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

[markppcli]

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

Anyone suggesting a professional sports coach is primarily employed to set a lifestyle example to their players needs to get their head checked. NFL rosters include deliberately obese players - its not the same at all.

To promote fitness i would suggest you need to walk the walk as much as talk the talk. Can you point to me an example of a successful fitness, not a specific sport, coach that isnt in good shape? Or point to be a leader that improved fitness in an orga inaction while being in poor shape themselves? Ill accept an anecdote since we're now in the realm of opinion.

I agree the force test is inappropriate, id suggest the express test is a better indicator of overall fitness vs operational fitness.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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.

Certainly.

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.

True, but there's a legal requirement until there isn't. Summary Trials were removed from the NDA and replaced with Summary Hearings.

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.

A modified fitness test could be a middle ground. Something aimed at being physically active enough to supervise kids during physical activities without becoming a health and safety risk.

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?

Cadets bring some absolutely stellar kids to the CAF. CI's and CIC officers can continue to accomplish that while wearing the same uniform cadets are given.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Cadets bring some absolutely stellar kids to the CAF.

Not to mention into civvy street even if they don’t end up in the CF - as well as giving Canadians the tiniest shmeck of military knowledge/context, something a lot of Canadians lack (mostly thru apathy than malice).

 

[Kilted]

Here is an idea of what the rank structure could look like. Still needs a bit of work, it looks a touch too American. I designed the ranks and rank names myself and then put it through AI for the final presentation.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ugh, sorry, but I not feeling the love. Even the Commissionaires uses chevrons and crowns for their ranks. Also you have CIC, CI and CV's. CI and CV don't current wear any uniform.

 

[Kilted]

Ugh, sorry, but I not feeling the love. Even the Commissionaires uses chevrons and crowns for their ranks.

It dosen't have to be exactly that, it just needs to be different so it's not confused with chevrons, bars, and pips and crowns. It needs to work in all three services.

 

[Kilted]

Ok, I like this one better

 

[McG]

Can you point to me an example of a successful fitness, not a specific sport, coach that isnt in good shape? Or point to be a leader that improved fitness in an orga inaction while being in poor shape themselves? Ill accept an anecdote since we're now in the realm of opinion.

I can think of several individuals (of different backgrounds) who went on to be fitness trainers as retirement jobs; might still call many of them fit for their age, but none would be passing a fitness test designed for a 20 or 30 year old. I can also think of a former CO who packed on a lot of weight under MELs while simultaneously raising the overall fitness level of his unit by imposing more regimented PT structure across the sub-units. It seemingly can be done.

I agree the force test is inappropriate, id suggest the express test is a better indicator of overall fitness vs operational fitness.

And how do you set quantifiable metrics for a CIC fitness test? The Reg F had to dump the Express Test because it had no demonstrable connection to job tasks, and because the pass standard varied across age and gender. Most people advocating in this thread don't seem to care what a CIC can or cannot do so long as they have a fit aesthetic, but that is not defensible if challenged. Neither is arbitrary pass standards for either FORCE or Express. The best you might be able to argue is that CIC officers need to pass the Cadet Fitness Assessment (to demonstrate a pass to their cadets) and maybe an additional casualty carry (to get injured kids to safety when out in the woods).

Cadets bring some absolutely stellar kids to the CAF. CI's and CIC officers can continue to accomplish that while wearing the same uniform cadets are given.

CIC officers are CAF members. I understand you perceive them to be lesser members, and that you need them to look different from you so they are visibly marked as being an out-group. But get over your hurt feelings. The value of my service and professionalism is not diminished by the existence of the CIC within the CAF, and the same is true for you. Stripping CIC officers of CAF uniforms so you can feel better will immediately be noticed by the cadets themselves. Stuff CIC in cadet uniforms and you take away from that mission of building an affinity toward the CAF, because the Cadets no longer see CAF members leading them ... they'll just see adult cadets and a CAF that just went out of its way to distance itself from them.

Aside from a few PRes & RegF members who experience hurt feelings at the sight of the CIC, what problem are you trying to fix?

