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

[garb811]

One of the major reasons there is a lack of “random crime”, as you call it, in the PMQs in Edmonton…actually most Q patches…is due to a number of factors.  One is the fact that Qs are generally removed from the other population centers in the area, although this is changing as the city expands northwards.  Another is the fact that these are unknown locations in the minds of most civies, civies generally don’t take a random turn into base housing areas, those that go there generally need to go there.  The residents of the Qs themselves are a huge help, it’s a small community and it is very easy for them to spot outsiders, a built in neighbourhood watch if you will.  Probably the biggest factor though, is the fact that there are several MP cars patrolling the area.  If you’re Joe Criminal, where are you going to do your work, in a location where they are lucky to get a drive through once a day while the EPS is transiting from one call to the next or one where an aggressive patrolling routine is in place?  But having said all that trust me, there is random crime in the Qs, albeit not at the level of Edmonton.

You feel Edmonton should be at a higher security posture.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Provision of security is a balancing act.  Manpower to put MPs (or Commissionaires) on the gates costs money as does security enhancements such as lighting and fencing.  Where does that money come from?  Divert it from supporting the actual Ops in Afghanistan?  Take it out of unit training funds?  Reduce ammo allocations?  In addition to monetary costs, there are other costs as well.  Require 100% ID checks as a condition of access to the base and suddenly you have traffic backed up from the main gate to the off ramp on 97th.  This point isn’t a guess; it’s what happened after 9/11 when the base in Edmonton was locked down.    Require all commercial vehicles entering the base to be physically searched and suddenly, it is impossible to get anything delivered to the base because companies will simply refuse to send their vehicles into a situation where the only cargo they can carry is that destined for the base because all the boxes are going to be opened.  Put up a fence around the PMQ patch and control access and suddenly the PMQ residents are upset; not only are they unable to access their house during the morning and evening rush when everyone is tied up trying to get onto or off the base through the three access points, but anytime they want to have a civie, or off base, friend over for dinner, they need to phone the guardhouse with the name of their guest otherwise they will be held at the gate while the phone call is made to you…and don’t forget they all have to have valid photo ID.  These are all measures which can be taken, and have been in the past, to make our bases and PMQs secure fortresses insulated from the world outside but it comes at a a very high cost, higher than 99% of the people affected are willing to pay.

The question then becomes, what is actually required to guard location “X” against threat “Y”?  The mechanism to do this is via a process called a Threat and Risk assessment which systematically assesses the likely threats and the probable risks.  It then lays it all out for the Commanders so they can make an informed decision about what resources they are willing to devote to security given the perceived threats and judged risks and the local MP advisor presents COAs for various options, some of which are obvious when implemented and some of which are not.  This is not done in isolation by the CF but brings in all the players, local and national.  Sometimes the Commander’s final assessment is that he is in agreement with everything and sometimes they aren’t, but at the end of the day the security posture and resources devoted to security is a Commander’s decision, not a MP one and sometimes they have to make hard choices.

BTW, you probably don’t realize it but MPs pulling cars over for going 5 km/h over the speed limit IS a security measure as the vehicle and driver are then ID’d and entered into our system and it gives the MP a LEGAL means of conducting a close inspection of the vehicle and its visible contents and occupants without the requirement to tie a MP up at the front gate 24/7.  Of course, this is clearly one of those not so obvious security measures that you find irksome; I’d hate to think what you’d be saying if you had to leave for work 30 mins early in order to ensure you made it through the front gate in time for duty like happened after 9/11.

 

[garb811]

So with all this big 'M' little 'p' stuff I keep hearing about that many CF members think the military police should emphasize, what exactly do you mean? 

I obviously can't speak for anyone but me, particularly since I'm one of the Branch, but my experience has been that this is in reference to those in the Branch who are so focused on the Police Ops aspect of the job that they start to look, act and think like they THINK our civilian counterparts do and forget that they are, first and foremost members of the CF.  This manifests itself in many ways; disregard/disrespect for rank and the CofC, noncompliance with the dress code when there is no operational reason to do so, open disdain for and outright avoidance of non-police related tasks and duties, failure to learn and respect the roles, history and traditions of the remainder of the CF etc.  I even attended a MP funeral where the person giving the eulogy proudly declared the deceased member was a "small M big P" MP fully aware of the connotations of that statement... 

