from the perspective from the executive suite.


----------



## Poppa (27 Feb 2018)

IMO what we need to do better as a branch is take a look at what it is we do on a day to day basis. Policing, TASO, CP or whatever and do an honest assessment of our training IOT do that role. Does a TASO need a badge? I'd say no...so we train our PRes to do it, Port security - PRes, MPSS - PRes. Actually anything that does not specifically require a badge let the PRes side of the branch take care of it freeing up the 156 guys to police.


----------



## garb811 (3 Mar 2018)

Playing catch up...



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> The trouble with this (and this was noticed in Afghanistan) is that the MPs have (or perhaps, had) largely shifted their focus in recent decades away from the "military" part of the Military Police.  In many cases, the MPs had lost their military policing skills and this proved very problematic.  I've actually been led to belied that the most effective MPs in Afghanistan (at least initially) were the Reserve MPs because, as they are not considered to be Peace Officers under the Criminal Code, they continue to focus their training and employment on military vice domestic policing.


While this is true, to a point, it is simply because the vast majority of MP are not employed in a field environment.  Expecting a MP from Halifax to have the same level of field skills as a MP from 1, 2 or 5 MP Pl would be the same as expecting a trucker from Halifax to have the same level of field skills as a trucker from 2 Svc Bn.  The demand for MP quickly outstripped the ability of the MP Pls to provide the numbers required.  This was also true in Bosnia but the impact of integrating an amalgamation of MP from non-field units and the PRes was not an issue as it was not a war-fighting deployment and the problem then became what we were supposed to do with the 20% mandated PRes MP component who couldn't do police tasks on a mission that was primarily policing the force.

It would also be disingenuous to say their expertise went beyond individual soldier skills as the vast majority of PRes MP do not have experience at operating within the context of anything much bigger than a Coy Gp for limited duration's of time.

Having worked with PRes MP at numerous points in my career, the reality is the quality of pers, training and experience varies as widely across the PRes as it does across the MP Branch as a whole.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They don't 'need' to be, but as of now they are MPs roles - not sure about present day but back when I wore a black beret, Convoy/VIP escort and TCPs were part of what armoured recce did.  Close Protection and TASO - I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion as to who could/should do this if not the MPs.  Could it be like TacHel does for door gunners and draw from the cbt arms?  Perhaps...
> 
> Any CP or TASO types who could chime in?  Why, historically, have CP and TASO functions been part of the MP toolbelt?


The short answer is they are an MP role because we are assigned that task, these are not things we arbitrarily decided to do on our own.  Although it seems like a large part of the MP Branch would like to just ignore security and force protection, the reality is they are core capabilities that we provide to the CAF.

The longer, historical, answer...

CP - Back in the day, we were closely aligned to RMP.  In the late 80s, a Canadian became the Deputy Commander of one of the US Corps in Germany, I think it was VII Corps but might be wrong.  As part of the threat assessment, it was determined he required a CP Team and MP were tasked to provide it.  Training was provided by RMP and once the posting was over, the draw down of 4 CMBG started.  Whether by luck or design, a significant cadre of that CP Team ended up at SIU Section Ottawa and they assumed the role of providing CP on an as required basis.  They ran a couple of courses internal and also provided CP to the CDS on several occasions, most notably during the Gulf War when he had a team for the duration.  At some point, I'm not exactly sure when but it might have been when SIU stood down in 97, JTF2 assumed the role of providing the CAF CP capability.  There are a few pics floating around of them doing this task OUTCAN, including one where the PMO released a picture with identifiable face shots of the CP team, that was later re-released with black rectangles to hide their identities...  

In 2003, when the Embassy in Kabul re-opened, an enhanced MPSS team was sent in with part of their mandate being "VIP Escort", although this quickly evolved into an adhoc-CP role for the Ambassador with them tapping into certain resources on the ground to gain some skill-sets on the fly but it was always emphasized that, at that time, the only thing being provided to the Ambassador was VIP Escort and not CP.

In 2004, when Gen Henault was selected to be Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, the threat assessment identified that he needed a CP team, the responsibility for that resides with the originating country.  By this time JTF2 was fully immersed in the post 9/11 stuff and they were looking to off load the CP task.  The decision was made to re-task MP with this and MP were again trained to provide the CP Team by RMP.  The intent was to stand up a small CP unit based on this team once the task ended to maintain the capability and provide coverage on an "as required" basis.  As Afghanistan evolved, things rapidly spiraled well beyond the initial thoughts on what was going to be required for CP.  The Embassy quickly turned into a joint team of MP, one group doing the traditional MPSS role responsible for the Embassy and pers inside, and the other being a full-fledged CP team for the Ambassador.  At the height of Afghanistan there was 1 x team in KAF plus 3 x teams in Kabul plus the CFPSU which had stood up in Ottawa as planned.  This led to the task being opened up to other trades, initially the call was just for MSE Op as drivers but that proved a less than ideal solution as everyone needed to do everything so the complete CP Op role was opened.  This had mixed success, the primary shortcoming being various levels of member's chains of command refusing to make non-MP available for additional missions, and it was the major reason that the Branch opened a back door in the requirement to have a 2 year diploma waived if the member was a trained CP Op.  The hope was pers who wanted to keep doing CP but who were being blocked by their chain of command would OT/CT into the trade to keep doing the task.

