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

Honours & Awards (merged)

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Pusser said:
There is also the matter of the difference between local and national recognition.  National honours (e.g. the ESMs) are recognized nationally and the information is accessible from a national database.  Local ones, not so much.

National organizations like the CAF and RCMP yes. Municipal, not so much.

If you know one Paramedic service, you know one Paramedic service. We have something like 60 in Ontario. Each one is different. Across Canada, Paramedics are regulated provincially. I have no idea of Paramedic Operations outside Ontario.

Brihard said:
Ontario has medals for police and fir braery that are kosher to wear.

Paramedic too,
http://www.humber.ca/today/sites/default/files/old//uploads/news_article/headline/(L-R)%20Rob%20Bronson,%20paramedic%20program%20co-ordinator%20Lynne%20Urszenyi,%20Heiko%20Mueller.jpg

Like I said, other than court, you'll never wear a dress uniform on duty anyway. Unless they are warming a chair at Emergency Services HQ. ( I think THEY get medals.  :) )

Incidentally, what you do wear on your 40-hour Operational jacket are the little caduceus that you see on the lower left sleeve of the Paramedic on the right in the photo. ( They are partners both wearing the old shoulder badges. ) That's really all you need. Personally, I would prefer to partner with a Paramedic who has some TI on the job than a hero. Just my personal opinion only!

As far as Federal and Provincial Bravery medals go, I've seen examples posted on here of guys getting duplicate bravery medals from both the Federal and Provincial governments for the same call! I've also seen them awarded to - much deserving - five year olds.

What we found where we worked was that unlike the military or even the police or fire, it was usually just the two of you. Your partner is your only witness, if you want a medal.

We had a few crews where partners took turns nominating each other over the years for Departmental awards! You look at the list, and it's the same few guys year after year! They weren't above calling their favorite city reporters either.  :)


 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,070
Points
1,160
Brihard said:
Nonetheless, there is no actual law saying that what I referred to cannot be done. While we may think it's tacky, it's nonetheless legal, and clearly is kosher under the uniform regulations of at least some police forces. There is no means by which the Privy Council approved order of precedence can be enforced.

Some provincial medlas have been incorporated into the national order of precedence, others have not. Ontario has medals for police and fir braery that are kosher to wear. Alberta and Saskatchewan both have centennial medals that are part of the national order of precendence. Hell, the British Columbia Fire long service medal is part of the national order of precedence, whereas the Alberta Police OFficer Long Service Recognition Medal is not. Clearly it's simply a matter of which provinces have gotten around to pushing their honours and awards through the grinder at Rideau Hall.

At the end of the day what stops people from combining their order or precedence recognized medals with other medals and decorations is merely good taste, not any actual rule or regulation that has legal teeth. An honour or award is no less 'official' if it comes from a municipality or province, it's just from a different level of government.

Whether the legal basis of a statutory instrument (i.e. an order in council) detailing the wear of honours granted by the Crown or restrictions on the mingling with non Crown approved honours is sufficient to demand enforcement would be an interesting legal debate, but one that would probably require input from someone with legal training more than OPDP 4.

However, I would disagree with your assertion that a medal from one level of government is no different than one from a different level of government and all that absence from the "order of precedence" means is that the lower levels of government haven't submitted their awards to Rideau Hall for overly strict scrutiny.  One of the principles of the Canadian honours system is that The Sovereign (HM The Queen, at present) is the fount of all honour.  The administration and dispensing of that honour is delegated by her representatives in Canada, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors (the Lt Govs are not subordinate to the GG, but are the direct representation of the Crown in the individual provinces).