This isn't necessarily a bad thing in some respects (ie. rank has no place in the interview room) but when carried too far, it alienates the members of the Branch from the community we serve.  This happens at all levels, all the way up to the CFPM in days past when one of them had the declared goal to make us a "police force" vice the Security Branch and lost sight of the other services the Branch and its members provide to the CF and it's members.  It has also been my observation that the longer one stays in, the more balanced the Mp/mP internal debate becomes and the member ends up in the true realm of the MP, a specialist member of the profession of arms.  Personally, from that standpoint I felt "Security Branch" was an apt name for our Branch as it reflected all the aspects of our trade where as "Military Police Branch" emphasises the Pol Ops function, IMHO.

The current Ops in Afghanistan has brought the pendulum back a little ways as I think most people in the Branch realize that no matter where you serve you better be able to operate in cooperation with the remainder of the CF as your life may depend on it one day.  Other developments, like the decision to send all MP on the PLQ(L) no matter what the uniform will help to institutionalize it a little bit, but until the recruiting and training system are changed, it is going to be an ongoing problem as the young guys come out of the Academy looking to kick some ass and take some names...but that's a problem which dates from the formation of the Branch I would guess.

 

[QV]

The phrase "soldier first, trade second" could be applied to every trade.  So if that is the case then a company of cooks should be brought together and trained to provide force protection for the next deployment - they could take a couple of cooks from every base to make up the numbers.  They won't cook anything, they will spend the entire tour providing force protection and running the routes.  Would this be wrong?  

Historically 'field' duties included:

POW handling - this I can see continuing because handling people in custody is a police related duty
Route signing - not really applicable anymore, however it was a traffic control related duty which police usually handle

And I really can't think of anything else.  So if there are any long serving, or not, MPs out there who could add to this, please feel free.  

garb811

Just caught your post.  Good post.  A couple of points though.  Our whole trade is based around providing police services to the property and personnel we....well... police.  The QL3 is all about policing.  The national MPPTP (policy and technical procedures for those that don't know) is all based on police duties and authorities - the what, when, where, why and how of the existance of our trade.  Every base has a guardhouse staffed with members assigned to provide police services and we have national assets dedicated to that (NIS, Spin Team...PS/MPCC).  Just like any other police service, our meat and potatoes is providing this police service.  Everyone (well 95%) starts out on patrols and for the most part will probably always be back in the police aspect after a stint in the field or NCIU sooner or later.     

When you mention the rank vs authority thing or that some members have alienated our branch from the community we serve, I suggest that this is a personality thing specific to individuals.  That sentiment can go both ways.  Poeple in any community are critical of the police no matter what, mostly as I am sure you know, because of enforcement action the police take.  Whether it be a stupid parking ticket or arrests for something more serious.  Hell, even I wonder "wtf does this guy want" when there is a patrol car tailing me in the city. 

You mentioned that the pendulum is swinging back because of Afghanistan.  I disagree.  IMHO the pendulum has not moved back but it is going in a new direction.  Because I believe the MPs have been re-tasked and reassigned new roles in Afghanistan that MPs never have done before. 

IMHO someone has to provide the police services to the military communities.  And MPs have been doing it all along, nothing has changed there.     

 

[garb811]

Indeed "soldier first, trade second" could be applied to every trade and in all cases in a Bde, it is.  You are a mechanic and get posted to 1 Svc Bn and you are expected to be able to perform the full scope of field duties, up to and including Pl attacks...I don't recall them practicing at the Coy level at least, maybe someone who was actually posted to the unit could clarify.  This including being able to man LPs/OPs, conduct Recce Patrols, defensive ops...with the full scope of weapons available to a non-combat arms unit.  This is because 1 Svc Bn was part of the Bde RAS (Rear Area Security) plan and they were ordered by the Bde Comd to develop and maintain those skills as part of their yearly training cycle.  They worked hard at doing it and the Bde didn't hesitate to test them, I even remember 3 PPCLI doing a heliborne assault onto 1 Svc Bn during one Bde Ex.  Further to that, if the mech is working at his primary function and the unit gets bumped, he doesn't merrily keep on turning the wrench, he moves to his defensive position and assumes the role of soldier.  A coy of Infantry wasn't normally detached to provide protection to CSS units, they were expected to perform that task themselves, including keeping the surrounding area clear.  If a Bn or Recce Sqn was in reserve they could be tasked to augment the RAS plan but primarily, the Bde plan was that the CSS units took care of the rear areas so the Cbt Arms could concentrate on the main event.

