The problem is that there are two schools of thought. My area of specialization is medical surveillance. When you work at the Royal Canadian Mint, you have to work with gold, arsenic, lead and mercury. When I do urine tests for screening purposes, I find traces of those metals: that's a fact.
As for psychological tests, they are somewhat more intrusive. Psychologists are a little more reserved when it comes to making a determination. It's delicate. We don't have absolute power. However, increasingly, we do have tools.
The people responsible for protecting human rights, with whom I have often worked and whom I respect, used to tell me that if I ask Mr. Roy to take a test, I will have to test everybody. In addition, they would ask me to prove to them that it would or would not make a difference. I can defend the cases I've handled in the five years I've been implementing the program inside the RCMP. However, I have to justify every single rejection, because the human rights people get on my case and I am exposing myself to a grievance. I have no problem with that, because that's part of my job, but it's not easy. You have to be vigilant: a urine test won't tell me whether the soldier I've tested is a better soldier or not, but we test everybody.
In principle, we should be looking at the quality of our intervention, because that is the basis for our decision to deploy him. That's why there needs to be good equipment. This is what they used to do in the army: they had the best guy, but in terms of equipment, they gave him the responsibility of handling it—pulling the choke to get the vehicle going.
All of that is part of training. If I am given new equipment but haven't been trained… I may have the best radio in the world, but if I don't know how to use it, it's useless. The same thing applies to personal protective gear. Those are often stresses for people.
If I have a bad tank and I don't have the right uniform, because everyone can see me three kilometres away, then I will be stressed out, and when I experience stress, I am likely to fall apart more quickly. What I'm trying to say is that we can always do psychological testing, but there are four criteria: good equipment, good training, good personal protection, and the right medical exam. They are all part of a whole. We have often focussed only on the medical aspect or the equipment aspect. But that's what a medical surveillance program is all about.