• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Do we need Cadets? Should they be military/uniformed? (split from Trump administration 2024-2028)

We used to be able to take Cadets out with us on live fire artillery exercises, they worked hard to impress us and many joined up. Thanks to our risk adverse Civil and Military leadership, that opportunity has seemed to gone by the wayside. The UK is much more forthright in that Cadets is a military arm and army cadets learn section tactics including attacks using blanks and pyrotechnics.
Was it risk aversion or an active effort by previous governments and ministers to demilitarize the program in an effort to make it more palatable in urban areas? We all remember dark times with school boards not wanting any connection to the military, law enforcement, etc.

Honest question from an outsider just vaguely remembering history.

I can see security and safety concerns, and maybe it is easier for sea and air cadets to get exposure.
 
Is the requirement for a commision that everyone do the same job? Because Regular and Reserve officers don't do the same job, and each occupation within a component does a different job. No two MOSID do the same job.
Do CIC officers require a commission to do theirs?
 
What do you believe necessitates a commission? What is it they don't do that makes you want to take it away?
I don't know what they do that requires one that's why I'm asking.

I'm an NCM in the CAF that has worked under CIC officers one summer. Could the OC, a major, have charged me for a service infraction and punished me?

If the role doesn’t exercise command authority, administer military discipline, and perform duties requiring commissioned status, then I don’t see a functional reason for the commission. The fact that they’ve historically been commissioned isn’t by itself a sufficient justification for keeping it.

Why take it away? Just stop giving new ones out since there isn't a need for it. Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
 
The commissioning scroll is a heritage thing. We do it because we have been doing it longer than we have been a nation. Nobody needs it and the institution would survive if the CAF stopped issuing them tomorrow. So why single out CIC if you want to remove it?

A commissioning scroll is not authority to administer military discipline. There are courses and separate delegations for that.

It is not required to wield authority. An infantry sergeant will command more troops in a section than some officer occupations will command as majors. And on that note, CIC officers are definitely responsible for the supervision, training, mentoring, and welfare of more subordinates that a lot of commissioned officers. A leadership failure of a CIC major is likely to be far more negatively impactful to the institution than a similar leadership failing by a TDO.

We should not oppose change simply on the argument that something has always been the way it is. Conversely, those advocating for change should understand the current system and be able explain why change is needed.
 
I don't think a annual force test is too much to ask of a CIC Officer.

Hell, we will give you a half days pay for it!
 
What is the bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR)?

Are reservists not expected to meet and maintain a level of fitness ? Aren't CIC officers considered a component of the reserves ?

Surly expecting a simple force test isn't asking too much. By my googling it looks like up until 2014 they had to complete the fitness tests.


What was the bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) for removing it ?
 
If you are talking about the reserve force as a whole without distinction by sub-component, the answer is that they are not.

I suppose when you loop in the supplementary reserve and Ranger, you may have a point. But when something walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

If there is no BFOR, the law says that is demanding too much.

My understand is they are considered full members under section 46 of the NDA. Why not fully treat them as such ? We give them uniforms and roles and responsibilities. Lets treat them as the real* officers they seem to want to be.

*I use the term real not as a pejorative, but because my vocabulary is lacking in finding the right term.

You are assuming there was one.

You're assuming there wasn't one ?
 
You're assuming there wasn't one ?
I am confident there was no BFOR for CIC to pass the FORCE test because they don’t perform the tasks that the test is a predictor for. You are advocating for a change that would require the existence of a BFOR. So you need to identify the BFOR.

If you want to argue there is a Big Foot, you need to bring the proof; it’s not enough to make the claim and demand others prove the opposite.

My understand is they are considered full members under section 46 of the NDA. Why not fully treat them as such ?
“Full member” is not a term used in section 46, which authorizes MND to form Cadet Corps under leadership of the CAF. The term “full member” has no meaning.
 
I am confident there was no BFOR for CIC to pass the FORCE test because they don’t perform the tasks that the test is a predictor for. You are advocating for a change that would require the existence of a BFOR. So you need to identify the BFOR.

If you want to argue there is a Big Foot, you need to bring the proof; it’s not enough to make the claim and demand others prove the opposite.

You're confident, which means you don't actually know. Which means its an assumption that you're confident in.

What was the reasoning for removing the requirement of an annual fitness test ?

“Full member” is not a term used in section 46, which authorizes MND to form Cadet Corps under leadership of the CAF. The term “full member” has no meaning.

Do they fall under the NDA, and CSD ? Do they hold appointed responsibilities ? Do the they hold a commission ?

If there is a bona fide occupational requirement not to do fitness tests, lets hear it.