Extrapolate that to 1 MP Pl and guess what, 1 MP Pl was part of the RAS plan as well.  The level of training and testing for this role varied over the years but some of my peers who were posted to 1 MP Pl off our 3's "fondly" recount their time posted to "1 More Patricia Platoon" due to the Bde Comd at the time having the expectation that they would have the ability to perform those functions and they trained to achieve that.  Fast forward to today and the fluid situation in Afghanistan and suddenly, the training for the RAS role doesn't seem so out to lunch anymore.  In theatre, EVERYONE has to be able to perform the function of a soldier and the idea that MP should not have to do this is ludicrous and stems, in part, I believe from the exclusion of MP from normal base duties, notwithstanding that this is really only supposed to apply to those on shift and their immediate supervisors, investigators or already on a MP duty roster.  I know quite a few MPs had a lip on when they were tasked to the kitchen on Ex because it was beneath them to do that sort of work and they were not supposed to do "duties".

So, moving to historical "field" duties...I'll have to dig out my bush cap and see if I can remember them all...oh, wait, I can sum it up...every MP duty was a field duty.  This is a problem in the Branch, nowhere are our "roots" taught to those joining the Branch and people really have no idea of where the Branch has come from, they simply look at it today and assume that this is how it always has been.  Going all the way back, the C Pro C was primarily about supporting the Army in the field and maintaining the Army as a fighting force (aka Force Protection).  The initial reason Provosts did Criminal Investigations and General Policing Duties was to maintain discipline and by maintaining discipline, they kept soldiers in their units vice having them cool their heels in the digger.  That is why the digger was so strict and the routine so harsh...it had to be worse than remaining with their unit, otherwise guys would simply commit a crime to avoid combat.  Because Provosts required this ability in the zone of operations, it also quite nicely allowed them to provide this service outside the zone of operations as well.  Currently we call this domestic policing, back then it was simply providing Force Protection by ensuring as many bayonets made it to the zone of conflict as possible.

Move a few years forward and the role hadn't changed all that much.  When 1 MP Pl was in Calgary, the CO was also the B Secur O and the Pl manned the guardhouse and the actual field Pl.  Guys were swapped around freely, one day you're on patrols then you'd get a phone call at home and be on your way to Wainwright for three months the next morning.  In Edmonton, things changed as the Pl was no longer responsible for the guardhouse but with the manning issues in Wainwright, Suffield and the other training areas, the Pl provided/provides the full spectrum of MP support.  Believe it or not, the majority of these tasks relate to Force Protection.  This included Police Ops which covered the gamut from Investigations to discipline patrols which, surprise, surprise, was essentially doing what MP do in the PMQ patch but in the field; Mobility Ops which covered route recces, route signing, TCPs, straggler and refugee control, enforcement of light lines...; Security Ops which could be anything from conducting security surveys for special temporary facilities, providing vital point security, providing escort for VIPs and high value assets; and finally, Detention Ops which also spanned the realm from PWs to custory of CF personnel should the need arise.  And at the end of the day, unless you were involved in a "No Duff" and simply reacting to Exercise input, if the poop hit the fan, you became a soldier first and specialist second.

I've referred a few times to Force Protection so I'll now clarify my interpretation of the term and how it applies to the Military Police Branch.  The primary goal of Force Protection should be to ensure a fighting force retains its effectiveness and ability to fight by reducing non-combat losses as far as possible.  Not the official definition but it'll do for this.  How does Force Protection apply to roles conducted by the MP Branch?  Police Ops retains combat effectiveness by helping commanders maintain discipline through the deterrence, detection and investigation of crimes by service members both domestically and overseas.  This ensures commanders have the most bayonets possible by reducing the number of members who are sentenced/released for disciplinary reasons while also helping to ensure that undisciplined members are identified and either given the incentive to improve their discipline though punishment if convicted, re-trained through a stint in the digger if so required or, if the CO so decides, released as unsuitable for further service.  Domestically this includes provision of Police Services to military member's families who reside on base and this is also a Force Protection issue because if the member is deployed and concerned about the safety and security of their family, their mind is not 100% on their primary task and this could get themself or others killed AND it allows us, the MP, to gain and maintain the skillsets we require to perform the Pol Ops function while deployed.  Mobility Ops is a force protection measure because providing these functions enables a Commander to concentrate their force through mobility while reducing loses due to lost drivers, congestion on the routes etc.  Some say mobility ops are going the way of the Dodo due to the wonders of GPS and the experience in Afghanistan.  To those I would respectfully point out that every member of the combat arms is still taught basic map and compass for the day their GPS fails (or the Chinese take the entire system out) and we cannot simply throw away a skillset due to the experience of one theatre of operations.  If this was the case, we'd be in a world of trouble when it came to detainees in Afghanistan because we certainly didn't utilize that skill set very often in the Balkans, particularly in the latter years.  Security Ops should be self evident and Detention Ops, by providing the ultimate disincentive to commit crime, should be as well..the fact we can also hold the bad guys is gravy.

