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

[redleafjumper]

Blackhorse7, the only opportunity that I am aware of for a serving RCMP member to be in the reserves at the same time as being an RCMP officer is to take a commission and become a Cadet Instructor's Cadre officer.  I know of a few who have gone this route and enjoyed it.  The rules allowing this changed a few years back to the benefit of several RCMP members and cadet corps.

 

[Blackhorse7]

That's not quite what I mean.  No offence to Cadets that post in here, but being in a theatre of Combat Ops is more along the line of what I was looking at.  Not teaching drill and advocating birth control.  Which, before the cadets raise an uproar, is exactly what I was already doing as a Reserve instructor of cadets...

 

[Zoomie]

<snip> "I should be allowed to be in the RCMP AND the Reserves at the same time."

How about the reverse?  I tried to join the Auxillary and they told me that my being in the Regular Force would pre-empt me from being a member of their volunteer corps.  All I wanted to do was carry an asp and pepper spray - bugger! 

 

[Michael Shannon]

MP attendance at RCMP Depot is not the answer to MP failings. It is lack of volume of criminal files after training that separates experienced investigators from people who done the "course".  The real training for the RCMP is done in the field not in Regina.

    A few posts have talked about how there are 25 MPs on a base that the RCMP would station 3 or 4 members at. Do the math the volume of work for a civilian cop is 6-8 times greater than an MP. Add to that better (lower?) quality of the client base for the RCMP and after a few years the RCMP pull away from in terms of experience.

 

[childs56]

My thoughts are if they train them at Depot then they could also employ them in the local area helping with crimes and such. That way the MP's keep current with their skill sets. Plus it would be an added bonus to the local police force to have more members to assist. Just a thought. 

 

[GO!!!]

CTD,

Interesting - you are proposing that we train the MPs to the same standard as the RCMP, then loan them to civy forces in order to get their experience levels up.

We already do this with medics working at hospitals - I can't think why it would'nt work to create a higher quality police officer.

How would you address the (percieved) lack of field skills though?

Of course, this would imply that we would need to screen MPs as vigourously as RCMP candidates though, and that standards that the RCMP demand (fitness etc.) would have to be adhered to.

 

[childs56]

The screening of MP's should already be very vigouris as they do up hold the law, if their is any concern for them not meeting the criteia for the RCMP then maybe we need to look at the whole sysytem. After all they are police officers.

As for the field skills. Their should be field postings and also base postings as their are in other trades. That way they can be employed in all capacities.

Or go as far as to seperate the trade and make a field position and a garrison position. Knowing how small our force is, that would be difficult to do, but doable. I mean how many more applicants would join if they went to the RCMP training center and had the same level of training. I can think of a few that would right now.

 

[McG]

Interesting - you are proposing that we train the MPs to the same standard as the RCMP, then loan them to civy forces in order to get their experience levels up.

If we could afford to loan MPs to serve in civilian forces, would that not imply that we have a surplus capacity in the number of MPs?

If investigative experience is a problem for MPs, and replacing base MP dets with RCMP is not an option, why not include RCMP in the MP det?  Michael Shannon's hypothetical 25 per base MP Pl would become 22 MP and 3 RCMP.

Or go as far as to seperate the trade and make a field position and a garrison position.

If the MPs could be split into field and garrison MOSs, couldn't the garrison MP duties be filled by a civilian police force?

 

[S McKee]

some really good posts, here. It hasn't changed my mind in any way, but the information is appreciated.

Question for ya, though. You say that the MP training not being accepted by civil LEOs is a myth. Why then, did the local RCMP office and EPS office both tell me that no later than last month?

I never said that MP training is being accepted at par with civilian forces for members switching over, however it has happen in the past with Calgary, Winnipeg the OPP and other smaller forces. EPS and the RCMP have their own rules and regulations regarding recruitment.

 

[S McKee]

It's obvious that a number of members on this form are grossly misinformed about the capability and role of the Military Police. It is also obvious from the tone of some of the posts that a number have an "axe to grind" and don't think we are real soldiers. First before I comment my background: I have operational tours with the UN and NATO as a Military Policeman, NIS and War Crimes Investigator. I have 6 years in the CFNIS and during my tour was seconded to the RCMP GIS and Major Crime unit here in Edmonton. I have field experience (CAR)(and remuster from 011)   and base patrol experience as an MP all over the country. I have worked with several civilian police forces as a result of my job and I can tell you that in my 23 years I have never heard a disparaging word about the MPs from my civilian counterparts, once they have had an opportunity to work with us. So I feel I have a rather unique perspective on the Military Police and their capabilities in comparison with our civilian counterparts.

Seeing as the lower ranking members of the military are the people subjected to your conduct and behaviour on a daily basis, I feel that we have a unique perspective on MP issues and capabilities. Since the MPs do not release any statistical info about their success in preventing crime or successful charges, we are forced to rely on anecdotal evidence, which exists in abundance.

First I'll address the issue of professional competence, as this has been alluded to a few times with comments about unsolved crimes and MPs not doing their job. Most of these comments can be taken with a VERY large grain of salt, are allegorical in nature, and have no basis in fact. In fact most of the criticism of the branch comes not from other Police Dept's (who see us as extremely competent believe it or not) but from junior members in the CF who have very little knowledge or understanding of the concept of policing in the CF ,and have a hard time with Cpls issuing them traffic tickets. However, to be realistic all police forces have unsolved crimes and the RCMP are no better than the Military Police, probably worse, because unlike the RCMP, the military doesn't have to pay overtime and we can dedicate much more manpower and resources to a serious crime more so than they can.

How about this for â Å“professional competenceâ ? if we have such a Cadillac police force, why are they unable to prevent theft and vandalism of vehicles and recreational vehicles on bases? Why are they unable to keep the shacks from being hotboxed on the weekends? Why do such a large proportion of those charged with DUI by the MPs walk on a technicality? Why is there no access control onto the bases?   In Edmonton, there is only access control on the weekends â “ but not at all during the week â “ why can't the MPs secure the base 24/7? If manning became an issue, use the reservist MP's.

