Restructuring of Reserve Health Services

[Gunner98]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
3 Fd Amb Winnipeg Man. - Would not currently conflict.
4 Fd Amb Thunder Bay Ont. - Would not conflict.
5 Fd Amb Hamilton Ont. - name conflict with current 5 Fd Amb
6 Fd Amb Montreal Que. - was combined with 9 and 20 Fd Ambs, could pick
any of those.
7 Fd Amb Toronto Ont. - As per 2 Fd Amb above.
8 Fd Amb Calgary Alta. - Could be used or unused, depending on if your talking
about splitting the current unit back up.
9 Fd Amb Montreal Que. - As per 6 Fd Amb above.
10 Fd Amb Weyburn Sask. - was disbanded
11 Fd Amb Guelph Ontario - Disbanded
12 Fd Amb Vancouver BC - Oddly... is still the same.
13 Fd Amb Victoria BC
14 Fd Amb Moncton NB
15 Fd Amb London Ont.  - disbanded.
16 Fd Amb Toronto Ont.  - as per 2 Fd Amb above.
17 Fd Amb Ponoka AB  - 
18 Fd Amb Quebec City Que.
19 Fd Amb Quebec City Que.
20 Fd Amb Montreal Que. - as per 6 Fd Amb above.
21 Fd Amb Charlottetown PEI with a Coy in Sydney NS -  disbanded.
22 Fd Amb Halifax NS
23 Fd Amb (Active Force) Petawawa Ont. - no conflict.
24 Fd Amb Kitchener Ont. - disbanded.
26, 26, 27 Fd Ambs - WW2 formations only.

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]

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.