So what does that really mean in today's context?  When Samson started her transformation of the Branch in the mid-90’s it coincided with the impact of the general downsizing of the CF.  Samson’s goal was to professionalize the provision of Police Ops by the Branch.  That was fine however, in doing so she threw the baby out with the bath water and lost sight of the raison d’être of the Branch – to support the CF in the conduct of its operations.  By becoming so narrowly focused on the provision of domestic policing she completely dismissed and disregarded (and belittled) the fact that the Branch had a mandate for three other functions other than Police Ops and she also conveniently ignored the fact that the Branch still needed to be able to perform the Police Ops task while deployed.  FRP didn't help either because it encouraged ASD in the guardhouses, generally by hiring Commissionaires to do jobs formely done by MP such as Ident, Security Surveys, Evidence Custodian etc etc.  The problem is, who does this when we deploy and where do they get the experience to do it from??  Commanders love the fact that we can provide professional domestic policing, they really do, but the fact that the Branch has reached to the point that we are really unable to operate in a Operational Zone gives them, particularly the Army Commanders, a huge problem.  The expectation is that the Branch will conduct Security, Mobility and Detention Ops in the Zone of Operations, not simply Police Ops and, in line with the RAS concept discussed previously, that MP will be able to operate independently and provide their own protection.  If we can’t do that, we’re a huge liability because SOMEONE still has to provide those services and if its not the MP Branch, who will it be and if those are tasked to someone else, the MP Branch is going to really become irrelevant because, as many others are quick to point out here, there are a bunch of options out there for the domestic policing role.  Although usually applied to the concept of Universality of Service in relation to an individual, the saying also applies to an element of the CF, "If it's not deployable, it's not employable" and the Army will lead a push to disband the Branch and form a Branch which is capable of meeting the obligations of the deployed roles while dropping the domestic policing function.  I don't think this would be entirely successful but it has been an issue which has reared its ugly head in the past, with some Base Commanders go so far as to get quotes from civilian police agencies to ASD the domestic policing mandate.  This was headed off by Ottawa but it shows that some Commanders believe its a viable option.

The chickens have finally come home to roost with the CF is demanding the Branch fulfill all of its roles and the Branch is struggling to make it happen due to the domestic policing focus of not only the Branch, but many individuals at all rank levels.  I would also note that the current Branch leadership seems to think that ensuring the survivability of MP in theatre is an Army problem and not a Branch one and if the Army isn’t happy with the standard of the MPs who are tasked for the Roto it is their issue to deal with and fund?  And this coming from the same guys who want to assume complete command and control of all MP.  Whose problem would it be then?

Do you get the feeling that I completely disagree with your contention that our meat and potatoes is provision of the police service domestically?  And…did you ever stop to think that perhaps the minimum manning levels of the guardhouses is directly tied into the requirement to provide security and response to sensitive and attractive assets housed on the base, to the requirement to provide a “police” response or a combination of both?  Think about it and ask around the senior members of your guardhouse…

Anyways, way too long yet again but I’d like to close with this quote from the footnotes of a paper submitted by a senior officer in the Branch to CFC entitled Governance of the Canadian Forces Military Police:

In 2001, the Security Branch would be renamed Military Police Branch as a better reflection of the occupation’s function.

It’s nice the Branch sees that as our primary function, unfortunately I think the rest of the CF expects something different and this is reflected in the fact that we officially retain every role we had pre-Samson (less the conduct of investigations in support of the security clearance programme), notwithstanding attempts by the Branch to ignore them.

Oh, ref the national MPPTP, you should also know that there is a corresponding document for field ops, the MP insert to the Army's Unit SOP green book.  You can find it on the Army Electronic Library on the DWAN.  Have a read, it'll be quite enlightening.

 

[c_canuk]

garb811,

that was very enlightening, thank you for that information.

I feel that the disregarding of soldier first trade second is a bit of a cancer that needs stomping out in all the support trades, an argument that I've had with some of my fellow Sigs in the past, I think your explanation was most elegant and articulate in expressing the need for every uniform to be able to perform basic soldiering duties.

 

[QV]

Wow, that was quite the post.
For clarification I never meant that MP primary role was providing policing services domestically only, although I see how it could be construed that way.  So to clarify I meant the MPs primary role is providing policing services to the CF everywhere including theatre of operations.

