Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[childs56]

Certainly comes across as confrontational,  even more so when you demonstrate you don't even know when a Reservist is subj to the CSD.  I doubt there is a more knowledgeable Mil Law SME than FJAG on the forum. :2c:

When am I subject to the CSD?
If you are a member of the Regular Force you are always subject to the CSD, both inside and outside Canada. If you are a member of the Reserve Force, you are subject to the CSD:

while undergoing drill or training (whether you are in uniform or not)
whenever you are in uniform
while on any military duty
24 hours a day, 7 days a week during any period of full time service (Class "B" or "C" service)
whenever you are present on defence property
whenever you are in a vehicle, ship or aircraft of the CF.

 

[McG]

I am not trying be be a confrontational, or troll. I am am very curious about this whole situation.  My understanding is the CSD is used to enforce discipline within the Military for such things not covered under normal Civilian law. At what time would a Civilain court be tasked with, carry forth with these or similar charges?

Do you believe "CSD" and "NDA" to be synonyms?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

When am I subject to the CSD?
If you are a member of the Regular Force you are always subject to the CSD, both inside and outside Canada. If you are a member of the Reserve Force, you are subject to the CSD:

while undergoing drill or training (whether you are in uniform or not)
whenever you are in uniform
while on any military duty
24 hours a day, 7 days a week during any period of full time service (Class "B" or "C" service)
whenever you are present on defence property
whenever you are in a vehicle, ship or aircraft of the CF.

try this.  http://Army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-1466416.html#msg1466416

 

[Monsoon]

I am not trying be be a confrontational, or troll. I am am very curious about this whole situation.  My understanding is the CSD is used to enforce discipline within the Military for such things not covered under normal Civilian law. At what time would a Civilain court be tasked with, carry forth with these or similar charges?

My approach when in command was to use remedial measures to address situations where people failed to turn out when directed without prior permission or a genuine emergency. The CSD is a blunt instrument and not one the chain of command really fully controls.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Was the other member of the assault a Military member also? 

In the CSD there are things that you can be charged for through the civilian courts that no matter what will effect you up to and including  release from the military.

Nope. Civilian female.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I've never been a supporter of using admin processes like RMs on people for times they aren't subj to the CSD, they are quasi-civilians at that point IMO.  I say this as a former Cl A/B/B(a) type who has lived and breathed those worlds.  I never would have recommended a RM (or VW/RW as they were back then...) for someone not showing up at a Trg event UNLESS they were in contravention of approved NES policy.

We can't ignore the official NES policy, it is there for a reason.  Skirting it using RMs...is this really the way to do business in a day and age where funding is down, it seems morale is down in some Res formations/units, trg is boring, all the issues being discussed in this thread.  Now to add onto it, CL A types being put in ICs and RWs for missing a trg night or 2?  It strikes me as trying to fix a crack in a windshield with a hammer;  it is doing something, hoping to fix the problem but in all likelihood will just make it worse in the end.

I think units that have that approach will see their budgets shrink as people release.  When I was Cl A, the rare time I said I wasn't or couldn't make a wknd FTX or something, I can tell you my loyalty and GAFF would have started bottoming out if I came in the next trg night and someone slide an IC in front of me.  I would have been looking for the NES policy and pushing back, but most others will probably say "you know what, this shit isn't worth $75 a week.  I'm out".

Leadership in CL a units takes the right balance of stick and carrot.  Hit with the stick too often, people will leave, especially if the reason you see them 50% of scheduled trg is because the trg is boring, sucks and the unit higher ups are fucking the dog and strutting around doing SFA/avoiding the scheduled trg as well (it happens).

 

[FJAG]

At What  point would a Civilian Court run a trial on a CSD charge that was minor and only applicable to the Military.  Why would the Military not run a Summary trial for such. In your 24 years of service as JAG you should be able to clarify this for me and others.

This makes me wonder why a JAG would not be able to clarify and differentiate between the different sub sections. of QR&Os 9.04 along with the NDA 33 (3)
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be deemed to impose liability to serve as prescribed therein, without his consent, on an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force who is, by virtue of the terms of his enrolment, liable to perform duty on active service only.

I must be a gluten for punishment but I'll give it one more try.

1 NDA 33(3) does not apply to the Primary Reserve. It applies to the Supplementary Reserve. QR&O 2.034b cited above shows that.