 

[Eaglelord17]

CIC officers are CAF members. I understand you perceive them to be lesser members, and that you need them to look different from you so they are visibly marked as being an out-group. But get over your hurt feelings. The value of my service and professionalism is not diminished by the existence of the CIC within the CAF, and the same is true for you. Stripping CIC officers of CAF uniforms so you can feel better will immediately be noticed by the cadets themselves. Stuff CIC in cadet uniforms and you take away from that mission of building an affinity toward the CAF, because the Cadets no longer see CAF members leading them ... they'll just see adult cadets and a CAF that just went out of its way to distance itself from them.

Aside from a few PRes & RegF members who experience hurt feelings at the sight of the CIC, what problem are you trying to fix?

They maybe currently CAF members, but there is no bonafide occupational requirement for them to be.

Seeing as there is no universality of service for them they shouldn't be CAF members, let alone commissioned officers. DND employees? That would make sense like all other civilians who work in/for national defence, but uniformed members they shouldn't be. If they aren't willing/able to be ordered to their death then they shouldn't be a CAF member, and I think that is a very fair line to draw between civilian and soldier (or sailor, seaman, pilot, etc.).

The problem that should be fixed is essentially civilians without the legal expectations or commitments of a actual serving member (be it Pres or Regs) demanding the same respect as one without the negatives attached to it.

 

[McG]

They maybe currently CAF members, but there is no bonafide occupational requirement for them to be.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don’t understand the meaning of BFOR. I explained it up thread. You can go back and educate yourself.

There is a legal requirement that leads to CIC being CAF officers (that was also provided earlier). It doesn’t matter that you want them to be something else.

The problem that should be fixed is essentially civilians without the legal expectations or commitments of a actual serving member (be it Pres or Regs) demanding the same respect as one without the negatives attached to it.

This just comes across as you being emotional for the perception that lesser people are spoiling the purity of you social identity. CIC aren’t demanding anything from you.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They maybe currently CAF members, but there is no bonafide occupational requirement for them to be.

Seeing as there is no universality of service for them they shouldn't be CAF members, let alone commissioned officers. DND employees? That would make sense like all other civilians who work in/for national defence, but uniformed members they shouldn't be. If they aren't willing/able to be ordered to their death then they shouldn't be a CAF member, and I think that is a very fair line to draw between civilian and soldier (or sailor, seaman, pilot, etc.).

The problem that should be fixed is essentially civilians without the legal expectations or commitments of a actual serving member (be it Pres or Regs) demanding the same respect as one without the negatives attached to it.

Yes, but enough about Honourary Colonels

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ok, I like this one better
View attachment 102073

Better, currently at the unit level you have

CV
CI
OC
Sub-Lieutenant
Lieutenant

At the regional level you seem to have the last two , plus a L/CDR or L/Col as the regional head. I think at National they have full Cmdr/Col's

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And how do you set quantifiable metrics for a CIC fitness test? The Reg F had to dump the Express Test because it had no demonstrable connection to job tasks, and because the pass standard varied across age and gender. Most people advocating in this thread don't seem to care what a CIC can or cannot do so long as they have a fit aesthetic, but that is not defensible if challenged. Neither is arbitrary pass standards for either FORCE or Express. The best you might be able to argue is that CIC officers need to pass the Cadet Fitness Assessment (to demonstrate a pass to their cadets) and maybe an additional casualty carry (to get injured kids to safety when out in the woods).

As I have mentioned, at my unit the 3 CIC Officers spend the majority of the drill nights in the office doing paperwork as a necessity to keep things going. All three are relatively fit and take part in events like sailing, kayaking and snowshoeing. I suspect they could match the average performance of Reservists in their age group.

On the bright side, if we cut ties with the military, we can also dump their IT and CAF electronic policies and adopt saner civilian IT and polices and the RCSU's could be held accountable for losing paperwork on a regular basis......

 

[Blackadder1916]

They maybe currently CAF members, but there is no bonafide occupational requirement for them to be.