The MPs are more jack-of-all trades then any other support trade that I have seen and again, my opinion only, this makes it very difficult to excell at anything.  Take for example the latest MPs training for deployment.  A number of them are being delayed in deploying now because they have been completely re-roled at the last minute and now have another month or two of extra pre-deployment training to learn how to operate new equipment.  What a waste of a good part of the first 7 (?) months of pre-deployment training.  On the topic of primary roles, I agree that every CF support trade member MUST be able to revert to soldier skills when required, but I am also saying support trades should be primarily employed in their normal role in order to support the mission.     

IMHO it appears to me that the branch is overstretched and over tasked.  Sooner or later something is going to give.  Like I have said before I really think the branch needs to focus more on one direction.  Whether it be providing police services in Canada and abroad for the CF or whether it be providing Force Protection services (and losing the policing thing altogether).  I wish the branch would choose a direction and focus, because I don't think we will ever really excell at both. 

Part of the problem I suspect is the command and control structure for MPs.  The Army, Air Force, Navy, and CFPM office are all pulling us in different directions constantly and they all have different ideas on what they want out of MPs and how they want it.  There are only a little over 1100 of us.       
 
Another thing that bothers me a lot is that there is zero branch history taught at the academy whatsoever.  But that is another topic on another day.
   
garb811 put together a real good post and it is definately food for thought.  Thanks for the two links by the way. 

 

[garb811]

A combat capable MP trained to the standard expected by the Army is a bonus to the Air Force and Navy due to the increased capabilities they bring to the table in the Port Protection and Airfield Protection roles, they just fail to recognize that.

I, personally, think the major problem is the CFPM is out of step with what our major employers expect of us.  At this point in time, the Army is the main game in town and its up to the Branch to adjust to providing the services they are demanding.  I do not believe the solution to the problem is to bring all MP under the CFPM, doing so is simply going to bring the focus even tighter in on Police Ops to the detriment of our other 3 roles.

Finally, I see no problem with retaining all 3 roles, they are not mutually exclusive and in many ways share many of the same skillsets.  Unfortunately I don't think the CFPM organization is currently organized to be able to give those three roles the same level of interest and support as it gives Police Ops.  This "might" change if they were suddenly accountable for all MP and all associated TTPs but I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[RHC_2_MP]

As has been stated before, wouldn't a simple solution, in keeping with the CFPM's Retention working group's mission statement, " ensure the Military Police remains an employer of choice",  separate the branch into two trades, domestic policing and field ops.  Or further still, to negate the military C of C influence in policing duties, cut the domestic policing from the CF all together and create the DND Police Service, as some of the fire houses did.  That way we would gain more relevance in our fellow LEO eyes across Canada and no longer would there be a hassle to get MPs on tour as you would most certainly know what your getting yourself into when you sign up for CFMP set specific for the field. 

 

[FastEddy]

As has been stated before, wouldn't a simple solution, in keeping with the CFPM's Retention working group's mission statement, " ensure the Military Police remains an employer of choice",  separate the branch into two trades, domestic policing and field ops.  Or further still, to negate the military C of C influence in policing duties, cut the domestic policing from the CF all together and create the DND Police Service, as some of the fire houses did.  That way we would gain more relevance in our fellow LEO eyes across Canada and no longer would there be a hassle to get MPs on tour as you would most certainly know what your getting yourself into when you sign up for CFMP set specific for the field.   

You mean just like the proposed two tier Medical System ?, you must be out of your mind.

I strongly agree with Soldier First, Specialist Second. Every MP as in days of old, should and must be able to pick up his Sten and defend the Perimeter.

CFPM's should be raised from the Ranks of the Branch, we should stop raising Lt.Col's mostly from Infantry Units or someone who's ready to get booted up. (that's not to say they aren't excellent Soldiers and qualified in the their respective field). You wouldn't make a Tanker a Surgeon General.

They sure have come a long way from the days when a MP, could and had to Police, Patrol, Sign, Investigate, Interrogate, Arrest, Confine,Convoy Escort, Security, Discipline and Traffic Control and be a Soldier when ever and where ever. If Deployment workups are required then get them done like any other Units are.

Over the years, the MP has been Butchered, Nit Picked and Fracture enough. Keep it up and you won't have to worry about retention.

Its strange, I've noticed every Tom, Dick and Harry feels free to suggest, recommend and advise on the MP  Branch, but unless I've missed it, I've haven't seen a MP being critical or recommending Organizational procedures for the Infantry, Artillery or Armoured.

