Alternate for the CIC

[Neill McKay]

Ok, I know this has been beat to heck, but there are some new members responding to the thread, so I'll pose the question, what if the CIC were not given a commission,   but as members of the CF with a special status similar to the Rangers that allowed them to lead cadet units and instruct and run summer training establishments, but they have minimal status when it comes to dealing with other componets of the CF. Other than allowing the Cadets to believe they are real elements of the CF, having real commissioned officers as their leaders is not really required.   Second part of the question, if that was done would it eliminate some of   problems.  

What do you see as the problem with having commissioned officers working in the cadet programme?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Fair enough -- if the Snowbirds are intended to be a training outfit, then that's quite different from my impression that they were strictly intended as a demonstration squadron.

You do realize that every time a sailor, soldier and airman goes out whether sailing, flying or in the field its for more then just demostration purposes. Its to instill instinctual reaction for situations that a service person may find themselves in.

 

[George Wallace]

What do you see as the problem with having commissioned officers working in the cadet programme?

I think enough posts have been made in reference to this.   Most cases, have been due to examples of the poor calibre of some CIC officers and their poor attitudes, Dress and Deportment, GMK, etc.   These bad apples have left a lasting impression on many proud Serving Members.   As there seems to be no "Professional Development" of these officers, many are questioning the reasons to give them an 'equivalant' Commission to Regular Force and Reserve Force Officers.

 

[McG]

what if the CIC were not given a commission,   but as members of the CF with a special status similar to the Rangers that allowed them to lead cadet units and instruct and run summer training establishments, but they have minimal status when it comes to dealing with other componets of the CF.

As long as CIC are members of the CF, they deserve the commission.  They do officer jobs (CO, Trg O, Log O), they must be accountable to the same extent as any other officer for the effectiveness of unit training, for the safety of members of the unit, for the spending of public & non-public funds, and for the leadership of their subordinates.

The Canadian Rangers do hold NCM ranks.  However, there are officers and senior NCOs of the regular force that provide the command structure over-top of the ranger patrols.  Do we want to reinvent the CIC so as to become a draw on the finite number of regular and PRes officers?

 

[CrashBear]

Its not the fact that commissioned officers are working in the cadet program, its that these people are commissioned officers (but this subject has already been addressed, see the last couple of pages).

My welfare is not increased by having the CIC around. For the last time, the CIC does not contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF. It is NOT a mandatory responsibility of the CF to give youth something to do, it has been assigned to them, but could you imagine a youth group modeled on say, the Finance Department? The CF is responsible for defending Canada, not giving kids something fun to do on a weeknight and each summer. The CF does it, yes that is true, but to justify your job by saying that it is the responsibility of the CF to support youth groups, then you have a very lax argument.

Once again Piper while your opinions are valuable with your many years of experience howver I do not see anything again in your post to substanciate your views

 

[Steve031]

As far as bandsmen contributing in wartime, historically they have also been employed as stretcher bearers and medics (the band thread).  Here's the difference between CIC and the rest of the CF.  The PRES and Reg CF are soldiers who are trained and authorized to take deadly action against the enemy when appropriate.  The CIC are not trained to do so.  If you were a member of a foreign military and came to Canada and saw a system where a whole bunch of commissioned officers were members of the military and yet not actually qualified to fire the service rifle, what would you think?  Kind of odd.  Every member of the CF, except for the CIC, is trained to fire a weapon at people to some extent.  So, in a time of war, all these soldiers could conceivably fight wheras CIC officers could do nothing on the battlefield.

CIC has an important job, and generally they do it well.  But why do they have to be commissioned officers in the CF.  There isn't any real reason why they have to be, but some good reasons why they shouldn't be.

 

[CrashBear]

After all of this, I really don't mind the CIC. For those that do their job and are not an embarressment to the CF (like so many are), I have the utmost respect for them and they do an important job for the youth of Canada (not for the CF). But what I have issue with is when the CIC are presented with our 'beefs' (lack of training for their commission, ideas of being a soldier too etc) and then try to justify their position as CF members. It cannot be done, you cannot realisticly justify your being in the CF as officers. But, what you can do is accept that CF members have reservations and carry on with your job anyways, like we do around CIC officers. Thats just how it is. Its less that we don't like the CIC, not that at all, its that many of us dislike the justifcations that are weakly tossed around to try to justify the CIC being what it is.

