Public Safety Committee on March 22nd, 2016

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies, I have a question for the two of you.

A lot has been said about available data. I would like to know whether there are many gaps in that area. I actually put the same question to the previous witness. It seems there is a difference between the data available for veterans and that available for first respondents or correctional officers, and that there are gaps when it comes to that.

Do you agree? What are your observations on those issues? I will let the two of you answer the question.

[Dr. Judith Pizarro Andersen]

I think there are gaps because there has been so little research, so we don't know. If there were more funding to do research, a number of researchers would be happy to start working with all of these different areas and collecting objective data so that we could know the differences between them.

Again, if you're talking about stress physiology, both in treatment and in prevention, similar biological stress physiology patterns can be seen in all individuals, but targeted personalized intervention, I think, based on their particular display of symptoms, as Dr. Ferguson was saying, is critical. We'd need more research.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Dr. Ferguson.

[Dr. Donna Ferguson]

I also agree that there are always gaps in the research and that we need more research. Even with me scouring the research more on the treatment side and more on even outcomes with evidence-based treatment, for example, a lot of what I've read has indicated that there's still room for more research, and that we still really need more research specific to first responders and veterans. I think this is an ongoing issue, and it's ongoing research that we require in this area.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I want to move on to this whole issue of culture that has been brought up a couple of times, the culture that makes it difficult to talk about stigmas and so forth. Once again, I'd like to hear from both of you.

I'm always wary of comparisons because they can be a bit of a slippery slope, and this might sound kind of silly, but I think of how in hockey they have to at some point force players, when there's the potential for a concussion, to go through a certain process. Is that the kind of avenue we should be exploring when there's concern that PTSD might be there? That we have to at some point impose a process to make sure folks aren't going back to work with those symptoms?

[Dr. Judith Pizarro Andersen]

I'll just say that for the prevention part, a lot has been about the language. I mean, coming from a psychologist background, at first when I started working with first responders, with police, I used words like “mental” and “relaxation” and so forth, and it was clearly no. They didn't accept that. They thought it was a yoga thing or something.

After I changed my language to “tactical” and “combat-related”, these more macho words, they're now accepting these same principles that we're teaching. We have to be careful about the words that we use and the way we explain. I don't think that forcing anyone.... Well, I'll let Dr. Ferguson answer that question.

[Dr. Donna Ferguson]

I agree with that. It's actually what I do with my clients as well. I also think that we really need to help people and facilitate an environment where people can feel free to talk about how they feel and what they're experiencing.

Unfortunately, I think we've gone too long with people continually suffering from and dealing with these symptoms and being really afraid to talk about it in the workplace, because they're worried about what's going to happen. They're worried about their partners, or superiors, or colleagues saying that they don't want to work with them because it's almost like they're diseased.

That's the part I really worry about. Again, it's what I hear most commonly from the first responders that I work with, assess, and treat on a regular basis.

I agree that the language is a piece that we could work with. We could work with their language. I always feel that you should meet somebody where they're at, and if that works for them, then definitely. I also feel that we need to create a culture that is more welcoming in dealing with and talking about mental illness, symptoms, recovery, and return to work.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I guess there's follow-up question, and again, it's for both of you. Language is one thing, but when you start talking about language, it's because there actually is a conversation happening. I guess that's my concern with what I'm hearing. My original question was about those who don't even get involved in the conversation to begin with.

It's one thing to talk about what kinds of words need to be used, but how do we ensure that those folks are even seeking the help, so that we can get to that point where we start talking about the language that's being used?

[Dr. Judith Pizarro Andersen]

I'm very hopeful that if we start in use-of-force training with these concepts, the physiological arousal, and when it gets to a certain level, and we use those words, those are the same kinds of symptoms—hyperarousal and so forth—that you see in PTSD. If we can start getting people comfortable with talking about these things when they're in their most macho kind of environment, in use-of-force training, then we can find ways of transitioning that into help-seeking behaviour peer to peer and so forth. Unfortunately, I have a case example. I work with a large police force in the United States that just received “road to mental readiness” training which directly addresses stigma. The use-of-force officers came back and said they knew there was somebody right there in their department who was suffering and still nobody would say anything. I said, “Well, you just had road to mental readiness” training so you know about it”. They said, “We won't say it. We will not help this individual.” So it hasn't been solved yet.

[Dr. Donna Ferguson]

I think even with things like employee mental health strategies, in which, first of all, you are assessing the culture and getting in there and providing some psycho-education, really getting people to start thinking about it and talking about it is a really good place to start. Again, you don't want to push or impose, but you really do want to start creating a culture that is, at the very least, comfortable with talking about it to start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Di Iorio, go ahead.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Pizarro Andersen, Ms. Ferguson, thank you for your invaluable contribution.

Ms. Pizarro Andersen, my questions will first be for you simply because you are with us, but if you feel that Ms. Ferguson can expand upon your answers, I would ask that you invite her to do so.