2. The Code of Service Discipline is a specific part of the National Defence Act called Part III. It starts at s 60 which sets out who is liable under the CSD and ends at s 249.26. The link to the NDA index is here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/

3. The NDA has a further part called Part VII Offences Triable by Civilian Courts. Let me be clear. Part VII is NOT part of the CSD but does contain a number of other offence which have to be tried before a civilian court. One of those is 294 which reads as follows:

Failure to attend parade

294 (1) Every officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force who without lawful excuse neglects or refuses to attend any parade or training at the place and hour appointed therefor is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction for each offence, if an officer, to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars and, if a non-commissioned member, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars.
Marginal note:Each absence an offence

(2) Absence from any parade or training referred to in subsection (1) is, in respect of each day on which the absence occurs, a separate offence.

Again. Let me make it absolutely clear. Part VII is not part of the CSD and offences listed in it cannot be tried by a service tribunal and must be tried by a civilian court.

You may not like it. You may not understand why the legislature wrote it that way but that's the way it is.

One additional matter. DAPaterson is quite correct when he says above that a (G) at the end of a QR&O means that the provision is one that was made by the Governor in Council under powers granted by the NDA or some other piece of legislation. Similarly an (M) means it comes from the Minister of National Defence; a (C) means it comes from the Chief of Defence Staff; a (T) means it comes from Treasury Board.

:cheers:

 

[Monsoon]

I've never been a supporter of using admin processes like RMs on people for times they aren't subj to the CSD, they are quasi-civilians at that point IMO.  I say this as a former Cl A/B/B(a) type who has lived and breathed those worlds.  I never would have recommended a RM (or VW/RW as they were back then...) for someone not showing up at a Trg event UNLESS they were in contravention of approved NES policy.

Whether you're a supporter of it or not, it's both perfectly acceptable (since we're not talking about "service discipline") and very effective. The NES policy, it's worth pointing out, also applies when members aren't subject to the CSD. I don't know of any other employer in the world (part- or full-time) who accepts people showing up for work or not as the fancy strikes them without clearing it with their boss first.

We can't ignore the official NES policy, it is there for a reason.  Skirting it using RMs...is this really the way to do business

The NES policy is an administrative tool to track and manage effective strength for, among other things, purposes of tracking pensionable service, counting years towards CDs, and (eventually) releasing members who have de facto quit. Remedial measures are an administrative tool used to correct negative behaviour. One process doesn't preclude the other, but if you're accusing me of having used remedial measures to try to prevent people from going NES, then I'm very happy to agree that that was exactly my goal.

I think units that have that approach will see their budgets shrink as people release.  When I was Cl A, the rare time I said I wasn't or couldn't make a wknd FTX or something, I can tell you my loyalty and GAFF would have started bottoming out if I came in the next trg night and someone slide an IC in front of me.  I would have been looking for the NES policy and pushing back, but most others will probably say "you know what, this crap isn't worth $75 a week.  I'm out".

That's the received wisdom. The actual experience of applying remedial measures for attendance at our unit revealed that the received wisdom was wrong, at least in our case. Attendance and retention increased significantly, not just over a single sample year but in a way that continued on into the long term. People were motivated to come to work because they knew that the other people they needed to be there to get their own work done would also be there. Go figure.

Leadership in CL a units takes the right balance of stick and carrot.

Yes, it most certainly does. I assume from your response that you understood that we weren't permitting people to miss training events; that's not the case. What we did do was ask people to look at their schedules in advance and identify when they couldn't come to work, and then communicate that to their bosses so they could plan accordingly. And if an emergency arose then all we asked was that they let us know as soon as they were able.

Remedial measures are just another "stick" to add to our significant arsenal of carrots, but it's one that's vastly underused leading to organizational disarray in units and a negative impact on personnel readiness. In the end, the number of remedial measures we ended up actually issuing for failure to attend a training event was probably fewer that two dozen in three years (in a unit that grew from 140 to 165 in that same time). But a clearly communicated policy about their use and what was expected of members to avoid getting a remedial measure contributed to improving some outcomes in the unit.

 

[Brasidas]

I don't doubt that 294 exists and is valid. I am curious when and why it is exercised.

Failure to attend parade

294 (1) Every officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force who without lawful excuse neglects or refuses to attend any parade or training at the place and hour appointed therefor is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction for each offence, if an officer, to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars and, if a non-commissioned member, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars.
Marginal note:Each absence an offence

(2) Absence from any parade or training referred to in subsection (1) is, in respect of each day on which the absence occurs, a separate offence.

What is the standard for a lawful excuse for the purposes of prosecution, vice administrative action?

If my troop's sister calls bawling about a boyfriend leaving an hour before parade, he sends a text message to an appropriate person that he can't make a class A parade due to a family emergency, is it a justification for prosecution?

If he's previously given short notice, after such admitted faults such as sleeping in or missing an exit off the freeway, and he gives an excuse that is "not his fault" but involves a subjective judgement as to what is an appropriate circumstance for missing a parade, who can make the determination as to whether to charge them for failing to attend, and what is the standard by which that determination is made?

