# CF Forming "Yellowknife Company" of Loyal Edmonton Regiment



## The Bread Guy (11 Jun 2009)

It ain't Whitehorse, but it's certainly north enough.  Mods - feel free to merge elsewhere if you see fit.

This from CBC.ca:


> The Canadian military has announced the creation of a new reserve infantry company in Yellowknife, calling it the first permanent army reserve presence north of 60.
> 
> The Yellowknife Company will be part of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment. Officials said this week they hope to recruit 30 reservists from the N.W.T. capital over the next five years, and eventually recruit as many as 120.
> 
> ...



More on link - according to this page, Yellowknife Company appears to be the second Reserve presence after 440 Transport Squadron (Air Reserve).  Anyone know what kind of turnout 440 has?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2009)

Given that the "Air Reserve" is a polite work of fiction, it's hard to judge.  Last figures I saw suggested fewer than 40% of Air Reservists are not on full-time service - and many of those are working 3 days a week for the Air Reserve.

(Question:  If a Reserve is committed, is it still a reserve?)


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Jun 2009)

First permanent Army Reserve unit north of 60?  I think not.  Back in the 1950s The 19th Alberta Dragoons had a squadron in Whitehorse tasked with security on the Alaska Highway.  This unit morphed into The Yukon Regiment which was short-lived but considered permanent when established.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (Question:  If a Reserve is committed, is it still a reserve?)



Army.ca Koan of the Day? ©


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Jun 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Yellowknife Company appears to be the second Reserve presence after 440 Transport Squadron (Air Reserve).  Anyone know what kind of turnout 440 has?



Yes I know I'm whining but does northern Alberta with 1 1/2 million people, give or take, even have an Air Reserve Squadron?  I think the politicians need another letter.


----------



## Scott (11 Jun 2009)

So send your letter and be done with the whining.

Thanks.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Yes I know I'm whining but does northern Alberta with 1 1/2 million people, give or take, even have an Air Reserve Squadron?  I think the politicians need another letter.



Answer - While 418 (City of Edmonton) Sqn was killed some years ago apparently 408 Tactical Helicopter Sqn in Edmonton and 4 Wing in Cold Lake has some form of reserve component.  I can't write one yet, I told MacKay I'd leave him alone until the end of June.


----------



## tabernac (11 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Yes I know I'm whining but does northern Alberta with 1 1/2 million people, give or take, even have an Air Reserve Squadron?  I think the politicians need another letter.



What are you trying to say? Stop beating around the bush. 

IIRC 4 Wing has an air reserve flight in Edmonton.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Jun 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It ain't Whitehorse, but it's certainly north enough.  Mods - feel free to merge elsewhere if you see fit.
> 
> This from CBC.ca:
> More on link - according to this page, Yellowknife Company appears to be the second Reserve presence after 440 Transport Squadron (Air Reserve).  Anyone know what kind of turnout 440 has?



Awesome another reserve unit!Our sovereignty is saved yet again! Why all of a sudden are we opening reserve units around the country?
If that's the way we are going to solve Canadian problems lets put the "mohawk quick reaction" reserve unit in Cornwall, "Anti smuggling" unit in Fortune Newfoundland as well.We don't need people in them,just nice job titles for Lcol's.
Hell; if it's on paper it's as good as real!
Please explain what 30 odd reservist are going to do that the rangers can't?
Other than pose yearly on the maple Leaf as our "defenders of the North".

Why does this make me angry?I need help.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Awesome another reserve unit!Our sovereignty is saved yet again! Why all of a sudden are we opening reserve units around the country?
> If that's the way we are going to solve Canadian problems lets put the "mohawk quick reaction" reserve unit in Cornwall,



Ahem.... There's been a Infantry unit in Cornwall area since 1783.  And, yes, they were deployed to support other CF units and police at Akwesasne in 1990.  Therefore, your idea has already been put into play.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Jun 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Ahem.... There's been a Infantry unit in Cornwall area since 1783.  And, yes, they were deployed to support other CF units and police at Akwesasne in 1990.  Therefore, your idea has already been put into play.



