Talk:Royal Canadian Army Cadets

Ranks to Corporal
Basically, until you're at a Corporal (awaiting promotion to M/Cpl), promotions are generally guaranteed (assuming you complete your star level) and don't require a recommendation. ShdSlyr2 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ranks and Insignia
I did not know that the army cadets used the same rank insignia as the regular forces. I thought the ranks were red. Also, I did not know that cadets had the rank of master corporal.

Also, when I was in the cadets during the late 70's, some units also use red shoulder bars for officer ranks.

Cheers from a former cadet and militiamen. WIKIPEDIAVI 06:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Officer ranks were still in use until the late 80's early 90's. The article currently says 60's.Rwgill (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The rank insignia changed dramatically in the 1990s - officer ranks deleted, MCpl added, LCpl removed.

I've removed the funding info on the main page - Cadet spending is not "defence spending", the two are apples and oranges.Michael Dorosh 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The ranks categories were labeled wrong, so I removed them. There is a difference between Junior/Senior Cadets and Jr/Sr NCOs. My suggestion: Pick a style! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.50.71 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a cadet (Cpl), I was always adressed as "private" even though my offical rank was LCpl. You may say it was just my corps, but i was adressed im my summer application form as LCpl. I am not aware of the time it was changed. Also all ranks are now yellow (excluding WO, MWO, and CWO). Some corps have also switched from the old Olive, Lightweight MK II combat uniforms to a new alternate CadPat uniform. Even though most CSTCs have kept to the old Olive Drab.

Ranks now progress, Cadet, Lance Corporal, Corporal, Master Corporal, (at this point cadets must complete their Silver ZET to advance anymore) Sergeant, Warrent Officer (Platoon commander), Master Warrent Officer (Company Commander), And finaly, Chief Warrent Officer (the cadet leader of their home corps).

Text removed from article
A bit too much POV, but I've preserved the original version here. "Although $160 million may seem like an ungodly sum to be spent on a youth program benefiting relatively few people, it is done so because the Cadet program is possibly the most important recruiting element for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Joining the Canadian Forces after completing Cadets is not mandatory, though some cadets choose to join anyway."  ... ColtsScore 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the Canadian government has spent 160m on anything in our military? They sure hide it well... 70.70.97.117 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

=Forms of address= Someone want to buff that section up, preferably someone with Army experience? Also, any other non-standard rank titles (ie Signaller)? Finally, who uses Lance Corporal? Quadra 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What's currently in is how it's been done at my own corps and at every summer camp I've been to. As for Lance Corporal, the only corps I could find that even mentions it is the site page for |2841 Halifax Rifles and even they mention the cadets being promoted to Trouper (sic) with Lance Corporal in brackets.  I'll e-mail them. mad_cat_42 07:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lance Corporal is no longer used in the Canadian Army. There is a disagreement between the QR&O and the CATO.  The QR&O says LCpl and the CATO says Pte (along with everything else).  There is the odd unit which still appears to use the term, though IAW regimental tradition and cutoms, is inaccurate.Rwgill (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I would remove ALL of the various forms of address. Though they may be accurate, depending on affiliation, they are not required. The manuals, orders and regulations make it clear that the ranks are: Cdt, Pte, Cpl, MCpl, Sgt, WO, MWO and CWO. If you disagree, checkout the resources sections at cadets.ca.

As they are accurate, why would you remove them? Would seem that presenting accurate information about the RCAC is the point of this page, and unit-specific rank titles are part of the RCAC. Keep 'em. Quadra 19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Adds confusion and is only correct if permitted by an affiliated unit. The use of affiliated unit traditions and accoutrements is only approved by the CO of an affiliated unit, not the RCAC. These are also the only ranks, as detailed at cadets.ca. Honestly, it looks cluttered and makes it hard to read.Rwgill 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Warrant Officers
The part on MWO appointments are a bit unclear... "there must be a vacancy on the corps MWO establishment - one per squadron"

Does this mean that there's only one MWO per corps? Just curious as my corps has 3.

Cheers, Shubu fubu 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Editing error! Fixed. Quadra 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard formatting for cadet pages, CIC, etc...
Will be tossing up reformatted (no real content changes, just organization, appearance) pages for all three cadet elements, as well as the CIC and any sub-pages (i.e. Cadets Canada) off of my user page, for consideration. If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to pass 'em along! I'll post the links once I'm done. Quadra 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit - Boy's Naval Brigade
Just to double-check, from the name, it would appear that the original Sea Cadet units were in some way associated with the Boy's Brigades... or was the Navy League just ripping off the early Army Cadet program's name? Quadra 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Two questions
First of all, I don't think the text at the bottom of each image saying the rank's name is needed there, and I think it should be cropped out. Also, aren't master corporals called "maitre-caporal" or something like that in French? --Jordan Elder talk 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lifted the French version of master corporal from the regulations... as for the cropping, sounds like a great idea - if you like, the Royal Canadian Air Cadets article needs the same treatment; just be sure to add the requisite information (French and English) to the pic's own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadra (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


