I could probably take that one on with a few examples.
The first part, sir--and I think we've gone a long way in the forces--is creating a command culture in which we don't differentiate between a physical wound and a mental wound.
It's easy to stand up in front of your troops and say that as part of your pre-deployment briefings. Certainly from what I saw.... I had soldiers in my own vehicles in a few-man crew, one of whom had to be sent back after a series of combat engagements, but I certainly never felt afterwards that the other soldiers in the crew or his fellow soldiers in that particular platoon ever cast any aspersions against him or treated him differently from any soldiers who went back with physical wounds. That's the first part.
The challenge is often that it comes to the point that you need to actually order the soldier, based on your professional determination, to get help. General Grant and I worked on a case in particular. You have to come down and sometimes order that soldier to come in and seek help, and if necessary to be repatriated back to Canada.
The segue to that was it would be the end of his career. That is not the case. In the one particular case that General Grant and I worked on for quite a bit of time after a traumatic circumstance, we sent that soldier back to Canada and after returning a few months later, followed up with him. I'm happy to say that I sat down with him and his wife back in Canada about two months after that occurred, and that soldier is now gainfully employed on our base and has received successful treatment, despite being a soldier who didn't want to come back but was ordered to come back, and in no way has his career been ended over that case. There may be limitations, perhaps, on his employment, but he'll still finish out his career and be gainfully employed within the CF.