Days Gone By

[Sig_Des]

I've dealt with CICs who have really been bang on, and definitely dedicated to teaching the kids, and some that have been lax.

Sadly, when I think CIC, the experience that sticks with me is while on course in Kingston, havig to take an obviously newly-minted CIC 2 Lt and say "Ma'am, do you really think it's appropriate for your cadets to be walking around without their headress, or with earphones on while in uniform. Or for CIC to be holding hands with cadets (I'm assuming it was parent/child, I hope) while in uniform? And just so you're aware, that gate there has a war memorial that should be paid compliments)"

I know my old Res unit did a lot with the local cadet unit, in terms of support. It's good to see, just bad to see something that blemishes the whole. Course, we see that all over the military.

 

[3rd Herd]

Sloaner,
we have kicked some of these issues around before. For one, yes you have to have a strong parent unit link. The cadets immortalize and emulate those who have gone full time. Now given the changes in political geography lately you have an expanded resource base of PRes that have that aurora. On the full time side I have seen several members give up a couple of days leave to dog and pony, meet and greet with the kids. For the members it was believe or not a form of stress release. In part because the cadets to a certain extent are condition to not to address improper questions. The effect on the cadets of these visits is usually measured over time, in most cases there is a very renewed interest in that corp. The initial start is heard the next morning in a middle school hallway: 'So heard you had to go to cadets last night', 'Yeah and it was cool, we had a Cpl from the engineers who used to be a cadet come by.''So'. 'Well he just got back from Afghanistan and he showed us some pictures and told us about there.' So'. 'Well then he actually talked to us, like one on one'. 'COOL (Two female students). Progress over the next month; boots that glowed, creases that could cut paper, everyone where they are supposed to be early........etc. All because of a two hour visit. In this case study the CIC very smartly kept the momentum going, it also helped to keep the causal link intact. The member was extended a few curtsies and went back several times when the situation permitted it. A win win in my books.

No the main problem with the cadet organization which thwarts this is the "grow your own". By these a cadet progresses through the system, ages out at a Snr NCO rank and then comes right back as a CIC. Problems with this begin with the psychological issues such as "ownership", "refusal to adopt", "old boys club" to name a few. This is not a castigation but documented human behaviour. Now by growing your own you also prevent "new blood" into the gene pool. Here again there are several recently released members who can pass the physical, are more than qualified BUT cannot get a CIC position as their are "No positions". In some cadet halls the proof hangs right on the wall, yearly unit photos.

Sig_Des,
in regard to a couple of your comments. How come a teacher has to do two years of courses beyond his/her degree expertise level to be allowed to teach, instruct, mentor adolescents. But the cadet system figures that 16 weeks does the job. And yes there have to be some changes here.

 

[catalyst]

As a newly minted 2lt (or am I? ... the board is still out on that one) and although I'm a bit rusty with the drill having not done it in a while I definately have more sense than the 2lt you mentioned holding hands, not saluting or wearning headphones. In fact, on course, we went to canex one day. I was very ashamed not to have the proper headdress (they didn't have one available where I was) and so was wearing a tilly hat. The person in my car was like what ever, I don't need a headdress, nobody will care. I just about had a heart attack at that point. This was an ex-cadet who should know better. I take pride in making myself look presentable because I realize that the CF doesn't know that I'm a cadet instructor, they just know I'm a member of the canadian forces.

I work at vernon army cadet summer training center. During staff pre-course we were heavily instruted by a WO who challenged us to use our NCMS and NCOS (both camp res/reg and our cadets as well). We were introduced to the STA and RSM (both sncos) and we were told how we can work with them, theyre background and etc. It is them I look to for experience and leadership. Its not like I would say that I would make it clear that I am a higher rank than them...infact, I have to keep myself from saying sir and I would never ever think of saying that I outrank them.  I'd rather work with them than against them. They are professional soliders, and take last night for example - I was on parade, and I didn't march my cadets as far up as I should have, and he correctled me smartly, and rather nicely and added a little m'am. Take care of your NCOs and they will take care of you.


