"MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles" and "Replace base MP with RCMP"

[Eye In The Sky]

I will agree with your statement we do have Cpl’s who tend to think they are more than they are...

My experience is that every trade and rank has people who fit that mold as well.

However, I’ll assume you’ve never been an MP and therefore have never had to navigate the minefield that is doing our job when an individual thinks their rank affords them immunity to the law (this may shock you but those people exist).

I've never been an MP, no, but I do get that MPs have a difficult job to do, where as they are both peace officers and subj to the CSD. 

While I despise the saying “don’t mistake your rank with my authority” (and have no problems issuing my Cpls a 5b if they say that nonsense) the saying does have merit.  While I agree with you the CAF is a “power/authority” based organization, there are times when the power authority of the military police supersede that of the Military chain of command.  Just accept it because that’s the way it is whether you agree or not.

I agree with the statement but more so in line with the words I've used above; and I've accepted that as fact for many years.  On the flip side, I expect that MPs who are a lower rank than me also accept there are or may be times when I am addressing them as a Snr NCO, thereby making me the superior officer IAW the QR & O definition and if they aren't conducting some policing function at the time, they are in that instance subordinate to higher ranks.  It is a 2 way street and shouldn't be a problem provided both parties are acting professionally and IAW CAF policy, regulations and customs. 

once again someone takes the time to hijack it to let everyone know what they think of the MPs.

Please, don't assume I have a poor opinion about the MP branch.  Everyone knows every trade and rank can have people who's conduct or performance is less than what is expected, mine included.  I did have an issue with a part of your post I replied to yesterday, nothing more than that.  I've dealt with, directly or indirectly, MPs including (back then) SIU before perhaps a dozen times, and only twice did I find the pers I was dealing with to be...coloring outside the lines.  Both instances were dealt with at the lowest level possible and no one was worse for the wear after.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in an attempt to get things back on track here;  considering the applic parts of the posts above from 2 serving MPs and the difficulties they encounter when dealing with the CofC sometimes, are those issues significant and regular enough that the idea of having civil LEOs take over CAF policing in whole or in part has merit?

What about the other services MPs do outside of 'normal' partrolman/woman duties;  close protection, TASO, etc.  Who would do those if the RCMP took over all policing in the CAF?  Is it possible?

 

[Good2Golf]

HB, I have to say that your experience with the CoC’s lack of familiarity with the applicable DAOD(s) is, while disappointing to me, not a surprise.    Add to that, the potential for inappropriate conduct by the more senior members of the CoC such as the example cited by ExRCDcpl, and one can really shake one’s head.  As a CO, I can tell you that I had both DAODs 5019 and, sadly, 5018, pretty much memorized, but when events warranted their use, I was glad that I (and my RSM) were well-versed in them.  This included in my experience very professional conduct by the men and women of 2 MP Pl, in all applicable cases.  That is why I fully support the continued provision of policing services from within the CAF. 

I get that there can be some folks either in the rank and file, leadership or policing branch that can be “that guy/gal”, but I do appreciate the challenges that an MP has that a civilian peace officer would never have to (substantively) deal with...”don’t you know who I am? I’m...insert some socially imfluemtial position here)!”  When considering rank and lawful orders, I don’t think anyone would do anything other than roll their eyes at a hypothetical “2Lt ordering a MWO from another unit or base, for example, to do some technically legal action,” yet increase the rank spread to a LCol/Maj-Cpl in a situation that conceivably deals either with NDA or CCC issues, and there aren’t nearly as many eye rolls...in fact almost the opposite.

Hopefully at your unit, HB, the CoC will continue to develop a better appreciation of issues relating to some of the more challenging aspects of dealing with “members being members.”

Regards
G2G

 

[Infanteer]

First off, I'd like to commend everyone in the discussion.  This is the type of thread the Milnet.ca forums wants to have - even where there is debate, it is civil and professional.  Everyone else learns by reading the posts in threads like these.

Secondly, if I did hoist anything aboard, its this:

As far as the topic of MP v RCMP is concerned, I will always be on the side of retaining the MPs because they are more versatile than the RCMP. the RCMP, at this point, simply offer the basic policing function without any of the universality of service elements that enable us to use the MPs in all the military functions that they are designed for from the investigation of offences to traffic control on the battlefield.

