Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Jonathan Lane]

Yes. I think one of our biggest strengths at the moment is the way we've engaged the community. This is personnel with lived experience, family members and then ex-service organizations like your Legion.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

How have you done that? That's what we all say, but how did you do that?

[Jonathan Lane]

Yes. It has to be done at a local.... The systems within the policies and programs have to specifically and deliberately incorporate that lived experience voice. Something doesn't happen unless there is someone with lived experience in the co-development of whatever program is being rolled out. Rather than have one particular ex-service organization, you go to the strengths of the communities that are there. Part of the program has been rolling out what we've been calling veterans hubs. These are centres where you have services from whomever and for whomever and for whatever, including medical, including housing, all of those well-being sorts of services. That's the centre of gravity, and a base for them to operate from so that they can then serve the community they're based in.

This is actually really good, because you can have government services working out of the same building. You can have all the other support agencies, but because it's local and in the community, it doesn't have to be huge. It can work with and for the community. I think that's the centre of it, because our geography is like yours. It's a big country with lots of urban centres, but what happens everywhere else? So—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to have to interrupt again. I sincerely apologize.

We have Mrs. Hirtle for five minutes.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening, gentlemen. Thank you for being here. Again, thank you for staying up late for us today.

I'd like to start with everyone's favourite topic, last thing of the day—statistics and data. In Canada, suicide data covers a longer period, 1976 to 2014. I gather the Australian data covers 1997 to 2021. Can you speak to the slope of the data over time? Are there peaks and troughs that stand out as trends, which may have been a result of policy issues?

[Ben Wadham]

I'll let Jon speak to that, but one important piece is that we began lobbying for a royal commission, understanding that there were around 380 veteran suicides since 1997. My numbers won't be exactly precise, but over the period of that royal commission, over three years, we went from 400 to 700 to 1,200 to 1,700, and now we're around 2,000. What we have embarked upon is a strong centralization of our data so that we have a much more representative understanding of the issue.

[Jonathan Lane]

Note also that this data is collected by an independent body that does data collection, analysis and evaluation for a whole range of other metrics for the federal government as well, so it's reputable. I think the collection of that data was a watershed moment in Australia because, again, we weren't actually collecting data, so people couldn't say how bad the problem was.

I think the royal commission itself was huge and was another turning point. Because of the work done during the commission, and then subsequently since the report was handed down 15 months ago now, the numbers are going down.

However, I think we need more nuance in the data about what a person's situation is when those kinds of tragic things occur. For example, I was involved in calls to our 911 equivalent from military and veterans in one of our provinces, our state called Queensland. The polypharmacy rates in veterans were enormous. Something like 80% of veterans were on three different medications, which included psychotropics and sedatives like benzodiazepines and opiates, these kinds of drugs. We're now seeing more along the lines of the same with medicinal cannabis. It makes people impulsive and disinhibited and then more likely to do something quite risky at a specific moment, which massively increases the risk of a negative outcome for them. That kind of data coming out and looking at what situations are prompting people to engage in those kinds of quite harmful and potentially lethal behaviours, that's what we need to see more of.

[Ben Wadham]

Could I just mention one more point? The suicide rate data does not include unverified suicides, such as single-vehicle car accidents, or attempts, so we're only getting a piece of the picture.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

That's a good point; thank you for that.

I have another question about numbers. The excess risk of suicide in the veteran community versus the overall population is two to three times higher for female veterans than for male veterans. Is this a result of suicides of men in the general population being much higher as a baseline? What, in your view, is the reason for the disparity in the excess risk found for female veterans?

[Jonathan Lane]

I'll just give you some quick data. The rates of suicide in female veterans can be up to 10 times higher because the population of women in service is only roughly 15%, so the rates can actually.... With some people, particularly those who've experienced military sexual abuse, and I'm sure Ben would talk to that.... Again, we're looking at the sort of vulnerabilities and risk factors that someone takes with them from service. This particular cohort, which has significantly more vulnerabilities, is much more likely to end up having a more adverse outcome than their male counterparts.

[Ben Wadham]

Yes, and I would just say that the research we've done identifies that women have quite different experiences.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Ms. Gaudreau.