On the subject of BOQ, its not long enough.  There was so much more to learn - however you must understand that the boq continues for a year long OJT. The changing of BOQ into two coruses - a CF course and a Cdt Course will bode well for the organization.  I would never compare my course equivalent to the BMQ or BOTC res. There is no need. I'm not turning into a solider, I'n turning into an officer of the cadet instructors cadre.

You do your thing, I'll do mine.

 

[medaid]

Catalyst,

  Some good points, but the only thing I do have to disagree on is that, despite the fact that you're turning into 'an officer of the CIC' you are still an officer holding Her Majesty's commission. IMO, you should be trained to the same basic standard as a PRes officer. If you are to be a member of the PRes, as an officer, you should receive the same basic training, as your counterparts do in the PRes. Now, your MOC course then should focus on teaching things about the cadet world. Or, maybe the system should switch to a British Cadet Force system, where the officers do NOT hold the same commission as the other officers, rather a special commission since your job description and training in no way mirrors those of the PRes, or the RegF.

  I guess it could be argued along your line of reasoning that, since you're not training into a 'soldier' then, you should not hold the same commission as the other members of the Forces do.

 

[catalyst]

MedTech,

I'd love to do a PRES BMQ. Really. I would totally be there in well...as soon as possible. But it will never happen. The new BOTC is moving in the direction where the first course is a "CF" course and the second part is the cadet part. Infact, I'm training to do the BFT right now. Slowly, but surely, I'm building it up...im not sure about where I'm going to practice digging a trench though...

Although I personally belive otherwise, there is no real need to be trained as PRES officers. We are not the primary reserves. We are a separate component of the reserves. We are officers. We are trained as such, so much as DCdts, under the direction of regular force officers and CIC officers states.
(I do belive there are other trades, such as padre that do a different basic, but I could be mistaken)

This is not my decision, I just go along with what they tell me. Yes sir, no sir, if you say so sir.

Our jobs are entirely different. We have our own mosid - you wouldn't compare a pilot to a mars officer. Their jobs are different. So why compare a CIC officer to an Infantry Officer?

Does there need to be a standard eqiv to the rest of the forces? Yes.
Is increased training equiv to the pres going to happen? No.
Does this keep me from raising my personal standards as an officer of the canadian forces? No.

I have a feeling this thread will go in circles, so lets go back to talking about the 'good ole days' in cadets.


OCdt Wilson
PS - MedTech, I admire your trade so much. The medtech's at camp are the most awesome, carrying people.

 

[medaid]

Catalyst,

   Indeed there's no point in comparing CIC to other PRes trades, however, it peeves me to some extent when CIC officers transfer to the PRes their BMOQ is written off. This annoys me, because if their job descriptions were different, and thus different training is conducted, then why, do they get a bypass for something they have never done before? Being able to bypass BOTP completely, is something that I don't agree with. Hence my suggestion that, CIC officers get different commissions then the PRes or RegF officers. Indeed there are many other arguments to this, and we will no doubt be here for ages.

  Thanks for your comment about my trade. My time spent as a MedTech were great and happy times. I have profound respect for all my brothers and sisters regardless of trades or MOCs. I like CIC officers too, having once been in Cadets. I am just voicing my disgruntled opinions through both experience of working with and for CIC officers, that my respect for some of them have diminished quite a bit. Also, by getting back to the 'Good ol days', we will undoubtedly bring this up again.

  On a lighter note, of course those MedTechs would be caring people! Some of them would've been my troops. I care, that they care!  ;D

 

[kratz]

On a related note, I had a CIC bypass enter my PRes unit as a Slt (Lt). He walks into the Coxn (RSM) office and starts stating how it will be. We all know how that turned out.

Two months later, same Slt  is in charge of a National Professional Development training weekend and ignors all the groundwork that unsaid people put into the event, things go all to  :-X . The after action review was fun to be sitting in on.  :warstory:

 

[Neill McKay]

Although I personally belive otherwise, there is no real need to be trained as PRES officers. We are not the primary reserves.

The IAP/BOTC and BMQ courses are less about teaching operational skills and more about instilling a certain mindset in candidates.  Yes, you learn how to march and shoot and wear the kit to protect you against NBC weapons, but more importantly these courses turn a civilian, who thinks and acts like a civilian, into a CF member, who thinks and acts like a CF member.  Sadly BOQ is it stands today does not seem to be accomplishing this.