On to training, our QL 3 training encompasses 6 months plus a provisional employment program (probation). We have a code of conduct which we must abide by and a Military Police Complaints Commission (made up of civilians) where complaints can be made against military police or by military police who feel interference from the chain of command. We have the all the professional oversight, ethics and training that our civilian counterparts do. And in regards to professional competency; well we have a member training RCMP recruits at Depot in Regina at this very moment, and members seconded to the RCMP units across Canada. In the past we have also had members teach at the Canadian Police College. (So much for that myth).

And   members of my unit are completing the   assaulter crse right now. That does'nt mean that the Canadian Infantry Corps are superior. It means that we, like all other trades, have over â “ achievers. In addition to this, if you have all of the same trg as an RCMP officer, why are criminal investigations handed over to the NIS? And why is MP trg not recognised nationally as the equivalent of Civilian police forces?

Cost has been mentioned a few times. The RCMP would be vastly more expensive than the MP and bases would get less police coverage. Consider the base salary of an RCMP Constable (approaching $70,000) plus overtime, compare that to a Cpl. If a large base like Edmonton were to hand over policing to the RCMP the nearest detachment is in Morinville 20 min away. PMQ residents MAY, MAY see a Constable drive thru their area a couple of times a week, and that would only be to respond to a call (no proactive policing). The ratio of members to the civilian population is 1 constable to approx 1100 people. The static population of CFB Edmonton would be entitled to 1.5 -2 constables, vice an MP Det of 25. Simply put, PMQ residents and Base Commanders could expect a significant reduction in police service. (CFB Gagetown is a good example of this) No responce to barking dog complaints, prowlers, Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door, noise complaints, minor thefts, B&E's etc either. The CF has, to put it bluntly "Cadillac Policing Services" at this present time. Just to give you an example; recently here in Edmonton the Military Police solved the largest armed robbery in the area's history, which occurred at the Credit Union, the MP were on scene in minutes. The individual initially got away, however as a result of good police work, the MP caught the suspect, recovered almost all the money and solved several crimes for Edmonton City Police and the RCMP. The criminal's mistake: committing a robbery not in a little town with one RCMP member on duty but in a "little town"(CFB Edmonton) that could commit a task force of 25 MP plus the local NIS to solve the crime. The CF didn't have to pay overtime or worry about members getting time off etc.  

The costs associated with hiring the RCMP would be more than recovered by the costs of folding the MP trg system, and doing away with   MP chains of command. Also, consider that Cpls make 53K a year, and MPs receive a bonus on top of this, the salaries are close. Also, the infrastructure that the MPs receive on bases (MP shacks, crash trucks, new patrol cars every 2 years etc.) When consolidated with the RCMP would undoubtedly contain a savings of scale.

Another point that was raised; was that if we got rid of MP policing more of them could do what they were meant to do; PW handling and Route signing. That's part of our role however I've been in for 23 years and I haven't signed one route yet overseas, neither have I guarded huge PW cages or PWs at all for that manner. In fact in an operational theatre, it was my technical skills as a policeman that were requested by Commanders (solving crime)not my ability to pound routes signs into the ground. And once all the troops are in situ the MP revert to a policing role anyway, if you take the domestic policing role from them at home where will they get their experience?  

That is the problem. There are never enough MPs around who have the soldier skills (navigation, patrolling) to properly locate and sign the routes. As a result, the units do   it themselves. If the MPs were patrolling the routes, the investigations could be done by the RCMP. As for never having guarded a PW cage, we have'nt done Airborne or armoured Bde ops in 23 years either - it does'nt mean that we should'nt retain that ability.

Major Crime services was another point some mentioned a combination of NIS/RCMP. Again cost and manpower would be a limiting factor as many of the crimes that are investigated by the MP would not be considered serious enough by the RCMP to commit resources to. And other than the one RCMP Inspector seconded to the NIS thee RMCP have no desire to second members to the CF because of manning issues of their own. Plus their salaries would have to be paid by the CF (expensive)

If the crime is not considered serious enough for the RCMP to devote resources to, why are the MPs investigating at all? This sounds like a bit of a make work project to me... In addition, I doubt the MP/NIS Officer salaries are much less than an RCMP equivalent.

Someone mentioned that if the RCMP were policing they could charge CF members under the Criminal Code vice the NDA, well I've been doing that my whole career, MP testify in civil court all the time.   However we must realize that NDA exists for a reason; a tool for Commanders to instill discipline. I believe someone mentioned that NDA offences could be investigated by the unit, really? Would you want a member/officer of your own Regiment with a rudimentary knowledge of the law (at best) and your Charter Rights etc. investigating you? Or would you rather have an impartial third party who has training.

Well, we already have an officer of our regiment with â Å“rudimentaryâ ? knowledge DEFENDING us as an assisting officer, so why should we stack the investigators, but not the defence?

Finally (I have rambled on enough) one last comment I really take umbrage with the inferences by some members on this form that we (MP) are somehow not "real soldiers". I have very good friends who bombed up with the infantry in Afghanistan and accompanied them on a number of missions. As a member of the CAR, I and the other tradesmen jumped and carried the same equipment as the grunts so give me a break with all soldier stuff. Just because my fellow tradesmen wear a black uniform doesn't mean that their any less dedicated than the "real soldiers".

I was in A'stan in 2002, and I never once saw an Canadian MP other than at the front gate of the Canadian Biv.   Ditto on missions â “ and I participated in all but one as a rifleman. Not saying it did'nt happen, but I did'nt see any. In addition to this, The only time I have seen MPs at work on Bde or lower exercises is at the entrance to WATC camp from the trg area. I even saw an MP in his patrol car on red route once! I don't question the dedication of the MPs, I question the necessity of their trade, given the alternatives available.

