Veterans Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2010

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I was going to start somewhere else, but I would like to continue with what Peter raised, because over and over again we talk about those who somehow don't quite fit, who fall through the cracks, who run into ineligibilities, or who have to do repayments, and so on.

In general, though, in individual cases, what's your process for dealing with people when you come up against that and you are faced with the kinds of things that Peter was raising? How do you approach those kinds of things?

[C/Supt Alain Tousignant]

I'll pass it on to Rich for a second. I don't know if we have a specific process outlined for these types of situations. As situations are raised to the divisional level, they're looked at on their own merit. As I explained, these processes are very complex when you start dealing with pension annuities, disability, and CPP. They start to be about numbers and they're extremely complex to address.

As far as I know, Rich, we don't have a specific process to address them.

[Supt Rich Boughen]

That's correct. On cases like those Mr. Stoffer was talking about, these tragic one-offs that occur, we don't have the capacity to build a system that's 100% foolproof.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

[Supt Rich Boughen]

So what tends to occur is that it comes to someone's attention, whether it's an MP or a senior RCMP official within a division, and then at some point our chief human resources officer would likely be contacted. That would come back to the appropriate director general, whether that would be me, if it involved a health area, or compensation.

We would then try to do analysis of what had occurred, for lessons learned, but also to be able to solve the specific problem. That has occurred, not necessarily for pension issues, but for other issues within our organization.

I don't foresee us having a process that will be 100%. But we're always open to assisting people who are in need if we can or, at the very least, looking at their issue.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I might be raising this for a slightly different reason, but it ends up in the same place; that is, part of our review looks at the fact that under Veterans Affairs, on the military side, there's a quasi-judicial appeal process for a number of issues that come up. It's very much at arm's length and is not done within the department. I don't know if that's helpful, and that in itself does not solve all the problems, as we heard. If I understand you correctly, it's probably, by choice or by design, better to deal with the individual cases, as opposed to having a set process.

[Supt Rich Boughen]

Yes and no. It would really depend on the issue. For example, the process within Veterans Affairs adjudicates our disability pension. We already go through them. They have the ability to appeal a decision and to be reassessed for a different issue. There's already that. The things that we hope would come to us, potentially, would be those one-offs that don't fall under the VAC mandate and don't fall under CPP or Great-West Life. Yet there is still somebody who has an issue. That's not saying that we would be able to solve it, necessarily, but we'd be able to look at it, learn from it, and assist when and where possible.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

As I say, it's difficult for a group of lay people who, at the end of the day as parliamentarians, are kind of struck with the obligation of trying to recommend improvements. We don't want to end up making suggestions that are going to make it more difficult. That's why I was trying to probe a little bit on that.

In a general sense when we talk about occupational stress, under whatever title.... I had a chance to talk to a former officer and I got the sense that it was five years after he was at one horrific accident that he didn't seem to be able to get out of his mind...because of the nature of it.

When the military faces situations, we say a lot of times that it may be more physical as well. But what is the pre-training, if you like, that goes into it when you head out there? It's not something standard--here it is in the book, by the way--because I'm sure that every circumstance is different. What training and follow-up go on, particularly for a horrific incident?

[C/Supt Alain Tousignant]

In certain specialized areas, it's the force policy that our members, our employees, receive briefing and counselling before they enter the specialized sections, during their service, and also after they leave to make sure that the follow-up is done. This is done on a continuous basis in some highly specialized areas where they're exposed to these types of situations.

Rich, I don't know if you want to....

[Supt Rich Boughen]

Yes, sure. What the chief is talking about are our child exploitation units and traffic reconstruction units. They're people who see the really, really tough stuff all the time. We also do psychological screening prior to applicants being accepted into the RCMP.

One of the blind spots that I think a lot of organizations have is that there's not a lot known about how certain individuals obtain an operational stress injury. Some people do; some people don't. Some people went through horrific incidents in the wars, for example, and came back and didn't exhibit any signs or symptoms of that. There's a lot that is still being learned about this. There's a lot of research that needs to be done that is police-specific.