Most CIC officers who I've spoken to about this agree that an indoctrination course that more closely resembles IAP/BOTC would be desirable -- but all also realize that the cost of doing this would be prohibitive.  Not unreasonably, training funds are directed more towards the pointy end.

 

[Neill McKay]

  Indeed there's no point in comparing CIC to other PRes trades, however, it peeves me to some extent when CIC officers transfer to the PRes their BMOQ is written off. This annoys me, because if their job descriptions were different, and thus different training is conducted, then why, do they get a bypass for something they have never done before?

I've never heard of this happening, actually.  On the contrary, I do know of CIC officers who HAVE attended IAP and everything that follows.  Are you sure that some CIC officers get a bypass when the do a CT?

Being able to bypass BOTP completely, is something that I don't agree with. Hence my suggestion that, CIC officers get different commissions then the PRes or RegF officers.

I don't understand the issue of different commissions.  Essentially all a commission does is announce to the reader that Bloggins is an officer who must do as his superiors say, and whose subordinates must do as he says.  I can't see what problem would be solved by inventing a new one especially for CIC officers.  (But if we were for some reason to go down that road, surely a similar exercise would have to be undertaken for other staff officers as well.)

 

[armyvern]

I know 2 CIC Officers who got bypasses. But both got them because one had previous PRes time, and the other one was former RegF ... just coming back into the PRes from the CIC.

 

[medaid]

I've never heard of this happening, actually.  On the contrary, I do know of CIC officers who HAVE attended IAP and everything that follows.  Are you sure that some CIC officers get a bypass when the do a CT?

Yup I know of 3 such types personally. All 3 of them were on courses with me. 1 of them was an excellent officer, the other one was not too bad, but the third one was... well questionable. None of them had prior service other then with the CIC. I can't speak for the RegF but for the PRes, there's been 3 of such cases that I know of personally as stated above.

I don't understand the issue of different commissions.  Essentially all a commission does is announce to the reader that Bloggins is an officer who must do as his superiors say, and whose subordinates must do as he says.  I can't see what problem would be solved by inventing a new one especially for CIC officers.  (But if we were for some reason to go down that road, surely a similar exercise would have to be undertaken for other staff officers as well.)

Well the whole suggestion stems from, since they are not operational, and their focus is not on operations but rather focus on youths, they don't need a regular commission like their counterparts in PRes or RegF. Having s 'special' commission gives these officers the same respects and so forth, but only from Cadets and only on the Cadet side of things. They would have no equal rank holdings in the CF in general. I don't know... I think you should earn that Commission. The same way as everyone else does. Whether it be CFRing or doing the necessary courses. But, hey, that's just me.

 

[Neill McKay]

Well the whole suggestion stems from, since they are not operational, and their focus is not on operations but rather focus on youths, they don't need a regular commission like their counterparts in PRes or RegF.

But there is nothing in a commission about the nature of one's work, whether it be navigating a warship, developing training programmes, being a spokesman for the Service, leading infanteers into withering machine gun fire, administering a cadet corps, or ministering to the spiritual needs of servicemembers.

Having s 'special' commission gives these officers the same respects and so forth, but only from Cadets and only on the Cadet side of things. They would have no equal rank holdings in the CF in general.

Given that significant numbers of NCMs work for CIC officers in summer training centres, various levels of headquarters, etc. that would be unworkable.  Regardless of the fact that our mission is the delivery of a youth training programme, we are still very much a part of the CF "machine" in ways that are probably not obvious to anyone not familiar with the cadet organization as a whole.

But your comment makes me ask what you think of public affairs officers, social work officers, training development officers, and similar staff-types having the same commission as everyone else.

I don't know... I think you should earn that Commission. The same way as everyone else does. Whether it be CFRing or doing the necessary courses. But, hey, that's just me.

Everyone earns the commission in one way or another, some by 13 weeks +/- of formal training, some by two weeks of formal training preceded by a DL phase and followed by a year of OJT, some by signing on the dotted line having been qualified on civvie street (the latter being Chaplains).