Yeah I'm very well aware of Cornwall...and the smell. :nod:
it was a tongue in cheek comment about special units.

This seems like a feeble attempt to convince Canadians we are/can do anything IRT Northern sovereignty.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Yeah I'm very well aware of Cornwall...and the smell. :nod:



The smell is gone.  The Mohawk and "The Glens" Regiment both remain.



> it was a tongue in cheek comment about special units.



I see nothing "special" in the creation of this company, other than it's location.



> This seems like a feeble attempt to convince Canadians we are/can do anything IRT Northern sovereignty.



Why is it feeble?  What would you suggest the CF do that is relevant, timely and cost effective?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Jun 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> .We don't need people in them,just nice job titles for Lcol's.
> Hell; if it's on paper it's as good as real!
> 
> Why does this make me angry?I need help.



I don't know that reserve units are any more top heavy than the regular force.  I could only find figures from a defence committee hearing in 2004 which said that Canada had 313 colonels (assume LCol and Col) and 71 generals.  With the then forces strength of about 50,000 that would be 1 Col or Gen per 130 members which is in the ballpark of the reserves.  I think I've read elsewhere numbers like 600 or 900 Cols but I couldn't find it.  And yes I know that regular force infantry battalions have 1 Col per approx 850.

Defence committee garble:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1453263&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=38&Ses=1


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Jun 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The smell is gone.  The Mohawk and "The Glens" Regiment both remain.
> 
> I see nothing "special" in the creation of this company, other than it's location.
> 
> Why is it feeble?  What would you suggest the CF do that is relevant, timely and cost effective?



Glad to hear about the smell!As long as tequila Joes is still there!

I believe it's a feeble attempt to have a few photo op's of people "defending" the north.No doubt we shall see it in the year to come in our media.As for what I would suggest,let's admit that with our current mission in Afganistan,training recruits,we can't commit to Arctic sovereignty.

We can make all the units we want to defend the north on paper,but when push comes to shove 30 reservist will not suffice.Lets get realistic and admit if the north is invaded we will have to deploy from "down south" to deal with it.This is nothing more than a news blurb to make Canadians feel cosy.Being a big election platform,along with the environment.I'm surprised we don't start a reserve unit that plants trees to "combat" global warming.

If the plan is to put map symbols on an invading countries map let's build empty missile silo's to distract them as well.

Our reservist near Regular force bases across Canada rarely receive the equipment they need.Instead of opening any more reserve units which will be undermanned and over lead,lets spend the money developing the reserve units we have.Instead of spending money on shoulder flashes,office computers,weapons for a new unit lets put it into existing units.Let's face it if the reserve had to deploy with us to augment they wouldn't even have enough vehicles to transport themselves.

Dennis having a command structure based around 30 guys is a waste of money in my opinion.You of course have a different outlook on reestablishing many different units.I don't agree.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jun 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Awesome another reserve unit!Our sovereignty is saved yet again! Why all of a sudden are we opening reserve units around the country?
> If that's the way we are going to solve Canadian problems lets put the "mohawk quick reaction" reserve unit in Cornwall, "Anti smuggling" unit in Fortune Newfoundland as well.We don't need people in them,just nice job titles for Lcol's.
> Hell; if it's on paper it's as good as real!
> Please explain what 30 odd reservist are going to do that the rangers can't?
> ...



It may not be your intent, but you're coming close to Reserve bashing. I suggest you proofread your rants before you hit send.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Jun 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It may not be your intent, but you're coming close to Reserve bashing. I suggest you proofread your rants before you hit send.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Not my intent at all,but seen and understood.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I don't know that reserve units are any more top heavy than the regular force.  I could only find figures from a defence committee hearing in 2004 which said that Canada had 313 colonels (assume LCol and Col) and 71 generals.  With the then forces strength of about 50,000 that would be 1 Col or Gen per 130 members which is in the ballpark of the reserves.  I think I've read elsewhere numbers like 600 or 900 Cols but I couldn't find it.  And yes I know that regular force infantry battalions have 1 Col per approx 850.



Reg Force only.  Full colonels only.

