Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[TCM621]

Actually, any unit in the CAF enters the chat.

G2G raised the very good point of a 22 year old MCpl leading a section of 18 -19 year old privates.

children leading children?

The average age for a Sgt(E-5) in the US Army is 22 with 4.5 years in. They have roughly the same level of authority as a MCpl. If your system is robust, you can get away with it because they should be supported from above. The problem I see is a) our system is weak and getting weaker, b) our junior leaders (MCpl/Lts) are being properly supported, and c) we don't apply the same rules to everyone and the ones that get away with the most are often the same people picked to be succession planned.

 

[TCM621]

This whole area of the law is one that changes with the season. If you go back far enough to British military law the military only had criminal legal power over its soldiers once articles of war had been published. Until then soldiers in garrison were only subject to civilian criminal law while the army did have some disciplinary powers.......

You're the expert here but I think one of the issues is that military law does have exactly the same aim as civilian law. From my understanding, military law is supposed to punish people quickly and get them back in the fight as soon as possible. Civilian law is more about protecting the rights of the public and punishing people who violate those rights.

 

[FJAG]

You're the expert here but I think one of the issues is that military law does have exactly the same aim as civilian law. From my understanding, military law is supposed to punish people quickly and get them back in the fight as soon as possible. Civilian law is more about protecting the rights of the public and punishing people who violate those rights.

The purpose of the Canadian Military Justice System is stated as:

The military justice system is designed to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces by contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency, and morale, while ensuring that justice is administered fairly and with respect to the rule of law.

I'm not so sure about getting offenders back into the fight. That sounds more like what the medical system is supposed to do for the wounded.

 

[Jarnhamar]

My interviews have revealed a system where cadets spend four years learning how to circumvent rules as a result of the immense pressure to succeed in all four pillars, together with the stringent expectations and rules imposed on them.

Blackadder's quote from the report really hits the nail on the head for me.

This rules for thee but not for me starts as ocdts and finishes at the CDS level.

RMC produces some awesome leaders and awesome people. People who aren't just enjoyable to work for but inspiring.

We're getting too much garbage with the graduating classes though.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Blackadder's quote from the report really hits the nail on the head for me.

This rules for thee but not for me starts as ocdts and finishes at the CDS level.

RMC produces some awesome leaders and awesome people. People who aren't just enjoyable to work for but inspiring.

We're getting too much garbage with the graduating classes though.

The cream of the crop, rises to the top. The problem is that the crap floats just as well, and is often hidden in the curds.

A lot of fantastic people I have worked with were RMC Grads. Unfortunately, the ones that stick out the most were the insufferable pricks that shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone holding a commission.

When both are marching through the Arch at the end of 4 years without someone saying "I'm not sure about that one..." that's how OCdt McFuckFace becomes Capt/Maj/Col/Gen McFuckFace.

Problem children that should be nipped in the bud turn into headlines in the Globe and Mail. The sooner the "No one is entitled to a job in the CAF" mentality the CFRG lives by is adopted by the rest of the CAF past enrollment, the better.

 

[Kat Stevens]

The cream of the crop, rises to the top. The problem is that the crap floats just as well, and is often hidden in the curds.

A lot of fantastic people I have worked with were RMC Grads. Unfortunately, the ones that stick out the most were the insufferable pricks that shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone holding a commission.

When both are marching through the Arch at the end of 4 years without someone saying "I'm not sure about that one..." that's how OCdt McFuckFace becomes Capt/Maj/Col/Gen McFuckFace.

Problem children that should be nipped in the bud turn into headlines in the Globe and Mail. The sooner the "No one is entitled to a job in the CAF" mentality the CFRG lives by is adopted by the rest of the CAF past enrollment, the better.

Yup. if you're "quarrelsome" as a pte/cpl, your career is just quietly brought to a grinding halt, for the most part. A few toenails still end up in the hamburger anyway. Officers are posted or promoted out of the way, until there are no more out of the way places to post them, and then they find themselves in a position to do real harm to a lot of people.

 

[KevinB]

Yup. if you're "quarrelsome" as a pte/cpl, your career is just quietly brought to a grinding halt, for the most part. A few toenails still end up in the hamburger anyway. Officers are posted or promoted out of the way, until there are no more out of the way places to post them, and then they find themselves in a position to do real harm to a lot of people.