It bothers me that the direction of these discussions always seems to go towards taking things away from CIC officers rather than improving them.  The entire Canadian Forces is, to a very large degree, the biggest training apparatus in the country: that's where the answer is to the perceived shortcomings of CIC officers.  Saying "we don't like them so let's move them as far away from the rest of the Service as we can" will only hurt the cadet programme.  Meanwhile, the overbearing subbies, blimp-shaped corporals, and sloppily-dressed captains who have always existed in some fraction of the Service would continue to commit all of the wrongs so often attributed to CIC officers, so we will not, in the end, have got very far at all.

 

[medaid]

Neil,

    I have suggested things to make the CIC officer corps better long before the other comments with regards to different commissions and so forth. M suggestion was to create a different BOQ for CIC officers, one that mirrors the ones done by their PRes/RegF counterparts. 2 week BOQ just doesn't cut it in my opinion. No amount of OJT training afterwards could provide the same training that's delivered on a course at times. Especially when those who are supervising the training came from the same short 2 weeker as their charges!

    As I say again and again, I have great respect for CIC officers, but its just that their standards and the way they are conducting themselves are often lacking. Their ideas of grandeur insulting and their notions of self infallibility greatly annoying! Then again, you could argue that these same types of young officers exist in both the PRes and the RegF, however, their counter balance is experienced, and good SNCOs, who mentor and guide these young officers. I stress again, these SNCOs do not exist at LHQ levels on a regular basis!

    Although I cannot be certain but most of us, yourself included have probably met the above described and aforementioned types of officers, CIC or otherwise. However, it's so much MORE detrimental to have a CIC officer this way because they are supposed to help mold the LEADERS of TOMORROW. When an officer in the PRes or RegF is something like this, there are often times something else available for them to do. AWAY from the troops. There is no such case in the CIC is there? Can you remove some one from the cadets just because they were being an all around incompetent idiot that brings disgrace to the uniform and the CIC/CF? If you can, I haven't seen it yet. Because the same incompetent idiots keep getting promoted, and they are STILL working with the kids, and STILL looking like a bag of hammers, and STILL haven't changed one BIT of their attitudes.

    I'll give you an example. When I volunteered at a cadet unit, ALL and I am NOT exaggerating, ALL of the OCdts and 2Lts were... *sigh*. There were NO development from the top down at all, and there was no discipline and there was pretty much NOTHING. When the parent unit which hosted an Junior Officer Development day. the unit sent ME and another 2Lt to go to it. When I approached the CO and asked him WHY he's not sending the other 2Lt to go as well, he said, and I QUOTE:

" Well... because Bloggins, I want the unit to look good. So... I'm not going to send the other one, instead you're going to go and represent the unit along with XXXX "

    I was both astonished and offended. I was astonished because the CO himself had no faith in his officers, and had no unit pride at all. I was offended because I was used to represent a unit that's not mine and that because they weren't willing to send anyone else, in fear of looking bad, they sent me. The same CO also told me this, when I informed him of the number of Dress Code infractions the same 2Lt that I was sent on the JO Dev Day with had violated. Once again, the amount of times and the types of infractions would've given any RSM a heart attack! This was what he told me:

" We're in the CIC... it's not like I can really discipline them. Just let it go. It's okay."

    Neil, I'm not saying we should take more away from CIC officers. You're quite right instating that often when these things are talked about, most of us generally present an outward aura of making CIC less significant, and less important then they already are. However, these feelings and comments are often generated from people who argue that, CIC is different so, just let it be. It's nothing WE understand, so butt out. Failing to realize that many of us CAME from Cadets, worked with Cadets, or in some way shape or form care about not only the cadets but the CIC's portrayal of the Canadian Forces in general, because it effects the rest of us who are in uniform too.

  As for "we don't like them so let's move them as far away from the rest of the Service as we can", in the current Cadet program state, I'd say they have already done enough damage. But that's just my feeling on things. As I've stated times and times again. I have met great CIC officers who've served in their previous life, and those who haven't at all. However... those are far and in between.

    I've said pretty much all I wanted to. I'm sorry if some people find my ideas a little offensive, but they stand until some one can prove me wrong, and that my experiences where just flukes... with 3 different units, 2 different elements.

 

[Neill McKay]

I'd say, unfortunately, you seem to have seen most of the worst the CIC has to offer, and I don't doubt that it's all too true.  I share your embarrassment at the CO's actions.

