# Restructuring of Reserve Health Services



## PQLUR (7 Dec 2006)

Anyone hear the proposed ideas for Restructuring of the Reserve Health Services world . . . these are just a couple that I've recently heard:

1) Close all Reserve Field Ambulances;  and
2) Move all HS Reservist with civilian health care qualifications to the PRL

These are just a couple of many ideas floating around.


----------



## quebecrunner (11 Dec 2006)

That was one of the scenario proposed. Trust me, they will not choose that one. 

Res fd amb will be converted into a regiment struture. How? that remains to be decided, but i believe that the most possible scenatio will be based on land area reserve regiment.  

For the rest, i dont have any idea and i will not speculate.


----------



## Donut (15 Dec 2006)

OK, bear with me, it's late, I'm tired, I've had a couple.   ;D too many.

The report on the (medical) field force restructure was released yesterday (Our Day Staff Ski Day, I heard about it tonight).  From the O Grp, and discussion in the mess afterwards:

The HS as you knew it is gone.  By 2009 (for the Regs) and a date TBD (Watch 2010 for the reserves, starting on the West to accomodate the Olympics) for the reserves, the HS structure will become Regiments, Squadrons, and Dets.  (I suspect Troops will fall in there somewhere too). 

The 14 reserve Fd Ambs will become 5 Regiments, based on their JTF (X) region.  So, 11 and 12 become "Pacific Medical Regiment" or somesuch.  15, 16, 17, and 18 become "Prarie  Medical Regiment".

Apparently a Reg Regiment will be 600+ pers.  The roll of the Reserve Med Tech becomes far, far less important.  A "Squadron" is 120-140 pers, and includes approx 21 Nursing positions.  The list of capabilities is long, but I wasn't willing to access and read it on the last parade night of the year; I'll post a summary later in the month or you can get it from your CoC.  Some existing units will be reduced to Det status.

Thoughts that immediately spring to mind:  

I hope that some lots of the MLVW replacements are coming to us.  Moving these beasts is going to be a bitch of a task.

I suggest that we take advantage of the reduced unit size to establish, quickly, new medical establishments in smaller communities.  For instance, the BC Interior could probably support a Det (whatever that is in terms of actual numbers), already having 4-7 12 Fd Amb members there, and a solid, relatively untapped recruiting base.  Nanaimo could possibly stand up an independant det.  Likewise for Red Deer, and other similar communities.

I've just Written, and deleted, about 6 other additional comments.  As per Para 1, I will now stop typing.  G'Night.


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Dec 2006)

Released eh! By carrier pigeon ...nothing on my Blackberry in the last 36 hours.  Since my Reg unit is on the chopping block and I am near the top you would think I might have heard something.  The draft paper was released several weeks ago, the preferred COA was the focus of the paper.  Comments were due by end Nov.  The Reg timeline is some pers movement in APS 07, more by APS 08 with a target endstate of 09.  Securing and dishing out the funds for equipment, facilities etc. will (likely) be a major hurdle.

All of this is happening while CFHIS and the CDU concept are being rolled out more completely.  The HSR will have no garrison patient treating role as the Clinics will no longer be connected to the Fd Amb/HSR.  There may be a role in civ health care for MCSP.  The role of the Med Tech is a big question mark for both Reg and Res, as is the future of the MO and Nurse in an HSR .


----------



## DartmouthDave (15 Dec 2006)

Hello,

All of this is happening while CFHIS and the CDU concept are being rolled out more completely.  The HSR will have no garrison patient treating role as the Clinics will no longer be connected to the Fd Amb/HSR.  There may be a role in civ health care for MCSP.  The role of the Med Tech is a big question mark for both Reg and Res, as is the future of the MO and Nurse in an HSR . 

Gunner, can please define a few terms for me.  I have been out of the CF for awhile (getting back in) and I don't know what some of theses terms mean.

HSR - Health Services Reserve??
CFHIS??
CDU??
MCSP??