Reg F strength has never been down to 50K; perhaps around 58K at that time.

Investigate first, talk second.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Reg Force only.  Full colonels only.
> 
> Reg F strength has never been down to 50K; perhaps around 58K at that time.
> 
> Investigate first, talk second.



Some of this information is hard to come by if you don't know specific sources.  The 50,000 number was simply a a round number, the exact accuracy of which neither adds nor detracts from my argument. 

Adding LCols into the calculation wouldn't exactly hurt my case that the reserves aren't unusually top heavy compared to the rest of the forces.  

I assume the new Yellowknife company will have a captain or major as OC.  Many reserve units are set up on a squadron/company/battery basis without a LCol.


----------



## Haggis (12 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I assume the new Yellowknife company will have a captain or major as OC.



The OC is a Captain.


----------



## Scott (12 Jun 2009)

Dennis,

You're getting dangerously close to going into the warning system here. How many times must you be told to not post unqualified information? You've just been caught at it again. LEARN THIS TIME! If the information is hard to come by the don't post until you have it.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## tabernac (12 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Adding LCols into the calculation wouldn't exactly hurt my case that *the reserves aren't unusually top heavy* compared to the rest of the forces.



How's this for a little anecdote. Last year at the Battle of the Atlantic Parade, HMCS NONSUCH paraded 35-40. 12 of them were officers. That's pretty top heavy. And something tells me that echos the reality in the RegF.


----------



## Monsoon (12 Jun 2009)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> How's this for a little anecdote. Last year at the Battle of the Atlantic Parade, HMCS NONSUCH paraded 35-40. 12 of them were officers. That's pretty top heavy. And something tells me that echos the reality in the RegF.


The BoA is generally in the first week of May, after the university students that make up the majority of a naval reserve division have left on summer training. Even larger units with an active class "A" strength of 120 or more seldom parade more than 40 or 50 on the BoA. And how many of those "officers" were untrained JOUTs? I know for a fact that NON isn't overborne with trained officers; try closer to the under half-dozen range - with the highest rank being LCdr Cdr.1

Perhaps _that_ echoes the Reg F reality.

1 - Correction: I see that NON is one of the few NRDs to have a Cdr as a CO, his having previously spent 12 years as a LCdr on class "B" in Halifax, Esquimalt and Ottawa.


----------



## tabernac (12 Jun 2009)

Well last I looked, Cdr P****** was in charge. With the XO and StdsO, LCdr V** *********, both LCdrs, with 4 2-ringers plus the Padre, another 2-ringer. Plus the Subbies.


----------



## Monsoon (12 Jun 2009)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> Well last I looked, Cdr P****** was in charge. With the XO and StdsO, LCdr V** *********, both LCdrs, with 4 2-ringers plus the Padre, another 2-ringer. Plus the Subbies.


Really? Lucky them. But that doesn't even reflect the norm in NAVRES, let alone the Reg F.

Consider also that CO is in his last year in the postion and that the XO will likely become the CO (without promotion, unless he tops the merit board for LCdrs) and the StdsO would likely become the XO (unless he just gets out). Suddenly the "top heavy" unit doesn't seem quite so brass-intensive. NRDs don't promote into positions.


----------



## Long in the tooth (12 Jun 2009)

"Permanent Army Reserve"?  There's an oxymoron.  Chuckles.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Adding LCols into the calculation wouldn't exactly hurt my case that the reserves aren't unusually top heavy compared to the rest of the forces.



Sigh. Ever compare Reg to Res in the Army, and the tasks they are assigned?  Reserves have fewer senior positions to fill, yet nearly comparable numbers of senior floppers around.

And while I'd be happy to reduce the number of Reg F LCols and Cols as well, I'd rather clean my own house first.

(Step one: AOC DS - drop to Major, and have as mandatory pre-command employment).


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jun 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The smell is gone.  The Mohawk and "The Glens" Regiment both remain.



And with it the jobs that support a population that can support the SD&G.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Reg F strength has never been down to 50K; perhaps around 58K at that time.
> 
> Investigate first, talk second.



Just remembering numbers as reported in the popular press.  I did a bit of research.