 * As for master corporal in French, it is caporal-chef. I tried the cropping on the private rank image, but for some reason, I got a squashed image, but I'll try again. Jordan Elder talk 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cadetscanada72.png
The image File:Cadetscanada72.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Not Lance Corporal
The second lowest rank is shown as Lance Corporal. The rank is actually Private in the RCAC. 24.235.232.11 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, buddy, it is now. Check the CATOs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant (Retired) Locksley (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong! Some corps have it as Private (like mine), some as Lance Corporal (PPCLI, but I think this one's best), and some as Trooper. 70.67.14.234 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My Corps, 2919 G&SF, still uses the LCpl rank. I hope that helps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.251.121 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a chart that specifies what name for that rank is to be used depending on the corps affiliation (artillery, engineer, infantry, etc). Private can be used if there is a specific tradition with the affiliated unit (not a corps tradition - an AfU tradition) but LCpl is the default.  CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Areas Of Instruction
Is fieldcraft no longer taught? My star manuals (and my Master Cadet Handbook) all have fieldcraft POS, and we were instructed in fieldcraft from green star onward. Has fieldcraft been removed? If so, when and why? 69.60.237.4 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's now bushcraft. Same s***, different pile. 70.67.14.234 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How much difference is there between the elements?
Talk:Canadian_Cadet_Movement

Jr and Sr NCO/NCM
There appears to be some serious confusion with regards to the division of ranks. Currently the groups are Junior Cadets, Non-Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers. The person who did this is misinformed.

Non-Commissioned Officers are divided into 2 groups: Junior (Cpl & MCpl) and Senior (Sgt). Warrant Officers are WO, MWO and CWO. Other Ranks are Cadet and LCpl/Pte.

If you want to go the Non-Commissioned Member way, then they are divided into two groups: Junior (Cdt,Pte/LCpl, Cpl & MCpl) and Senior (Sgt, WO, MWO & CWO)

My suggestion: Pick a style and go with it.

Rwgill (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Star Level Test.
Non-existent in my corps, CO says they got rid of it everywhere. Is this just BC/Van. Island, or nation-wide? 70.67.14.234 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. RCAC 1980-~1983. MichaelManaloLazo http://michaelmanalolazo.forumotion.ca Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.77.83 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At my Corps, 2919 G&SF, We have tests for Silver and above, although this comes in a small written portion and a 3-day outdoor adventure to test the cadets Pyhsical and mantal abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.251.121 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe test are mandatory (although some corps may require it). There are, however, various other requirements such as expeditions for silver star and above, required training (all the EO Ms), and good attendance (>60% of mandatory training?).--Spike35031 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sections on Budget and Sexual Abuse - include or remove
In the interests of having one and only one conversation about these sections and which, if any, articles these should be part of I am starting the discussion here. They have recently been the subject of section blanking with, at best, misleading edt summaries in the various Canadian cadet articles.

I believe the discussion should take the form that one supports or opposes the inclusion in at least one article, together with the article or articles that one supports (or opposes) their inclusion in.

Though I have started this discussion I became involved at the vandalism reversion level and choose to express no opinion about their inclusion or removal. My reversions were combatting vandalism, not expressing an opinion.

I have now placed a notice on each of the affected articles leading the discussion here. Fiddle  Faddle  18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Affected articles: Over to you all Fiddle   Faddle  18:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Royal Canadian Army Cadets
 * Royal Canadian Air Cadets
 * Royal Canadian Sea Cadets
 * Canadian Cadet Organizations
 * REMOVE - The person(s) adding this information has been waging a campaign on just about every cadet-related Facebook group and many other Canadian military-related forums. Their information is unsourced, misleading, out of context and/or just plain biased.  They routinely use spoofed and proxy IP addresses to hide their identity.  This has nothing to do about adding facts and everything about pushing a personal agenda.  REMOVE with extreme prejudice.CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As Jpjohnsn says, the content is obviously biased from one side and is being added by a user trying to use Wikipedia as a battleground. I've removed it, and unless someone is adding it again in some sort of a neutral way, it should stay gone. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I add my new voice to the REMOVE camp. I don't know all the Wikipedia rules, but I do know this program, and I know these are biased additions.  He has some sources, but has skewed it to present his personal agenda.--Thebraddavidson (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ajraddtz left a message on my talk page. I was replying there but then I saw this conversation. Thanks for opening it up, Tim. I am going to copy some of my comments from my talk page to here. By doing so, I will no longer be able to take any administrative action unless the justification is blatant because I will be WP:INVOLVED, but I think my comments might be helpful.