Thank you,
David


----------



## MED_BCMC (15 Dec 2006)

We saw this one out in the West on Wednesday. 

The document as written has 5 COAs (my interpretation, feel free to correct as required):

1-* Close the Res Fd Ambs and move everyone with any kind of professional medical training (Docs, Nurses, PCPs, EMTs, etc) to the PRL, which will be expanded to include all the extra pers. * It was discussed at length and the "political" impact of closing that many units is not something that the Group is prepared to do. The training and recruiting of medical professionals would also suffer as there is no grass roots presence.

2- * As discussed, convert the Res Fd Ambs into one HS Regiment, with Squadrons in major centers. * These centers would be Victoria (Troop in Vancouver, or possibly the other way around), Edmonton (troop in Calgary), Winnipeg (troop in SK), Toronto (troop in Hamilton, and Ottawa) and Montreal. C2 becomes difficult, and this system would resemble the time when the HS Res responded directly to Ottawa.

3- * Create HS REGIMENTS across the country. * A Regiment in BC/AB (Sqns in Vancouver/Victoria, Edmonton), Regiment in SK/MB/NWONT (Sqns in Regina, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay), etc. The Mandate of each Sqn would then be to support the affliated CBG.

4- * Create HS REGIMENTS across the country, but each sqn would have a slightly different operation mandate. * These regiments become more of a training establish and support to the CBGs fall more to our regular force counterparts. 

5- * Status Quo. * We won't see this one happen. 

Watch and Shoot. As I understand the timeline, the verdict should be January/February timeframe.

Edited for Spelling...


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2006)

As the Fd  Amb are traditional units (my step-father served in 2 Fd Amb in WW2), I would say you should keep the Fd Amb and Med Coy designations, but cluster them in whatever org best serves the army.  The key being 'serves the army.'


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Dec 2006)

Here you go DD:

HSR - Health Services Regiments instead of Field Ambs
CFHIS - CF Health Information System including Electronic Health Record (no more paper files - $115 mill)
CDU - Care Delivery Units - approx. 1500 pers per CDU a little different from UMS concept - more than one Field Unit clustered into a CDU, e.g. 1 RCR, 2 Fd Amb, CMED, 1 Cdn Fd Hosp and other minor units clustered into one CDU
MCSP - Maintenance of Clinical Skills Program - MOCOMP (Maintenance of Competency) for non-physicians

CDU concept borrowed from civilian rostering system with same ratio of 1:1500.  CDU may have 1 x Mil MO, 1 x Civ MO, 1 X Nurse Practitioner, 1 x PA, 1 X 6A Sgt, a max of 3 MCpl with a max total of 6 Med Techs (QL3/5) plus Admin and Med Records staff.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2006)

So, why not re-org and re-role and still keep the traditional unit titles?  Or do we have to change the names too, or the guys and girls pushing the re-org don't get promoted?


----------



## nsmedicman (18 Dec 2006)

Where would this all leave us here in 36/37 Brigade? We presently have two PRes Fd Ambs.


----------



## MED_BCMC (18 Dec 2006)

nsmedicman said:
			
		

> Where would this all leave us here in 36/37 Brigade? We presently have two PRes Fd Ambs.



You'll be just fine   

Under the COA that has 1 HS Regiment, you would be a squadron, with two troops in the locations of your previous field ambulances.
Under the COAs where there are multiple HS Regiments, you'd be one Regiment with a Squadron in place of the field ambulance (Regimental HQ at one site, as well).


----------



## Mountie (29 Dec 2006)

Was there any thought of placing a medical company into the service battalion?  Both the US and Australian Armies, just to name a few, have a medical company within their brigade support battalion.  This consolidates the logistics, maintenance and health service support elements together to support a brigade.


----------



## MED_BCMC (29 Dec 2006)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Was there any thought of placing a medical company into the service battalion?  Both the US and Australian Armies, just to name a few, have a medical company within their brigade support battalion.  This consolidates the logistics, maintenance and health service support elements together to support a brigade.