 

[Shamrock]

As has been stated before, wouldn't a simple solution, in keeping with the CFPM's Retention working group's mission statement, " ensure the Military Police remains an employer of choice",  separate the branch into two trades, domestic policing and field ops.  Or further still, to negate the military C of C influence in policing duties, cut the domestic policing from the CF all together and create the DND Police Service, as some of the fire houses did.  That way we would gain more relevance in our fellow LEO eyes across Canada and no longer would there be a hassle to get MPs on tour as you would most certainly know what your getting yourself into when you sign up for CFMP set specific for the field.  

Like the RCMP?

 

[garb811]

RHC_2_MP: 

You're ignoring the fact that to the rest of the CF, the fact that we can do domestic policing and look after Police Ops on the base is a valued added task, it is not the primary reason for the Branch.  Even in the guardhouses, domestic policing is not the driving factor in how minimum shift manning is calculated which should tell you something.  The MP Branch, like every other CS/CSS Branch, exists to support CF operations at home and abroad.  If we do split, who is going to do Police Ops while deployed, domestically and abroad?  Do we contract that out to a civilian agency?  What happens when nobody is willing to take it on?  Is it going to be the "Field MP"?  If so, where are they going to hone and maintain the Police Ops skill sets?  Further, what value is there to the CF for the 2-300 positions that would be dedicated solely to domestic policing and why not simply do away with the domestic Police Ops role and free those positions up for other trades?

The simplest way to make sure new MP know what they are getting themselves into is to stop feeding them the lines of bullshit at CFRCs, MPAC and CFMPA and tell them the true story.  The recruiting video is an excellent example.  The first line is "A career with Canada's Military Police is a job in law enforcement providing policing, investigative and security services to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces..." From that point on, the prospective recruit isn't going to hear anything but "cop, cop, cop..." and although there are a few images of MP in the field (normally doing TC wearing high-vis vests emblazoned "Police"), 99.8% of the narration and images are Police Ops focused.  They should be selling the fact that we're cops who are soldiers and THAT is what should make us the employer of choice for folks who are up for that; the fact we are more than simply a small town cop with opportunities and possibilities that civie cops will never have unless they join the Reserves.  We need to stop going after people who want to be cops and go after the people who want to be a soldier who is also a cop with the unique challenges and opportunites that brings. 

Finally, who gives a flying fart what the civilian LEO think of us.  We have our mandate, they have theirs and I certainly don't have any penis envy when I look at the 43 year old constable duking it out in the Byward Market with the 18 year old dirt bag.  I suppose if your whole purpose in life is to do a lateral transfer then, yeah, it is important that our civilian counterparts count us as equals.  If your goal is to be the best MP possible, it really shouldn't be an issue and I certainly didn't lose any sleep over it back when I was a Pte.

I do agree that there is scope for specialization within the Branch, such as making NIS a sub-Branch much like used to happen with the C Pro C and the RMP do today but in a Branch our size, there are some pretty big cons to going that route.

FastEddy:

The CFPM does come from within the Branch and I believe this has been the case since Unification.

Edit:  Deleted extraneous word

 

[RHC_2_MP]

garb811:

Well as the branch has evolved, the domestic side of the house has been moved to the forefront, I'm not the one who created the recruiting video or gave the retention working group their mandate, but if that's what the CFPM wants, then that's the way we're headed.  The idea of splitting the trade is to allow for the field MPs to concentrate on all the skill sets required for their job, you don't need a polygraph expert or breath tech overseas just as you don't need some patrolman that's gunner qualified.  The field MPs would be the ones deploying with the troops while the domestic force would be dedicated to all the "big P" side of the house.  It would allow the branch to train its troops more effectively for their trade.  As for the domestic policing side of it, contracted civy cops wouldn't touch half of the files we get with a ten foot pole, such as somebody's missing ID card or someone told his CO to go f*** himself.  So if the CF desired the same quality of service, it would require a dedicated domestic policing force, i.e. my suggestion for a DND police service, staffed by cops who are outside the CF.  So that, let's just say if one day the Base RSM was arrested for Impaired, he couldn't take revenge out on the member or the det...don't say it doesn't happen, because I've seen it first hand!