I also take exception to your inference that the MPs are somehow â Å“more dedicatedâ ? than their civilian counterparts. Other than the unfortunate accident with the MP car being rear ended in Suffield last year, I can think of 6 Mounties killed in the line of duty in recent memory. I cant remember an MP being shot at or injured, or even being in a situation that there was a threat of it.

Also, MPs receive spec pay, do they not? What is the justification for this?

And, not to start too much of a pi$$ing match, but if you were in the Airborne, then would'nt you be a steel/whiteleafjumper?

[Moderator edit:   OPSEC - no numbers, locations.]

i]Seeing as the lower ranking members of the military are the people subjected to your conduct and behaviour on a daily basis, I feel that we have a unique perspective on MP issues and capabilities. Since the MPs do not release any statistical info about their success in preventing crime or successful charges, we are forced to rely on anecdotal evidence, which exists in abundance. [/i]

I'll try and answer your points:

There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence about UFOs, Big Foot and the Loch ness Monster, does that mean they exist? Limit your criticism to things that you know about not stories from "a friend of a friend." The CFPM does compile statistics annually (which are a matter of public record) and our statistics are included in national Crime Index Reporting.


How about this for â Å“professional competenceâ ? if we have such a Cadillac police force, why are they unable to prevent theft and vandalism of vehicles and recreational vehicles on bases? Why are they unable to keep the shacks from being hotboxed on the weekends? Why do such a large proportion of those charged with DUI by the MPs walk on a technicality? Why is there no access control onto the bases?   In Edmonton, there is only access control on the weekends â “ but not at all during the week â “ why can't the MPs secure the base 24/7? If manning became an issue, use the reservist MP's.

I can't really comment on the crime on base right now however the MP can't be everywhere all the time especially if the're manning the front gate as you suggest. I don't know where you are getting your stats regarding the number of people getting off with impaired driving. However, maybe you should ask the last Base Commander how his impaired charge went. Insofar as MP's at the gate, well there was Comm at the Gate 24/7 however the operating budget was cut by the ASG for that (Risk Management) which is a decision made by people with lots of bars on their shoulders not by the base MP. If you put reservists on the gate, who'll pay them and out of whose budget would that come out of? Maybe you should be sitting in on the base comptroller meetings. I have no idea what you mean by the shacks being "hotboxed" on the weekends.


And   members of my unit are completing the   assaulter crse right now. That does'nt mean that the Canadian Infantry Corps are superior. It means that we, like all other trades, have over â “ achievers. In addition to this, if you have all of the same trg as an RCMP officer, why are criminal investigations handed over to the NIS? And why is MP trg not recognised nationally as the equivalent of Civilian police forces?

Well the NIS are MPS, so serious/sensitive criminal investigations are sent to the MP in the NIS. The NIS was set up after the Somalia Affair to have an "arms length" investigative force for the CF. Our training is recognized by some civilian forces for members wishing employment with them. Consequently we don't recognize civilian police training for members transferring to the MP. I suppose I could ask you if your infantry training is recognized at par with a British Infmn or a US Infmn, would they take you without any crossover training. Does this make you less of an Infmn?

The costs associated with hiring the RCMP would be more than recovered by the costs of folding the MP trg system, and doing away with   MP chains of command. Also, consider that Cpls make 53K a year, and MPs receive a bonus on top of this, the salaries are close. Also, the infrastructure that the MPs receive on bases (MP shacks, crash trucks, new patrol cars every 2 years etc.) When consolidated with the RCMP would undoubtedly contain a savings of scale.


Really, maybe they should consulted you during the Besile and Dixson commissions. Yes a Cpl makes roughly 50 a year but plse tell me about this bonus! MP get spec 1 pay that's it. Again an RCMP member makes $70,000 ( they like to remain within the top % of police forces in Canada for pay) plus over-time which can easily approach $100,000 per constable per year and your telling me that the salaries are close..hmmmm


[i]That is the problem. There are never enough MPs around who have the soldier skills (navigation, patrolling) to properly locate and sign the routes. As a result, the units do   it themselves. If the MPs were patrolling the routes, the investigations could be done by the RCMP. As for never having guarded a PW cage, we have'nt done Airborne or armoured Bde ops in 23 years either - it does'nt mean that we should'nt retain that ability.[/i]

Should we still train to fight "the big Russian bear" too? I seem to recall a change in war fighting doctrine for the CF. We still know how to guard prisoners.


If the crime is not considered serious enough for the RCMP to devote resources to, why are the MPs investigating at all? This sounds like a bit of a make work project to me... In addition, I doubt the MP/NIS Officer salaries are much less than an RCMP equivalent.

I doubt the RCMP would have thought a bunch of drunken rowdy Airborne Soldiers crapping and pissing on each other would be reason for an investigation, because Joe Civi in university does it all the time. However we are not Joe Civi and are we accountable to the Canadian public and are held to a higher standard. That is why the NIS does these investigations. An another example of this would be when I was the Sheriff at Vernon Cadet Camp one summer. At that time we did not have the mandate to investigate civilians (cadets) who committed a crime on DND property. Over the course of the summer there were several reported cases of minor sexual assaults. The RCMP (for monetary reasons) did not pursue these matters, because they would have to pay to bring back witnesses etc to Vernon for trial. The CF on the other hand will spare no expense to see justice is being done. Is it optics? In most cases yes, however again we are held to a higher standard.    Where do you get this â Å“pay scaleâ ?? Our officers do not get spec pay, and a Cpl in the NIS is paid the same as a Cpl in GH or platoon.  



Well, we already have an officer of our regiment with â Å“rudimentaryâ ? knowledge DEFENDING us as an assisting officer, so why should we stack the investigators, but not the defence?

Yes yes the MP mission statement is to screw over as many 031s as possible, I hear this all the time and frankly it gets tiresome. MPs are not there to "stack" the prosecution" MPs are an impartial third party with no vested interest in the unit. They are there to gather evidence and if there is enough evidence recommend a charge or in the case of the NIS lay a charge. It is up to the CO or Courts Martial to determine guilt or innocence. However if we screw up as much as you seem to think we do, if I was the accused I would love the MP to conduct the investigation, better yet a unit member with no training.  