At one point in time (before my time, mind you) the medical companies did belong to the Service Battalions (and therefore, the Army). 

CFHS will remain a separate branch; the Medical Companies / Field Ambulances / Health Services Regiments will remain in support of the army, but will not be part of it. 

BCM


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2007)

If you put a 50 or 100 person medical unit in as a company of a typical reserve service battalion, you should find yourself with a healthy medical section of 15-20 people in a decade or two.


----------



## Gunner98 (5 Jan 2007)

The Reserve Med Coy were associated with the Reserve Svc Bn during the 1970s.  IIRC, the Regular Medical Services have always belonged to their own branch formerly under the Surg Gen.  

The Rx2000 centralized concept has created a tenuous relationship between the Fd Ambs and the Brigades.  With the new development this relationship becomes even more confusing, as the Fd Ambs now report to the Health Services Group Commanders (1 in Edmonton and 4 in Montreal) but the clinics consisting of Care Delivery Units are detached from the Fd Amb and report to Director of Health Care Delivery in Ottawa.


----------



## Gunner98 (5 Jan 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> So, why not re-org and re-role and still keep the traditional unit titles?  Or do we have to change the names too, or the guys and girls pushing the re-org don't get promoted?



According to the staff paper produced *primarily* by a retired officer, who has been a civilian contractor for several years, the Health Service Regiments and Squadrons comes from the historical British Cavalry titles used by British/Colonial Medical units.  

Much the same as the creation of Health Service Groups and renaming many of the Base clinics as CF Health Services Centres with Commanding Officers rather than clinic managers, the idea is to  draw attention to the significant changes the Health Services are undergoing in response to high level reviews and evaluations dating from 1999 to present.  No promotions involved, but perhaps some legacies being established through ongoing changes.

Last Edit:  to remove confusing reference to Rx2000 and explain reasons for changes.


----------



## Staff Weenie (5 Jan 2007)

The staff paper and straw-man concepts were produced by two former Reg F members, both of whom have done their best to examine what trends in the delivery of health services are currently evolving within the major NATO players. They aren't part of Rx2000 and also have nothing to do with drafting the Reserve portion of the concept - that was left to the Res Tm at CF H Svcs Gp HQ. 

As I work quite closely with the civilians involved, I can tell you that neither one stands to gain anything from this, nor are they expecting anything. In fact, not even their supervisors within DHSO will be building a legacy on this - it is merely a (perhaps) overdue evolution.

The legacy Fd Amb was an organization that would do well in a major conflict with a contiguous front - i.e. when we were in Europe. It isn't ideally suited for the current type of conflicts emerging in the world. The current Res Fd Amb establishment was designed several years ago, and was an attempt to pre-position the units for the changes we see coming now in the Field Force Review (and to standardize all fourteen units). It wasn't a perfect solution at the time, but it was a suitable interim measure that, had it been kitted out, funded properly, and allowed to recruit sufficiently, could have grown our strength. But - that was never going to happen - due to an almost comical misunderstanding, we were not allowed to go forward on the plan to kit out each unit with a full Med Pl, Amb Sect, and Coy HQ of kit (less vehicles - we did have to be somewhat realistic.....).

In regard to placing them into the Svc Bn - I would agree with Brad (good to hear from you again). Every time we say that units are small so let's amalgamate or downsize, we don't end up with fewer but stronger units - they contract to a similar small state. Let's stop following that path.

As to what's happening right now - I have very serious concerns about the initial Res concept that was briefed, and I gather that it was a bomb dropped on many in the room. But.....I really shouldn't say too much openly in this forum. As always, I'm willing to answer questions offline.


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Jan 2007)

I am not sure why you would type this statement without further comment or explanation:

"But - that was never going to happen - due to an almost *comical misunderstanding*, we were not allowed to go forward on the plan to kit out each unit with a full Med Pl, Amb Sect, and Coy HQ of kit (less vehicles - we did have to be somewhat realistic.....)."  Do tell more, we all like comedy.

