The same debate takes place in the civilian world: people don't want to talk about suicide because they are afraid that this will generate more suicides. So the reporting of suicides is censored.
Within the armed forces, for several years there was a terrible stigma attached to the individuals from a regiment who had committed suicide. Afterwards a lot of people said that the individual concerned was incapable, that he lacked courage and loyalty, that if he had killed himself, too bad for him, and that his name would not be put on the regiment's monument. For a period of time it was practically said that these people were not really injured and that they had not really died in combat.
This has changed. It is still that way in some places but generally people recognize that those who have committed suicide are still a part of the regiment. Certain regiments put the names of these people on the list and mention that they committed suicide. It is said that they served and that they died from their injuries. They do write that the person "died of his injuries". However, this philosophy is still not the prevailing one.
However, to the population in general, suicides are not recognized as the result of operations. As I said in the beginning, we may have lost 170 or 180 soldiers in this operation. However, that is not new. Neither Canada nor any other country seems to want to include these deaths among those that occurred in the theatre of operations.
Finally, I would like to say that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not really follow the issue of suicides. It does not follow the person's history, it does not try to see whether he received care or not. It does not keep statistics. The department does not seem to want to keep these statistics. I can understand that in the case of older veterans, but for new veterans, I think that this tool has to be promoted in order to allow the department to follow this matter.