You probably know that psychometric testing is now used extensively to select staff, whether we are talking about sports teams or various job positions.

Do you know whether psychometric testing is used to identify individuals most at risk?

[Dr. Judith Pizarro Andersen]

Well, I can't speak to a specific psychometric test that would identify individuals who are more at risk. We can see more risky biological trajectories. Among some of the officers I tested, there were those who were running at extreme stress responses for their whole workday, which is extremely risky not only for their health but also for getting OSI or PTSD.

There is debate about using these types of biological screening devices for employees at recruitment, of course, because then you get into ethical concerns regarding not allowing someone to have a job just because their heart rate and so forth are very elevated. I think maybe if we didn't do that at recruitment, we could do it in the early forms of training. You could see if you could personalize interventions to get that physiology down. If you couldn't then it might be recommended that the person take a different course of employment maybe within the police agency but not in front-line service.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

On another note, I would like to point out that provincial authorities adopted, nearly 100 years ago, perfect lines of accountability and responsibility for workers' compensation. Some 40 years ago, occupational illnesses were recognized. The discussion was not only about physiological causes, but also about psychological causes, and that made it possible to compensate workers affected by those professional illnesses and injuries. For example, victims of sexual harassment in the workplace were recognized.

I would like to know why, in your opinion, post-traumatic stress disorder is now a hot topic. Is it due to events in recent years?

Those measures were undertaken and other professional illnesses were identified 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Why is there so much talk now about post-traumatic stress disorder?

[Dr. Judith Pizarro Andersen]

I'll just say, and I think Dr. Ferguson can speak to this also, I think that with the upswing in media attention, as there has come to be more of a public conversation about shootings and use of force by police and the idea of police brutality and so forth, the mental health of officers has become more of a focus. I do know that the media has had a role in this as well.

[Dr. Donna Ferguson]

Yes, I agree. I also think that in terms of the suicides there's a lot of public attention, so it's sparking a lot of awareness and interest in this area.

There are a lot of first responders who are dealing with the insurance and disability issues, which again has prompted this Ontario legislation. It's just rolling in terms of trying to see how we can really understand this issue, how to resolve it, and how to work on treatment, recovery, and care.

I think it's been around for years and years. PTSD has been called a lot of different names, such as shell shock. Over the years, the names have evolved, but the symptoms have always been there. It's just that now we're looking at it differently and, for a lot of reasons, paying more attention to it.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask another question, if I may.

Ms. Pizarro Andersen, you talked about situations that can be avoided. Can you briefly tell us what employers, unions and employees can do to reduce the occurrence of that disorder?

[Dr. Judith Pizarro Andersen]

Again, I think it's critical that officers are given all the tools. We can't reduce the number of calls they have to go to, obviously, and they have to walk into situations that all of us would probably run from. That's just part of their job.

I think that what's critical for unions is to support evidence-based prevention interventions. They need to make a call for their employees to have this enhanced use-of-force training that is personalized to the officer, so that they can maintain an optimal mental and physical state and can respond in the calmest manner without escalating the situation, if possible, thus reducing the likelihood of getting OSI and PTSD in the first place.

Organizations need to invest in this type of training. There are training dollars, but the problem is that many organizations only train their use-of-force officers to minimal standards, such as for one day a year. Bill Lewinski, a researcher on this topic in the U.S., has said that college athletes actually receive more training in four years than police officers receive for their job in 40 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you. I'm afraid we need to end there.

Thank you very much, Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Anderson. One had a sense as you gave your testimony that you have callings, not only jobs. What you're doing is very much appreciated. Thank you for your research, for your clinical practice, and for your testimony.

We're going to take a minute or two, members. Hopefully, this will be pro forma.

We were delivered a budget for this study, members of the committee. It's a request for a project budget. This is within our overall projection for the year. It's not an unusual budget. There's no travel in it. I just want to see if you have any questions about it. If there are no questions, I'll entertain a motion first, if someone would move this budget, which is for the total amount of $38,700, as presented.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

So moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Monsieur Dubé has moved that. Are there any questions or is there any discussion? We can always revisit this as the study continues.

All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Monsieur Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

As one of the NDP House leaders, I'll put on my other hat and ask about Thursday. The sense is that we will probably be on a Friday schedule, so perhaps you could tell us where we're going to be at for the next couple of meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need to look at the clerk, because we haven't been told. Right now, we have a plan for Thursday to meet at 11 o'clock to do one hour of the study with one panel of witnesses. We have just two witnesses. The committee meeting would end at noon, and then the subcommittee would meet from noon until one to plan the rest of the study and look at witnesses. Would that change if it's a Friday schedule on Thursday?

[An hon. member]

Question period is at 11.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Question period is at 11 on Fridays. Of course, so it will all change. This is like Alice in Wonderland. If Thursday is a Thursday, we'll meet at 11 for an hour and then have a subcommittee meeting for an hour. If Thursday is a Friday, the committee meeting, I assume, will not be held. Understood?