Note:  I have edited my original post - so as to avoid confusion between this concept and Rx2000.  

A recent study explains in detail the impetus for current review.  It is available @ http://www.forces.gc.ca/crs/pdfs/cfmed_e.pdf, which states "Overall, it determined that the CF H Svcs Gp will have to modify its vision, force structure and force generation approaches to provide the most effective medical service to deployed CF operations."

Your statement: "done their best to examine what trends in the delivery of health services are currently evolving within the major NATO players."  

I will concede that NATO doctrine was reviewed but not necessarily trends in the delivery of health care.


----------



## caper09 (8 Jan 2007)

I have belonged to the reserve medical side of the house for years and I a can honestly say all of this will change nothing.  We may have to get some new letterhead because of name changes but as per all the previous "reconstructions"  nothing lifchanging or major altering will be done except on paper. I wouldn't worry about any of this too much.  I have been through so may of these changes in my time and everything important always stays the same.


----------



## Staff Weenie (8 Jan 2007)

Gunner98, way back when we were drafting the Res Concept Paper, we had a comprehensive approach - give the units a relevant and realistic mission, role, and tasks. Then, give them the unit structure, infrastructure, and equipment to make it all achieveable (plus all sorts of other support). We had a 'G4' position with an excellent Capt who surveyed all fourteen units, and looked at their eqpt holdings versus the requirements for the core Msn Elm of a new Res Fd Amb - Med Pl, Amb Sect, Coy HQ. She also took the CFFET from 1 and 2 Fd Amb for the comperable sub-sub units, and deleted all the items that were unrealistic. Her analysis showed that, to achieve a common standard, we required approx 6.4 M to buy all the kit (less veh). This would have given the units a Reserve Field Eqpt Table (true, it's a table rather than an actual entitlement like a CFFET). As an example - some units have true Coy strength, but about a Det's worth of eqpt.

We were all set to go forward with this figure in the SS(EPA), and $6.4 isn't that much when spread over say 5 years. Then, the fun started. I was at a PMB mtg (as a Staff Weenie in the back) with all the Level 1 Reps, and the former DGHS was briefing on the resources required etc to implement the plans. The problem was, I'm not sure she ever really understood the 'equipment poverty' of the Reserves, or their (then) current status. Anyway, when the CLS Two-Leaf asked if her plan required equipment - she said "No, the Fd Ambs have what they require, and the Army will provide anything non-Medical needed for the UMS'". With that sentence all work on Res Eqpt was stopped cold. The DG had spoken and nobody wanted to contradict her. Yes, the REG F units were okay - but not the Res F..... I've heard of this happening in other places - where the Snr pers briefs something incorrect - and nobody tries to get a retraction. Rather, they revise their staff plans to cover off the new numbers the boss briefed....

Anyway, I've found it somewhat comical in retrospect...... 

Caper98 - don't count on things remaining the same - not this time.


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Jan 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> ...
> I was at a PMB mtg (as a Staff Weenie in the back) with all the Level 1 Reps, and the former DGHS was briefing on the resources required etc to implement the plans. The problem was, I'm not sure she ever really understood the 'equipment poverty' of the Reserves, or their (then) current status. Anyway, when the CLS Two-Leaf asked if her plan required equipment - she said "No, the Fd Ambs have what they require, and the Army will provide anything non-Medical needed for the UMS'". With that sentence all work on Res Eqpt was stopped cold. The DG had spoken and nobody wanted to contradict her. Yes, the REG F units were okay - but not the Res F..... I've heard of this happening in other places - where the Snr pers briefs something incorrect - and nobody tries to get a retraction. Anyway, I've found it somewhat comical in retrospect......



The former DGHS was a big believer in preparatory rehearsals before big briefs - I guess it was not the case for this one.  So for the sake of making her look silly by contradicting her, none of the HS Sr folks nor any of the backbenchers were willing to fall on their sword.  In retrospect this is not comical...it is sad.  She has turned in her uniforms and the Res units continue to suffer.  The Army has not been providing much for the HS world and I am not sure we can blame them.  We tend to miss the boat - take TCCCS/IRIS for another example.