Among the things that we know can assist are things like debriefings after a critical incident: after a police shooting, whether there is a police-initiated shooting or a police officer is injured; after a horrific traffic accident; or if there is a major file that has a lot of potential to do psychological damage, meaning that it's a very emotionally tough file. We can do a debriefing.

It's not necessarily an in-depth psychological intervention. It is an opportunity for a like-minded group of individuals, a homogenous group, who have all been through the same thing, to get together to discuss certain aspects of what went on, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a criminal investigation or some other kind of investigation. It's not to go over facts. It's to go over the incident and the emotional reaction; it's not a play-by-play of what you did versus what I did for a criminal process.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you. My mic was turned off, so I guess my time's up.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Inspector.

That's correct, Mr. Kerr. You were over your seven minutes.

Now we're going to a second round of questioning of five minutes.

We'll start with Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm very pleased to see you again. Thank you for coming out this morning.

I have a couple of questions.

We have a report in front of us from the RCMP, a needs assessment, that was done in June 2006. I'm sure you're familiar with the report. I was reading through it when I was doing the comparison with the charter and so on. One of the comments is, “By its very nature, the current approach encourages unwellness, inhibits early intervention and is not conducive to the successful transition to civilian life...”.

I'm sure that those of us who received this report would have been quite alarmed by it and, frankly, would read with sadness that you still have those issues. Where are we today in response to this report? Can you comment on it or would you rather a different line of questioning?

[C/Supt Alain Tousignant]

I haven't read the report, so for me, it's very difficult to comment on it.

But as I think I explained earlier, when the initial study was done on whether we should enter into the new veterans charter, as a sample, about 1,500 veterans were surveyed. But that dealt mostly with people who had retired. The survey did not extend to serving members. To give a little context, I think it was mostly people who had left the RCMP. Included in that were some members who unfortunately were severely disabled.

Concurrent to that and shortly thereafter, there was the analysis of the 20 scenarios that Superintendent Boughen talked about. If we were to go with the new charter, where would it go? Based on the two elements, it was decided by senior management at the time that we would continue with what we had. Obviously, there's enhancement. The work has to continue to improve the benefits and meet the needs of the employees.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Well, there are several recommendations in this report. Again, I realize that you're here for a different reason, but I would really appreciate getting a response to these recommendations. It was done in June 2006. There are four recommendations that I think are in some ways relevant to what we're doing here. If you could get the department to let us know where those four recommendations are as far as being introduced, I think it would be helpful.

On the case scenarios, you said that you did 19 out of the 20.

[Supt Rich Boughen]

That's correct.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

You felt that it was far better to stay where you were--and where you are now--get the improvements that were necessary, and not join the charter. Are there any areas that you have and that you think we should borrow from to add to the charter and make the charter stronger?

[Supt Rich Boughen]

That would be really tough for me to answer, because since 2006, when the organizational decision was made by senior management to not go the way of the new veterans charter, we haven't analyzed it. It would be outside my field of expertise to comment, and I would dare to say that those within the organization have probably not looked at it since 2006.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

On the issues to do with PTSD that my colleague was asking about, I can't imagine that anyone who goes through a particularly horrific scene here in Canada or in Afghanistan or wherever ever comes back as the same person he or she was prior to that incident.

There must be a lot of it in the RCMP where it's not visible. It's invisible stress. In front of colleagues, you're going to see the person who is supposed to be there. At home or away from the service is where the effects of PTSD are probably playing out. From what I hear, they're trying to be very sensitive within the military. What are they doing on those issues in the RCMP?

[C/Supt Alain Tousignant]

I'll make a quick comment and then Rich can respond.

I think one of the issues we're faced with is that we still have to break down the walls for people to feel comfortable when admitting that they need assistance, that they need help, and that they need somebody to walk them through this. We're very much aware that it's still very difficult for people who live in an environment where it's difficult to do that.