[i]I was in A'stan in 2002, and I never once saw an Canadian MP other than at the front gate of the Canadian Biv.   Ditto on missions â “ and I participated in all but one as a rifleman. Not saying it did'nt happen, but I did'nt see any. In addition to this, The only time I have seen MPs at work on Bde or lower exercises is at the entrance to WATC camp from the trg area. I even saw an MP in his patrol car on red route once! I don't question the dedication of the MPs, I question the necessity of their trade, given the alternatives available.

Maybe you should ask your BN MP who was on the Whale Back with you? Yes your right why do we need MP since you can the do job much better..it can't be that hard?



I also take exception to your inference that the MPs are somehow â Å“more dedicatedâ ? than their civilian counterparts. Other than the unfortunate accident with the MP car being rear ended in Suffield last year, I can think of 6 Mounties killed in the line of duty in recent memory. I cant remember an MP being shot at or injured, or even being in a situation that there was a threat of it.

Also, MPs receive spec pay, do they not? What is the justification for this?

And, not to start too much of a pi$$ing match, but if you were in the Airborne, then would'nt you be a steel/whiteleafjumper?
[Moderator edit:   OPSEC - no numbers, locations.]
[/quote]

I never said MP were "more dedicated than their civilian counter parts" I said the MP were just as dedicated to the CF as other trades. No there hasn't been as many MP killed in the line of duty as the RCMP (thank God) and to use that as a qualifier for dedication is pretty tasteless and crass. Would it be fair if I suggested because you haven't lost as many infmn as the US in Afghanistan you therefore can't be as dedicated as American Soldiers? Bullshit comparison.   You don't know of MP being shot at or in any situation like that...well that's because we don't publish it in the base newspaper and I don't think Ptes and Cpls forn the PPCLI are on MP report dist lists.

MPs receive spec pay because 1) the higher educational requirements to get in (a post secondary diploma) 2) We are subject to a law enforcement code of ethics which if it is breached can be reason for dismissal from the CF and 3) We are subject to a Professional Standards unit (Internal Affairs if you will). So you see we a few more accountability issues than the average CF member. I like to tell people if we get in trouble we don't get a blast from the CO we're subject to a Parliamentary Inquiry.

You sound like you have allot of "issues" with the MP, if you are unsatisfied with the way you have been treated or the way a case was handled or if you were subjected to some miscarriage of justice because of the bungling of the MP, you can go online to the Military Police Complaints Commission (civilian) and lodge a formal complaint which will be investigated.

 

[S McKee]

There are two questions which we need to answer, it seems to me:

"¢ What 'police' services do we need in the CF - in peace and war, in garrison, in the field and at sea?

"¢ Who should provide them?

Until about the mid '60s, in the army, the primary duties of the Canadian Provost Corps were, in order:

"¢ Traffic control on the battlefield;

"¢ Custody of prisoners until they were interred; and

"¢ Assisting commanders in maintaining good order and discipline in garrisons and garrison-towns.

In most places, in Canada, when a commanding officer suspected an offence under the criminal code he was likely, on the advice of his local Provost Marshal, to call in the local civil police - that was still the case, just 25 years ago, when I was a commanding officer.

The Navy and the Air Force had quite different operational requirements:

"¢ Both required a high (higher than in the army) standard of garrison security - at dockyards and on flying stations.   The air force had a 'police' service which specialized in that sort of security.   The Navy, like the army, used a mix of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and military personnel - just more;

"¢ The Navy needed a 'shore patrol' to help captains maintain good order and discipline around naval bases and in ports of call; and

"¢ The Navy needed a 'security' force is some ports of call.   Each ship had a 'master at arms' (I think that's the right title) - a senior NCO from (I think) any trade who was given some extra, specialist training.   He ran security and the shore patrol.

The army also had its own 'high security' requirements - we had to provide guards for TDMs, for example, and anyone was an adjutant or IO back in the '60s will recall having to be responsible for a few highly classified registered publications - kept locked in one of the five safes in the battalion (one in BHQ found in either the adjutant's or IO's office, another in the signal officer's area, one in QM, one in paymaster's office and one in the UAS, if memory serves).   Basically, however, army units were responsible for their own security and arms units provided support to service units like Ordnance Field Parks which had plenty to guard but too few soldiers for the job.

In the late '60s/early '70s the MPs went through several reorganizations - including a monumentally stupid attempt to mix MPs and Int people.   In the process we, the army, lost - completely if our experience in the RV series of exercises in the '80s was any indication - the traffic control skills.   The intelligence service was reborn, better, in my view, than the army's old CIntC.   The MPs were required (and it is a real requirement) to assume some new security duties - especially regarding INFOSEC, which is, I believe, a major problem, still, today.   For reasons which are not clear to me the MPs appear - to me from my long retired perch - to be looking and acting more like civilian police officers; at least the ones here in Ottawa sure look and act that way.   I think they are, also, doing investigative work which was, as I said, routinely 'tasked' to civil police forces only 25 years ago.   Maybe the civilian police are not up to the task of investigating on large bases like Halifax, and, especially, in large bases in small towns like Gagetown and Borden.

I have no current knowledge of the MPs' investigative skills - I don't know how much training they receive vice, say, an OPP or Halifax or Ottawa City Police officer.   I knew, when I was still serving, that MPs were useless to the army in the field in their traditional operational tasks.   In my personal experience we had general staff officers cranking out road move/traffic plans - which should have been done, as a matter of routine, by the officers and NCOs of the brigade MP platoon - because it was beyond the skills and knowledge of the MPs.   Ditto the 'exercise' PW plan - I personally recall scouring old army pams to find the checklists, etc, which were then incorporated, by general staff officers, not MP officers, into orders for the MPs.   In other words, the MPs, in the '80s, were unable to do their jobs - quite useless to an army formation commander.   Perhaps things have improved.