A 2002 public survey done by to determine perceptions of the military. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/menu/consult/docs/update_e.pdf

As a second concern, many respondents objected to the 60,000 figure for full-time members, given the number of people who are currently away on missions, just returning, training for departure, medically unfit, and on various kinds of leave. Representative comments ranged from “we’re lucky to have 55,000, on a good day” to “we are sitting closer to 50,000 personnel right now, and that will only get worse in the next few years”.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ottawa Citizen  
DATE:  2001.09.25 
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Digests/v04n100-199/v04-n136.txt

The effective strength of the Canadian <military> has quietly slipped to around 53,000 personnel and is expected to plunge even lower in the next six months. 

The "trained effective strength" of the Canadian Forces will hit 50,684 at the end of March 2002, according to projections done earlier this
year by the military's personnel branch and released to the Citizen. The number represents those sailors, aviators and soldiers who could
actually be deployed, according to <military> officials. 

In public, federal politicians and generals claim the <military>
is around 59,000 strong but that figure includes personnel who, while still technically on the books, have retired, are away on long-term
sick leave, are absent without leave, or serving time in Canadian Forces jails. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A quote from Steven Harper - 2004

http://vote.onlinedemocracy.ca/postnuke/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=214

"Defence is simply not a priority for the Liberals, and it has not been for over 30 years,” said Harper.   A Conservative government would immediately inject $1.2 billion into the Department of National Defence, and would gradually increase that to an additional $1.6 billion annually by the end of the first term. As well, the Conservatives would gradually increase the strength of the military by 20,000 personnel.   The Canadian Forces have about 52,000 personnel, but the authorized strength is 60,000. Harper said he realizes bringing the Forces up to 80,000 will take time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a small sample.  The gist of it is that authorized strength remained at 60,000 and the military establishment stuck with this number or very close too it.  It’s just that nobody including parliamentarians believed it.  I searched each strength from 50,000 to 59,000 and found multiple hits for most of them from reasonable sources.  Can anyone say with reasonable assurance how many people are truly in the military on any given day and why do I see a number as high as 10,000 ineffective?  I understand recruits undergoing training but are there other categories such as retirees kept on the books?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> This is a small sample.  The gist of it is that authorized strength remained at 60,000 and the military establishment stuck with this number or very close too it.  It’s just that nobody including parliamentarians believed it.  I searched each strength from 50,000 to 59,000 and found multiple hits for most of them from reasonable sources.  Can anyone say with reasonable assurance how many people are truly in the military on any given day and why do I see a number as high as 10,000 ineffective?  I understand recruits undergoing training but are there other categories such as retirees kept on the books?



If someone retires and has a residual leave entitlement, they remain "on the books" as a member of the Regular Force until they have served out that leave.  At one time, that could be a considerable amount of accumulated leave and it was not unusual for someone retiring at 25 or 30 years to have hundreds of days built up.  

Those other categories can also include those in hospital, those on long-term medical situations awaiting decisions on whether they can continue to serve or not, maternal/paternal leave, post-graduate studies, officers in university training programs (RMC and civilian universities), anyone in jail, etc., etc., etc.  

Any query asking how many people are in the Regular Force, and how many of those are "effective" is a momentary snapshot. With so many potential daily changes, what difference does it make if a news report says there are 55,837 effective, vice 56,000?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Jun 2009)

Sounds like someone is picking fly shit out of pepper


----------



## PhilB (14 Jun 2009)

Since when did media articles and political quotes (when the politician being quoted was in opposition) become hard fact. Check your sources and their validity, next we may as well start quoting Wikipedia as gospel fact.  : All I have to say is Dennis....SUM UP!


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> This is a small sample.  The gist of it is that authorized strength remained at 60,000 and the military establishment stuck with this number or very close too it.  It’s just that nobody including parliamentarians believed it.  I searched each strength from 50,000 to 59,000 and found multiple hits for most of them from reasonable sources.  Can anyone say with reasonable assurance how many people are truly in the military on any given day and why do I see a number as high as 10,000 ineffective?  I understand recruits undergoing training but are there other categories such as retirees kept on the books?