If somebody is going to argue handing police duties over to the RCMP, they need to address the issue of flexibility that the MP Branch brings to the CAF.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

First off, I'd like to commend everyone in the discussion.  This is the type of thread the Milnet.ca forums wants to have - even where there is debate, it is civil and professional.  Everyone else learns by reading the posts in threads like these...

Agreed. This is exactly what we like to see.

I (and I know others) have been watching this thread closely. I’ll be honest—I was perfectly expecting DS to have to intervene, as similar discussions have become very heated and personal.

Thank you to the contributors who shared their insights, personal examples and job knowledge relatively calmly. This makes it incredibly enlightening to those of us who wish to learn more about certain issues which exist within CAF. Even when contention was building slightly things circled back around solely because members chose to de-escalate. It’s a win-win for everyone.

 

[coyote489]

Would also like to thank everyone for this post. I’m on my MP QL3 right now and this thread has been discussed quite a bit at the mess hall dining table in recent days. I frequent the threads here to find these kinds of discussions involving senior or more experienced MP members and then further discuss it with the other candidates to see what we all think. It helps in getting a better idea as to the ups and downs of the trade as well. Anyways keep up these kinds of discussions cause they actually do help the new guys see things in a different light other than what is taught in course.

It has also been a great opportunity for us to hear both sides of the story when it comes to how MP deal with other members of the CAF.

 

[Piece of Cake]

I too have enjoyed this thread.  The debate between a Senior Legal Officer and a MP is of great significance.  What I find even more fascinating is the amount of attention this topic has received.  If a discussion took place replacing any other purple trade with their civilian counterparts, I don't believe it would garner the same attention.

 

[Pusser]

As far as the topic of MP v RCMP is concerned, I will always be on the side of retaining the MPs because they are more versatile than the RCMP. the RCMP, at this point, simply offer the basic policing function without any of the universality of service elements that enable us to use the MPs in all the military functions that they are designed for from the investigation of offences to traffic control on the battlefield.

[cheers]

The trouble with this (and this was noticed in Afghanistan) is that the MPs have (or perhaps, had) largely shifted their focus in recent decades away from the "military" part of the Military Police.  In many cases, the MPs had lost their military policing skills and this proved very problematic.  I've actually been led to belied that the most effective MPs in Afghanistan (at least initially) were the Reserve MPs because, as they are not considered to be Peace Officers under the Criminal Code, they continue to focus their training and employment on military vice domestic policing.

 

[Pusser]

As far as the topic of MP v RCMP is concerned, I will always be on the side of retaining the MPs because they are more versatile than the RCMP. the RCMP, at this point, simply offer the basic policing function without any of the universality of service elements that enable us to use the MPs in all the military functions that they are designed for from the investigation of offences to traffic control on the battlefield.

In the examples that I gave earlier (Carabinieri, Gendarmerie nationale, Guardia Civile, etc) it is worth noting that although these forces have a large domestic role in rural/smaller town policing (they generally don't cover major cities) and national policing (two roles almost identical to those of the RCMP), they also fall under their respective defence departments and have a clear military role. 

Obviously, turning over CAF policing to the RCMP is not as simple as saying, "make it so." Many things would have to be worked out, including access to information by the chain of command and the level of service required by the CAF.  I would never suggest anything that would endanger CAF operations.  I just wonder if we can do this better.  Having said this, I will concede that my opinion on this has softened in the last few minutes in reading this thread.  Well done to everyone for an intelligent debate.

 

[Remius]

My take is that he RCMP has a man(people)power  issue.  Adding bases and any other jurisdiction to their plate would only cause more issues.

 

[Pusser]

What about the other services MPs do outside of 'normal' partrolman/woman duties;  close protection, TASO, etc.  Who would do those if the RCMP took over all policing in the CAF?  Is it possible?

Why do these roles need to be assumed by the MPs?  Close protection is not really a police function and I would argue that just anyone (who is so inclined) can be trained.  A detailed knowledge of the Criminal Code is not required to be able keep a VIP safe.  Likewise for many of the escort and guarding functions we have.  We are an armed force after all.  There is nothing wrong, or illegal, about having other personnel providing armed escorts for various things or guarding things.

 

[Pusser]

My take is that he RCMP has a man(people)power  issue.  Adding bases and any other jurisdiction to their plate would only cause more issues.

