NDDN Committee Report

Supplementary Report of Committee Member Jack Harris

I would like to make the following four points as a supplemental to the report of the committee:

1)    While the important recommendations made in “Doing Well” continue to have my support, I remain uncomfortable with the overly positive tone that runs throughout the text of the report. The motivation of my New Democrat predecessor on this committee, Dawn Black, in seeking this study was the serious concerns coming from the members of the Canadian Forces and their families concerning the inadequacy of treatment and support for those suffering from Operational Stress Injuries (OSI), such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  For this reason, I feel it unnecessary to continually praise the Department of National Defence for its efforts when, in the case of Operational Stress Injuries, it has failed Canadian Forces members and their families.

2)    While it is recognized that cooperation with other government departments and agencies is, of course, needed in dealing with OSI, the overriding responsibility must remain with the Department of National Defence to ensure that Canadian Forces members and their families receive the necessary resources, treatment and support. Operational Stress Injuries are complex and affect the lives of members in a variety of ways. Though providing OSI treatment poses challenges and is unique from the treatment of physical injuries, Canadian Forces members suffering from OSI are as deserving and entitled to the same standard and level of adequate treatment as those members suffering from physical injury alone.

3)    Recommendation Twelve facilitates the use of an advocate to help Canadian Forces members and their families navigate both the Canadian Forces bureaucracy as well as the complex treatment regime required in many cases of OSI. While I am pleased that the use of an advocate, initially proposed by my colleague Dawn Black, is provided for in the recommendations, I would prefer the recommendation went further and included the establishment of an advocate program. By this I mean that the Canadian Forces would recruit and provide training for individuals who would be assigned to OSI cases to work as advocates on behalf of the members. These could be, for example, former CF members, as they understand the Canadian Forces culture and system, or professionals from an appropriate field, such as healthcare or social work.

The recommendation for an advocate arose from witness testimony heard during the committee’s study. The committee heard from family members of Canadian Forces members, including the father of a member who is himself a former member of the Canadian Forces, of the difficulty they faced in trying to help their loved one navigate the system. The Committee also heard from professionals specializing in the area of post-traumatic stress disorder. These individuals, such as Dr. Greg Passey who is a leading expert in the field and runs a PTSD clinic at Vancouver General Hospital, testified that family members can suffer from secondary PTSD, making it even more difficult to aid their loved one suffering from PTSD. Given the recommendations from both people affected by PTSD and professionals in the field, I believe there is ample evidence supporting the need for an advocate program.

4)    The new and welcome initiative of Joint Personal Support Units (JPSU), are currently only available in places where major bases exist. While acknowledging this is a beginning only, and is satisfactory for many returning soldiers, it is inadequate for transferred soldiers and for reservists who return to their home communities. It is therefore hoped that the JPSU system will soon be expanded so as to ensure adequate service is available to all returning Canadian Forces personnel.

Respectfully submitted by:

Jack Harris, St. John’s East