In terms of trying to recruit cops as opposed to troops that sometimes are cops; a separate trade would alleviate the whole debate because you know when you sign up your either a cop or a troop.  Finally as for the civy LEO thing, I worded my prior post poorly, as MPs, we are viewed by provincial governments along the lines of let's say CN police and therefore we don't require the need to enforce certain provincial regulations because the majority view of MPs is we're not really police.  In that lies the problem because, as the CN police don't seem to have a requirement to enforce the mental health act or other provincial regulations (this has since changed), I do and have had to on occasion, but was unable to detain anyone under its regulation because I was not recognised as a peace officer, among other examples.  A theoretical, dedicated domestic ops police force would be nationally recognised as peace officers and therefore be allowed all the tools a civilian police force is allowed to use in their respective provinces.  Is essence our being viewed as lesser police has rendered some of our MPs partially impotent, dependant on their respective postings.   

 

[garb811]

You're right, domestic policing HAS moved to the forefront but only in the mind of the Branch.  Unfortunately, the rest of the leadership of the CF doesn't see it this way.  They like the fact that we can provide a professional level of policing domestically but their primary concern is that the Branch can support the CF while on Ops.  This is why the Guardhouses are being stripped bare to meet the demand for MPs in theatre as opposed to the theatre going short to allow the Guardhouses to remain at full strength.  It is also why positions in the field Pls are Pri 1 for manning while those in most guardhouses are Pri 3. 

Further, the CF leadership expects MPs in theatre to be able to perform as both soldiers and police, depending on the task at hand.  You are aware that the Armed Forces Council has ordered that ALL MP regardless of uniform or element they are serving with will take the PLQ(L) from this point on, right?  I’m pretty sure this isn’t because Armed Forces Council expects the PLQ(L) to enhance the policing skills of MP…  Same goes for MPO, there’s a reason all MPO take CAP no matter what the uniform.

I’m not really sure how the RWG is relevant in this issue.  I certainly don’t remember anything in the RWG proposals which recommended shedding all but the domestic Police Ops task.

Polygraphers have been into theatre.

I personally know a MP who processed a Base Commander for impaired and obtained a conviction with 0 repercussions.  I’m highly sceptical that a Base RSM was actually willing or able to take any sort of revenge on the MP due to the mechanisms in place to prevent this and his extremely limited authority over the MP in questions.  If the Base RSM did, something went wrong on a number of different fronts and the young MP should be laying a formal complaint or three.

The problems you are citing WRT Provincial statutes have absolutely nothing to do with our being or not being recognized as a “police force” and in fact, being a “federal” police force only makes the situation harder to resolve.  The problem stems from the fact that Provincial statutes have no/no application to Defence Establishments because Defence Establishments are only legally subject to Federal statutes.  If an enabling Federal Statute or Regulation does not exist, such as the Contraventions Act or GPTRs, you are legally unable to enforce the Provincial law.  Two other options are MP being specifically mentioned in the Provincial statute as being eligible to enforce the statute (which is ulnikely since it would empower MP to enforce that statute throughout the province) or they are empowered as Special Constables in that specific province in relation to a very specific set of circumstances.  That is why things like GPTRs exist and that is why you write traffic tickets pursuant to GPTRs vice the Provincial Highway Traffic Act.  If it makes you feel any better, RCMP face the same restrictions we do which is why they have to be appointed Special Constables in Ottawa in order to enforce the Ontario HTA while not on Federal property.

You still haven’t articulated how you expect field MP to gain and maintain the Police Ops skill sets required for overseas deployments in your proposed split.

I’m not really sure why people are having a hard time accepting the fact that you can be a competent soldier AND a competent police officer at the same time.  There are numerous civilian LEO on these forums who are members of the reserves in Cbt Arms units and they manage to pull off both.  Noneck, Gate Guard and zipperhead_cop spring immediately to mind.

Finally, everyone who signs on the line as Military Police should be fully aware that they aren’t joining OPS, CPS or the RCMP and there will be more to their job than just riding around in the shiny white patrol car.  If they aren’t aware of that, they certainly haven’t’ done their homework and deserve to be surprised when they have to do their time in a non-Police Ops position.

 

[Future Prodigy]

I am a bit confused as to what the exact roles of the MP’s are within the Canadian Forces. There seems to be no commonly held definition of what their roles are. The role stated by Kurhaus, in an older thread, was that the MP’s role is “to support commanders on operations by conducting Mobility Ops, Police Ops, Security Ops and Detention Ops." This seems in line with what the forces.ca website says:

WHAT THEY DO
Military Police with the Canadian Forces (CF) serve a community of 200,000 Regular and Reserve Force members, Department of National Defence (DND) civilian employees, cadets, and family members residing on military establishments in Canada and abroad. Whether at home on CF bases or abroad on international missions, Military Police, in conjunction with civilian and allied military police forces, protect and support all components of the CF. With over 1,250 full-time members, they form one of the largest police forces in Canada.