Sigh.  There are lies, damn lies and statistics, and lies, damn lies, and strength reports.  Much of the information you receives depends on the question you ask.

There is a Reg F ceiling, which is different from the Trained Effective Establishment, which is different from the Part 2 Trained Effective Strength, which is different from the number of full-time CF members... in short, ask a different question, get a different answer.

Much as with artillery one needs precision to ensure the proper munitions are delivered on the proper location, when discussing Reg F strength (or Res F strength, for that matter) one needs precision to ensure (1) you are using comparable figures and (2) you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Jun 2009)

PhilB said:
			
		

> All I have to say is Dennis....SUM UP!



I didn't make up the 50,000 number.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Jun 2009)

Still ...... picking fly shit out of pepper


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Jun 2009)

Dennis,

You seem to be here trying to generate grass-roots military support for what must be a political initiative to succeed.  If you look closely you will see that there has been little excitement among the "troops" for re-arranging the Titanic's deck chairs (i.e., creating new units) when we all see bigger issues that deserve attention (from organizational disasters of overlapping headquarters, to lack of individual soldier equipment).  More units without more soldiers, equipment or money simply means a thinner slice of those resources for each unit with which every CO then has to try and achieve the same training objectives.  Your desire to see a new unit reconstituted in Northern Alberta may seem to be be an honourable objective, but in reality it is not necessarily advantageous to the Reserves or the CF.  By all means, beat your drum, but you are wasting your time and our collective patience beating it here in this manner. If, considering the number of times you have been corrected on factual errors and pursued tangential arguments which don't support your central objective, you think that posting on Army.ca is essential to your own learning curve, then I suggest you pick one (and only one) thread for all of your comments on this topic.

We welcome factual debate that has a purpose and sticks to the point.  These random tangents only start to come across as trolling behaviour and that will lead to the Warning System which you are aware of through the Conduct Guidelines you agreed to on joining the site.


----------



## R933ex (14 Jun 2009)

Going back to Tonys first statement, when I was with the Flight 2000-2002 we were averaging 6-8 class As and a few more class Bs, several of them were usually Eddies attached to 440 for the Mission Support Flight (primary taskings GSAR, Crash Guard, setting up mods etc) currently there is a very small presence at the squadron, so it will be interesting to see if the unit develops.


----------



## PhilB (14 Jun 2009)

Denis not intimating that you made things up, you are using poor sources, to back up a poor, mis-constructed argument which, as Michael pointed out, is not supported by the majority of troops on here.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Jun 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Dennis,
> 
> You seem to be here trying to generate grass-roots military support for what must be a political initiative to succeed.



I have been building my political bridges for many months and realize that politics is the ONLY way to succeed. I knew this before I started and have clearly stated it in my correspondence with politicians.  I had no pretensions that there would be any grass-roots military support and can't comprehend such a thing.  I thought there might be some local support and there is some.  I first posted here aiming at a local audience.  I don't know if the measure of success is to have unanymity.  The only measure of my success will be success.

Maybe I'll stick with the history threads for a while.  My intention here has not been to be disruptive in any form.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I have been building my political bridges for many months and realize that politics is the ONLY way to succeed. I knew this before I started and have clearly stated it in my correspondence with politicians.  I had no pretensions that there would be any grass-roots military support and can't comprehend such a thing.  I thought there might be some local support and there is some.  I first posted here aiming at a local audience.  I don't know if the measure of success is to have unanymity.  The only measure of my success will be success.
> 
> Maybe I'll stick with the history threads for a while.  My intention here has not been to be disruptive in any form.



Good plan, because I don't think you're making any converts here. Not now, at any rate. Careful you don't wear out your welcome in the History threads too.


----------



## PhilB (15 Jun 2009)

To be honest, being a member of the brigade that your proposed unit would fall under, I think your idea is disruptive. Like others have pointed out it will take money away from MY, and others, training budget, for what? What possible operational, logical reason is there for your proposed unit?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Jun 2009)

PhilB said:
			
		

> operational



Key word, Mr. Ruhl.