----------



## Staff Weenie (8 Jan 2007)

True indeed. She had a narrow focus on HS issues, and an almost obscene ability to recall the most minute of details, and as you said, everything was well prepared and rehearsed. I don't know why this one took me (and others) by surprise then - but it did. There were also a lot of political realities that I was not privy to. She may have read the crowd, and decided not to ask for too much at once etc. Whatever the reason, the outcome has been the same.

You are quite correct that the Army was completely willing to let us wither on the vine. It's like the fire insurance analogy - it seems a silly expense, until there's a fire. I think that's how the Health Services was viewed. And, indeed, I think there are still many at NDHQ who question why we take so much of the CF's budget per year, and yet have so few people. Typically, I find that the Cbt Arms leaders always shortchange the CSS - they can't understand why we need so many trucks, or generators or lighting kits etc when the Infantry doesn't need them.... 

The sad thing is, while we've been given METI MAN, and a few other bones by our own branch, we still have completely insufficient field and medical stores to do much of anything at all. I'm not yet completely convinced that we are better off since the divorce from the Army - but we need to give our people more time to get their feet on the ground before we come down too hard on them. The potential is there - we just need to make sure we do something with it.


----------



## HCA (9 Jan 2007)

Key to this will be the Res Field Ambs being being involved at the start of the planning process and put forward realistic, relevant structure proposals that builds upon the strengths many of the units currently have and accounts for the potential recruiting base and number of potential clients the Regiment with service.  A Medical Regiment in BC does not have to have the same number of Sqn's as say the Medical Regiment covering Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba which has more cities to draw upon and a larger number of forces personnel to support. 

I believe based on the current thought of around 10% of these Medical Regiments being full time we can really start to grow in the direction that the Forces require.  The amalgamation of the current 14 Field Ambs down to perhaps 5 Medical Regiments (what I believe to be the most realistic proposal) will also really help with some pretty thin lines of succession in many of the Res Field Ambs.  This will allow the selection of the best person for the job rather than the next person in line.


----------



## Staff Weenie (9 Jan 2007)

What you're referring to is COA 5 of the Health Services Res Fd force Restructure document (no date or file number on the ver I have). The problem is, that I find some of the assumptions, factors, and elements of the discussion portion to include flawed logic, making the proposed COAs, and their evaluation criteria suspect. 

If I'm correct, the numbers that were actually briefed (as per COA 5), were to reduce the Res F to approx 300 Cl A positions, and approx 300 Cl B and Reg F mix across Canada. The intent was to get rid of the vast majority of non-PCP Res Med Techs. The primary focus of the units will no longer be traditional Role 1 & 2 HSS to their affiliated Res CBG, but rather the provision of Op-preparedness HSS (i.e. preparing folks to sp Ops, including the trg of clinicians).

True, I cannot deny that many of the units currently have succession problems for Offr and NCO, and I also believe that we can not truly justify retaining 14 units when there are 10 Res CBG. But, the reason we stayed with 14 units, was that when the Concept Paper was drafted, we were instructed to use the approved doctrine of the day - the 96 White Paper, and the Mob Concept. Taking a 20% augmentation and sustainment concept for Stage 3 mob as the max meant that we needed thousands of Res positions (not necessarily funded/filled). We could keep the units then, as it was clearly shown that we needed far more people to be able to take and sustain a 20% cut of the CMG sustained over several rotos in mid intensity conflict.

That's what was done in 2000 to 2003. Our current coalition reality and assymetric warfare shows a lesser need for massive numbers, and a greater need for specialized skill sets. However, I believe that this new proposal swings the pendulum too far in the other direction. We are now looking at reducing to the minimum of pers to sustain what we're currently doing overseas - which may not enable other CF capabilities like Dom Ops response etc.