Clearly, the MPs have many important duties including INFOSEC and embassy security, and, according to the CFPM's 2004 annual report traffic control for the army, too.   My question would be: are all those duties being done well enough and economically enough within the existing structure?

Alternative Service Delivery has been top of the pops in NDHQ since the late '80s, at least.   Almost every single function has been examined and re-examined and contracting out is fair game for many.   There is no reason why police services should not be subjected to the same examination.   I think the idea of splitting investigation from e.g. security and tactical operations may have some merit.   Shooting the messenger is precisely the wrong answer - it makes one wonder if the MPs are reverting to old army (and navy and air force, too, I hasten to add) style and digging in to preserve their empire and hide their failures - they would not be the first.

Edit to correct typo.

Have no fear Edward the MP were not spared from the ASD inquisitors. We were however, able to baffle them with INFOSEC and route signing, thus our dark but "quite useless" empire remains...welcome to the 21st. century

 

[Edward Campbell]

Have no fear Edward the MP were not spared from the ASD inquisitors. We were however, able to baffle them with INFOSEC and route signing, thus our dark but "quite useless" empire remains...welcome to the 21st. century

Thank you for that succinct reply, Jumper.  I'm sure I'm just too old and backwards to understand that it addresses all my concerns.

 

[Poppa]

I can try to shed some light here. About 10 years ago around the time of the Dixon report there was a concentrated effort to improve the policing skills of the branch...Big P Little m. The actual war fighting skills were not the big priority and they haven't been. There is a new awareness now that the branch cannot go on like this. We only have to look at what our allies are doing in Iraq and A'stan.
A new Army Corps MP vision is being looked at...before anyone panics there is no plan to raise a MP Corps. However, we have stood up a MP Tactics board with a vision to drive strategic direction. New Tactics for convoy escorts were tested In Pet in prep for Roto 4 and will be validated on tour. We've changed the layout of our sections going to a 3 man team working in 2 veh dets.  Also looking at how we deal with detainees...the traditional definition of a PW is hard to find nowadays. We see a delta in our trg and we want to be the ones driving for change not being a passenger.
The law enforcement aspect will not go away regardless of anyones wishes. All we can do is get together as a branch..embrace the Army ethos..embrace transformation and soldier on.

I've always identified as a soldier first who happened to have a MOC of R811 (now MPO).

If anyone wants more ideas/clarification feel free to ask in open forum or PM.

Cheers

 

[noneck]

Really, maybe they should consulted you during the Besile and Dixson commissions. Yes a Cpl makes roughly 50 a year but plse tell me about this bonus! MP get spec 1 pay that's it. Again an RCMP member makes $70,000 ( they like to remain within the top % of police forces in Canada for pay) plus over-time which can easily approach $100,000 per constable per year and your telling me that the salaries are close..hmmmm

This statement is a little far fetched, I have 6 years service and work in a LMD detachment Drug Section. I have never made $100,000. We are also not guaranteed to be in the top third of the police pay universe, as we were led to believe. This is merely a gentlemans agreement that our pay counsel made with Treasury Board. This past December we were royally screwed over when TB refused to bring us up to that level. That all being said, we do get paid quite well (Unless you are posted in the LMD or Metro Toronto areas). At present a first class Constable makes about 65K and change.

Blackhorse 7 on the topic of changing the QR&O's to allow RCMP members to serve in the PRes. I have been personally fighting that battle for the past 6 years. I am currently waiting for a response from the CDS on the matter, as I forwarded a letter to him recently quoting a memo he drafted in support of the change when he was the A/CLS a few years back. PM me on the subject and we can talk via ROSS.

Cheers
Noneck

 

[S McKee]

Really, maybe they should consulted you during the Besile and Dixson commissions. Yes a Cpl makes roughly 50 a year but plse tell me about this bonus! MP get spec 1 pay that's it. Again an RCMP member makes $70,000 ( they like to remain within the top % of police forces in Canada for pay) plus over-time which can easily approach $100,000 per constable per year and your telling me that the salaries are close..hmmmm

This statement is a little far fetched, I have 6 years service and work in a LMD detachment Drug Section. I have never made $100,000. We are also not guaranteed to be in the top third of the police pay universe, as we were led to believe. This is merely a gentlemans agreement that our pay counsel made with Treasury Board. This past December we were royally screwed over when TB refused to bring us up to that level. That all being said, we do get paid quite well (Unless you are posted in the LMD or Metro Toronto areas). At present a first class Constable makes about 65K and change.

Blackhorse 7 on the topic of changing the QR&O's to allow RCMP members to serve in the PRes. I have been personally fighting that battle for the past 6 years. I am currently waiting for a response from the CDS on the matter, as I forwarded a letter to him recently quoting a memo he drafted in support of the change when he was the A/CLS a few years back. PM me on the subject and we can talk via ROSS.

Cheers
Noneck

Maybe in LMD they don't make that much OT but I know many Mounties who do, even if you only make 10K-15K in OT a year it's still a sizable chunk of change when you compare it to a MP Cpl salary.

 

[garb811]

I'm not going to bother to comment on everything as it's pretty much being flogged to death and people have pre-conceived opinions but I will make a few comments.