Taking two of the opposing examples in your post, "the British Columbia Fire Services Long Service and Bravery Medals" and "the Alberta Police Officer Long Service Recognition Medal" there is a difference in their statutory implementation.  In the case of the BC fire service medals they were previously instituted by the BC Fire Commissioner (and thus not in the order of precedence), however following legislation (signed into law by the Lt Gov) that amended the Fire Services Act these medals now emanated from the Crown rather than from a functionary.  The Alberta medal "came into existence as a result of a Ministerial Order of the Solicitor General dated March 19, 1979.  The Ministerial Order was amended on September 12, 2003, again on April 9, 2008 and most recently on September 25, 2013".  I was unable to find any legislation that specifically gives Crown direction for the Solicitor General to institute the medal and thus the establishment of this award falls outside a direct link to the "fount of honour" and that is likely why it is not included in the order of precedence.

Since municipalities or other entities do not have a direct connection to the Crown any awards established by them would be treated the same - as not emanating from a "fount of honour" - despite possibly recognizing legimately honourable service. 
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Topic is to list changes to or additions to prerequisites for Medals and Awards as listed on DHH site and in amended CANFORGENS

SSM
Special Service Medal  -  Update 25 Apr 2016

RECOGNITION FOR OPERATION REASSURANCE AND OPERATION UNIFIER

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 073/16 CMP 076/16 251912Z APR 16
B. CANFORGEN 003/09 CMP 002/09 081950Z JAN 09
C. CANFORGEN 096/09 CMP 042/09 201315Z MAY 09

FURTHER TO REF A, AFC HAS DETERMINED THAT THE USE OF THE EXISTING NATO AND EXPEDTION BARS TO THE SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY METHOD TO RECOGNIZE SERVICE WITH OPS REASSURANCE AND UNIFIER RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE CDS HAS DIRECTED THE CF HONOURS POLICY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THE SERVICE RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK AND INTENDS TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES THAT THE TIME CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN MEDALS BE AMENDED IN DUE COURSE

CONSEQUENTLY, AFC HAS APPROVED THE ADDITION OF THE FOL SERVICE TO THE ELIGIBILITY LISTS FOR CERTAIN CAMPAIGN AND SERVICE MEDALS, AS FOLLOWS:

SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL-NATO (SSM-NATO):

(1) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO CAMPIA TURZII, ROMANIA, LITHUANIA AND SPANGDAHLEM AIRBASE IN GERMANY AS PART OF THE AIR TASK FORCE (ATF), INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE NATO BALTIC AIR PATROL (BAP), SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

(2) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE AS PART OF THE LAND TASK FORCE (LTF), SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

(3) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO SERVED ONBOARD HMC SHIPS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND BLACK SEAS UNDER NATO SNMG2, SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE), PROVIDED THE SERVICE IS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS A NATO MEDAL. NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR. ONLY TIME SPENT UNDER NATO COMMAND IS ELIGIBLE - TRANSIT TIME DOES NOT COUNT. SERVICE UNDER NATO OPS ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR AND SEA GUARDIAN COUNTS TOWARDS THE APPROPRIATE NATO MEDALS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED NUMERALS AND NOT FOR THE SSM-NATO

(4) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO FORWARD LOGISTICS SITES (FLS) IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF HMC SHIPS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND BLACK SEAS UNDER NATO SNMG2 (WHEN THE SHIPS ARE NOT UNDER OPS ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR OR SEA GUARDIAN), SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

(5) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS IN LATVIA AS PART OR IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF THE ENHANCED FORWARD PRESENCE (EFP) BATTLEGROUP LATVIA, SINCE 22 APR 2017 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL-EXPEDITION (SSM-EXP):

(1) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO UKRAINE TO PROVIDE MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES, SINCE 13 JUNE 2015 (OP UNIFIER)
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,364
Points
1,110
What would be the time in theatre requirements for this? Still 180 days?
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
3,701
Points
1,160
But note from the CANFORGEN:

HOWEVER, THE CDS HAS DIRECTED THE CF HONOURS POLICY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THE SERVICE RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK AND INTENDS TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES THAT THE TIME CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN MEDALS BE AMENDED IN DUE COURSE
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,364
Points
1,110
I noticed that, and was just clicking to reply to same. Reads like we'll probably see it drop comparable to the requirements for campaign medals.

