Evidence of meeting #23 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was soldiers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Does anyone else want to address that, even if it's the same answer?
5:10 p.m.
Col Omer Lavoie
I reinforce that. In our case, in our battle group, again it wasn't PTSD, but the combat stress reactions that we had in theatre ranged from the youngest soldier to seasoned senior NCOs and officers as well.
The thing I'd add, though, was that I was very satisfied—and I attributed it to our training as well—that given the significant amount of combat the battle group went through, we only had four combat stress reactions that required return to Canada. We had a few more that we were able to treat in theatre, and those soldiers returned to duty. But that is a pretty significant low rate compared with what some of the scientific and theoretical texts have out there.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
If a doctor diagnoses PTSD in theatre, is the platoon's commanding officer informed of the diagnosis?
5:10 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
The issue, sir, is one of doctor-patient confidentiality. The policy is that if a soldier were diagnosed with anything, quite frankly, physical or mental, the commanding officer, the chain of command, would be advised of the employment limitations. They would be advised of such things as that the soldier shouldn't carry a weapon or that they needed some time off or, back at home, that they needed to come into work for only half days, and those kinds of things. The chain of command is advised of those things, but they are not told what the diagnosis is, nor do I believe they need to be told.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
As an employer, can the Canadian Forces challenge the doctor's report? For example, can they require the soldier to report for duty as usual? Can they do that? Does the commanding officer have the legal right to challenge the diagnosis and can he continue to order the soldier to report for duty as usual?
5:10 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
No, they can't at all.
5:10 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
At the end of the day, it is the doctor who has the final say. In the medical chain of command there are certainly checks and balances, but at the end of the day it is a medical decision.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Personally, are you concerned about the use of drugs, specifically legal drugs, in theatre? I am not talking about persons who take illegal drugs. When a doctor recommends that a drug be prescribed to someone who is sent back to the theatre of operations, does that worry you, or does it come down to a purely medical decision?
5:10 p.m.
LCol Simon Hetherington
I can start with this one just from a commanding officer's perspective, and it's exactly as General Grant has laid out. There's--again I'll use the term--a social contract, but it's more than that. It's laid out in regulations that the medical community or my medical officer is bound to give me the limitations of employment of the soldier under his or her care as well as potential return-to-duty dates. That's all. But all I need to know as a commanding officer is that.
So if a certain prescription has an effect that could affect a soldier's operational ability to do their job, my doctor has to tell me that. I don't need to know the drug or what the effects are.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
In Canada or in Quebec, in the civilian world, when a person breaks a leg or an arm, as a rule, the employer does not challenge that obvious fact. However, a certain consolidation period applies, after which an administrative decision may be made to let that person go or to not take him back on.
I would imagine that this could also be done in the Canadian Forces. If a person breaks a leg in several places and cannot return to active duty, can he be discharged from the forces?
5:15 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
There is a policy called “universality of service”. In general terms, soldiers are expected to be at a minimum level of fitness and employability for operations. If a soldier does not meet that minimum standard, then there is the potential that they could be released at some point after that.
5:15 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
No.
5:15 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
I will say that the Canadian Forces is a selfless organization. We've invested a lot of time and effort in training soldiers and officers, and our aim is not to get rid of them. Our aim is to keep them and get them back to a healthy situation so we can employ them again. My experience is that we will often err on the side of the soldier more and more to make sure we give them absolutely every opportunity to get their health back so that we can get them back to work.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
General, what you have just said also applies to PTSD. The individuals must be ready to resume active duty in less than six months, otherwise he is discharged.
In reality, the situation is quite different. You may be willing to have him back, but with certain limitations, provided he has achieved a minimum level of training and fitness. That is what you are looking for.
In case of PTSD, you try to reintegrate the soldier. If he cannot be reintegrated into a combat unit, for example, in the infantry, I gather you try to transfer him, perhaps to an administrative position. Is that in fact what happens?
5:15 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
Absolutely.
It's one of those things where we try to find where they can best be employed. And if they don't have the physical capability to be in the infantry, we can move them somewhere else. If their vision fails, it's the same issue. If they don't have the vision for a certain classification, we'll see if we can get them into a classification where their vision doesn't need to be as good.
It's across the board. Mental or physical, it's the same. The aim is to get them back to a healthy state so they can continue to contribute to the Canadian Forces.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Thank you.
We've been through our pre-scheduled rounds here. I have just a couple of points before I ask if there's anything you'd like to add to wrap up.
I would imagine all three of you have been to Wainwright, the facility there. We're trying to get out there to have a look, just to see the value of that as it relates to preparing soldiers for what they will eventually see in reality.
Colonel Lavoie, you might want to comment on this. I think Laurie got into it a bit, about what actually happens on the ground and in battle, and the lessons learned there. Are they transferred back in a very quick manner to Wainwright to prepare the next people who will be going?
5:15 p.m.
Col Omer Lavoie
Yes, sir, absolutely.
General Grant may be in a better position to answer, because he had a team of soldiers in Afghanistan as part of his task force who were often deployed forward with us and the other units. Their sole raison d'être was to be there to capture lessons learned and up-to-date changes in enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures, and to get those back to Canada and into the training system as fast as possible. So those experiences were learned and realized in Canada, and then subsequently incorporated into the training before deployment of the next set of soldiers coming over.
April 17th, 2008 / 5:15 p.m.
MGen Tim Grant
This is something that the army put in place. It was a team of three people: one who was technically qualified, an officer who could look at equipment; and an officer and an NCO who would look at tactics, techniques, and procedures--the way we did business in theatre.
They would look at every incident that transpired, or the vast majority of them--if there was a mine strike or if there was combat action--to see how we could get better, how we could learn from what we had done. The challenge was how quickly we could package those lessons up and get them back to the next unit that was going to deploy.
We're getting much better at that. We didn't used to do it; this is something that is new to Afghanistan. But it's paying huge dividends in getting the next rotation ready to go.
I look at my headquarters. It went in very quickly. I look at the headquarters that is currently there under General Laroche. It is much better than mine. And I look at the headquarters that will go in under General Thompson in about a month's time. His is even better still. So whether it's the headquarters or the soldiers down in the infantry companies, we are getting better because we're learning from our mistakes.