And once again piper we are all well aware of what is given in training to the CIC. These items are being addressed as we speak.  The justification is there whether you like it or not. What is important here is instead of reacting to old information what new and interesting do you have to add to the discussion at hand.  Can the Cadet program be better served in another model and how?

 

[aesop081]

Once again Piper while your opinions are valuable with your many years of experience howver I do not see anything again in your post to substanciate your views

You are not excactly a seasoned veteran yourself !

 

[CrashBear]

As far as bandsmen contributing in wartime, historically they have also been employed as stretcher bearers and medics (the band thread).  Here's the difference between CIC and the rest of the CF.  The PRES and Reg CF are soldiers who are trained and authorized to take deadly action against the enemy when appropriate.  The CIC are not trained to do so.  If you were a member of a foreign military and came to Canada and saw a system where a whole bunch of commissioned officers were members of the military and yet not actually qualified to fire the service rifle, what would you think?  Kind of odd.  Every member of the CF, except for the CIC, is trained to fire a weapon at people to some extent.  So, in a time of war, all these soldiers could conceivably fight wheras CIC officers could do nothing on the battlefield.

Nor should they be given the training that they have been given.  That is not the mandate that the CIC has been asked to perform.  The question is still the same as other posts. Instead of telling us why the CIC is no good what is the Alternative in a constructive way that would benefit the youth?

 

[aesop081]

regarding CIC training i have a quick question:

are they considered General service officers ?

 

[Trinity]

good question

specialist officers would include

doctors
dentists
padre's
(nurses)???

 

[COBRA-6]

In the military, earning what you have is important. All other officers have to earn their commission the hard way, the CIC (sorry about this, but its true) do not. Thats what the issue is. Would you accept being a military-trained civvie with a 'special' commission, giving you standing within the CCM but not in the CF? Cadets still gets help/funding etc from DND, but the CIC are trained/used/commissioned as per their job, with no misconceptions.

Or, as an opposite alternative, have CIC Officers take normal PRes officer training like everyone else (land/air/sea), then their cadet-specific (trade) training. This would eliminate the "not a real officer" argument, increase their usefullness to the CIC in times of crisis, and go a long way to improve the calibre and professionalism in the CIC ranks. Those members who have already served in the PRes or Reg Force will already have completed this training, and would only have to do the cadet-specific part. If this was done then CIC officers should be paid the same as PRes officers, which would be a lot more as I understand. Those who take fitness and military duty seriously would have what it takes to complete the training, those with prior service would be largely unaffected, and those who don't could still be involved with cadets in a civilian instructor capacity....

Problems I foresee:

Time of training (4weeks BMOQ + 10weeks CAP + cadet-specific crses)
Cost (longer training time + new class A pay rates)
Impact on training system (so many CIC officers to train)

Thoughts?

 

[McG]

Or, as an opposite alternative, have CIC Officers take normal PRes officer training like everyone else (land/air/sea), then their cadet-specific (trade) training.

Why have you recommended a 10 week CAP(R) for the CIC?  It is an army course (not for the air and sea types).

However, any argument for training should be based on need.  The Navy PRes don't need CAP(R), so they don't take it. The CIC don't need CAP (R) either.  They do need BMOQ (or even just a BMQ) to get them to think like a member of the forces.

 

[CrashBear]

Or, as an opposite alternative, have CIC Officers take normal PRes officer training like everyone else (land/air/sea), then their cadet-specific (trade) training. This would eliminate the "not a real officer" argument, increase their usefullness to the CIC in times of crisis, and go a long way to improve the calibre and professionalism in the CIC ranks. Those members who have already served in the PRes or Reg Force will already have completed this training, and would only have to do the cadet-specific part. If this was done then CIC officers should be paid the same as PRes officers, which would be a lot more as I understand. Those who take fitness and military duty seriously would have what it takes to complete the training, those with prior service would be largely unaffected, and those who don't could still be involved with cadets in a civilian instructor capacity....

