You mentioned data. We know that if we were able to provide data on risk, death, and the kinds of impacts on Canadians in a more timely fashion than we're currently able to do, and share that data all across the country, we could see changes in risk factors and in what was going on for people. If there were a way to make sure that was broadly available, I believe it would make a difference.
For example, in Vancouver, where I work on a daily basis in a suicide prevention agency, although we used to think that women were less likely to use what we call “immediately lethal means”, we're seeing the families left behind by young women who are more frequently dying by hanging. Our sense is that's probably going on in other places across the country, but we don't actually have the data on that readily available. It is important to be able to compile that kind of information, share it broadly, and see if that is what's going on, so we can think about what we can do about this.
Another thing we're aware of—and I'm sure many members are aware of this—is that information is now regularly put forward on the Internet that advises people very specifically about how they can kill themselves, what would be lethal for them, and that suggests that people practise. When we look at what's going on for people who die by suicide, it would be really helpful to know in what circumstances people are actively researching lethal methods. Are there ways that have been developed, in Canada or other countries, to intervene effectively in that whole area of social networking and share that knowledge across the country?
The real challenge is that although an enormous amount of good research is being done in Canada and around the world, the mechanisms for making that research broadly available, particularly to grassroots organizations, are not necessarily consistent across the country. Work needs to be done so that front-line providers can take that research and figure out the best way to implement it into practice on the ground where change is necessary. When we focus on knowledge exchange, we have to look much more broadly at the work we do to determine how it's supported so that knowledge gets down to the front line where it can be used.
I think that's where a national coordinating body comes in that is charged with figuring out the best way to make that available to front-line providers and make sure that people on the front lines are learning what they need to learn to make evidence-based changes in practice that will make a difference. That's across the board, whether you're working with older adults, adults, or young people.
Those are some of the key things that I think we need to address in the bill.