One thing I can say though, is that our HQ here seems to thrive on finding new ways to change the organization. They just don't seem to get that a stroke of a pen in Ottawa causes ever greater ripples of activity in the units. While evolution is an ever constant reality, our people are getting change-fatigued, and many don't even know the structure of the org outside their own unit anymore.


----------



## TCBF (9 Jan 2007)

We always seem to re-organize to be ready to fight the last war just in time to fight a new one.

The great thing about a 'mobilization' concept is that it is an insurance policy that can be justified by a limitless list of disasters - everything from Avian Flu cycling through our housecats into us, to BC falling into the Pacific, to India and Pakistan having a 300 Megaton day.

2007 is NOT the year to poo-poo mobilization - you can quote me.

Every single re-org our Army has done to the Militia over the last sixty years has done more harm than good.

Keep the traditional CANADIAN Fd Amb designations - after the re-org, your traditions may be all you have left.


----------



## old medic (15 Jan 2007)

I've been trying to put off any sort of comment on this thread, as I usually wind up
shaking my head each time I read it. 

The plan will have the same units (different names), in the same places, with
the same people doing the same jobs.  It just appears they've wiped out the 
names again and added in an extra intermediate headquarters.

The reserve Field Ambulance and the Med Coys before them may have had the 
restricted position establishments of a "legacy Field Ambulance", but
that was never their roles in the CFOO's.  It was simply provide a platoon 
of this, support area units and train for _____.   

I don't understand why the org order simply can't be changed, without 
once again changing everything for the sake of change. 

I more I look at this, the more it looks like the 1954 Health
Service restructure fiasco being repeated again. 

It's difficult keeping a community footprint and generating civic pride 
in a local units history when the locals can't even keep track of the 
unit name. 

If they really want to change the names, they should be renumbering
the units back to their 1906 - 1954 designations so we have an easier 
time tying the units to their local history, veterans and families.

Very interesting to read the comments on why the Health Reserve
is still so equipment starved. It's very hard to attract and keep medical
people with little or no equipment.


----------



## Staff Weenie (16 Jan 2007)

Old Medic - the changes proposed are fairly far reaching - beyond name changes. Not all of it is completely overt in the draft paper either - you really have to read between the lines. Or, there's a disconnect between what has been written, and what was once briefed. You can always PM me for more info if you want.

1954 Health Services restructure fiasco? Way before my time - how old are you????

You're correct about the community footprint risk. As for using legacy names, not really an option. I was once tasked by Res Adv (at req of DGHS) to see if it was feasible to go back to all the old WWI and WWII names (CO's had been asking). A brief study showed that it wasn't going to work cleanly though.  Some units were the result of amalgamations, some units actually shared the same name over time (i.e. my old unit was 23 Fd Amb - formerly 5 Fd Amb from WWI and WWII, vice 5 Fd Amb in Valcartier - who would get the name?). Director of History and Heritage (DHH) has to perform an official lineage search prior to allowing such a change, and they noted the extensive timelines to do this for 14 units. In the end, it was decided to keep the number for the units and switch from Med Coy to Fd Amb.

As a sidebar - I was told by the 5 Fd Amb Veteran's Association that when 5 Fd Amb was created in Valcartier, some of the memorabilia and mess items were transferred there - the old Vets were still bitter over it years later.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2007)

If reserve med techs whose sole source of training and skills maintenance is the military are virtually unemployable and are not strictly necessary, I don't see any reason to prolong having them.  How many funded days of medical support does a typical reserve brigade require that are not either simply first aid+safety vehicle or PCP+ambulance, with the latter being unfillable with either a Reg F tasking or a civilian PCP member of a reserve unit or the PRL?

To be useful, the reserve non-professional med tech has to be:
1) Trained to a minimum standard of "green" and "medical" and kept there on a continuous basis;
2) TMST-ed to a sufficient standard of "green" and "medical" in time for deployment; and
3) Willing to deploy.

I am not sure all three criteria are consistently met by a sufficient number of people to justify the cost of all the hangers-on who meet fewer than three of the criteria.