There are two unrelated sections that are apparently at issue. The first is the budget section. The first sentence is reasonably well sourced. I think the source says $197M or something like that as opposed to $200M. I think the second clause in the first sentence (funded by tax payers) should be removed. I don't see any source in support of the the rest of the section.


 * I notice it's been restored. As others have states already, the budget seems a good idea to have, and its been sourced, but everything afterward is unsourced, and irrelevant.  It also seems inaccurate, having worked at a number of CSTC's, I know a great deal, without specific numbers, of the budget goes into the training program, but this isn't mentioned.--Thebraddavidson (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The second section is sexual abuse. Let's start with the easy part. I don't see any source in support of the third sentence. The first two sentences are problematic generally. There are too many primary sources used (court cases). There seems to me to be a fair amount of WP:SYNTHESIS going on, i.e., extrapolating from individual cases to generalized assertions. It would be far better to have a secondary source make the generalized assertion rather than Wikipedia draw those inferences. The best secondary source is the Globe piece, but there are two problems with it. First, it is about sea cadets, not army cadets, and, second, it is from 2007; yet we put no time stamp on the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Bbb23. My interest in this is only at the technical level. I see section blanking, and such blanking insisted upon and with misleading or absent edit summaries, and I see what appears to be an instruction to back off on my talk page from a now involved editor, and the duck of orchestrated vandalism starts to quack even louder. MY perspective has been to remove perceived vandalism and to bang enough heads together to make them talk about it.
 * I don't care whether it is included or excluded. What I care about is that consensus is created and followed. That was absolutely not happening. I suspect this needs an RfC in due course unless agreement breaks out. Fiddle   Faddle  22:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RfC will be needed. I agree with Ajraddatz's removal of the material as there are too many problems with it. Whether something should be inserted in its stead can be discussed. At this point, I don't see any major dispute requiring an RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you are right. In reality the inclusion or exclusion doesn't matter at all as long as consensus is reached. But what matters above all is that consensus is reached and followed. I accept your analysis of the disputed material without reading it in detail. I am staying out of the content per se. I just set this discussion up to ensure it was discussed at all. Otherwise it appeared that whichever party had the larger steamroller would win. Fiddle   Faddle  22:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a valid concern. I know that I would have no problem with that information being in the article(s), if it was added in a way that provided actual information, not a thinly veiled attack on the program. Any youth organization with 50k participants and 7.5k paid staff is bound to have some controversy around it, and that wouldn't be a bad thing to have on the page, but what was there in the budget and sexual abuse sections didn't strike me as something worth having there. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is directly sourced, and highly relevant to the history and current operations of the Canadian Cadet Organizations. This is an encyclopedia, not a public affairs forum.Bishophatman (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But only some of it is sourced, not all of it. There is no mention that the majority of the budget pays wages.  Additonally, the sexual abuse claims are not specific to Sea, Army or Air cadets, and as a result wouldn't it be best for them to be covered solely under the CCO page?--Thebraddavidson (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. The budgetary information covers the entire CCO and does not belong in the three individual organization articles.  The sex abuse section is nothing more than a vehicle for getting links to specific cases into Wikipedia to create a controversy massively out of proportion to the reality of the issue.  The description of the prevention measures is, basically, non existent and what does exist isn't accurate.  Regardless, it more properly belongs ONLY on the CCO page and not the individual pages.  Much better this gets worked out in the talk pages first to prevent edit wars on the article. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

uniform issues
As of earlier this year, new uniforms are not being issued due to funding and contract issues and this will stay true until June (not sure if this date is correct). If someone wants to research this, it seems to me like something that should be in this article. I, regrettably, don't have the time.

--Spike35031 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Star level training program
In PAC region, all lessons are now EOs instead of POs. Mandatory traing has the prefix EO M xxx.xx instead of PO EO xxx.xx. Can someone please confirm if this is the case country wide?--Spike35031 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

POs and EOs

 * In the QSPs and IGs lessons are labeled:


 * Mandatory Lessons: EO Mxxx.xx


 * Complimentary Lessons: EO Cxxx.xx


 * Sections are labeled PO xxx for example in the gold star QSP:


 * SECTION 16 is the Performance Objective: PO 424 - EMPLOY NATURAL RESOURCES IN A SURVIVAL SITUATION


 * A lesson is the Enabling Objective: EO M424.01 SHARPEN A SURVIVAL KNIFE


 * Bertwert (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

CATO's and Other Official Ruling Documents
Can someone add a section on what CATO's are, their role, where to find them, and other similar official documents that denote the rules of the CCO? ENGL3400UNB (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)