That generally occurs in any pyramid scheme too.

Let’s face it, in 2022, there probably should be some changes from a pre Feudal rank system to adapt it to todays society.

The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.

Why not start everyone at Ground Zero - and stream people based on ability?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.

There might be some folks in the House of Commons that don’t agree with or aren’t aware of that idea…

Why not start everyone at Ground Zero - and stream people based on ability?

The same people mentioned above might be disadvantaged by this idea.

 

[dimsum]

That generally occurs in any pyramid scheme too.

Let’s face it, in 2022, there probably should be some changes from a pre Feudal rank system to adapt it to todays society.

The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.

Why not start everyone at Ground Zero - and stream people based on ability?

I want to say that there was a documentary a couple of decades back about the PLA abolishing ranks due to the Cultural Revolution. It worked so...um...well that ranks came back in the late 80s.

To confirm, is your proposal that everyone (soldier to doctor) start as a Pte/S3/Avr, or that everyone starts as an NCM job then becomes an officer job? If the latter, what happens with specialists (like doctor/lawyer) - if they're direct entry, do they stop being doctor/lawyer and be [insert trade] NCM for a few years?

I find that this scheme may work if the officer and NCM job is somewhat similar. Not so much when there are officer jobs which have no NCM equivalent.

And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers. However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say). For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?

 

[Good2Golf]

And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers. However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say). For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?

Judging from examples like a US CW3 or CW4 aviator commanding a pivotal operational atask force that a lot of other joint forces depend on, the answer could be, the Cdn Sgt or WO had experience deep into an operational theatre that make her or him a very valuable SME who brings their experience, combined with the authority to represent from a contributing nation in the CAOC…

 

[Brad Sallows]

Starting everyone with common training and subsequently "streaming" is not inconsistent with also having ranks/appointments for those further downstream.

 

[FSTO]

I want to say that there was a documentary a couple of decades back about the PLA abolishing ranks due to the Cultural Revolution. It worked so...um...well that ranks came back in the late 80s.

To confirm, is your proposal that everyone (soldier to doctor) start as a Pte/S3/Avr, or that everyone starts as an NCM job then becomes an officer job? If the latter, what happens with specialists (like doctor/lawyer) - if they're direct entry, do they stop being doctor/lawyer and be [insert trade] NCM for a few years?

I find that this scheme may work if the officer and NCM job is somewhat similar. Not so much when there are officer jobs which have no NCM equivalent.

And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers. However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say). For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?

I'd advocate for NWOs to start off as Boatswains or NCIOP/NAC OP/NESOP, MSE/CSE Officers start off a techs or stokers and Supply Officers start off as a supply clerk. Go to killick and pick the cream (and who want to become officers)

 

[McG]

The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.

The distinction between officers and non-commissioned members being one of social class is long outdated, but there are still relevant functional aspects of maintaining separate paths. If you look at industry in the western world there are few organizations with > 100k people that are trying to generate future executives from employees on the factory floor or in the mail room. There are a lot with nostalgic stories of an early CEO who took that path and then grew the company from something small to something huge, but those are not the normal career progression anywhere. Via UTPNCM and CFR, the CAF already offers paths to these exceptions, and we could probably afford to give more access to these paths. But still as a non-standard route.

We need to remember the amount of time and effort required to develop a tradesperson. Most (if not all) officer occupations are undeserving of being recognized as trades, while the plurality (if not the majority) of non-commissioned occupations are trades. It takes a lot of training, practice, and time to develop in a trade. There are already complaints of people moving through careers too quickly to learn their jobs as the CAF hurries to develop future senior leaders. The quality of our trades and of our sr NCO corps would be destroyed if we attempted to rush every private along the path to be future CDS.

The required aptitudes at different levels are also very different and the CAF is very bad at actually judging/predicting aptitude for higher levels. We assume those who excel at the tactical level will be the ones who excel at the strategic. Nano-tactical generals who revert to their tactical level comfort zone would be even more prolific having had less time to develop at operational and strategic levels. Institutional stewardship and the provision of military advice to political leadership would be two things that suffer greatly. If you think the military mismanages major projects right now, know that it would get worse.