Anyone know, once this gets put in place will the CAF go and track down everyone eligible, or will those who deployed (particularly reservists) be expected to self identify and put in a request for these?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,331
Points
1,090
In theory, there should be an ability to do an automatic search to identify eligible people.

In practice, recordkeeping is often hit or miss (people whose deployments to Afghanistan show solely as a period of TD in Petawawa on their MPRR, for example), so there will be a need for some manual checks as well.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,364
Points
1,110
dapaterson said:
In theory, there should be an ability to do an automatic search to identify eligible people.

In practice, recordkeeping is often hit or miss (people whose deployments to Afghanistan show solely as a period of TD in Petawawa on their MPRR, for example), so there will be a need for some manual checks as well.

Yup... Somehow my tour (3-08) shows up on my MPRR, but didn't show up on CFTPO or something. Consequently, doesn't show up on Monitor Mass. GIGO.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,885
Points
1,260
dapaterson said:
In theory, there should be an ability to do an automatic search to identify eligible people.

In practice, recordkeeping is often hit or miss (people whose deployments to Afghanistan show solely as a period of TD in Petawawa on their MPRR, for example), so there will be a need for some manual checks as well.

Wouldn't it be flagged when it shows the mbr drawing HA/RA/FSP in Pet (for example) though?
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,355
Points
1,190
Dimsum said:
Wouldn't it be flagged when it shows the mbr drawing HA/RA/FSP in Pet (for example) though?

I did Operacise Reassurance Roto 3 and didn't see a dime of HA/RA/FSP. It was all "TD" for "Exercising in Europe." most of Roto 1,2,3 were all under 180 days because they didnt want people going 365 Red. Its only Roto 4 onward that it was listed as an SDA and a 6 month tour.

I hope they approve a reduction in time because it would suck to get boned out of a medal lacking 27 days.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,546
Points
1,060
rmc_wannabe said:
I did Operacise Reassurance Roto 3 and didn't see a dime of HA/RA/FSP. It was all "TD" for "Exercising in Europe." most of Roto 1,2,3 were all under 180 days because they didnt want people going 365 Red. Its only Roto 4 onward that it was listed as an SDA and a 6 month tour.

I hope they approve a reduction in time because it would suck to get boned out of a medal lacking 27 days.

Situation no change. They made sure RIP dates in Roto 4 for ATHENA kept people under 8 months because they didn't want to have to pay for the extra HLTA days, and some people left with 10 or 12 days short of their 210 day mark to earn a rotation bar. Happened again on ATTENTION.
 

eliminator

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Has anyone heard anything about the recommendation going forward? It seems like the SSM-NATO and SSM-EXP are the ones most likely to see a reduction. My guess would be 90 days for those.

I really cant see a reduction to less than 30 days for the GCS, GSM, and OSM.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
How about 5 flights? 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-medals-chart/medal-gcs-af.page

The GCS with ALLIED FORCE ribbon is awarded to fighter pilots and AWACS crew members who flew at least 5 sorties during Operation ALLIED FORCE from 24 March to 10 June 1999 in the theatre of operations which consisted of the airspace over Kosovo and other territories of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Adriatic and Ionian seas.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,546
Points
1,060
If you're only able to muster up 5 flights during a 6 month rotation, I'd suggest we either are wasting our time employing those aircraft or we have a big serviceability problem.

ALLIED FORCE was barely 2.5 months. Considering the airpower that went to Kosovo, I'd say they balanced the length of the Op with the average number of sorties flown.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Usually it's a 56 day/90 day rotation for RCAF aircrew. There are valid reasons for this.

I also believe the 18 folks were flying 1 in 3 on Impact (I could be wrong)

I think for aircrew 10 sorties should be sufficient enough.