Everything else is window dressing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jun 2009)

I'm paraphrasing the CDS here from a presetnation he gave last week: 

"There is no threat to Canada's arctic. If any country invaded our arctic territories right now, my first responsibility would be to rescure them (laughter all round). Having said that, the Arctic Ocean will soon be navigable for a large proportion of the year. Forget about the Northwest passage, it can be blocked easily by windblown ice drifting east or west. There are many countries, like China, who are currently planning to send cargo ship directly across the polar route - across the north pole. Cruise ships, with hundreds of people aboard, will be transiting this area and may need rescuing if they run aground/ hit icebergs.  Because ice and snow no longer cover the ground for much of the year, there are dozens of private mining companies conducting exploration activities in the Mackenzie delta, and elsewhere, who we know nothing about. 

Therefore, we must be prepared to show the flag in these areas to a greater degree than we have in the past few years. We must provide additional support to the Canadian Rangers. We must conduct more exercises in arctic Canada. We must build up our naval facilities as Nanisivik. Luckily, we now have the C-17 which will allow us to transport large amounts of materiel and large numbers of troops north in a short period of time. The arctic will be a main focus for the activities of the CF in the near future."

He also noted that we stopped going to the arctic when we started going to Bosnia, largely as a result of all our airlift going across the Atlantic vs. to the north. He said that will change soon.

No doubt the new coy in Yellowknife  (regardless of how modest this effort seems) is a small part of this plan to show the flag in the north to a greater degree than we have in the past, and to provide a firm base for launching other CF ventures into the high arctic. And I keep having to remind myself that Yellowknife is not the high arctic; that's still a few hundred miles further north.

Better dig out those mukluks....


----------



## Shec (16 Jun 2009)

Meanwhile, back at the Gold Range Hotel...


----------



## Haggis (16 Jun 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And with it the jobs that support a population that can support the SD&G.



THREAD TANGENT ALERT

Less than 10% of the Regiment was drawn from the rolls of the major Cornwall and area industries that are now closed.  Even though the demograhics of Cornwall and SD&G has changed significantly, "The Glens' are not having difficulty recruiting.

[rant]"SD&G" are three counties in eastern Ontario, not the name of a Regiment located in those three counties.  This regiment is known, officially and properly, as the SD&G Highlanders or, more simply, "The Glens". [/rant]

THREAD TANGENT ALERT ENDS


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2009)

R933ex said:
			
		

> Going back to Tonys first statement, when I was with the Flight 2000-2002 we were averaging 6-8 class As and a few more class Bs, several of them were usually Eddies attached to 440 for the Mission Support Flight (primary taskings GSAR, Crash Guard, setting up mods etc) currently there is a very small presence at the squadron, so it will be interesting to see if the unit develops.



Sounds pretty tiny, and I don't know how helpful having another (at least notional company) in town to recruit.  Thanks for that tidbit.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jun 2009)

Yellowknife: 18 700 population.  Haven't been able to find a detailed breakdown by age range, but that's an awfully small group to draw from - particularly when the whole of the NWT has about 42 000 people - no large population base in the surrounding area to draw on.

I see a platoon at most being sustainable in the long term.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Jun 2009)

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Yellowknife?t=6.#6.



> In Yellowknife, the population is slightly disproportionate in terms of age distribution compared to the national average; the average age is 31.2, compared to a Canada-wide average of 39.5. [57] As of the 2005 survey, 15.2% of residents were 9 or under, 7.8% were from 10 to 14 years old, *16.1% were from 15 to 24*, 36.3% were from 25 to 44, 19.5% were from 45 to 59, and 5.1% were 60 or older. From 1996 to 2005, the average annual growth rate was 0.7% for the total population; broken down by age, it was -0.4% for < 15 years, and 7.1% for 60 years and older. [55]


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yellowknife: 18 700 population.  Haven't been able to find a detailed breakdown by age range, but that's an awfully small group to draw from - particularly when the whole of the NWT has about 42 000 people - no large population base in the surrounding area to draw on.
> 
> I see a platoon at most being sustainable in the long term.



