National Defence Committee on May 6th, 2008

[Mary McFadyen]

Again, our mandate deals with CF issues. So if it has to do with someone who's a serving member, that's our responsibility. When it goes over to VAC, we have no jurisdiction, but we certainly have talked about doing things together to make sure there is seamless service available.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, I understand that, and I may have misstated my question, but within the CF ombudsman's office, is there somebody or some organization that deals strictly with wounded soldiers—and the same thing at VAC, after they've gone to VAC? I'm not talking about the transition.

[Mary McFadyen]

Certainly in our office we've set up a team to deal with the PTSD investigation and to do the original follow-up. We have certain investigators who we find have developed an expertise in dealing with these issues and who are certainly better briefed at knowing where the person should go to get help within DND.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead, Colonel Stogran. A short response.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Very quickly, unfortunately, any time a soldier, sailor, or air force person tries to avail themselves of the services and benefits of Veterans Affairs, it's normally because they are injured in some way, shape, or form. I certainly intend to take that on with a passion within our office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Very good. Thank you.

That ends the opening round. We'll start into the five-minute round with the official opposition, the government, the Bloc, the official opposition, and then back to the government.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming out today. It's very interesting.

Mr. Stogran, it was interesting to hear you talk about training for psychological trauma from recruitment right through to retirement. We've heard that from a couple of others, as well, who've gone through the system. It's a tough one, because you're trying to prevent something. But I'll get back to that later.

One of the statements made by someone a couple of weeks ago was that wounded soldiers should be able to stay in uniform as long as they want. One of the things you brought up was that we're not doing triage on who should and shouldn't be in the military. Are you suggesting that we're keeping people who aren't meant to be soldiers? I realize there's a shortage of people and that maybe we're not getting all of the right people in the right places. But are you saying that we should actually be turning away people, or that we should be doing a better job at placing them in a deployment or a job that would better suit their psychological background or assessment?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to approach that from two angles.

First of all, we should definitely be turning away people who are not cut out to serve in uniform and to witness some of the things that we ask our soldiers to see.

Having said that, once they're in uniform and they become severely wounded, for example—and we know of many cases like that coming out of Afghanistan—I would submit that it would be extremely advantageous to keep those people employed within the military in line units. My reason for that is that throughout my career I've trained with some of the hardest soldiers in the world right here in Canada. They always run around in tight muscle shirts and are the fittest people in the world, and it's a glamourous thing to do. The glamour erodes very quickly when you start treating your friends and comrades who've been seriously wounded in battle. I think it would be a very telling lesson to all of the young soldiers who think this is a really glamorous kind of profession if their company clerk were an amputee victim or perhaps somebody suffering from severe psychological problems.

I hope that answers the member's question.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

So you would integrate them back into the service and have them do something, like a clerical job or something they would be suited to and that would actually give them value.

I'll say it in French:

to value their potential, which they do.

I'll let the interpreters say that, but to give value to what they're doing is probably the best way to say that.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, it goes without saying that it would be if I were in a position to make such a decree.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

One of the things you mentioned as well was separating the emotion from the memories. Is that a program that already exists elsewhere? How would you go about that?

[Col Pat Stogran]

There is an individual in the United States, retired Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, who has written a book on killing and on combat, and his views are quite unconventional. Interestingly, among conventional armies he's treated in some quarters as quite an expert in the field, but among special forces and police forces his writings are really adhered to. He has written about techniques to separate the emotions of the moment from the memory.

I couldn't begin to get into the details of how he does it. Suffice it to say that he's in very big demand. I'm trying to get him to come to this symposium that I'm trying to organize on operational stress injuries, and he's not available until the middle of next year. So he does have some anecdotal credibility.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

So he's actually implementing this. It's not just a theory that's out there. It's something that people are applying to their own traumatic history or their own traumatic illness.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Yes. I can only imagine that with the amount of demand they have on him, they are putting his practices to use, and they are finding that they are of use.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Who is hiring him? What kinds of places are bringing him on? Is it military operations? Is it civilian operations? Or is it a bit of both?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, it's special forces around the world; it's police forces around the world. I know in my case, in the 3rd Battalion, I brought him to speak to the officers in the Edmonton area, and my successor has done it again. Those who have been in combat operations find his teachings to be of great value.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Mr. Rota. You're out of time.

Mr. Blaney, and then Mr. Bouchard.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will answer in French.

First of all, I want to tell my friend Laurie Hawn that I have never feasted on seagulls and that I do not intend to do so in a near future.

It's a bit stringy.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. In a way, you are the guardians or the watchdogs—in the positive sense of the word—of our Canadian Forces. What the ombudsman does about the French language issue is interesting, just as what he does for reservists.

I would like to make a few comments.

Mr. Price, you have explained clearly your power of making recommendations. Out of 19 cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome, 14 were rejected, one was accepted and four are under study. I am a bit surprised by those figures. It seems that many cases are not justified.

You have also stated that there may be other cases. Some soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress have testified. Were I one of them, I would feel that my testimony has fallen on deaf ears. What can you tell me about this?

[James Price]

I'll ask Ms. Maynard to respond to that.

[Caroline Maynard]

One should understand that, when people grieve, they may say that they are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder without this having any effect on their claim. In many cases of harassment, this issue was raised but was not a major factor in relation to what was being claimed or in relation to the grievance as such.

There are also many cases under study and this time where, in view of a release or in order to obtain administrative redress, people say that they suffer from this illness and that they have been released instead of being helped. Several such cases are still under study. Four of them are.

I don't know if I have been understood. I will continue in English.

Of the approximately 300 cases that go to the CDS level, 40% get to the board. The other 60% are decided at the final authority, but by a delegate. There are maybe 1,000 cases decided at the initial authority, but only 300 that get to the second level, and then 40% are referred to us. So there's still another 60% of cases at the final authority that we don't see, and out of these cases there are maybe some cases where PTSD is also....

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I thank you for this clarification.

Mrs. McFadyen, could you tell us about the difference there is between the role of the ombudsman and that of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board? How do you see that difference?

[Mary McFadyen]

That is a good question. The ombudsman is empowered to receive complaints from members of the Canadian Forces, ex-members and families.

I'll say this in English so that I'm clear.

We have a wide range of constituents where the grievance authority only looks at complaints from CF members. Part of the role of an ombudsman is to review administrative processes to make sure people are treated

in a fair and equitable manner during the process.

We often get complaints from people who have submitted their grievance to the initial authority, had it reviewed, and found themselves displeased with the result. It then goes to the final authority for review. It might be the type that goes to the grievance board; it might not. Eventually the CDS, the final authority, makes the decision. If the person is still unhappy and feels he's been treated unfairly, our role is to review the case to make sure the process has treated him fairly. If not, we would make recommendations to have the situation changed.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

At the end of the day, you are a last resort as far as grievances are concerned. That is clear, I believe. However, it will be interesting. You will certainly have to be involved in other situations.

Mr. Stogran, I want to congratulate you for your very useful recommendations. I should perhaps mention that I have been told that the decompression process in Cyprus was very good but that, perhaps, soldiers were left to much to their own devices after having been constrained in a very rigid system. There might be improvements to make but it is certainly a promising initiative and efforts should be continued to make it better.

Your comment “from recruitment to retirement” might be the subtitle of our report, who knows?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Make your response short, if you can.

[Col Pat Stogran]

I have no response.