We are so far beyond having anything resembling a realistic level 3/4 mobilization base that we should commit to baking that cake from scratch.

If the result streamlines the reserve medical establishment to consist of small local HQs/units to attract, recruit, and retain both "active" Res F and PRL folks while providing the structure within which to train and maintain both groups to respective minimums of "green", so much the better.  And I'd have both groups actually "in" the units, with the option of parading according to Schedule I (37.5 days, or whatever) or Schedule II (14 days, or whatever).


----------



## old medic (17 Jan 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> 1954 Health Services restructure fiasco? Way before my time - how old are you????



Not that old  ;D .  I've been collecting histories of RCAMC / CFMS units for a long time however. 

In November 1954 they decided the legacy field ambulance was dead, as was mobilization. 
Nobody was going to get mobilized before the Russian bombers arrived. 
They changed all the units to Medical Companies and told them to train for post A-bomb Civil Defence. 
That lasted a few years before Civil Defence Canada folded into EMO in 1959 and everything began to flounder.  
One of the early results of the change in roll, was the mass exodus of all the WWII vets from the units.

I'll now get long winded and discuss the original numbers, as it's a subject I enjoy.

Here's the list of 1939-45 Fd Ambs:


> 1 Fd Amb Kingston Ont.  - disbanded
> 2 Fd Amb Toronto Ont.  - was combined in 1954 with two other Toronto units,
> (7 Fd Amb and 16 Fd Amb) into the current unit.  Name would not conflict if
> current reserve unit became 7 Fd Amb.
> ...



I suspect one could very easily create:
1, 2 and 5 Reg Force.
3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 52 Reserve Force. 
The hard one, Hamilton would have five options (2nd 5th, 11, 15, 24 or staying 23) 

Regular Force (no change at all)
1 Fd Amb , 2 Fd Amb, 5 Fd Amb 

3 units (12, 28, 52) would have no change at all. 12 was originally 12, the other
two are newer, or trace back to non-field ambulance formations. 
10 units could be renumbered without any numbering conflict. 

Reserve Force (from West to East) 
13 Fd Amb Victoria
12 Fd Amb Vancouver (already so named)

8 Fd Amb Calgary (or it could stay as is - part of Edmonton)
17 Fd Amb Edmonton 

10 Fd Amb Regina and Saskatoon

3 Fd Amb Winnipeg

4 Fd Amb Thunder Bay
Hamilton (five options, 2nd 5 Fd Amb, 11, 15, 23 or 24 Fd Amb)
7 Fd Amb Toronto (option for 16 Fd Amb)
28 Fd Amb Ottawa (already so named)

6 Fd Amb Montreal (options for 9 and 20)
Sherbrooke no change from 52 Fd Amb
18 Fd Amb Quebec City (option for 19 Fd Amb)

22 Fd Amb Halifax (option for staying as 33)
21 Fd Amb Sydney (option for staying as 35) 

That would result in Everyone having their original name back. 
Confirming the lineage would be extremely easy. An archive request to view
the WW2 war diaries would confirm where each unit was raised. That could be completed
in a less than a week with a properly planned archive request. 
The WW1 diaries are easily viewed on line, and the  branch history book from 1977 is 
easily referenced as well.

Glad the hear the CO's are still asking. It is a matter of pride in both the units, and the 
branch history.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jan 2007)

The naming issue puzzles me.  Surely "field ambulance" and "field hospital" are part of our traditions and we don't need to borrow names as well as clothing styles from the cavalry.  If we can't be bothered to preserve what we've been calling ourselves day to day for decades, I can't imagine why some people get excited about how precisely units conduct their ceremonial parades and mess dinners.

From a practical stance, I consider it foolish to promote opportunities for ambiguity.  If some careless person refers to "ambulance squadron" in a joint and combined context with no other distinction, what is the recipient of any particular branch, element, or nationality going to make of it - 12 helicopters, or 30 trucks?  Platoons, companies, and field ambulances/hospitals.  Flights and squadrons.  Don't mix unnecessarily.


----------

