I have another question, and it flows from the testimony last week but also from personal interest. I don't know if you're the appropriate person to ask, but I'll throw the question out, and you can let me know.
I'm interested in the screening that's done for recruits, the psychological screening. They said in the testimony last week that it's not done, basically. They don't do much in the way of psychological screening for recruits. I know they do it in police forces across Canada, so I wonder why the Canadian Forces doesn't do that.
Also, in talking to military families, I've been told by some that the first reaction in some cases, when they've raised the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder or of some kind of occupational stress injury, is that they've been told sometimes that it's probably a pre-existing condition, which they've argued against. I'm just thinking that if you had an effective and proper screening process, you would know if there were pre-existing conditions that would result in this kind of behaviour or illness.
There was an article in, I think, one of the Vancouver papers, where I live, about a really horrible example of the lack of screening. A fellow who'd actually been an associate of the Hells Angels, who had been, I think, charged with murder in British Columbia, was able to get through whatever screening process there was. He was in training in Quebec, and it was his fellow service people who were alarmed by his behaviour and went to the authorities above, and he was eventually discharged. I can't help but think that if there were a proper and thorough screening process, this kind of situation wouldn't arise. You wouldn't have someone like that who gets through the process and becomes enlisted and then has to be discharged. Also, it would certainly lessen the number, perhaps, of people who show mental health problems later in service.
So I'm wondering about the whole issue of psychological screening.