I really don't think expecting a commissioned member of the CAF to complete a force test is a big ask.

But hey I don't really have any dog in this fight. Feel free to keep on keeping on.
 
If there is no BFOR, the law says that is demanding too much.


You are assuming there was one.

Didn't you post that part of the mandate of the Cadets program is promoting physical fitness? Their website does. With that as a stated goal surely the people we pay, train, and commissions to oversee it ought to have some level of fitness in order to meet that mandate. So either a force test or maybe the express test would be more appropriate.


 
What was the reasoning for removing the requirement of an annual fitness test ?
It was removed for lack of BFOR and to eliminate needless costs of administering a test that could not be defended in court.

Do they fall under the NDA, and CSD ? Do they hold appointed responsibilities ? Do the they hold a commission ?
None of this has bearing on BFOR for a fitness test.

If there is a bona fide occupational requirement not to do fitness tests, lets hear it.
Okay, since you are telling me you don't know what a BFOR is, I will offer you this: Implement the decision - Canada.ca
You must have a BFOR to impose a rule or standard as condition of employment, you don't need a BFOR to not impose a rule or standard as a condition of employment.

Didn't you post that part of the mandate of the Cadets program is promoting physical fitness? Their website does. With that as a stated goal surely the people we pay, train, and commissions to oversee it ought to have some level of fitness in order to meet that mandate. So either a force test or maybe the express test would be more appropriate.
It might be hard to defend in court when there have been successful obese coaches in professional sport. You definitely don't need to pass the FORCE test to promote fitness. Another test? Maybe. A modified Force test where only health-related fitness is measured and operational fitness ignored? Also maybe ... but what are the consequences in the Reg F if you pass on operational fitness metrics but fall into the orange zone? If the only consequences with teeth are linked to failure for operational fitness, CAF would be administering a CIC test that cannot be failed.
1788436359929.png
 
The commissioning scroll is a heritage thing. We do it because we have been doing it longer than we have been a nation. Nobody needs it and the institution would survive if the CAF stopped issuing them tomorrow. So why single out CIC if you want to remove it?
That's the answer I'm looking for. It's a heritage thing that we've always done and we don't need it.

Why single them out? Part of the idea of moving them a step or two away from being "military officers" and more in line with running a children's organization. Swapping out uniforms would be higher on my list.

We should not oppose change simply on the argument that something has always been the way it is. Conversely, those advocating for change should understand the current system and be able explain why change is needed.
Great points. Organizations change over time and it doesn't hurt to explore updating them. The Royal Canadian Legion is a great example.

What is the bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR)?
Since they're leaders, leading by example. It has to be difficult promoting a healthy lifestyle and fitness when you're unfit and an unhealthy size.
You could say do as I say not as I do, but military officers are different from coaches sitting on a chair barking orders. Officers join cadets (to lead and supervise) on physical activities from sports to hiking to biking to expeditions.

What ends up happening is fit instructor do all the physical lifting and the unfit ones are sheltered. Considering they're paid the same as each other that's as unfair as when it happens to us in the CAF.


That said, realistically implementing a fitness component would devastate the cadet programs leadership and the kids would suffer the most for it at the end of the day. Is the trade off worth it? No.
[Especially when CAF members get ordered to cancel their summer leave to go support these guys].
 
Okay, since you are telling me you don't know what a BFOR is, I will offer you this: Implement the decision - Canada.ca
You must have a BFOR to impose a rule or standard as condition of employment, you don't need a BFOR to not impose a rule or standard as a condition of employment.

Being subject to the CSD and NDA are not a BFOR ?

It might be hard to defend in court when there have been successful obese coaches in professional sport. You definitely don't need to pass the FORCE test to promote fitness. Another test? Maybe. A modified Force test where only health-related fitness is measured and operational fitness ignored? Also maybe ... but what are the consequences in the Reg F if you pass on operational fitness metrics but fall into the orange zone? If the only consequences with teeth are linked to failure for operational fitness, CAF would be administering a CIC test that cannot be failed.
View attachment 102064

FYI, I am a coach on a national level Mil team and I have to have a successful Force test to do that.
 
Being subject to the CSD and NDA are not a BFOR ?
No. Being subject to the CSD and NDA is not a BFOR for a fitness test.
The CF Express test was replaced because it could not be defended as a BFOR even for Reg F.

That's the answer I'm looking for. It's a heritage thing that we've always done and we don't need it.
It is a heritage thing for the Reg F and PRes as well. If you want to abolish it because it only exists for heritage, then that argument would seem to apply to all.