Again, she will be addressing both of you in French for two and a half minutes.

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I gather from your comments that a specific recommendation says that individuals who haven't gone through training, military service and post‑military life shouldn't consider themselves qualified to provide support services to veterans.

I have done a great deal of work in the areas of substance abuse and suicide prevention. However, the fact remains that, while veterans are human beings, they have a completely different culture and life experience.

People who haven't served in the military can't fully understand this culture and experience. As a result, they can't connect with veterans and help them effectively.

Did I understand correctly that the recommendation says that support services for veterans must be provided by peers, by brothers in arms?

[Jonathan Lane]

Yes, exactly, the recommendations were about access to culturally appropriate health services. That's been a big feature of funding from our Department of Veterans' Affairs. It's a personal hobby horse of mine. You cannot give a clinician that kind of lived service experience, but you can give someone with lived experience a paraprofessional clinical role to help deliver community-based programs that are focused around skills for improved functioning and improved interpersonal relationships.

Those factors, in and of themselves, are significantly protective for really poor outcomes, such as suicide, but for other things as well: depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, anger and all those sorts of things.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Lane.

Mr. Wadham, do you agree? There are 20 seconds left.

[Ben Wadham]

Yes. Military service is unique. We're heavily socialized going into the Australian Defence Force, or any military. We spend 12 weeks to 12 months being socialized in strong service experience, and then we can be out in a flash. One thing we've done in Australia is establish peer workers in Open Arms. Open Arms is our counselling service. It brings in veterans who have that experience to work with other veterans to provide pathways to a successful transition.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Wadham.

Thank you for giving me a bit more time, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I'm feeling generous today.

Mr. Tolmie, you have five minutes.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. I'm grateful for your service. I went to university with a former Australian officer. We did a degree in war studies at King's in London, England. I have some fond stories of university that I probably won't share, but he was a good lad. He kept his end up, let me just say.

Professor Lane, you said in your opening statement that 70% of your veterans are not “engaged”. Could you please unpack that and explain it to me?

[Jonathan Lane]

Yes. Roughly 70% of the people who died from suicide weren't concurrently engaged in or getting services from our Veterans' Affairs. That can be interpreted in a few different ways, but one way in particular is with regard to the people who are being helped. We have roughly 600,000 veterans in Australia. Roughly 400,000 to 450,000 of those are accessing Veterans' Affairs services and benefits. We are helping a large proportion of the population, but there is still a proportion of them missing out. By definition, they become more vulnerable. That shows up in that particular statistic.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Wadham, do you have any comments in regard to that?

[Ben Wadham]

I think we understand that in-service identity and belonging, as a bit of a maxim, is generally absolutely rock solid—not for everyone, obviously, but as a rule. Leaving is maybe a bit of a precipice or a bit of a void where we don't have that identity, purpose and belonging. Many of those who engage with DVA or with the veterans sector will engage in what I call “serving after service”. It means running programs or working with veterans to support them. It provides that support and that buffer for those veterans. Those who go completely free don't have the same level of support. They have a level of social disconnection. To me, social disconnection leads to a vulnerability to suicide.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Okay.

I'm asking this out of ignorance, because I'm unaware of how your system works down there. One thing we've gotten from our recent study experiences is that there's a blind spot. When serving members leave the military, they're left to basically fend for themselves.

Are your veterans sat down with Veterans' Affairs upon release, or is it something they have to go online and access, and it's up to them?

[Jonathan Lane]

The joint transition authority was a program that was specifically set up to engage people with Veterans' Affairs before they leave Defence to make sure that they have medical coverage and the other sorts of things they need. That access is then guaranteed in terms of their being able to put in claims for compensation through the department, but it's also supported from the other side by primary health care and extra funding for general practitioners to see veterans now and coordinate care as well.

We have those fundamental things like financial support in terms of a pension or whatever else is needed and health support in terms of that primary care, so that the general practitioner, the GP, can refer people out to other specialists as needed, and non-liability mental health care. What we mean by that is that Defence or DVA doesn't have to take responsibility for causing that condition; it just gets treated anyway. That includes substance abuse as well, which is really important in terms of access and engagement in care.