We've created a senior position, which I actually started in today, of workplace development and wellness officer. Part of my role is to define what wellness means for us as the RCMP. When we talk about wellness, it's to define it physically and mentally within the work environment and to try to break down those walls so that we can recognize the people who have faced dramatic situations and need some intervention.

Unless we identify those people, and unless it's culturally acceptable to do so, as you said, people will continue to be undetected over and over again. Those are the concrete steps with which we're moving forward.

Rich, do you want to add to that?

[Supt Rich Boughen]

Sure.

You're absolutely right when you talk about people coming back from Afghanistan or doing policing work for 20 years. You're not the same person you were when you went in, but I dare say you're probably not the same after 20 years of any profession.

The issues around what police officers do on a daily basis and the feelings we might have are very normal feelings and emotions in regard to very abnormal situations. Police officers, by their very definition, go into situations where everybody else would be expected to head the other way. There has to be a reaction to that. There has to be.

We don't know exactly what that looks like, because there hasn't been a lot of police-specific research done in that area, which I think is really important. Although our CF colleagues undertake a horrendous job during the time they're in theatre, and they're there 100% day in and day out, when they come back. They have their own adjustment issues in coming back to “normal life” and what they do on a daily basis when they come back to base. On every day that a police officer puts on a uniform and heads out to the road, they have the potential of being in that same “firefight”.

After 20 years, that has to have an effect, cumulatively. It has to. But we don't know what that looks like. As well, it won't happen with everybody, because some people have natural resilience, but we don't yet know what that looks like either.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

I'd like to apologize, Superintendent. I have “Inspector” written on my worksheet and I've just realized that you were introduced as “Superintendent”. My apologies for that.

We will now go to Mr. Mayes, for five minutes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to read a little bit from the report. It says that:

...30% of all new favourable RCMP pension assessments over the past year were for psychological injuries. While many disability claims for psychological injury are often the result of a traumatic event, others are compounded by cumulative and prolonged stress in the work environment. The evidence, supported by the literature, suggests that cultural factors, such as low supervisor and co-worker support, are key inhibitors to successful recovery.

You mentioned that as of today somebody is starting to look at wellness in the force. That's okay here, but in the individual detachments that's a real challenge. In the community that I'm from, I know that quite often they're struggling with staffing issues and workloads, and it's very difficult. I really think an important area that needs to be addressed is to have the staffing in the local detachments, where they can deal with the family.

I wonder if you can give me some comments if you feel that's correct. Can you tell me if there anything in the plans in the future for the RCMP to address that issue?

[C/Supt Alain Tousignant]

I'd like to make a couple of comments regarding the point you raise, which is a critical one, about the supervisors and the detachments themselves. It's a critical point in what we're talking about.

As far as the senior position that we have created is concerned, it's a position at the senior rank, at the assistant commissioner level, which I am starting as of today. Prior to this, the RCMP created what we call leadership management, which we developed in-house based on studies done outside the RCMP. We have created our own supervisor development program for first line supervisors, and also a management development program for the middle line managers, as well as the officer cadre.

This program started two years ago. As opposed to being a two-week in-class exercise, it's a year-long program that involves pre-course material and pre-course learning. We do a two-week in-class session where we talk about leadership, about relations management, and about how to recognize employees, how to deal with employees, and how to have these difficult conversations with people.

By the time the candidates leave the classroom, they've produced what we call a performance improvement plan, where they've discussed the detachments or the units they're going back to and a concrete plan for how they will take what they've learned in the classroom setting to the unit level or the detachment level. This is followed up on by a person in the training world who will provide support, coaching, and mentoring to make sure that person carries through at the unit level. Some supervisors who have come to us with feedback on this have said that they've completely transformed their units after going back.

That program has been going on for about two years and we are now seeing some benefits from it. Again, this is very specific to the RCMP, as opposed to sending our members on leadership training outside the RCMP at a fairly high cost. That was the impetus for developing our own in-house leadership development programs.