When we left Afghanistan the expectation was that CFPSU would be able to fill the reduced requirements as we entered the much advertised operational pause and if that was the case, all would be well and the Branch would be more than capable of providing the capability without being stressed.  But the reality is CFPSU is almost completely dedicated to CDS' tasks, the overseas missions have continued (Op ADDENDA is the ongoing CP mission in Kabul, plus a team to Op IMPACT MLT plus some other stuff).  

TASO - The first I remember of MP being put on aircraft for direct security duties that were not CODE 1 VIP (aka Air Marshalls on the VIP flights) was during the siege of Sarajevo.  I had several friends who were flying in and out aboard Hercs and their primary duty was security on the aircraft, particularly when non-CF pers were onboard.  Although the MP Branch as a whole had close ties to RMP, the Air Command MP formed close links with the USAF Security Police.  Around about 1998-99, the Air Force MP stood up the "Airfield Security Force", to provide a deployable Force Protection package to provide Airfield defence.  As usual, we did it the Canadian way and instead of instituting a full-time capability, it was an ad-hoc organization with each guardhouse on an air force base being responsible for providing a certain number of pers each, that came together for exercises, with a small HQ element full-time in Trenton.  Part of their mandate was providing pers on aircraft for security.  Around the same time the USAF was implementing their PHOENIX RAVEN program.  Although ASF deployed into Kosovo with the helicopters, the concept died shortly thereafter but the RCAF still wanted the ability to put MP onto aircraft with the PHOENIX RAVEN program being the template. MP being on the first flights into Afghanistan when SOF deployed in late 2001.  Since that time MP have continued to do the TASO mission as tasked by RCAF.  The "official" capability ask is for 1 x TASO mission at a time but right now, there are 2 x teams on Op IMPACT plus 1-3 teams on non-Op IMPACT flights at any given time.  As with us having the task, we don't decide which flights will have TASO, that is up to RCAF with AF MP Gp trying to shape the asks when possible.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How nice of them. If the trade is that strapped, perhaps they should give up all the high speed stuff and focus on core tasks?


Sure thing.  Unfortunately, just like we didn't decide to start doing this stuff on our own, we also can't just decide to not do it on our own either.  Plus, as already mentioned, security and force protection are our core tasks.  In fact, my argument usually is policing is a contributor to security and force protection and we had it right back in the day when we were the Security Branch and had Security Officers and Military Police as opposed to being the Military Police Branch with Military Police Officers and Military Police.

We are strapped for the exact same reason other branches are, but in these particular instances it is because the demand is beyond what we are set up for with permanent, dedicated, positions.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The MP branch also has a significant chunk of its PML doing security work at embassies overseas, for GAC.
> 
> A legitimate question could be asked: is that the best use of police officers? Are there other alternatives that would free up scarce MPs for duties either on bases or for CF deployments?


Our pers at MPSS are seconded to GAC, they do not count against our PML as GAC owns and pays for them, lock, stock and barrel.  They are still members of the CAF for admin, discipline etc.

The reason GAC asked for MP to fill the positions is because of the security mandate of the Branch.  My argument is we aren't providing the same quality as we did when we hadn't lost the focus on the security ball due to the policing obsession but GAC is still happy with what we are providing and keep asking for increases in numbers.  These guys do not provide any level of policing to GAC, or the CAF for that matter.  Totally outside their remit.  RCMP is responsible to do any GAC type police support, CFSU(O), CFSU(E) or CFNIS is responsible for CAF stuff. 



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall, in the mid seventies - say circa 74-76 - FMC was offered the opportunity to provide embassy security details, which would have provided an opportunity to reward good guys and gals and broaden their experience. The Commander turned it down for whatever reason, but let's say the view of the utility of the task from the coal face differed from the perspective from the executive suite.


When a new Embassy was built in Beijing in the late 80s, combat arms pers augmented the MP at the Detachment in order to provide an enhanced presence.  My understanding is they did roving patrols, escorts etc.  The is much more to the job that is being done in MPSS than being a simple security guard.  While that still occurs at a few missions, the reality is the vast majority of pers are providing security management services.  Not rocket science by any stretch and you could train other trades to do it but at the end of the day the customer wants MP and that is what we (CAF) are obligated to provide.



			
				Poppa said:
			
		

> IMO what we need to do better as a branch is take a look at what it is we do on a day to day basis. Policing, TASO, CP or whatever and do an honest assessment of our training IOT do that role. Does a TASO need a badge? I'd say no...so we train our PRes to do it, Port security - PRes, MPSS - PRes. Actually anything that does not specifically require a badge let the PRes side of the branch take care of it freeing up the 156 guys to police.


As you're no doubt aware, there are efforts ongoing to integrate PRes MP into some of these activities.  Reality is none of these will ever be 100% PRes for the simple fact that you always need pers who can go out the door at minimal notice and, sometimes, be ordered out the door.  The first attempt to send a PRes member out the door on a TASO mission didn't work because of passport issues for instance and I also know a reserve MP who refuses to deploy on any more CP missions because he did his "1".  In both instances, Reg Force MP have had to fill the task, at extremely short notice in the case of the TASO mission.  There is certainly scope for augmentation but just like PRes MP can't fill the MP Pl role on their own, none of these capabilities will be anything other than augmentation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Mar 2018)

Awesome history lesson. Thanks Garb!


----------