Most companies offer multiple paths for lateral entry. The CAF has only two levels where people can enter. I have heard suggestions that we need flexibility for entry at more levels. I don’t know what that would look like, and will defer judgment in the absence of a model to consider. But I will suggest that we must not compress our two entry levels into only one.

 

[KevinB]

The distinction between officers and non-commissioned members being one of social class is long outdated, but there are still relevant functional aspects of maintaining separate paths. If you look at industry in the western world there are few organizations with > 100k people that are trying to generate future executives from employees on the factory floor or in the mail room. There are a lot with nostalgic stories of an early CEO who took that path and then grew the company from something small to something huge, but those are not the normal career progression anywhere. Via UTPNCM and CFR, the CAF already offers paths to these exceptions, and we could probably afford to give more access to these paths. But still as a non-standard route.

We need to remember the amount of time and effort required to develop a tradesperson. Most (if not all) officer occupations are undeserving of being recognized as trades, while the plurality (if not the majority) of non-commissioned occupations are trades. It takes a lot of training, practice, and time to develop in a trade. There are already complaints of people moving through careers too quickly to learn their jobs as the CAF hurries to develop future senior leaders. The quality of our trades and of our sr NCO corps would be destroyed if we attempted to rush every private along the path to be future CDS.

The required aptitudes at different levels are also very different and the CAF is very bad at actually judging/predicting aptitude for higher levels. We assume those who excel at the tactical level will be the ones who excel at the strategic. Nano-tactical generals who revert to their tactical level comfort zone would be even more prolific having had less time to develop at operational and strategic levels. Institutional stewardship and the provision of military advice to political leadership would be two things that suffer greatly. If you think the military mismanages major projects right now, know that it would get worse.

Most companies offer multiple paths for lateral entry. The CAF has only two levels where people can enter. I have heard suggestions that we need flexibility for entry at more levels. I don’t know what that would look like, and will defer judgment in the absence of a model to consider. But I will suggest that we must not compress our two entry levels into only one.

I'm not suggesting that everyone do 12 years at the coal face and progress in a tedious liner manner -- what I am suggesting is that perhaps a Common Entry Course, and observance of how one does on numerous different tests during the process that one would then get offered certain positions based on that.
With the option to switch paths latter on depending on needs of the service and ability etc...

I agree that a good Warrant Officer isn't necessarily a good Colonel - but I think they needs to be a better way to sort technical abilities, and create a system that allows specialist trades to be recruited and paid at a decent rate - that doesn't necessarily require an inflated rank system to compensate them correctly.

 

[dimsum]

what I am suggesting is that perhaps a Common Entry Course, and observance of how one does on numerous different tests during the process that one would then get offered certain positions based on that.
With the option to switch paths latter on depending on needs of the service and ability etc...

So, for example, everyone going through Basic Officer Training and while there, have everyone screened for Aircrew Selection?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

One result I have observed after working with armies that only draw their officers from the ranks is the marginalization of their NCO corps. Those officers ruled with an iron fist, and the NCOs were those that did not "make it" to officer. I like how our recruits can choose either path as their aspirations and aptitudes take them. The result is experienced NCOs with junior officers.

Our system works - entry level officer training for the Army certainly functions to remove those without the aptitude. It is not a guarantee of ethical behaviour, but neither would having everyone serve for a few years in the ranks first.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A common entry course throws candidates into a mix with people with whom they wouldn't ordinarily associate, let alone work closely with. You'd probably figure out early on who thinks highly of themselves and isn't meant to be subject to the same limits as ordinary people, and then have to deal with that.

 

[KevinB]

I want to say that there was a documentary a couple of decades back about the PLA abolishing ranks due to the Cultural Revolution. It worked so...um...well that ranks came back in the late 80s.

Ranks came back for them very shortly after actuality when Mao himself wasn't recognized giving commands...

To confirm, is your proposal that everyone (soldier to doctor) start as a Pte/S3/Avr, or that everyone starts as an NCM job then becomes an officer job? If the latter, what happens with specialists (like doctor/lawyer) - if they're direct entry, do they stop being doctor/lawyer and be [insert trade] NCM for a few years?

