Everyone needs to remember that back in the mid 1960s - 45+ years ago - one of the most pressing problems facing Mr. Hellyer was money. Defence costs, especially for new, high tech equipment and the concomitant O&M were rising exponentially while the available money had contracted. We had a recession in the late '50s and tight budgets, especially tight defence budgets were the norm under both Diefenbaker and Pearson.
One of the major areas of concern was military pay. We, the military, were poorly paid by almost any standards and there was no will to change that. But it was having a deleterious effect of morale and, therefore, on recruiting and retention. The "Hellyer corporal" and the "Capt-Lt" abominations were good faith pretty much the only way to get pay raises for the journeyman rank levels.
I'm going to repeat what I said, here in Army.ca, a few years ago: we shouldn't focus on the current ranks, rather we should recommend, individually, to our politicians, a sensible system of rank and pay which would be based, first, on a separation of rank and trade, although rank might be a prerequisite for some long, expensive trade courses - i.e. one could not become an artificer or foreman level technical tradesman, for example, without being a trained, proven leader, first. The system should also be base, second, on a rational separation of supervisory levels.
My guess is that we might end up with a system something like this (based on Army combat arms tasks for other ranks):
Apprentices:* Recruits, soldiers awaiting training, soldiers under training and soldiers in their first year or so of service in a unit, undergoing OJT - e.g. no hook private
Trained soldiers: Members with Group 1 and Group 2 trade skills and some, limited, time in rank - e.g.one hook private
Junior Leaders: two tiers - possibly required to undertake Trade Group 3 training in some branches
Small team leaders: Members who have had (or are recommended to take the next available) junior leadership training - e.g. corporal
Large team leaders: Rifle section and tank commanders, Recce Pl detachment commanders, etc - e.g. master corporal
Senior leaders: three tiers - requires Trade Group 3 training and additional leadership training
Tank Troop/Rifle Platoon Sergeants, Commanders of specialized sections in e.g. Engineer Troops, Infantry Support Platoons requires a senior leader course - e.g. sergeant
Artillery/Engineer Troop Sergeants, Infantry Support Platoon Sergeants - sergeant 1st class
S/B/CQMS, specialist staff NCOs - may require Trade Group 4 training in some branches - e.g. master sergeant
Supervisors - two tiers
S/B/CSM, specialist staff NCOs - requires Trade Group 4 training e.g. sergeant major/quartermaster sergeant
RSM, specialist staff WO - e.g. warrant officer
Officers are easier - the only thing really required is more time in the ranks of 2Lt and Lt. All officers undergoing training should be 2Lts (even for classifications with very, very long training streams - which will require more and higher pay grades for 2Lts). Officers should not be promoted to Lt until after they are fully classification trained and have spent, say, nine months in a unit as a 2Lt. Promotion from Lt to Capt should not be possible until one has spent four years in the rank of Lt, except in very rare circumstances.
--------------------
* Not to be confused with e.g. the Soldier Apprentice programmes of the '50s and '60s - the so-called green monsters
Edit: added "e.g" to ensure you understand this is only an example, not a firm proposal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAMigUFucHg&feature=related