Why single them out? Part of the idea of moving them a step or two away from being "military officers" and more in line with running a children's organization.
The NDA says that cadets will be under the control and supervision of the Canadian Forces, and that they will be subject to the authority and command of officers. So there is a legal requirement for CIC to be CAF officers. This thread has yet to establish a bona fide occupational requirement for them to pass the same fitness test as the Reg F. There is not a universal CAF BFOR and other sub-components are also exempt from doing any fitness test.

Swapping out uniforms would be higher on my list.
Why do you need them to look different? What might be the second order effects, of placating your want, to the Cadet program's objective of building an affinity toward the CAF?

FYI, I am a coach on a national level Mil team and I have to have a successful Force test to do that.
If a CIC officer wanted to do that volunteer task, they would need a successful FORCE test too. But that is a condition of your recreational pursuits in the CAF. It is not the same as the FORCE test as a condition of your employment.
 
I think a lot of previous stigma is gone. People dont look at former reservists with the disdain they used to either. Culture shifts have had positive effects.
You may be right. I'm not sure about the cadets, but the relationship between the Reg Force and Reserves is definitely much better than when I joined many moons ago. It's also becoming a common thing that we will see former Reg Force coming to the Reserves instead of just releasing more often than we used to, or at least that's what I have observed.
That's the answer I'm looking for. It's a heritage thing that we've always done and we don't need it.

Why single them out? Part of the idea of moving them a step or two away from being "military officers" and more in line with running a children's organization. Swapping out uniforms would be higher on my list.


Great points. Organizations change over time and it doesn't hurt to explore updating them. The Royal Canadian Legion is a great example.


Since they're leaders, leading by example. It has to be difficult promoting a healthy lifestyle and fitness when you're unfit and an unhealthy size.
You could say do as I say not as I do, but military officers are different from coaches sitting on a chair barking orders. Officers join cadets (to lead and supervise) on physical activities from sports to hiking to biking to expeditions.

What ends up happening is fit instructor do all the physical lifting and the unfit ones are sheltered. Considering they're paid the same as each other that's as unfair as when it happens to us in the CAF.


That said, realistically implementing a fitness component would devastate the cadet programs leadership and the kids would suffer the most for it at the end of the day. Is the trade off worth it? No.
[Especially when CAF members get ordered to cancel their summer leave to go support these guys].
It could be phased in, or current people could potentially be grandfathered. I don't expect anyone who currently holds a commission to be stripped of it in any change to the CIC, changes would effect new people coming into the system.
 
A few anecdotes to provide some context to this discussion. I began my military career in Air Cadets in the late 1960s. Very military-ish and a good foundation for my 32-year military career. In the late 1990s I was the Deputy Regional Cadet Officer for Pacific Region Cadets, the senior regular force officer in the Region. At the time my HQ was 30+ combination of regular force and CIC. At the time we had (approximately) 5000 cadets, 500 CIC officers and 125 cadet corps. Pulling these figures from the depths of my memory. We watched in some sadness as the Army Cadet program was de-militarized. The official reason given at the time was that Canada had signed on to international agreements not to employ child soldiers. You can make your own determination of whether or not the Army Cadet program of that era produced "child soldiers." I don't think so, but it was also increasingly difficult to justify having teenagers firing automatic weapons. So we turned Army Cadets from Army to Adventure (in practice if not name). I also had huge issues with the CIC officers and their desire to be treated like "real" officers but not come anywhere close to meeting even the basic level of expectations of a regular or reserve officer. At one point I proposed that CIC officers would wear a distinctive uniform, or at least very distinctive badges to ensure nobody confused them with "real" officers. That went over like a lead balloon and I was told by the Cadet mafia in Ottawa to get back in my box. My final anecdote involves the challenges we faced with CIC officers. First, the more I got to know them, the more I appreciated their commitment to the program. But it was a youth training program, not the military. We had a corps in a small town that provided pretty much the only organized outlet for teenagers and was well subscribed to. We had huge challenges finding officers. The local parents group final dredged up an individual for our consideration. He had previous military experience of some sort, not sure what type, but was a hopeless alcoholic. The best we could get out of him was a promise not to drink on parade days/nights. So we were faced with the decision: did we let the corps collapse due to a lack of a CO, or did we accept what the parents group had dug up. I honestly don't remember what our final decision was but this was typical of the issues we faced managing the cadet program. My observations since that time was that the CIC mafia was able to totally buffalo NDHQ to the point CIC officers were getting paid the equivalent of any other CF officer and they had sorts of other benefits. Pretty rich for a youth leader. I admire their commitment but also their political acumen in gilding their lily. Back to the rest of you.
 
Back
Top