Evidence of meeting #73 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was military.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Regarding resistance, at the time there was a very entrenched clinical paradigm, which incidentally I think the military is slowly gravitating back towards, unbeknownst to itself, perhaps. They're letting the clinical world re-influence everything, which, I think, is part of the problem. The impetus for this was really to give a very active, proactive engaged role of leadership.
I travel the country now, providing keynote—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I mean by the leadership itself to recognize that the mental health of its members is not a clinical matter.
When somebody is ill, it's definitely a clinical issue. Somebody needs proper treatment, etc. But the mental health of any employee in Canada is not a doctor's responsibility; it is a leadership responsibility. Corporate CEOs and vice-presidents have the mental health of the employees in this country in their hands. What they choose to do with it is up to them.
Until we started this peer support revolution, I would contend that we had a very dogmatic clinical paradigm, which was the only paradigm through which the military looked at mental health. Therefore, the minute people exhibited behavioural signs that were not acceptable, they were told to go see the shrink. That to me is the fundamental problem.
The minute people start decompensating, it doesn't mean they need a diagnosis and they need to take pills. They might need to have a chat. They might need their boss to put an arm around them and say, “Let's talk.” Whatever happened to human interaction in the workplace? The only human interaction we have nowadays is, “Did you get my e-mail?”
Essentially we have dehumanized workplaces in the military and probably everywhere else in Canada. This whole movement for peer support strategically, as I now do my work with civilian industry, was to literally re-humanize workplaces, one after the next. That was the impetus.
The barrier was the clinical paradigm of thinking that an injured soldier.... God forbid an injured soldier would be able to wear his pants, show up at work on time, and support somebody else without getting further injured. And I think, 13 years later, they're all still doing this job—well, not all of them. Some left the program, and that's a good thing. But do you know what? Nobody committed suicide, and things have been fine.
Measurement is another issue. I'll share with the committee that since I retired from the military, I created a non-profit organization in this country, mandated through Industry Canada, to validate and measure the efficacy of peer support in this country. I'm a volunteer board member. If DND wants to measure, they can contribute to this non-profit organization and we'll be happy to measure. So the measurement matrixes are there.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
My impression with General Natynczyk is that he was very supportive of mental health issues.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It really was a marker, if you will, of his career. Yet you're saying that in this era of retrenchment and cutbacks, you're afraid that these programs will just go south, or they'll be, if not wound up, certainly circumscribed.
Do you have a specific list of programs that you're concerned about, or is this a general feeling on your part?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I think history has demonstrated that when the budgets are tightened...and perhaps rightly so. You know what? We all have our opinions. But having been through the mental health gauntlet myself, and having come close to killing myself, I know how important it is to not allow the erosion of programs for our men and women in uniform.
Therefore, this is my opinion: history has proven from time...or it has as long as we've recorded this, and my prediction is that in the next five years, with austerity measures, there will be a slow erosion of these programs. I don't think you will see a lot of slicing of programs systemically, but the erosion will slowly occur.
My thinking is that unfortunately, some of the non-clinical programs will erode. I've seen already the first sign of this. It may be a symptom. The joint speakers bureau, a non-clinical mental health education approach that's under director casualty support management, which is the leadership end of things, has now been transferred over to the surgeon general.
That's strategic mistake number one. When the surgeon general needs more money to buy scalpels, what is he going to cut? He's going to cut the perceived fat. Why? Because now you have a doctor making decisions on what is important to the doctor.
I believe that non-clinical mental health programs may end up—I'm not saying they will, but they may end up—as a casualty of these cuts.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We find this conversation extremely thought-provoking. We very much appreciate all aspects of your input. You put your finger on a crucial consideration in this very extensive phenomenon of injuries related to post-traumatic stress syndrome and those that are not combat-related. They include grief, fatigue and moral conflict. Those are different dimensions of mental anguish that people experience during civilian and military missions, when they are close to the conflict or around the loss of life.
From my own experience, as well as your comments, I gather that the incidence of injuries varies. It depends on the nature of the mission, the nature of the operation and the geographic region. Even the outcome of the operation, how the mission turns out, is a factor. It also depends on what happened afterwards. Was the mission deemed a success or not? Is that a relevant factor?
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Absolutely, I would say so. You've no doubt heard stories about some soldiers who wanted to go back to Afghanistan to die there, to finish the job or to avenge fallen comrades on some level. Without question, the ambiguity around our success in Afghanistan will remain a moral dilemma. With the benefit of a few years, those who may still be grieving the loss of comrades who died in battle, or what have you, will ask themselves the fundamental question: What did they accomplish in Afghanistan? Certainly, the outcome of the mission there has yet to be determined. It may take another 10 years.
But the fact remains, that fundamental question must be asked for all missions, not just the one in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, General Hillier placed so much weight on Afghanistan that nothing else mattered. All of that attention was well-intentioned, but I would say it caused many soldiers returning from other missions to feel as though they didn't matter.
That damage to someone's morale in an institution is the strategic equivalent of one parent paying more attention to one child over the other. All of this importance was placed on Afghanistan for all those years. To my mind, that showed a lack of mature leadership to some extent.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
We all know that choices have to be made when it comes to investments, political intentions, financial resources and so on, as far as the challenge of mental health care goes. I am going to give you four options. The first option is to invest in professional medical treatment and shore up that dimension. We're trying to do that, but there are still deficiencies, as you know. The second option is to invest in leadership and, in particular, to raise the quality of leadership during that post-combat period. The third option is to invest in peer support programs, which you are quite familiar with. The fourth and final option is to invest in prevention programs and to strengthen members' resiliency before the fact.
Of course, investment is needed in all of those areas, but where do you think the priority lies?
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
As far as treatment goes, we're there. It's good. From my experience, it's fine.
As far as peer support goes, the program exists and is working well. Don't change it. Don't let it disappear. No more investment is needed on that front.
As for leadership, I believe leadership education programs already exist.
If I could make one recommendation, it would be to invest in prevention. Prevention of what? The next strategic turning point, North America-wide, Canada-wide and Canadian Forces-wide, is suicide prevention.
We haven't even begun to understand suicide, despite the epidemiological studies that have been done. I had a rope around my neck, Mr. Alexander. I was three minutes away from hanging myself. My email to the police was written. All the arrangements were made. With the benefit of hindsight and with that experience in mind, I can say that we don't understand suicide when I look at prevention efforts today.
I didn't fit the model of suicide when I had the rope around my neck.
So I would say, invest in suicide prevention.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
I would just like to wrap up with one other thing, Mr. Chair. When I was a student, I worked in Montreal with communities that were dealing with the challenge of people wanting to take their own lives. I still watch the situation closely today. Mr. Grenier, you are very brave for speaking up, for continuing to speak up and for doing the work you do. Thank you.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We thank you, Colonel, for coming to committee, for your frankness, your honesty, and for providing your expertise. I also thank you for your general concern and empathy for your fellow soldiers, for people who have served, and your leadership in establishing the peer support groups, and having the joint task force in place to help all those who need assistance.
I have family members who battle depression and I know how severe it can be and how it influences the rest of the family as well. I want to thank you for your commitment and your continued role in OSI and other mental health issues.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.