The issue comes from a lack of understanding, which is why the 30 days/30 sorties is flawed.  Which is also why I feel the fighter community received the short straw on Impact.
 

eliminator

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Usually it's a 56 day/90 day rotation for RCAF aircrew. There are valid reasons for this.

I also believe the 18 folks were flying 1 in 3 on Impact (I could be wrong)

I think for aircrew 10 sorties should be sufficient enough.

The issue comes from a lack of understanding, which is why the 30 days/30 sorties is flawed.  Which is also why I feel the fighter community received the short straw on Impact.

Without going down a rabbit hole, IMO having different medals for the same operation ends up creating a variety of issues. A singular OSM with a Op IMPACT ribbon would have been far easier to administer.

Of note, the Americans have a similar take to "in the box for 30 days" medals, but can be awarded for 1 day if engaged the enemy in combat

To qualify for the Inherent Resolve Campaign Medal, personnel must have been based in Iraq or Syria, fly missions over those countries, and/or serve in contiguous waters for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days. Service members who were killed or were medically evacuated from those countries due to wounds or injuries immediately qualify for the award, as do members who engaged in combat.


 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
707
Points
1,040
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Usually it's a 56 day/90 day rotation for RCAF aircrew. There are valid reasons for this.

I also believe the 18 folks were flying 1 in 3 on Impact (I could be wrong)

I think for aircrew 10 sorties should be sufficient enough.

The issue comes from a lack of understanding, which is why the 30 days/30 sorties is flawed.  Which is also why I feel the fighter community received the short straw on Impact.

I agree, I didn't understand the 30 sortie bit at all when compared to tour length.  5 seems low, 10 seems more reasonable especially for non combat type Ops, but I am of the same mind as the Americans if one engages the enemy then it is earned immediately.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
eliminator said:
Without going down a rabbit hole, IMO having different medals for the same operation ends up creating a variety of issues. A singular OSM with a Op IMPACT ribbon would have been far easier to administer.

With this specific type of mission, it is warranted.  Folks in camp deserve the GSM whereas folks flying over Iraq/Syria deserve the GCS, aircrew also qualify for the GSM if they have a 6-month break between rotations.

As for a specific Impact ribbon, there definitely should a ribbon specific to Impact, as I think the scope/size of the mission far surpasses the definition for the Expedition ribbon.  Yes I am aware that it was handed out to a handful of exchange folks prior to the start of Impact.

Ease of administration vs proper recognition?  I'll take proper recognition over ease of administration any day. 
 

eliminator

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Dolphin_Hunter said:
With this specific type of mission, it is warranted.  Folks in camp deserve the GSM whereas folks flying over Iraq/Syria deserve the GCS, aircrew also qualify for the GSM if they have a 6-month break between rotations.

As for a specific Impact ribbon, there definitely should a ribbon specific to Impact, as I think the scope/size of the mission far surpasses the definition for the Expedition ribbon.  Yes I am aware that it was handed out to a handful of exchange folks prior to the start of Impact.

Ease of administration vs proper recognition?  I'll take proper recognition over ease of administration any day.

By ease of administration I'm referring more to the timelessness of the award being issued. Having clerks photocopy logbook entries and creating excel spreadsheets for each member just to track days seems like a waste of effort. Then there's the nightmare of "trading in" GSMs for GCSs if the 30 day cumulative tally is met in later rotations.  (i.e. Hornet driver gets 15 days over Iraq during a 56-day roto, gets the GSM, and then returns for another 56-day roto and gets another 15 days over Iraq.)

I do like the GCS/GSM approach. I just think it needs some refinement wrt counting of days, especially when actually engaging an armed enemy. 

As for the GCS/GSM ribbons, it's getting messy. Iraq and Syria fall within the definition of Southwest Asia, so why not just issue the GCS/GSM-SWA? EXP is meant for small contributions to short missions. Op IMPACT is well beyond that now. Probably just easier to rename the ribbon at this point.


 
Top