National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

We have time for a third round. Every party gets five more minutes.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

And thank you very much for an excellent briefing.

Just to push it a little further, I want to follow up on the question Mr. Chisholm asked in terms of identifiable individuals in the armed forces, who, to use the current language today, have “raised a hand”. They came back and said they had a problem and now everything's cool in terms of their career and their life.

I want to go a step beyond that. Are there individuals the rank and file would know had a problem, know they had the services that were offered, and then were promoted, particularly into senior ranks, to visually show it's not just words...? For instance, is that happening in a way that leaves the impression with the average young officer coming up that if they had this time-out period where they had to deal, particularly with a mental health medical issue...? Realistically, does the average person in the armed forces believe they could still become chief of the defence staff?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

I would certainly hope so. As a case in point, I spoke earlier about the Be the Difference campaign launch. One of the individuals who came forward with a very touching testimonial of her own nightmarish mental health issues has since been promoted from major to light colonel. There's not much better testimony to transparency, openness, and objectivity than that.

I would say, though, with those who put their hand up and get treated, that's not necessarily a public piece. When I say “put their hand up”, that could mean they appreciate the need to get help and they seek help privately. Putting their hand up might not mean it's a public display.

Sometimes their natural progression through the rank structure may happen following successful treatment for a mental health issue, but it may not be fully open, nor should it be, to the rank and file. If I have a bad back and then recover and get promoted, that's not really anybody else's business.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

One other question crossed my mind, and forgive me if it was asked. On the suicide rates, I was interested to note that the rates are at least on par with or less than those of the Canadian population.

I'd also be interested in the rates of comparable armed forces. Are ours very consistent with theirs? You don't have to name them, but are certain countries known to have an accelerated rate, or do others do an exceptionally good job and have a statistically identifiable lower number than our armed forces?

[Col Jean-Robert Bernier]

The most valid comparison we can make, because of all the cultural and societal factors that impact suicide, is the United States. There are other countries that would make reasonable comparisons, but they don't investigate each suicide to the depth we do, and they don't maintain statistics. They don't aggressively go after all deaths to determine whether or not they may be suicides.

The United States, because of many factors, has a much higher suicide rate than the Canadian Forces. In fact, recently it has exceeded the civilian population's suicide rate. Because of the stresses of the operation in Afghanistan, we expected a higher suicide rate, a higher mental health casualty rate. We haven't yet seen it, but we remain vigilant. We remain about 20% below the national average.

The United States has various factors that may account for their rate. They have longer deployment periods, a different process, less education, less leadership education. So different factors account for the way the armed forces in the United States are administered, organized, and deployed that may impact on why their suicide rate is so much higher than ours.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's been an interesting morning. I thank you for it.

I just want to make a comment on the conflict between putting your hand up and your career aspirations. It certainly is a very courageous thing to publicly put your hand up in the company of your peers, particularly if you are warriors. I was especially impressed by the senior leadership at the Caring for our Own symposium, where there was a meaningful sharing from people who are senior warriors. I think if more of that went on it would be very helpful to the de-stigmatization.

On the secondary comment with respect to suicide, I'll have to show you an article and get your comment on it, because it is at variance with your testimony. But I'm not going to pursue that point.

The one question I do want to ask is with respect to that soldier who disagrees with his deployability or employability. You have an employment population of about 90,000 people, give or take. It would be absolutely astounding if every one of them were happy. At some point or another they're going to leave the armed forces, possibly not entirely of their own volition.

If a person is being discharged, or they're offered compensation that they think is inadequate, does the military have a relatively neutral fact-finding or adjudicatory process that allows for the settlement of that type of dispute?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

Anybody who is going to be released medically goes through a very rigorous administrative review process, starting with the medical community, once that person becomes stabilized. That's an important piece to understand here. No decision is taken until the individual's medical condition is stabilized. Then an assessment is done on their ability to meet the conditions of universality of service.

If those conditions are not met, the individual goes through a fully transparent disclosure process so they have an opportunity to make their representation prior to any final decision being rendered. Notwithstanding that we have the medical file and the career administration file, they may have something else that may bear positively on a decision. They're given ample time to do that. Once a decision is rendered, if they're unhappy with it, there's always an opportunity for them to formally grieve that decision.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Can you formally grieve it in the same sense that a union person can grieve a decision, or do you just simply go out, retain a lawyer, and sue for wrongful dismissal?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

No, no, there's a formal grievance process. They're allowed to make representation. There is an initial and a final level of—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But if I grieve it, do I therefore lose my right to sue for wrongful dismissal?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

That's a legal question that I'll have to take on notice.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm sure the process handles about 90% of the population that's being discharged, but there's always that 10% who have a legitimate--although not necessarily legitimate--disagreement with deployability or employability.

