Edit: I composed this before I read George's and recceguy's posts, and they have excellent points, and mine are at odds somewhat, so bear in mind I didn't read their posts when I composed what is below.
Very good points 'reccecrewman'. You were right on the money with your points.
Rather than get wrapped around the axles with wordology (appointment vs rank), a lot of this comes down to people's attitudes towards the position that the MCpl's fill in any unit, regardless of trade. Saying that a person doesn't earn the rank/appointment of MCpl is a major slap in the face of those that are trying to achieve that, or have achieved it. I have heard the tired old saw that the Sgt's and WO's mess is the only mess that you are promoted, or earn your way, into (the other's being automatic upon enrollment), so it must be special. A lot of this mentality, IMO, is based on elitism and class structure. Here's an example I just thought of, so I'll add it here: What about a Sgt/WO/MWO/CWO who CFR's or goes through UTPNCM? They have "earned" their way into 2 separate messes - the Sgt's and WO's mess, and then the Officers mess. So much for the exclusivity of the Sgt's/WO's mess....
I will relate a story from my own life: I was teaching on a course in Wainwright, as a 6A MCpl, so I was the section commander, with a PPCLI MCpl as my 2 IC. I knew that I was getting promoted at the Regimental Moreuil Wood parade, so I went back to Edmonton the day prior to the parade to get my uniforms turned in for tailoring, pick up new slip-ons, etc. Anyway, I was walking down the hall in the unit lines, and walked by a WO, and being the good little MCpl I nodded and said "good day, Warrant". He walked past me without even acknowledging my presence. Fast forward to the unit party the evening after I get promoted. Guess who was my new best friend (well not really, but much more friendly than the day before, when I was a lowly MCpl)? Yes, that is one person, not the whole Sr NCO corps, but I think it is a telling example.
I don't know if it is feasible, or even neccesary, to create a separate facility, in an official capacity anyway, to differentiate between the Tpr's/Cpl's, the MCpl's, and the Sr NCO's (Sgt's and WO's, officially). I suppose that they could make MCpl's automatically Sr NCO's (and then call the mess the Sr NCO's mess, rather than the MCpl's, Sgts, and WO's mess), which would require a mentality and culture shift in the CF. I know that people here have said that Sgt's are (generally) more mature than MCpl's (usually), but who hasn't seen 23 year old Sgt's (I have) or 50 year old MCpl's (or Cpl's for that matter)? If a person "knows their place" (i.e their social status) and are taught/shown how to act, they will act accordingly. And if they don't, that's what the stuttering typewriter that prints out the duty roster is for.
As for terminology, can anyone point me in the right direction (ie CFAO, QR & O) as to why MCpl is "only" an appointment, and not a rank? My guess is because of Unification, but I'm curious as to why? It could be because other militaries don't have a similar "rank", and in the interest of keeping things "simple" this approach was chosen, but like many simple solutions, it seems to have created more confusion than is neccesary. I DON'T advocate changing the system (i.e making MCpl -> Cpl, Cpl -> LCpl, one hook pte -> pte), because then it only shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic: it doesn't address the position that MCpl's get put into (a member of the unwashed masses one moment, The Man the next). Yes, this is the way that many of us lived it, so it must be right, right?!? Well, maybe, maybe not. If anything, if more respect were shown to the rank/appointment, by all parties (including MCpl's), there wouldn't need to be a lot of hand wringing going on, but to marginalize it via terminology and a healthy amount of contempt doesn't help, either.
Anyway, interesting discussion, although the thread title is a little provocative, though I don't think that was the intent.
Al