Seeing as there is no universality of service for them they shouldn't be CAF members, let alone commissioned officers. DND employees? That would make sense like all other civilians who work in/for national defence, but uniformed members they shouldn't be. If they aren't willing/able to be ordered to their death then they shouldn't be a CAF member, and I think that is a very fair line to draw between civilian and soldier (or sailor, seaman, pilot, etc.).

The problem that should be fixed is essentially civilians without the legal expectations or commitments of a actual serving member (be it Pres or Regs) demanding the same respect as one without the negatives attached to it.

By your logic then, two other sub-components of the Reserves (plus those members of COATS who are not of the CIC occupation) should also not be CAF members - the Supplementary Reserve and the Canadian Rangers. "Universality of service" does not apply to both of those sub-components. However, since universality of service is not about "being ordered to ones death", but about the being one of the exceptions in the Canadian Human Rights Act that permits the CAF to discriminate against those who can't physically or mentally perform functions required of them, it should be a moot argument.

As for CIC "being ordered to their death", they are subject to the same liability to be placed on "active service" or to perform lawful military duty within the terms of their enrolment, the same as any other member of the CAF. Would it happen? Unlikely, however those CIC officers with the Cadets when we had Canadian communities at Lahr and Baden were considered on "active service" just like any other reservist serving overseas. Did it matter to them, not really, except when they made use of their "active service" status to access medical services and did not have to have PSHCP or other insurance coverage.

 

[Halifax Tar]

CIC officers are CAF members.

They are certain tier of CAF member. If it was that simple we would all be required to meet the same... requirements...

If they are going to wear the uniform, carry rank and commission perhaps they should be able to meet some further requirements. The BFOR would be the uniform rank and commission. If they are operationally required to hold a rank (NCM COATs) and commission and wear the uniform, which identifies them as CAF members, then the base line standard should be the same for them as the Regs and PRes.

Supp Res is just a group for call up (back into service) in case of war, and the rangers are whole different structure and mission.

I understand you perceive them to be lesser members, and that you need them to look different from you so they are visibly marked as being an out-group. But get over your hurt feelings.

Aside from a few PRes & RegF members who experience hurt feelings at the sight of the CIC, what problem are you trying to fix?

You make solid arguments and then you turn into a dick. You've actually improved my knowledge of the reserves. I think everyone was having a civil conversation but no, you had to be a try and be a bully.

By your logic then, two other sub-components of the Reserves (plus those members of COATS who are not of the CIC occupation) should also not be CAF members - the Supplementary Reserve and the Canadian Rangers. "Universality of service" does not apply to both of those sub-components. However, since universality of service is not about "being ordered to ones death", but about the being one of the exceptions in the Canadian Human Rights Act that permits the CAF to discriminate against those who can't physically or mentally perform functions required of them, it should be a moot argument.

As for CIC "being ordered to their death", they are subject to the same liability to be placed on "active service" or to perform lawful military duty within the terms of their enrolment, the same as any other member of the CAF. Would it happen? Unlikely, however those CIC officers with the Cadets when we had Canadian communities at Lahr and Baden were considered on "active service" just like any other reservist serving overseas. Did it matter to them, not really, except when they made use of their "active service" status to access medical services and did not have to have PSHCP or other insurance coverage.

We have 4 sub components for our reserve forces.

1. Primary Reserve
2. Supp Res
3. Can Rangers
4. COATs

They all have different requirements. Looping COATs (NCM and Commissioned) to be closer aligned with the PRes doesn't mean knock on affects have to happen to the Sup Res or Rangers.

And expecting an annual fitness test doesn't necessitate inclusion into the "ordered to your death" group.

Its an interesting situation. I wonder what our allies do for their Cadet organizations. Off to wiki I go.

 

[Halifax Tar]

From what I can gather, from my google machine, amongst our allies, we are a bit of an outlier in giving commissions to our CICs.

Interestingly, and forgive me for using the UK as an example; but they get Cadet Forces Commissions which grant commissioned status within the cadet environment but are distinct from commissions held by regular or reserve officers. And not of authority in the Regular or Reserve forces.