Not too long ago I had a conversation with the Garrison Addictions Counsellor and he came aboard me about the problems some of his "clients" were experiencing in shacks after their return from their addictions course.  His comment was, "The guys are complaining about how hard it is to stay clean in shacks when they have guys (or Section Commanders!) trying to deal to them in the hallway.  Why don't you guys get in there, kick some doors down and clean it up?!"  I answered that I understood he was bound by patient client confidentiality but the next time one of them made that comment to him, to counsel them to report the dealer to the MPs so the matter could be investigated.  How many guys do you think made the short walk to the Guardhouse?  This is symbolic of the main problem we face in these kinds of issues where we know there is a problem but nobody is willing to stand up and be heard.  The comment was made in this, or another, thread that MPs close ranks when a complaint is made and protect each other but the problem is much, much worse in the units as nobody wants to be seen as a snitch.  Guys know who the pothead is in the section but they won't report him, either to the MPs or the Chain of Command because they â Å“have to watch their buddies backâ ?.  The rooms in the shacks are considered to be private dwellings, we can't just walk into the hall, smell pot and then start taking down doors.  In order to enter a room, unless invited, we need a search warrant and let me assure you that we are not going to get one by saying, â Å“Well, I was walking down the hall and smelled pot so I started sniffing around the doors until I found the one which smelled the strongest...â ?  Even going along and knocking on doors in the hope someone will open it so we can get evidence â Å“in plain viewâ ? is tenuous in a court of law, we can't just go on fishing expeditions.  This issue has been discussed in other threads but at the end of the day, if you're going to get on a public board and start moaning about how the MPs are failing to clean up the shacks, maybe the first place to start looking for a solution is closer to home.  Back â Å“in the dayâ ? units had their duty personnel maintain discipline in their lines.  Since the units still want to cling to the notion that the shacks are their unit lines and get on our backs when we start being proactive and conducting walk throughs, maybe assigning a MCpl as the barrack duty NCO would be a good place to start.  Let's also not forget that each CF member has the duty to report any offences of which they are aware...

Everyone who has thrown out anecdotal evidence about MP ineptitude and misconduct as the reason to bring the RCMP in, that's pretty thin paint to be using on such a wide brush.  As previously said, yes it does happen with MPs but as also previously said, it also happens with any civilian police service.  As more examples: Edmonton Police Service has been the subject of very intense scrutiny over the past year due to some officers attempting to â Å“stingâ ? a reporter and the head of the Edmonton Police Commission.  Cost the police chief his job when he was caught lying to protect his boys; the RCMP are hardly immune to this either, anyone remember Sgt Pepper from the APEC protests?  How about Saskatoon police and their â Å“free rides to the edge of townâ ? for certain, select clients?  The BC lower mainland forces who let Pickford do his thing for so long?  How about EPS and the Edmonton area RCMP who, according to some observers, are failing to thoroughly investigate the spate of prostitute killings?  Winnipeg police conducted a flawed investigation that resulted in James Driskell being wrongly convicted and spending 10 years in jail.  How about Milgard?  The Toronto Drug Squad?  Even though some of these issues are ones of perception vice reality they are still out there in the public domain.  Obviously training, experience, leadership and oversight can be as much of an issue for the civilian police as well as the MPs and just because they are â Å“the professionalsâ ? doesn't mean they always do a good job.

I also feel that some persons posting here may have an over inflated expectation of what duties a civilian police officer is capable of and experienced in performing.  In my experience, just like MPs, the average RCMP/*PP/city police member is a "generalist" who relies on expert teams to take over complex and/or lengthy investigations.  While a RCMP member in a small detachment is liable to conduct investigations of a varied nature because their GIS is not that large, when it comes to city police it seems they tend to specialize much more with the â Å“beat copâ ? being the first responder who passes it off for follow-up if it can't be completed on the spot.

One question I have not seen fully addressed is how those who would like to see the RCMP provide police services to the CF expect policing to happen in an operational theater?  The idea was floated to have a small cell of RCMP attached to each Roto but how will this work when the RCMP cannot (to the best of my knowledge and research so please post a link to a source if you disagree) be ordered to deploy?  Please keep in mind while answering that the Canadian courts have ruled that CSD offenses, particularly those being tried at Courts Martial, must be investigated in accordance with Canadian laws, standards and procedures so where is that to come from if we don't maintain that capability in-house?  When push comes to shove all CSS functions can be provided by civilians ala ASD but the CF realizes that it is important to maintain the capability with deployable persons in case (when?) the time comes when the civilians decide they don't want to go.

unlikely, as the RCMP (in fact no Police force in Canada, to my knowledge) does not recognize CF MP training as a legitimate LEO qualification. (What does that tell you?)

Uhh...I dunno, I suppose you're insinuating that we are therefore not â Å“realâ ? police.  By whose standard?  Certainly not the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police of which the Branch is a member.  Just because training isn't accepted â Å“at parâ ? by all police services doesn't mean it isn't legitimate and/or equal to what other police forces receive.  Jumper has already pointed out that we have a member instructing at Depot but you should also realize that our training was also reviewed and validated by the RCMP...also not every civilian police officer is able to do a lateral or â Å“experience officerâ ? transfer from one force to another as you seem to think.

Mr Campbell:  Sorry you felt that the MP had lost their field skills, although I know a bunch of guys from the RV time period who would beg to differ with you.  I think you may have been confusing the capabilities of the staff at the MP Coy level with what you seemed to expect the staff of a MP Pl to provide.  This was a problem I faced when I was the Ops NCO in an MP Pl.  The Bde staff seemed to think we had the equivalent of a Bn HQ in our CP and had some pretty high expectations on what we could produce for them, but that is the subject of another thread.

Finally, CTD mind providing a source for:

The RCMP can may and shall be called up to operate in time of war in a foregin country under DND.

  And it sucks about your bike.  If you feel that strongly that the MP who attended your complaint did not conduct a proper investigation you are more than welcome to submit a complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission via the process and form you can find at this link: Military Police Complaints Commission -- Complaints

 

[Infanteer]

Okay, so here is the merged thread with the new discussion on the direction the MP branch should take.  As I recall from the original discussion, MP00161 made an interesting proposal as an alternative to my original post - it's back on page 2, but I reposted it below so as to get some new discussion going (instead of just pointing fingers and flaming trades).  Let's be proactive here, folks.

Sorry for the delay.   The proposal is obviously simply that, a proposal, which may kill some people's sacred cows so feel free to fire back.

The four traditional MP tasks are:   Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops so you weren't far off.    C Pro C always had the ability to conduct Police Ops in relation to the military (particularly with 1 Provost Coy which was formed from the RCMP) although it was overshadowed in WWII by Mobility and Detention Ops.   I'm not sure at what point it started but they also had investigators organized similar to the SIB in the RMP to do what is now done by NIS and I believe it was the 50's when a greater emphasis on Base policing was started.  