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

But we also have, in fairness, in the determination of an individual's ability to meet universality of service from certainly a physical fitness perspective, a threshold test. We all have to do that once a year to confirm our ability to be employable and deployable. If an individual is unable to meet that test, that's really a “go/no-go” gate. It's not a debatable point.

So there are some fairly black and white gates during that determination process.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Chisu.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will split my time with my colleague Ted Opitz.

My question is a very brief one. If an ill or injured member is medically or generally released from the Canadian Forces, to what extent do the Canadian Forces help him or her to find gainful civilian employment?

CF members are not considered civil servants. When General Hillier was Chief of the Defence Staff, he allowed retired members to apply for civilian jobs in DND. However, this opportunity is not applied in other government sectors, in other ministries.

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

First, medically releasing personnel do have a priority referral status within the public service.

Second, the joint personnel support units—we have a colonel with us today who is in charge of all the joint personnel support units across the country—run something called TAP, the transition assistance program. They have a series of employers who have identified an interest in employing releasing Canadian Forces personnel.

Additionally, we are working closely with Mr. Blake Goldring and Canada Company as he looks to bring together corporate Canada, whether that be grocery chains, banks, or moving and cartage companies, to fill any number of positions that they are looking to fill. We are trying to match their need with our supply of people who are releasing medically to find a fit that enables them to transition.

Additionally, it bears mentioning that we work very closely with Veterans Affairs. They are an integral part of the joint personnel support unit. Every Canadian Forces member who is releasing, irrespective of reason for releasing, will have a transition interview with Veterans Affairs to identify needs and employment opportunities.

I guess the last thing I would say is that we also run, as you may recall, the second career assistance network, where we assist people with resumé writing, job skills, and interviewing skills. We also have the service income security insurance plan, which offers a vocational rehabilitation opportunity. People get to plug into that insurance program to vocationally retrain themselves.

All of that is just to give you a bit of the panoply of services that we have. We work very hard to assist people as they transition.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Opitz, you have less than two minutes.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

Admiral, there have been reports in the House of former CF members becoming homeless or using food banks. Can you comment on how serious this issue may be and on how many former members this may apply to? Is this possibly a direct impact of mental health? And is there a mitigation strategy?

I can cover those again, if need be.

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

I work closely with my colleague, the senior assistant deputy minister at Veterans Affairs. Once they release from the forces, we lose tracking capability on people.

Veterans Affairs is very attuned to this issue. They have had a series of pilot programs in Montreal and Calgary looking to outreach to people who may have, for any number of reasons, become homeless. I would speculate that some of these situations could be due to mental health conditions. Your specific issue is of concern to us, but it's really a Veterans Affairs lead.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

With regard to stigmatization within a unit, within a troop, I know as a former CO that I never had a problem with any of this. My troops would always be able to come to me or my colleagues, other COs of other units. They would always be able to speak to us—your troops are absolutely your most valuable asset. The health and well-being of all soldiers has always been top of mind throughout the chain of command. This is true of any commanding officer, and certainly up into the flag and general ranks. I know that for sure.

Colonel Bernier, with respect to the treatment of troops in the field, I was interested in how the staff go out and head off operational stress injuries, trauma injuries in the field. They can return a soldier to fighting form without even having to send him anywhere else. Can you comment on that a little more?

[Col Jean-Robert Bernier]

That's only part of the process. We start by screening and providing education right from enrolment. We do screenings at enrolment and perform periodic health assessments throughout the member's career. This extensive road to mental readiness is essential for pre-deployment resilience. Realistic training has a tremendous impact on enhancing resilience. In theatre, we provide a robust mental health staff, including a psychiatrist. Some of the mental health staff will go to the forward operating bases.

So between that, the education provided by the supervisor, and the chain of command and colleagues keeping an eye on one another, we can identify early on the individuals who need help. That help can often be provided in theatre, so we rarely get a repatriation for mental health reasons out of Afghanistan. Our repatriations are mainly for psychosocial or family issues. But for acute mental health illnesses, it rarely happens in Afghanistan. Most of the problems manifest themselves afterwards.

We don't discriminate. We treat mental illness the way we treat any other illness or injury. We do an assessment on an individual basis. If the individual, by the best clinical assessment, can be shown to be able to fulfill all of his duties under stress, then we don't preclude him from deploying or from going outside the wire in dangerous conditions. We've had a number of these cases. The priority is not the mission but the individual's health and safety. We have had individuals who've been able to stay in theatre or who, after illness in Canada, have been able to redeploy and return to full duty.