The international scope of the CF requires that Military Police provide services in Canada and around the world. All Canadian citizens are entitled to the same rights, privileges and protection under Canadian law, and Military Police are qualified to provide these services to the same standard as every other Canadian police service. Military Police routinely function within the civilian criminal and military justice systems, and are recognised as peace officers in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Specific tasks of Military Police may include:
•  Supporting CF missions around the world, by providing policing and operational support
•  Enforcing provincial and federal laws and regulations on DND establishments
•  Investigating and reporting incidents involving military and/or criminal offences
•  Performing other policing duties, such as traffic control, traffic-accident investigation, emergency response, and liaison with Canadian, allied and other foreign police forces
•  Developing and applying crime prevention measures to protect military communities against criminal acts
•  Coordinating tasks related to persons held in custody (including military detainees and prisoners of war)
•  Providing security at selected Canadian embassies around the world
•  Providing service to the community through conflict mediation, negotiation, dispute resolution, public relations and victim assistance

However, after reading a thread posted by Infanteer about" MPs or Provost" (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29313.0.html) the roles seem to have become once again unclear.

 

[chris_log]

How is the recruiting site explanation not specific enough?

 

[Future Prodigy]

Because other threads which discuss the roles of MP's such as the one listed, say otherwise. There does not seem to be a consensus.

 

[dantheman]

Specific tasks of Military Police may include:
•  Supporting CF missions around the world, by providing policing and operational support

to what extent are MP's soldiers? in what capactity do they serve as fighting units? I always thought they were strictly cops whose jurisdiction was the military

 

[leroi]

Because other threads which discuss the roles of MP's such as the one listed, say otherwise. There does not seem to be a consensus.

Future Prodigy, that's a long time to be in "existentiel crisis" as you claimed to be last year over the same career choice topic.

You may not get black and white answers here because this forum is not an absolute authority for the Canadian Forces. It's a discussion forum. You may get good opinions and nuances of meaning in answer to your questions--if you're respectful and not overly demanding.

If you re-read Infanteer's comments in the thread you cited, you'll note he was thoughtfully re-considering or re-visioning the role of MP. He was not making a definitive, absolute claim about the role of MP. He was carefully examining a premise.

I just did a keyword search in the tri-university trellis library system (Waterloo, Guelph and WL) for "Canadian Forces Military Police" and got 9976 hits--of course that search needs to be refined.

Nvertheless, the words you cut and paste WRT the role of MP make the role seem clear to me.

 

[chris_log]

Because other threads which discuss the roles of MP's such as the one listed, say otherwise. There does not seem to be a consensus.

I shouldn't be doing this since I ain't an MP (was a wannabe once though). The threads here are merely discussion forums for ideas while the DND material is official material detailing their actual roles. So, using that university educated brain of yours you should be able to differentiate between discussion (i.e. posts here) and what they actually do (via official DND publications).

 

[Future Prodigy]

Future Prodigy, that's a long time to be in "existentiel crisis" as you claimed to be last year over the same career choice topic.

- I feel honored that you remember my posts. To answer your sarcasm, I have resolved much of my existential crises. I have firmly decided on policing and fire fighting after numerous discussions with professors and people in those trades. I am getting refractive surgery done soon and hope to help out the community, and make a difference via that route, as a fire fighter or police officer.

I just did a keyword search in the tri-university trellis library system (Waterloo, Guelph and WL) for "Canadian Forces Military Police" and got 9976 hits--of course that search needs to be refined.

- That is partially incorrect. If you look at the trellis system you will see that there is only one book on the history of the MPs by Andrew Rictchie-  "1  Canada--Armed forces--Military police--History " -  and which I have put on recall so as to read more into it. There are documents by the military police and there governing bodies but not history ones.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I too am unfamiliar with the roles of soldiering within the MP trade - in relation to the comment posted by dantheman. I talked to the recruiter and she basically made the job sound like a police career as well. After having read other peoples posts though I understand there is quite a large chunk of soldiering one can do as well. How does this factor into the roles? I am just trying to 'discuss' and broaden my knowledge base, and get a better understanding of what MPs do. I started a previous thread where the answer was simply jurisdiction but other posters have posted a lot about the soldiering side of the coin and i would like to hear more on this. (If i come across disrespectful or overly demanding, I do not mean to. That is one of the problems with internet communication. I am just blunt and to the point)