I have great expectations for the new CIC training programme (especially the somewhat longer BOTC, currently in trials).  Here's hoping it takes hold.

 

[medaid]

Indeed! Here's :cheers: to it taking hold, and making CIC and Cadets for the better. I have to thank you Neil, for having this conversation with me, allowing me to express my frustration, while you listened patiently.

So, here's to your understanding and willingness to listen :cheers:

 

[drrchief]

Oh... days gone by!  There are a lot of those.  Here are a few of my favourites

FNC1A1-7.62MM

Ipperwash  and Grand Bend

Drrchief

 

[GuNnEr@2853]

Ah the good old days....  ;D

When I was in cadets in the 70s, our corps was affiliated with a reg force arty regt, and for annual inspection, we used to have our "parent" unit train a gun crew on a 105mm. During annual inspection we would carry out a full gun drill in the field behind the school where the corps was lodged, with our reg force friends manning a battery CP so that we (the cadets) could give our parents a demo of a gun line during a fire mission, complete with adjustments, re-targetting the gun and the firing of a couple of blank rounds .   Good times, good times.

I'm in an artillery corps and I was on our gun detatchment from when I was in green star to when I was in silver star. We have a replica 6-pounder field gun that we use. But for my annnual 2 years ago the gun detatchment cleaned the reservists howitzers because we had them sitting out on our parade square...I actually liked cleaning it. We haven't had a gun detatchment up and running since 2 years ago though.

 

[Northern_Aviator]

Should CIC training be better? Hell yes

Should the training be longer? Yes, but who can get time off work? Let's face it, it's mainly voluntary work. Officers with civillian careers can't take more than 2 weeks off work  a year as there is no job protection. To improve the system, it needs more DND investment which isn't likely to happen. Instead of bashing the CIC officers personally, think why it's like it is.

Putting in 3 nights a week plus the odd weekend is routine (paid only 3 hours/week regardless of days worked).  There are some very good officers that aren't in it for the ego boost or the gold bars. They are in it for the kids and many bring a lot of related experience to the table. I'm a Commercial Pilot/ Airline Manager with a Bachelor degree and a lot of experience in the civillian aviation industry. Remember not all cadets will join the military. I'm not blowing things up here, I'm only a 2Lt with a lot to learn as far as the military does things. Do we deserve full commissions? Yes.  There should be a better selection procedure which includes a medical, fitness and academic requirements similar to Pres and Reg F DEO entry. This will never happen as there are will always be open slates for CIC officers until the program is taken seriously at a higer level than this forum.

Unfortunately the old saying "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys" applies. It takes special individuals to volunteer and devote their time to the development of our youth. There are some people just in it to play dress up and assert authority by just looking the part with no real world experience. 

So to sum things up, there are some great CIC officers and there are some that shouldn't be associated with the cadet organization or the CF. Until there is more investment from the DND and more selective recruitemnt, how can it change?

 

[armyvern]

So to sum things up, there are some great CIC officers and there are some that shouldn't be associated with the cadet organization or the CF. Until there is more investment from the DND and more selective recruitemnt, how can it change?

Here here. Nice post; and, to be sure -- the above bit is an accurate reflection of members of the PRes & RegF as well. We've all got them who shouldn't be there.

 

[YYC1963]

Valid points folks. Agreed, there are some young CIC officers that for the life of me I can't quite figure out. However, there are some that have been around the block a few times and it shows. Their cadets are sharp and switched on. Having worked with the organization for the better part of three decades, I've seen quite a bit. To that end, I would invite each and everyone of you to send scans, if you have the time to our website:

www.armycadethistory.com​

This website is an ongoing project created for the enjoyment and education of cadets and staff across the country, past present and future. Some you have some great photos and stories, I'm sure, and I'd be honoured if you would consider allowing us to share them. And yes, we will even include photos of supervised range days (days gone by), in fact we have photos of a cadets manning a 20-pounder ca.1948 on line. Our oldest photos date to the early 1870s. We even have film footage in colour WWII of cadets training. Over 60,000 photos now online. 

cheers,
Francois Arseneault
History & Heritage
Army Cadet League of Canada