Problems I foresee:

Time of training (4weeks BMOQ + 10weeks CAP + cadet-specific crses)
Cost (longer training time + new class A pay rates)
Impact on training system (so many CIC officers to train)

Thoughts?

As both Ex PRes and RegF the idea of taking the training again makes me shudder given my age.  I don't really think that the CIC Officers in the same position that I'm in would relish redoing it again either. There is though a matter of being current. The last military weapons I had any training in were the FNC1,FNC2, SMG,Browning Auto 9mm and riot shotgun.  

Would it help me to perform my duties as a CIC Officer?  No unless I was assigned into a summer training billet where I was responsible for training cdts on the weapon.  For training at the LHQ level I a unit goes for C& trg we have the PRes give the trg to the cadets and they have to modify their language and terms of use and if firing have to use non siloette targets.

As to CIC Off who have not taken any basic training, what is given now is just not cutting it.  It would be a good option to have them complete it. but as both you and I have pointed out the time involved etc.etc.

As to the terminology of being a real Officer I'm not hung up on that as I know I am one. I can fully understand how some feel about CIC Officers project themselves and how other would be upset. I'm not total sure that giving them PRes trg before being commissioned would change attitudes as these have been in place long before even I enrolled in the 60's. The PRes to me seems to have a long standing image problem but that is for another discussion.

Basically I agree that the CIC Officer who enrols without previous trg requires it.

 

[COBRA-6]

Why have you recommended a 10 week CAP(R) for the CIC?   It is an army course (not for the air and sea types).

However, any argument for training should be based on need.   The Navy PRes don't need CAP(R), so they don't take it. The CIC don't need CAP (R) either.   They do need BMOQ (or even just a BMQ) to get them to think like a member of the forces.

Because I don't know the environment-specific course names for the air and navy officers... Common Army, Air or Navy Phase then, depending on which environment the officer plans to serve in. Of course I wouldn't expect a Air Cadet Officer to take infantry training... oh and CAP(R) is dead, all reserve officers now take RegF CAP, on the bus off the bus, yay!!

And as for need, do Public Affairs Officers really "need" dismounted infantry training? I think someone with no military training who wants to wear the uniform and hold a commission would greatly benefit from spending a summer at Fire and Movement U...

 

[CrashBear]

Why would you impose a 10 week army course on the CIC when it includes air & navy officers?

I'm totally not sure anymore about elemental basic qualification crses. Maybe the Air and Sea Off if there are any on this forum can enlighten us.

I do know that Naval CIC Officers do take Tender Command Courses and Air CIC Officers who are actively involved in the flying program have to hold appropriate licence qualifications.

 

[COBRA-6]

As both Ex PRes and RegF the idea of taking the training again makes me shudder given my age.  I don't really think that the CIC Officers in the same position that I'm in would relish redoing it again either.

Basically I agree that the CIC Officer who enrols without previous trg requires it.

Note I proposed that those who had previous PRes and RegF training would be waived, as they would have already done it, and would only do the cadet or "trade specific" crses.

 

[McG]

Because I don't know the environment-specific course names for the air and navy officers... Common Army, Air or Navy Phase then, depending on which environment the officer plans to serve in.

I think you will find that the navy and air enviroments do not have a common phase.  They go straight into thier MOC.  I think rather than impose this 10 week PRes Army course on the CIC, they would be better served by going from BMOQ to a BCIQ (basic cadet instructor qualification, for lack of a better name).

 

[CrashBear]

I think you will find that the navy and air enviroments do not have a common phase.   They go straight into thier MOC.   I think rather than impose this 10 week PRes Army course on the CIC, they would be better served by going from BMOQ to a BCIQ (basic cadet instructor qualification, for lack of a better name).

Maybe something good to be said about the Tri-service model of Basic Trg. where everyone had to complete the basic module of training before proceeding for MOC trg.

 

[McG]

Maybe something good to be said about the Tri-service model of Basic Trg. where everyone had to complete the basic module of training before proceeding for MOC trg.

Every enviroment except the army seems to be happy with the tri-service BMOQ and BMQ.   The army has introduced CAP and SQ as common land officer and NCM training respectively.  Mind you, the army does need this extra layer of common training.