Of course the easier path if a unit gets fed up with a member, who may parade at least every 30 days but calls in questionable excuses (eg. "uh, my girlfriend promised her best friend that I'd help with the setup for her cousin's bachelorette party...") on a regular basis for Cl A days that they'd previously committed to, is to simply drop support for them going on courses and taskings.

 

[FJAG]

See thread above. To the best of my knowledge the section has not been used in the last few decades.

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

I don't doubt that 294 exists and is valid. I am curious when and why it is exercised.

What is the standard for a lawful excuse for the purposes of prosecution, vice administrative action?

If my troop's sister calls bawling about a boyfriend leaving an hour before parade, he sends a text message to an appropriate person that he can't make a class A parade due to a family emergency, is it a justification for prosecution?

If he's previously given short notice, after such admitted faults such as sleeping in or missing an exit off the freeway, and he gives an excuse that is "not his fault" but involves a subjective judgement as to what is an appropriate circumstance for missing a parade, who can make the determination as to whether to charge them for failing to attend, and what is the standard by which that determination is made?

Of course the easier path if a unit gets fed up with a member, who may parade at least every 30 days but calls in questionable excuses (eg. "uh, my girlfriend promised her best friend that I'd help with the setup for her cousin's bachelorette party...") on a regular basis for Cl A days that they'd previously committed to, is to simply drop support for them going on courses and taskings.

My unit two years ago started tracking peoples reasons for not attending, most are usually work related (we have a lot of people in the trades, and thus dont work 9-5) but you do get family/personal reasons and such, every failure to show requires a reason. If the same reasons keeps showing up it may trigger a meeting with your CoC to figure out whats going on. It gives a chance for the member to open up privately about an issue and the chain might be able to point them towards helping resources. If the member is just willfully not attending to parade, then they need to ask them selves why are they wearing the uniform.

 

[ArmyRick]

MiLEMEO9,

agree 100% with that approach.

 

[mariomike]

If the same reasons keeps showing up it may trigger a meeting with your CoC to figure out whats going on.

Sounds similar to what some employers might call an Attendance Management Program?

 

[FJAG]

Half a century ago when I was a young Bombardier in Toronto I was responsible for three gunners. Every Friday I had to call them to ensure they were parading the next morning and get their excuses if they weren't. The next Saturday morning I had to justify any absences to my Troop Sergeant Major. Seemed to me that the system worked pretty well.

We also did kit recovery for NES personnel by having our transport section going to released folks homes (usually their parents) where we basically grabbed anything brown, threw it into a kit bag and brought it back to stores (sure as hell beat the hell out of the kit recovery system we had going three decades later what with lawyers and notice letters and civil suits for damages etc)

:subbies:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Half a century ago when I was a young Bombardier in Toronto I was responsible for three gunners. Every Friday I had to call them to ensure they were parading the next morning and get their excuses if they weren't. The next Saturday morning I had to justify any absences to my Troop Sergeant Major. Seemed to me that the system worked pretty well.

We also did kit recovery for NES personnel by having our transport section going to released folks homes (usually their parents) where we basically grabbed anything brown, threw it into a kit bag and brought it back to stores (sure as hell beat the hell out of the kit recovery system we had going three decades later what with lawyers and notice letters and civil suits for damages etc)

:subbies:

We did the same, and had around 100 on parade every night.

But, as Recruiting Officer, I could also enroll a new recruit, and have him marching around in a boiler suit getting yelled at by the duty NCO, on the same night.

 

[FJAG]

We did the same, and had around 100 on parade every night.

But, as Recruiting Officer, I could also enroll a new recruit, and have him marching around in a boiler suit getting yelled at by the duty NCO, on the same night.

When I was RSSO in Brandon in 76-78 we could still do that. I think the good times ended not too long after that.

:subbies:

 

[MilEME09]

Seems with email people thought it would be easier. Turns out lots of people like to not read emails at times. So go back to what works, now we see around 30 to 40 on a parade night. Our size is about 60 right now with atleast 10 or so tasked out or on course so id say the old method works

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Brasidas]

Apparently with recruiting being moved to the units, the new target is 2 to 4 weeks from "Hello, I would like to join your unit" to signing a Cl A paysheet.

I'm optimistic, but colour me skeptical.

 

[PuckChaser]

Was possible in 2002, should be no reason why it's not now.

 

[Kirkhill]

When I was RSSO in Brandon in 76-78 we could still do that. I think the good times ended not too long after that.

:subbies:

That was the form at the SD&Gs in 78 and the Calg Highrs in 80.  (I paraded a couple of weeks with the Glens before my civvy career moved me west to Calgary by way of 18 months in Oshawa)