Here's what Stats Can says is there - just under 10K (~53%) between 20 and (to be generous) 49, just over 6K (~34%) between 20 and 40.


----------



## Bruce Williams (16 Jun 2009)

I can't understand the logic of making this company part of the Loyal *EDMONTON* Regiment. What should of happened was the reactivation of The Yukon Regiment from the Supplementary Order of Battle.

Certainly this company will require some augmentation in the form of an RSS detachment and possibly even an OC, CSM and CQMS. These positions could be filled by regulars or reservists from other units who could re-badge while so employed.

There would be tremendous benefits in local pride and morale not to mention the establishment of a local footprint.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Jun 2009)

Bruce Williams said:
			
		

> I can't understand the logic of making this company part of the Loyal *EDMONTON* Regiment. What should of happened was the reactivation of The Yukon Regiment from the Supplementary Order of Battle.
> 
> Certainly this company will require some augmentation in the form of an RSS detachment and possibly even an OC, CSM and CQMS. These positions could be filled by regulars or reservists from other units who could re-badge while so employed.
> 
> There would be tremendous benefits in local pride and morale not to mention the establishment of a local footprint.



You do realize that the Loyal Edmonton Regiment is considered to be 4 PPCLI (at least in histroy).



> THE LOYAL EDMONTON REGIMENT (4 PPCLI)
> CELEBRATES 100 YEARS OF SERVICE
> On 1 April 2008 the Loyal Edmonton Regiment will
> celebrate 100 years of service to Canada. This anniversary
> ...



REF: PPCLI WEBPAGE


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (16 Jun 2009)

> when the
> First Battalion *Queen’s Own Rifle of Canada* was re-designated as the third Regular
> Force battalion of Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry



I've heard of recruitment issues but that's worst I've ever heard of


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jun 2009)

Note that was 1st Bn QoR as vested in the Regular Force who were re-designated as 3 PPCLI, not the Reserve QoR in Toronto.

The Air Force seemingly has the ability to stand up and stand down units to meet requirements.  Pity the Army is too rigid to ever dream of making substantive changes to the Reserves... we'll mess around with Engineers and CSS, but Black Hats and Infanteers are off limits...


----------



## Haggis (16 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Note that was 1st Bn QoR as vested in the Regular Force who were re-designated as 3 PPCLI, not the Reserve QoR in Toronto.


Could that be the reason the Reserve QoR has "2" on their cap badge?



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Air Force seemingly has the ability to stand up and stand down units to meet requirements.


In the last Air Force "re-org" units were created, amalagamated and stood down on the strength of a CANAIRGEN......  CFOO's to follow.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pity the Army is too rigid to ever dream of making substantive changes to the Reserves... we'll mess around with Engineers and CSS, but Black Hats and Infanteers are off limits...


 That may change if BGen O'Brien gets his way.
[/quote]


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jun 2009)

Strictly speaking, CFOOs are internal administrative documents.  The only key legal document is the Ministerial Organizational Order, or MOO.

It's a pity how few senior commanders understand the legal framework that governs the CF and its organization.  In my experience, General officers don't like being told they lack the authority to do things... so they try to work around the system, get in too deep, then have staff do remedial work to go back and do things the way they should have been done in the first place, with the related loss of time and extra staff effort.  No names.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (16 Jun 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Could that be the reason the Reserve QoR has "2" on their cap badge?



Unit origin was the Second Battalion, Volunteer Militia Rifles of Canada.


----------



## Bruce Williams (17 Jun 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> You do realize that the Loyal Edmonton Regiment is considered to be 4 PPCLI (at least in histroy).
> 
> REF: PPCLI WEBPAGE



Yes. However, geographically Edmonton is not in the Yukon.


----------



## Northern Ranger (17 Jun 2009)

Bruce Williams said:
			
		

> Yes. However, geographically Edmonton is not in the Yukon.



Nor is Yellowknife.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 Jun 2009)

The secondary title (4th Bn PPCLI) appended to the Loyal Edmonton Regiment has been explained as an honour granted because the two regiments fought in the same brigade in both big wars.  This does not explain the other pairings that took place at the same time.  

