Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Andrea Siew]

Well, I think we need to look at what we're doing in Canada. Certainly on the Canadian Forces side they've done an awful lot in terms of health care professionals and putting the programs in place while members are still serving.

Our model is different from the American model. I think there may be a risk in following the American model instead of focusing on the unique Canadian circumstances. When you look at the care of the family in Canada, where there is that constant jurisdictional issue and where we have a moral obligation.... Yes, there is a jurisdictional issue, but that needs to be overcome, and the program needs to be holistic for the member and the family.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thanks.

I'm going to switch to treatment. We've heard from veterans that you have to have walked in their boots or have served in a foxhole for three days. In terms of treatment, how do you feel about treatment in groups? I know the Legion has supported a wonderful veterans transition program in B.C., a co-ed program for the partners and for children.

Can you comment on what we need to be doing to support families, and could we have a comment from the RCMP as well? I'd like you both to answer.

[Brad White]

On your comparison to the Americans, it's economy of scale, and we're dealing with two different health care systems.

If you want to take the military and the RCMP out of the Canada Health Act so that, as soon as they join the Canadian Forces or the RCMP, they are covered by that organization until the date they're not on this earth, that would be great, but that's the American system. If you join the American armed forces, you're covered from that time until your grave. That's how they do it.

I'll mention two other issues. I believe that if you create a climate of change and a mentality of change and acceptance, an individual won't feel the stigma. To get that, you have to have buy-in from the leadership.

I'm going to go back to your other question about treatment. The programs that we're sponsoring right now have been very effective and very welcome. The one in Edmonton, in particular, with the MFRC, the military family resource centre, has gone through eight serials of it. The results with the kids--and we're talking about kids from young to late teens--have been very effective in getting them to deal with the issues of PTSD, to recognize PTSD, to recognize why mommy or daddy comes in and is really screaming at them for no reason. PTSD does that to people. The switch goes. These programs have been very effective.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Is it being replicated?

[Brad White]

No. At this stage it's not being replicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We have to wind up. Thank you.

Mr. Vincent is next.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would simply like to make a request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to go to you and then I'll go to Mr. McColeman. I'm sorry, Mr. McColeman; I missed the list here.

Go ahead, Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, before you start timing me, I would like to make a request.

I identified Major Michel Sartori as a witness. I'm not sure that he'll want to testify, because he is still in the Canadian Forces. If the committee receives a negative answer, I would like us to be able to issue a subpoena for him to testify just because Mr. Sartori's testimony plays a major role.

In fact, the Canadian Forces said that only seven soldiers committed suicide in 2006 and nine in 2007. Major Sartori is a soldier who did his PhD thesis on suicide among soldiers. The difference between the numbers provided by the two sides is very significant. In 2006, they said seven suicides, whereas he identified 20. In 2007, they said nine suicides, whereas he found 36.

It is important that Major Sartori be able to speak to his PhD thesis before the committee. That could shed some light on suicide among the Canadian Forces for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Keep going. You're on your five minutes. Are you presenting a motion?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

If you want me to introduce a motion, that's fine with me, but I would like to ask you one thing. If Major Sartori declines our invitation, I would like us to be able to send him a subpoena to testify.

If you want me to make a motion, I will do it. I can move a motion and we can proceed with the vote. I would rather proceed with a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

If it's a motion, then you'll have to put notice of motion. I'll have to bring it up in 48 hours.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Are you just adding another witness? Can we take that under advisement to see if we can get...?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I understood that he was asking to put on the list another particular individual as a witness. I don't know that we need a motion if it's just a request for additional witnesses.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That's not what I asked. You were talking and you did not hear my request.

I've already asked this man to come to testify. The problem is that he is in the Canadian Forces and they do not allow him to talk about suicide. It is forbidden, as Ms. Lagimonière told us. So it is problematic for this gentleman to appear before the committee.

If the clerk calls him to come testify and he says “no”, I would like us to be able to send him a subpoena to testify so that he can come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It's my understanding that the gentleman is on the witness list and that the clerk is working on bringing the witness. Until he doesn't come--

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We're right in the middle of a question to the witnesses and we're going off looking at adding witnesses to a list. I have no problem with that, but I think that should be dealt with by the Chair and the clerk after the meeting. We're in the middle of questioning the witnesses. They're here for a limited time. Let's get on with the order of business today.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I am not opposed to that, but we will have to discuss it at the end of the meeting. I wouldn't want people to rush out and avoid the debate. I want to make sure that we are going to do it and we won't run away from it.

I said I had something to ask you, and I have done so. This comment should not be counted in my time. I made this request so that we could have the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We do have witnesses here. This person is on a witness list. When we have a negative from this person that he won't come, then we will deal with it. I will deal with the clerk on it, and that's how it'll be. We do have witnesses here, and I don't think it's right that we take that witnesses' time away. We will deal with it as we go forward.

Your five minutes is up, sir.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Are we going to talk about it at the end of the meeting? We have not finished. I can understand that...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're good. This meeting is for our witnesses. We've already lost five minutes for hearing our witnesses.

Go ahead, Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you as well to the witnesses for being here and sharing with us—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There is a point of order.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Vincent clearly said that he was not using his time and that he was introducing a motion. I think he should have that time back.