Aus and NZ - Cadet Force Appointments, not commissioned. Equivalent to leadership appointments in a youth organization.

US - Generally not commissioned. Volunteers.
Exceptions:

• Already in the US Military and volunteering
• Retired Officers. Their commission continues as part of their retired status.

 

[Jarnhamar]

CIC officers are CAF members. I understand you perceive them to be lesser members, and that you need them to look different from you so they are visibly marked as being an out-group. But get over your hurt feelings. The value of my service and professionalism is not diminished by the existence of the CIC within the CAF, and the same is true for you. Stripping CIC officers of CAF uniforms so you can feel better will immediately be noticed by the cadets themselves. Stuff CIC in cadet uniforms and you take away from that mission of building an affinity toward the CAF, because the Cadets no longer see CAF members leading them ... they'll just see adult cadets and a CAF that just went out of its way to distance itself from them.

Aside from a few PRes & RegF members who experience hurt feelings at the sight of the CIC, what problem are you trying to fix?

Calling opposing views “hurt feelings” is a pretty transparent deflection. If you have to characterize everyone who disagrees with you as emotional instead of just engaging with their arguments that says more about the strength of your position than theirs.

 

[McG]

If they are going to wear the uniform, carry rank and commission perhaps they should be able to meet some further requirements.

Why?

The BFOR would be the uniform rank and commission.

A uniform & a commission were not sufficient BFOR for the Reg F, and that is not going to be a sufficient threshold for CIC. A BFOR for a fitness threshold must be tied to a physical requirement of the job.

Calling opposing views “hurt feelings” is a pretty transparent deflection. If you have to characterize everyone who disagrees with you as emotional instead of just engaging with their arguments that says more about the strength of your position than theirs.

Doggedly demanding a fitness test without being able to articulate a legitimate BFOR starts giving the impression this is not about a physical job requirement. Constantly pointing to commissioning scrolls and uniforms as substantiation for fitness testing suggests this is about aesthetics. Whinging about CIC demanding respect or thinking they are one of us shows the real concern separating the out-group from the in-group. So, in the absence of arguments fully based in legitimate BFOR (and so far only one proponent has offered thoughts in that direction), the hurt feelings are the only argument that I can discern from most proponents of this idea.

 

[ueo]

They are certain tier of CAF member. If it was that simple we would all be required to meet the same... requirements...

If they are going to wear the uniform, carry rank and commission perhaps they should be able to meet some further requirements. The BFOR would be the uniform rank and commission. If they are operationally required to hold a rank (NCM COATs) and commission and wear the uniform, which identifies them as CAF members, then the base line standard should be the same for them as the Regs and PRes.

Supp Res is just a group for call up (back into service) in case of war, and the rangers are whole different structure and mission.



You make solid arguments and then you turn into a dick. You've actually improved my knowledge of the reserves. I think everyone was having a civil conversation but no, you had to be a try and be a bully.



We have 4 sub components for our reserve forces.

1. Primary Reserve
2. Supp Res
3. Can Rangers
4. COATs

They all have different requirements. Looping COATs (NCM and Commissioned) to be closer aligned with the PRes doesn't mean knock on affects have to happen to the Sup Res or Rangers.

And expecting an annual fitness test doesn't necessitate inclusion into the "ordered to your death" group.

Its an interesting situation. I wonder what our allies do for their Cadet organizations. Off to wiki I go.

Suspect many HQ types (RF) could do not pass annual fitness testing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why?

Why not ?

A uniform & a commission were not sufficient BFOR for the Reg F, and that is not going to be a sufficient threshold for CIC. A BFOR for a fitness threshold must be tied to a physical requirement of the job.

I think this issue is we have created tiers in our ranks, commissioned an non. With a lower tiers given the same privileges and honors without the same level being expected of them.

I like the UK method, now that I have learned something about it. I think its a good compromise.

the hurt feelings are the only argument that I can discern from most proponents of this idea.

You're usually better than this. Its surprising to see you stoop to such a level.

Suspect many HQ types (RF) could do not pass annual fitness testing.

They literally have to, every year.