The Force Protection idea has merit and the idea of a specific unit being formed to do this was tried in the late 90's with the Airfield Security Force (ASF) which anyone on Op KINETIC or other Ops with helicopters during the late 90's will probably remember.   The ASF was based on the system the USAF uses but unfortunately it came off the rails in a rather predictable way, at least to some of us, and imploded.   â Å“Why do I have MPs guarding helicopters?â ? is a quote attributed to the then DCDS upon his arrival at the camp in Kosovo and it illustrates one problem the unit had.   Having said that, the Air Force MP are still very much in the Force Protection business on Ops, witness how long it took for the infantry to be tasked to provide D&S to Mirage, but the way they are doing it is still very much ad hoc, at least for the ground side and I don't believe it is modeled on the USAF system any longer, although I haven't really asked anyone to find out.   The Navy are in the game as well both at home and abroad, with augmentation from the non-MP reserves at bases in Canada, it is really only the Army MP who are not in there protecting installations and assets in the manner I think you have in mind.   It appears the Air Force and Navy CofC want MP doing the task, the Army CofC doesn't seem to think it's an issue.   Should we be?   I think the obvious answer is yes because in my opinion even the Pol Ops role is essentially a Force Protection role, particularly when deployed, although it isn't acknowledged as such.  

So, how to make it work?   My idea is:

First thing would be to â Å“makeâ ? the MP Branch an Army asset which provides services to all three elements.   This is already done with other trades who predominately work in the land environment but whose services all three elements need.  

The next step would be to include all MP in all of the Land development cycles (because this is the best way of developing the Leadership skill set required for true Force Protection Ops while deployed, no matter what the element), including SQ, Mod 6? of the PLQ etc.   Once SQ was completed the member would proceed on his QL3 which emphasized Force Protection (including the topics mentioned by Infanteer plus a few others I can think of), Mobility and Detention Ops.   Once they graduated their QL3 they would immediately be posted to Force Protection Pls/Coys which would be based at the â Å“bigâ ? bases of Esquimalt, Edmonton, Cold Lake, Winnipeg, Trenton, Ottawa, Petawawa, Valcartier, Bagotville and Halifax.  

At these locations their primary task would be the Protection of the high value assets in these locations, including provision of access control, search of vehicles and persons, perimeter patrols etc. and to provide a pool of resources to draw from when an Op was mounted from the element they were supporting.   They would have the secondary task of augmenting non-elemental Force Protection Ops should the need arise.   Ottawa is dispersed enough to require most of their pers full time but they would also form a reserve to fill in any manning shortfalls from the other elements.   These units would actually be Pl(+) in size, possibly up to Coy in the case of Edmonton, Pet and Valcartier due to the requirement to support the Bde, the Garrison, and possibly an Op (domestic or international), at the same time.   Ottawa would be a full up Coy.   Actual equipment would be tailored to the element supported, ie.   Edmonton would be a combination of civy pattern 4x4 and ATVs for Garrison work with G-Wagons, LS and ML's as the primary vehicles for the field, but Air and Navy would not get the field vehicles as they will not need to do the hard field tasks yet also would have the requirement to do vehicle patrols of lengthy perimeters in all terrain.   Weapons would cover the full range of the small arms family up to and including the AGL should it ever be procured.  

Without crunching the numbers too hard, ballpark increase in hard deployable MP positions would be 150-180 all ranks.   This increase in itself would permit a self-sustaining 30 pers Pl deployment force without counting the MP positions which are already deployable (80 in the MP Pls, Bn MP, the pers in guardhouses who are not in non-deployable positions), which could probably mean the total number of deployable MP would be in the rank of 350-400 pers, allowing 70-80 MPs to be deployed on a sustained basis with a much higher surge capability

Once a member has been in the Force Protection Pl/Coy for 3 years (approx 5 years total service) they will be eligible for selection for their QL5s via merit and suitability to learn the Pol Ops skills in competition with their peers.   If they are not selected for their QL5s they will not be offered a re-engagement and will be released or possibly offered the opportunity to try for an OT should they so desire.  

On their QL5s the member will be taught the Police skills that are now covered on the QL3s and on the completion of this course they would then move to a Guardhouse for a period of at least one year after which they would be eligible for a posting to a the guardhouse at their current base, a move to a non-Force Protection unit base and/or offered the opportunity to compete for a posting to any of the specialist units within the Branch.

Bases without a dedicated Force Protection unit would have a â Å“blendedâ ? guard house which would perform both roles with support from the lodger units whereas the Bases with a dedicated Force Protection unit would have a clearly defined separation in their roles, responsibilities and CofC for the guardhouse and Force Protection unit.   In other words, on Army bases the model would be the current MP Pl situation where the Pl belongs to the Bde and the guardhouse belongs to the ASU.   On the Air Force and Navy sides, this may be a bit harder to define but it could be done.   This would make it harder to end up with a â Å“blendedâ ? organization on the bases with a dedicated Force Protection unit and preserve the integrity of the deployable unit and avoiding the tendancy to "stack" the Guardhouse and shuffle the problem children to the Force Protection unit.   Having said that, the Guard House patrols would be the dedicated QRF for the Force Protection unit should an incident occur until additional Force Protection members are brought in, and the Guard House would be the receptor facility for any detainees etc which the Force Protection unit generated in the course of it's duties protecting the base.  

The requirement to have a 2 year diploma for recruitment would be dropped as they time spent in the Force Protection Pl would provide more than enough time for the individual to mature and be evaluated prior to selection for their QL5.   The end result would be a Reg Force MP with maturity and an understanding that Force Protection is the primary task of the MP yet the Pol Ops skill set would be readily available when required at home and overseas.   OT in would be possible with the time requirement between QL3 and QL5 being reduced to one year.