Obviously, their establishment would have to be increased (complete with a budget transfer).  Presumably, a large chunk of this increase would effected by transferring MPs (those who wanted to) over to the RCMP.  This is not dissimilar to cases in the past where the RCMP has absorbed police officers from other forces when assuming their jurisdictions.

 

[Haggis]

My take is that he RCMP has a man(people)power  issue.  Adding bases and any other jurisdiction to their plate would only cause more issues.

Another concern is where the money paid to the RCMP to provide dedicated garrison policing would really go.  Would it go into general revenues to pay for all policing within a given area (which might include a CAF garrison - or not)?  Would RCMP detachments all over the country now take on the services provided to Reserve units in their detachment areas? (e.g. NDI 20 (permanent) I cards, security surveys, investigations, education and outreach services etc.)

An example is the money the RCMP receives for border patrol.  How much of this actually goes towards border integrity? If you ask the CBSA's union, the answer is "not enough" as they are calling for an expanded role for the CBSA to patrol between ports of entry.  (Yes, I know why unions ask for stuff, particularly unions that have been without a contract for almost four years, but it's still a valid concern.)

 

[Pusser]

Would also like to thank everyone for this post. I’m on my MP QL3 right now and this thread has been discussed quite a bit at the mess hall dining table in recent days. I frequent the threads here to find these kinds of discussions involving senior or more experienced MP members and then further discuss it with the other candidates to see what we all think. It helps in getting a better idea as to the ups and downs of the trade as well. Anyways keep up these kinds of discussions cause they actually do help the new guys see things in a different light other than what is taught in course.

It has also been a great opportunity for us to hear both sides of the story when it comes to how MP deal with other members of the CAF.

A little off topic, but I will give an example of a "situation" I once had that you and your buddies can discuss if you like.

There was a fire in an ammunition depot.  The MP who responded, drove straight through the first gate of the depot and only briefly stopped at the gate to the Explosives Area and ordered the commissionaire to get in with him (to show him where the fire was?) and then proceeded into the Explosives Area without authorization.  I should point out at this stage that when we have fires (thankfully rarely) in Explosives Areas, we tend to evacuate them, not go charging in blindly - just saying.

Luckily by the time we saw the police car scream by the Command Post, I had been able to ascertain what had actually happened (minor fire in a building that had actually been emptied of all explosives, but the MP didn't know that).  When I caught up to the MP and politely asked what he thought he was doing, he told me that he was investigating the fire.  Are MPs trained in fire or explosives occurrence investigations?  I then proceeded to point out to him that he was in an explosives area, which had been evacuated and in which only trained firefighters were supposed to be (even firefighters wouldn't have been in the area he was at the time).  I also pointed out that he was in possession of both firearms and unauthorized radios in an Explosives Area (both prohibited).  He left rather sheepishly and his chain of command was informed (who no doubt, had a one-way conversation with him later on). 

This was a case where an MP was confused about what authority he actually had and as a result, put both himself and others at risk.

 

[Infanteer]

This was a case where an MP was confused about what authority he actually had and as a result, put both himself and others at risk.

Yes, but it sounds like a matter of lack of knowledge of rules and policies vice willful ignorance.  Anybody could make this mistake.  This is something to be fixed with training and orientation, not getting different uniforms in to (possibly) make the same mistake for the same reasons.

 

[brihard]

In the examples that I gave earlier (Carabinieri, Gendarmerie nationale, Guardia Civile, etc) it is worth noting that although these forces have a large domestic role in rural/smaller town policing (they generally don't cover major cities) and national policing (two roles almost identical to those of the RCMP), they also fall under their respective defence departments and have a clear military role. 

Obviously, turning over CAF policing to the RCMP is not as simple as saying, "make it so." Many things would have to be worked out, including access to information by the chain of command and the level of service required by the CAF.  I would never suggest anything that would endanger CAF operations.  I just wonder if we can do this better.  Having said this, I will concede that my opinion on this has softened in the last few minutes in reading this thread.  Well done to everyone for an intelligent debate.

We can take it as a given that RCMP will not shift departments from PS over to DND. The RCMP Regulations, under the RCMP Act, do provide regulatory powers for RCMP officers to theoretically be ordered to serve outside of Canada to assist other Canadian departments, or to protet Her Majesty's property, or to protect certain Canadians. In practice, while RCMP members do serve outside of country, it's always voluntary either in the immediate sense or the specific task, or in the sense that on going to certain units (E.g., PM's protective detail) you're gonna travel. For the RCMP to have a shift where members would be ordered to go to foreign soil to do deployed law enforcement on a base or what have you would be a radical change, however given the pretty significant financial incentives, finding Mounties to step up for overseas gigs has not been too difficult.

