Just got home from a few days in LFCATC Meaford. The base change of command parade was held while I was out there, and at it the commander LFCA made a few comments to the nature of RCA‘s comments. His emphasis is on quantity. He had set the goal for the training center to double its output this year.
For those not farmiliar with this debate, I will quickly outline the two sides (but may do niether the justice they deserve as a result of my brevity).
Those who are Pro-Quantity belive that we must get people in the door and qualified to fill postions within their units as soon as possible. If people cannot be placed into these positions and are forced to wait for months to a year in a holding Pl, we will loose them and a critticle mass within the reserves. traditional course subject matter which is removed or reduced in the career courses will be made-up for at the home units
Pro-Quality proponents argue that units are not doing the lost training, nor do units have the time and reasources to conduct the training. The results of quantity production, leave reserve units with a majority of substandard soldiers who cannot be brought up to expected standards of profficiency. More time and reasources should be put into the individual soldiers at the start of thier careers so that they arrive at the units ready for collective training, and not as a burden requiring units to dedicate to individual trg.
I am in the pro-quality camp, however, either philosophy could be made to work depending on the approach taken. I would also lend serious credibility to an argument which would suggest that pro-quantity would work best for large units with lots of resources, and pro-quality would work best for small units with fewer resources.
I gathered some information on a few other points raised here during my Meaford visit. While up there I spoke with a training & development type officer and came across some information on the time length of the QL2. As RCA stated, there reason for so much being cut from the course was to accomodate reserve unit requests for faster production of troops. However, due to complaints about insufficient time, the QL2 course will be streched from 16 days to 20. For this to fit the time table, the QL3 courses will be cut from 24 days to 20. Some trade-off, eh?
That is short term. In the long term there is thought of adding a new course between what are currently QL2 and QL3. Because the QL2 is a common basic for the CF and QL3 is trade specific basics, this new course would be common Land force basics and all militia would take it. A large portion of this course would consist of support weapons and other subjects usually mentioned in the phrase "what ever happened to subject X that used to be taught on QL2?" Usually Subject X is required for MLOC, such as the Carl G or the GPMG.
Hopefully a basic Army course (QL2b ?) would also cover other subjects have never made it into the QL2 course. One that comes to mind, as an Engineer, is basic mine awarness.