National Defence Committee on May 6th, 2008

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Again, this may be more just for us than anything else, but my understanding is that some of the training we talked about, the pre-deployment stress training, is taking place. The committee is going to be in Wainwright in the next three weeks or so, and those would be some specific questions to pursue there.

Mr. Stogran, this is a little more ethereal, but we've heard a lot of testimony from people at the soldier level who have a perception, a viewpoint, and people at the senior officer level who have a perception, a viewpoint, and often those two perceptions differ. From your experience as a soldier at various levels up to the rank of colonel—and you obviously have a very solid understanding of what happens at all levels in the CF—can you address those perceptions, the kind of things that a committee such as this would hear, from a private to the CDS? The reality is always somewhere in the middle of a couple of perceptions.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, all I can say is that the perceptions are the reality. When I reflect on my experiences in Bosnia in 1993, my personal experiences were far more traumatic at that point than they ever were when I was a commander in the theatre. As I said, the perception is the reality. There are some huge non-operational stressors that our soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel have to endure when they get home that in my personal experience are far more problematic and debilitating than what I experienced in theatre.

We have medal winners coming home and being treated anonymously in the system. I find that incomprehensible.

So what it takes is to have a genuine empathy with the individuals involved, especially at the higher levels of command, and I think, if you do hold the chain of command responsible, it will inculcate right down to the lowest level, to that squad and section commander who is the key link in all of this in terms of looking after the welfare of the soldiers, sailors, and air force people.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. McFadyen, you talked about suggestions of getting more involved in the family side, family services and so on. Do you have any specific suggestions in that area?

[Mary McFadyen]

We're still in the process of reviewing and analyzing our data, but certainly we have found that in general, from our interviews with CF members, they certainly see the family as part of their getting better. So we do think there needs to be more done there.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The soldier's unit, not just the soldier.

[Mary McFadyen]

Exactly, yes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

But you see some specific recommendations coming forward at some point? That's good.

[Mary McFadyen]

We certainly hope to be making some specific recommendations on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That's about it anyway. Thanks, Mr. Hawn.

That ends the second round, and we're starting the third round. We start with the official opposition, the government, the Bloc.

Official opposition, any questions? Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the issues that keep coming forward is the lack of qualified personnel, psychiatrists, etc., to deal with what is increasingly identified as a problem in a situation such as Afghanistan. Are you in a position to comment as to whether the department has been addressing this issue or has been forward-thinking enough in terms of how we attract personnel? More importantly, an issue that seems to be raised is the need to retain qualified personnel to do the treatment, because obviously it is often very lucrative outside the forces.

[Mary McFadyen]

I can comment generally on that issue. Certainly the need for qualified medical caregivers is felt throughout Canada, and the CF has to be in a position to compete for qualified people. Also, another thing we are looking at generally is how to deal with burnout. If they're treating so many people, we have to think about care for the caregivers as well. It's one of the issues we are looking at right now.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

There certainly seems to be an attrition rate with regard to people who, as you say, try to take care of so many people and then they themselves either burn out or they see something more attractive in the private sector.

[Mary McFadyen]

It's an issue throughout society right now.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Is there much coordination, do you know, between the university medical centres, provincial governments, in terms of trained personnel or attracting people from overseas?

[Mary McFadyen]

I don't think I'm in a position to answer that at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Good. Thank you.

Mr. Blaney.

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

I have almost the same question for Mr. Stogran.

Mr. Stogran, if we want our soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to remain soldiers as long as possible, would you say to that the fact that they are being released as veterans is mainly an administrative issue?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure I understand the question exactly.

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

My point is that I would like to know how we could keep in the Canadian Forces more of the soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, it has already been brought up once. I know from my own personal experience, when I went forward to seek treatment for certain psychological things that are beyond the scope of this presentation, I was immediately a category red. I was told I could not deploy overseas. This was by the medical officials who were treating me at the time. I said, “Just a minute now. I've been struggling with a bad back that I've actually petitioned Veterans Affairs for a pension for. I can go to the field with this bad back, but just because of the problem I've come to you with, you're telling me that I can't go to the field.”

I want to go back again to the importance of the chain of command. Back in the 1990s, as a cost-saving measure within the Canadian Forces, we started taking away all of the unit medical officers from commands such as mine. That was a grave mistake. As a commanding officer, one of your most important advisers, next to the padre and the adjutant, is that doctor.

At the same time, a policy came out prohibiting doctors from releasing medical information to a commanding officer unless there were certain circumstances. But there was a hard-and-fast rule within the Canadian Forces that we were not privy to medical information. I took it to the medical side. I said, “Commanding officers not only have an interest in the health of soldiers, not only physical but also psychological, but we have something we can do about it.”

That goes back to my argument about the medical specialists becoming advisers to the chain of command. As for the commanding officers and the company commanders--and I'm only speaking from an army perspective right now because of my infantry background--charge them with the responsibility of looking after their soldiers. If they blindly take medical advice and it doesn't work out for the soldiers, the chain of command should be responsible for those soldiers, as they are physically when they have physical problems with them.

The other thing I might add is that soldiers, in particular, who are enduring the sorts of things they are facing in Afghanistan don't appreciate having people in lab coats telling them how sick they are. As I said earlier, within the military we have to be experts--and I'm dating myself here--at putting a bandage on a sucking chest wound, and we have to be just as comfortable dealing with soldiers who have some degree of psychological problems.

If it's beyond the scope of gainful employment, then perhaps the chain of command could work with the medical authority to find gainful employment or maybe rehabilitative employment for the person.

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

Thanks a lot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That was good.

Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Stogran, I would like to come back to the issue of the chain of command. This is a question I have asked several times in the past. I wonder if there are not some sort of budgetary temptations. The chain of command is very aware of that.

National Defense has a budget to deal with. Releasing soldiers as veterans does not mean that they are being abandoned. The chain of command knows that the Department of Veterans Affairs will provide support to soldiers who are in dire situations. Generals or unit commanders have budgets to deal with. Is it not tempting for National Defence to try and save money by saying that they cannot keep those soldiers anymore and that, in the future, they will be dealt with by Veterans Affairs? Could that be a factor?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, in the first instance, as much as I harp on holding the chain of command responsible, I wouldn't for a second suggest they're being negligent.

What I would say is required, though, is visionary leadership in that domain. I would think that when it comes back to budget.... Certainly in my military career, budget was the most important. Within the CF, we put management of resources ahead of manoeuvring in the face of the enemy.

At one point in time--one of the reasons I was marginalized in the military--we were going to get rid of three of our infantry battalions as a cost-saving measure so we could put those resources elsewhere. We are an infantry army. There are all sorts of things that fall by the wayside due to budgetary constraints.

I would submit, however, that if, from the time of recruitment, we were to judiciously prepare soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel for the types of traumas they will experience on operations, at a slightly greater cost, we would pay fewer very high-priced psychologists and psychiatrists to treat the many hundreds they are forecasting we are going to endure throughout our time in Afghanistan. So we pay now or we pay later, at the expense of the welfare and well-being of our soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mrs. McFadyen and Mr. Stogran, I would like you to tell me about the advisory committees. It seems, Mrs. McFadyen that you have an advisory committee made up of people from everywhere. I am told that you may have an advisory committee at Veterans Affairs.

Could you tell us what is the role of those people? Are there weekly meetings? Is their job to try and find solutions? Do they submit ideas regularly on how to move things forward? Could you both explain the role of your advisory committees?