RCMP could absorb domestic policing-on-base with little difficulty. They already have municipal policing detachments in such lovely locales as Oromocto, Cold Lake, Wainwright, etc. The actual workload from adding domestic law enforcement within the jurisdiction of bases would be pretty minimal. While there would be some learning curve in understanding certain applicable legislation or regulation, this is really no different from the radical shifts in duties Mounties already undergo- a guy policing Alberta could get posted to the Integrated Border Enforcement Team in Cornwall and have to learn IRPA, Customs Act, and various other things. A member posted to VIP protection has to learn all the laws around that. Likewise anyone going to a child exploitation, or proceeds of crime, or tech crime unit. Mounties learn new parts of the law and assume new duties all the time. That would not be a show stopper if they were to be told "OK, now you're going to enforce the Defense Controlled Access Area Regulations and the Government Property and Traffic Regulations".

So- 'policing' as cops think of it? Absolutely RCMP could do that on bases and in the PMQs.

As identified by others, the problem would be having the deployed capabilities - the 'provost' work. I would also add that there will still be some uniquely military contexts needing military police with investigational experience. You can't knit that experience. It has to come from somewhere. And that's probably going to be routine, mundane investigative files on bases- files that have little real import, but which build up a police officer's ability to conduct an investigation, take statements, deal with crown and the courts, and so forth. Detachment policing on bases is a necessary 'farm team' for the stuff NIS does.

The MPs are like the RCMP in one interesting way- they have a lot of different jobs, some of which are not necessarily related to each other, but which draw from a common baseline skillset that is difficult to acquire other than doing the stupid, routine, annoying day to day police stuff. The foundational skills have to be there, whether investigative or tactical, in order to move on to other things.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Why do these roles need to be assumed by the MPs?  Close protection is not really a police function and I would argue that just anyone (who is so inclined) can be trained.  A detailed knowledge of the Criminal Code is not required to be able keep a VIP safe.  Likewise for many of the escort and guarding functions we have.  We are an armed force after all.  There is nothing wrong, or illegal, about having other personnel providing armed escorts for various things or guarding things.

They don't 'need' to be, but as of now they are MPs roles - not sure about present day but back when I wore a black beret, Convoy/VIP escort and TCPs were part of what armoured recce did.  Close Protection and TASO - I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion as to who could/should do this if not the MPs.  Could it be like TacHel does for door gunners and draw from the cbt arms?  Perhaps...

Any CP or TASO types who could chime in?  Why, historically, have CP and TASO functions been part of the MP toolbelt?

 

[RCDtpr]

They don't 'need' to be, but as of now they are MPs roles - not sure about present day but back when I wore a black beret, Convoy/VIP escort and TCPs were part of what armoured recce did.  Close Protection and TASO - I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion as to who could/should do this if not the MPs.  Could it be like TacHel does for door gunners and draw from the cbt arms?  Perhaps...

Any CP or TASO types who could chime in?  Why, historically, have CP and TASO functions been part of the MP toolbelt?

I have a fair bit of experience in the TASO world and while I can’t speak to why it’s been historically an MP taksing, I can say the job itself could certainly be done by the combat arms.  In reality the bread and butter of TASO is essentially 5s and 20s and then watching arcs.  If the infantry got handed the tasking on Monday, by Wednesday I’m sure they’d be more than ready to do it operationally.

The fundamental job of CP itself could certainly be handled by combat arms units once they had enough qualified people.  Having said that, I am unsure the legalities of having non police officers armed while in plainclothes both in and out of country.  That could potentially be why it remains an MP based gig.

 

[PuckChaser]

A CP operator is going to need the same MOU to carry firearms in a foreign country as anyone else. Being a MP doesn't make them magically exempt from permission, especially considering that CP was recruiting from all trades up to a few years ago.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

...That could potentially be why it remains an MP based gig.

I’m confused by this point as a member of our unit went for CP quite recently. He’s not MP and is not OTing either. (Actually, multiple pers applied but he was the only one selected to attend the training.) Can you offer more insight?

 

[mariomike]

For reference to the discussion,

Close Protection Training 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/35757.100
8 pages.