Why does a Doctor or Lawyer need to be an officer? Why not have a specific technical specialist system for those "non command" trades.
I don't think that everyone starts as #1 Rifleman works -- but a common entry course (mix of basic and recruit) 4 months or so should be good enough to a lot of folks to both self select - and peer review others.

I find that this scheme may work if the officer and NCM job is somewhat similar. Not so much when there are officer jobs which have no NCM equivalent.

And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers. However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say). For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?

I was more thinking of Pilot Grade 1, through 11,
Flying Warrant Officers for those who just want to fly, and Commissioned Officers for those who want a Command and Admin Burden on top of that?

One result I have observed after working with armies that only draw their officers from the ranks is the marginalization of their NCO corps. Those officers ruled with an iron fist, and the NCOs were those that did not "make it" to officer. I like how our recruits can choose either path as their aspirations and aptitudes take them. The result is experienced NCOs with junior officers.

Our system works - entry level officer training for the Army certainly functions to remove those without the aptitude. It is not a guarantee of ethical behaviour, but neither would having everyone serve for a few years in the ranks first.

I'm not suggesting 2-3 years as a Private then running OCS - though, I think that option should be more on the table than the CAF has currently.
I'm thinking 4 months at Common Entry Course - during which those wanting certain trades can be examined in depth - better than a few recruiting interviews.

 

[FJAG]

One result I have observed after working with armies that only draw their officers from the ranks is the marginalization of their NCO corps. Those officers ruled with an iron fist, and the NCOs were those that did not "make it" to officer. I like how our recruits can choose either path as their aspirations and aptitudes take them. The result is experienced NCOs with junior officers.

I was on a liaison visit to the Italian Army when it still had the draft. Their regiment had roughly 75 to 100 professional officers and senior NCOs and took in a draft of a thousand or so (9 batteries to the regiment) and put them through a screening. The top 50 or so were selected for officer training and were made 2nd Lts and the next 75 or so selected as Snr NCOs, sent on a course and made sergeants. The rest filled out all the other jobs.

In a recent interview of someone involved in training the ANA in 2005, he mentioned that he discussed with an Afghan general the problem that Afghans had delegating anything, especially to NCOs. In their system as well there is an intake of individuals followed by a selection process assigning individuals to officer, NCO and various trades streams. He was advised of two things. Firstly that delegating anything is considered a weakness in Afghan culture and secondly that the concept of NCO in their culture was equated as an "officer failure".

Our officer/OR structure may have its heritage in a very rigid class structure but seems to have matured into something practical. The three things I would like to see are: elimination of the university requirement for officers; a separate career stream for WOs (separating it from the Sgt/Sgt Major NCO stream so as to facilitate technical specialization); and attendance for ORs and officers on a common DP1 course (followed perhaps by six months in a unit in the ranks) before officers learn the leadership aspects of their jobs.

Why does a Doctor or Lawyer need to be an officer?

In some armies they don't. As a LegO my primary client was usually one or two ranks higher than me thus I had no power over them other than as an advisor and, since I belonged to the JAG CoC, they had no power over me in the performance of my legal duties (see QR&O 4.081)

While I don't usually want to wind @dapaterson up on the topic of lawyers, he might want to comment on the pleasure he's had working with CAF legal officers and the DoJ civilian lawyers. I doubt that you could get one out on an operation but maybe a WO type of specialty would do if the pay scales could be made to work.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was on a liaison visit to the Italian Army when it still had the draft. Their regiment had roughly 75 to 100 professional officers and senior NCOs and took in a draft of a thousand or so (9 batteries to the regiment) and put them through a screening. The top 50 or so were selected for officer training and were made 2nd Lts and the next 75 or so selected as Snr NCOs, sent on a course and made sergeants. The rest filled out all the other jobs.

We could do the same with an annual SYEP-type program.

Hire thousands of kids for the summer and put them through basic training, and along the way identify good candidates for ongoing service in the CAF at whatever rank levels they seem suited for.

Some might choose to say goodbye to the military after the summer, others might choose to join the Regs or Reserves as Officers or NCMs...