The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) was given a secondary title as a battalion of The Royal Canadian Regiment and eventually merged with it.  Three Quebec regiments were given secondary titles as battalions of the Van Doos and two eventually merged with them.  The Governor General's Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards were given secondary titles as battalions of The Canadian Guards which they outlived.  The Black Watch, The Queen's Own Rifles, The Fort Garry Horse, and The 8th Canadian Hussars were also paired with same named regular regiments which have been disbanded.  There were also some reserve unit pairings at the time where a degree of identity was retained as in the 2 battalions of the Nova Scotia Highlanders and the Royal New Brunswick Regiment.  There were also many pairings where local identity was lost.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jun 2009)

This whole thread has become so completely convoluted and ridiculous as to be assisnine. I feel mentally deficient for having read it. More of my life I'll never get back, for no good reason.


----------



## Bruce Williams (17 Jun 2009)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Nor is Yellowknife.



Congratulations! You are the first to note that error. Just shows how much attention most people pay to Canadian geography.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2009)

Bruce Williams said:
			
		

> Congratulations! You are the first to note that error. Just shows how much attention most people pay to Canadian geography.



Well did you expect everyone else to chime in once your error was pointed out, most felt there was only the need to say it once...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jun 2009)

While trying to watch all the large moronity going on in this 3 ring circus of a thread it's very easy to overlook the small significant details.....


----------



## GAP (18 Aug 2009)

MacKay makes Arctic army reserve unit official
Last Updated: Monday, August 17, 2009
Article Link

Defence Minister Peter MacKay officially launched Canada's first army reserve company to be based in the Northwest Territories on Monday, making it the only active reserve unit north of 60.

Speaking at a stand-up ceremony Monday morning in Yellowknife, MacKay said the new Yellowknife Company will be part of Canada's growing presence in the Arctic.

"The new Yellowknife Company, which complements the Canadian Rangers and our regular force elements of the North, is part of this evolution, a part of the Canadian Forces' increasing footprint and capability and capacity in the Arctic," MacKay said.

"A primary reserve unit, based in the North, clearly serves the interests of Canada and the Canadian Forces."
Full strength by 2019

Military officials have just started recruiting members to join the Yellowknife Company, which is part of the 41 Canadian Brigade Loyal Edmonton Regiment in Alberta.

The Canadian Forces hopes to recruit 100 people for the unit over time, putting it at full strength by 2019.
More on link


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Aug 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> MacKay makes Arctic army reserve unit official
> Last Updated: Monday, August 17, 2009
> Article Link
> 
> ...


100 people in ten years?  Wow.  Don't put your standards *too* high...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2009)

Looks like a *check in the box* vice a capability.  

From an oar-puller view of the CF, I have 1 question.  Whats the point of this?


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2009)

Some info/discussion on this here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/86599.0/all.html


----------



## GAP (18 Aug 2009)

Then this should be merged. I couldn't find that thread/I was too lazy/dumb when I was posting this.... ;D


----------



## dapaterson (18 Aug 2009)

Even that 100 pers may well be elusive; the small population in the area coupled with chronic health issues in the region that will disqualify many from serving will make it a challenge to reach that


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Aug 2009)

Edmonton has traditional been a service support centre for the Western Arctic, you will note that most of the Arctic vessels are/were registered in Edmonton. It was also a transportation hub for people flying North as well. Not sure if that still applies. I am glad they opened a reserve unit up there, am not happy they are robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> 100 people in ten years?  Wow.  Don't put your standards *too* high...


That appears to be too high already, so to speak...

They have recruit number 1....







> _Joe Medernach, left, of Yellowknife receives his Certificate of Enrolment into the Canadian Forces from Captain Conrad Schubert, Officer Commanding of The Yellowknife Company- The Loyal Edmonton Regiment at a recent ceremony held at Joint Task Force (North)._


....so at this rate (3 months/recruit), they'll have a company in 25 years, if I figure it right.  

Think this sketch backwards.


----------



## pfinlayson (20 Sep 2011)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Nor is Yellowknife.



 ;D


----------