Primary Reserve would concentrate on the Force Protection, Mobility and Detention Ops tasks with their primary role being to augment Reg Force MP in the Force Protection role at home and when deployed on Ops.   This would be reinforced by the realignment of Reserve MP to collocate them with Reg Force Force Protection units to provide 10 Reserve MP Pls totalling approximately 300 pers all told.   This may prove problematic in recruiting in relation to Cold Lake, Petawawa and Bagotville depending on the demographics.   If this were the case, any non-sustainable locations would have their designated Reserve Pl re-located to another suitable large base of the same element where they would support the Guardhouse in its Force Protection Ops.   All other Reserve MP units would disappear.   Although this will be a dissatisfier for those in the Militia who want to get into the Pol Ops role, this will certainly fix their biggest complaint in that they will have an actual role which will be executed when augmenting us at home and abroad as they would have the same skill set as a Reg Force QL3 who deployed.   The Reserve MP would also eventually become the brain trust of Force Protection Ops as it relates to each environment as a Reservist from Winnipeg generally stays there whereas a Reg Force guy will stillbe posted through the various positions.

When deployed the MP would need to be in sufficient numbers to execute the Security Force task as well as have the ability to respond in the Police role.   This would be met by having the MP Pl divided into a Security Sect (or Sections), Pol Ops Section and a small HQ Section with the ability to tailor the size of each of these sections to the mission.   The security section would be manned by a combination of Reg Force MP QL3s and 5s and those from the Primary Reserve.   Leadership of this section would also be joint force with either the MCpl being from the Reg Force or the Sgt being from the Militia or vice versa.   This would provide deployment opportunities for Reserve MCpls and Sgts which do not currently exist as there would be no worry about them supervising Pol Ops activities.   The Pol Ops and HQ Sect would be manned solely by Reg Force QL5 and up to provide for the issues identified in the Dickson Commission report.

NIS would continue to provide the investigative expertise at home and aboard although once employed in NIS members would remain there permanently unless they specifically requested to return to the â Å“normal MPâ ? rotation.   Promotions within NIS would be filled from within to ensure you didn't have a WO with less investigative experience than his subordinates â Å“case managingâ ?.   This will be good and bad, good in that the training and experience will stay where it does the most good, bad because it could lead to even more of a separation within the Branch.

At the end of the day you end up with a Branch which has become focused on the Force Protection role while still being able to provide Police Ops on a professional basis at home and abroad.

A late breaking thought on how to solve some of the issues like: the CofC; retention of the split between the guardhouses and the Force Protection unit; and the ability to easily draw on personnel from all the Force Protection units no matter what element they were supporting, would be to stand up a higher MP Unit, such as a Bn, which would command all units which had the primary focus of Force Protection.   In this instance, the actual Force Protection unit for a base would be OpCon to the base it was supporting.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Quite the variety of views.

As stated the four traditional MP tasks are:  Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops. in that priority but over the years it has slowly moved to Police Op's which is not the perview of the Military Police.
Case in point is the new Uniform,what's with the black?We aren't the States and you are not SWATor JTF.
I and others I have talked and see your Uniforms as representing somthing evil,a threat which is not us as a Military at home.If you want to be a Police Force dress like one,a policeman is supposed to be a friend,a guardian,invisable untill needed.get rid of those SS uniforms.What ever happened with the old Red Beret just being enough to identify a M.P.?

I have never had a problem with M.P.'s (only traffic control on road moves  ;D )
You have a job which is a bitch because it's the Military especialy those posted to the Brigades and I would not like your job.

Be Fare and Just

 

[garb811]

Quite the variety of views.

As stated the four traditional MP tasks are:   Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops. in that priority but over the years it has slowly moved to Police Op's which is not the perview of the Military Police.

Here's a brief but excellent history of the Provost Corps.  Supervision and enforcement of discipline outside unit lines is just another way of saying "Police Ops" in todays world.  It seems to me that in WWII the Provost had more personnel employed in this "non-MP" function than in the "field" function by the number of MP units attached to HQs and left in Canada.  As can also be seen the movement towards police ops as we currently know them is rooted in the 50's, and this included a dedicated investigative arm for the Provost Corps (at one time they even had dedicated Provost Clerks of all things...).  It is not a role that the Branch suddenly adopted out of the blue recently but I am in total agreement that, as I've said before, the pendulum had swung to mP vice the MP we need to be.  I think (hope?) given the direction and talk that you'll be seeing a fairly substantial swing back towards the middle in the next several years.

I and others I have talked and see your Uniforms as representing somthing evil,a threat which is not us as a Military at home.If you want to be a Police Force dress like one,a policeman is supposed to be a friend,a guardian,invisable untill needed.get rid of those SS uniforms.

Yikes!!  I knew the uniforms were going to have a divisive effect with the rest of the CF but didn't realize it was this bad.  I admit there is a very real danger that the branch is going to alienate itself from it's "clients" if some of the current ideas are left unchecked but reading this is...shocking to say the least.  All the more reason to strictly enforce the wearing of the uniform only on patrol BUT having said that, I'm only the master of my domain I have no input on what your local base may be doing.  One last point, you'll notice that most civilian police forces are going to black and if I recall correctly, our current uniform is based on what the Ottawa-Carelton police but if you start looking you'll see most have gone to black or navy blue.

What ever happened with the old Red Beret just being enough to identify a M.P.?

Well, the first glitch was the Air Force and Navy wouldn't let MP wear a Red Beret as they felt that the cloth patch behind the cap badge was sufficient.  Second, while the military clearly understands what the Red Beret symbolizes, a civie doesn't have a clue.  Third, there were legal issues with identification as Police with guys wearing three different uniforms.  One example is the possiblity that someone could claim they didn't recognize the MP as being an MP because the last time they got stopped the guy was wearing blue and this time the guy was wearing CADPAT.  The decision was made to go with an occupational patrol dress which matched what the civilian police forces were going with in order to eliminate this problem. 

 

[McG]

Well, the first glitch was the Air Force and Navy wouldn't let MP wear a Red Beret as they felt that the cloth patch behind the cap badge was sufficient.

I'm pleased to see that this has changed and all MP will now wear the red beret.