I know what a Tank Squadron looks like, I've been in one (as an att) in a war a few times. 
What I was saying is that with 4 15-tanks squadrons instead of 3 19-tank squadrons, there are additional command team billets for those guys to fill. More legit positions in the Regiment = good. Being a Tank Sqn 2IC or SSM is better than being DAT 3-2-5.
Don't know what a DAT 3-2-5 is and I'm not going to pretend.
I understand where your going with this and I disagree.
You will lack the ability to tailor the Sqn to suit the Cmbt Team commander's requirements and also soften the "punch".
We can split a Sqn into various portions with the 4 x troops and SHQ element.
The OC and two troops into the assault force and the other two with the BC into the fire base. Then the dozer tank doing it's job of sniping command vehicles and engineering assets.
Or three troops in the assault with the OC, two flanking and one intimate support with another troop in the firebase with the BC.
Or two troops in the assault with the OC and one in the firebase with the BC and another as the cutoff force.
The dozer can go anywhere required and is the "*****" of the Sqn.
Our square ORBAT is the way it is because it works in a conventional/ asymmetric threat environment and can be played with to suit the needs at hand quickly and violently.
If anything, bring back 4 square Sqns, two for out West, one RCD and one RBC. At least then we can say Canada can field a Regiment's worth of tanks.
When it comes to Armour guys crewing Infantry vehicles, we're one the same page. I don't want some green LT telling me what targets to fire at or how to maneuver my vehicle 50m.
I can do that all by myself.

We really have to get back to "normal" ops and get working in a conventional combat team context for you to see what tanks bring to the table, not read it in a book.
I won't even get into the lack of understanding from the Infantry perspective of what Armour Recce does and can bring to the table as a combat team asset or, normally, as a Brigade asset.
Regards