Bill C-426 (Historical)

An Act to amend the National Defence Act (maiming or injuring self or another)

This enactment amends the National Defence Act to repeal the offence of maiming or injuring oneself or another person to render oneself or that other person unfit for service.

Department of National Defence—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, I do not understand what the minister wants to study. We already heard the witnesses at committee, including mental health experts. We heard from the families who have lost loved ones to death by suicide. There is nothing to study here.

We know that the existence of this section of the National Defence Act is a barrier to people getting the treatment they need. We know that it is both a symbolic barrier and sometimes a practical barrier, as people are assigned minor discipline for attempts to take their own lives. How is this helpful?

I have rewritten my amendment into a private member's bill, Bill C-426, and I will be asking for the unanimous consent of the House to pass that bill in all its stages.

I ask the minister once again, what is he waiting for, when we all know that this would be a major step forward, both symbolically and practically, in addressing this crisis within the Canadian Armed Forces?

National Suicide Prevention Action Plan

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to express my deep gratitude for the tone in this room. This is a very powerful and very sad discussion to have.

It is a privilege for me to speak to Motion No. 174, which talks about suicide prevention.

We are talking about something that is often very hard for people to talk about, so I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the loved ones living with the reality of suicide, especially in the context of the speech before mine.

The actuality of life when someone we love dies by suicide is simply unimaginable. I want to acknowledge that some communities in our country face higher rates of suicide, including indigenous, LGBTQ2 and military and veterans communities, just to name a few.

ln February of this year, a very young man in my family was successful in his suicide attempt. lt has been devastating for our community of just over 300 people, our family, and most of all, those who loved him the very most, his parents, sister, uncles, aunts, cousins and grandparents.

Suicide shakes the very foundation of the people it impacts. The questioning of how and why is overwhelming. lt is something that most people are unsure how to address. I have heard stories of the loved ones of those who have died by suicide being completely isolated, because people do not know how to speak to that issue, speak to that pain, and therefore, too often, they avoid them. What do we say to people who have lost someone they loved by their own hand?

I have watched this struggle in my loved one's father. The words seem to be blocked at his lips. We know that words have power, and saying them aloud makes the reality that much more real. How does one carry this pain? How does one help? Who does one call? This is why we need a national suicide action plan to help Canadians, a comprehensive plan that would prevent suicide and provide support when suicide happens.

Each month, on average, the Canadian Armed Forces loses one serving member to death by suicide. As a member who represents a military base in my riding, I think it is important that the members of the House hear this. lt is an epidemic that continues, despite some positive steps taken to address mental health issues in the forces.

When Bill C-77 passed through the House late last year, I was disappointed that it did not remove subsection 98(c) from the National Defence Act. This subsection makes self-harm a disciplinary offence under the military code of conduct. It concerns me deeply that members of our military could be seriously considering suicide but feel unable to disclose it or ask for help because they could be disciplined. What a way to come forward and tell this horrific truth about oneself. When people are experiencing a state that leads them to thoughts of self-harm, there must be a safe way for them to come forward.

My friend, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, proposed an amendment to remove subsection 98(c) from the National Defence Act in committee. Unfortunately, it was defeated, and the amendment was defeated on so-called procedural grounds. It has been reintroduced in the House in Bill C-426. Based on the feeling in the House, I really hope that this bill receives unanimous consent at all stages when it comes to this place.

When we speak to this issue within the context of Motion No. 174, we see the need for it to be addressed. We do not want any Canadians in this country to feel that they cannot come forward to get the help they so desperately need. The Canadian Armed Forces deserve to have our support. The mere existence of subsection 98(c) continues to be a barrier for Canadian Forces members seeking the mental health assistance they need, and the House has only one more opportunity to fix this. I would love it to be in this Parliament.

Today we are debating Motion No. 174, which was tabled in this place by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I want to thank him for his tireless work and advocacy on this issue and for his dedication in bringing this forward. I am relieved to hear that the government will be supporting it.

I also thank the member because this motion speaks to the isolation I mentioned earlier. When people are successful in their suicide, or when their attempt is unsuccessful, everyone is impacted, and it is often the isolation that is the hardest part to carry. People are unsure of what to say, terrified to touch the pain of that choice, regardless of the result.

This outlines exactly why it is so important to have a national suicide prevention action plan. This issue of suicide must be addressed directly and holistically. The more isolation and silence there is around suicide, the more people will hide their thoughts and not ask for the help they need.

lt is imperative that Canada not leave any community behind. We must have a framework, because there are many small and isolated communities, like the ones I represent, that have limited access to services. How do we reach out in a safe way? We all know that when small communities face successful suicides, it can often become an epidemic.

The young man that I spoke of earlier, my relative, is the second in less than a year and a half in our small community of just under 300 people. The impact on that community has been profound, and the fear that another child is going to follow those steps has been something we all watch.

When I think about the Facebook posts that we have seen from some of our youth who are actively questioning the validity of being here, I am reminded again of how important it is as a country that we remember that those children, those people, are so important and that we must address their isolation. We can only do that by having a framework that goes across this country, so that we can work collaboratively.

No one wants to live through this. I think of my brother, who has a serious mental health issue. I think of how strong he has been in his life to face the multiple challenges and how hard it can be when he is put in situations where people do not understand that invisible mental health issue that he lives with every single day. It worries me when people do not understand that and treat him in ways that are profoundly disrespectful.

All of us know what it is to love someone and often feel as though we are fighting for their very existence. I am really happy that we are here to talk about this, to talk about having a system in place to address that.

Recently, we have been doing a study at the Veterans Affairs committee. We are looking at the impact on veterans from the use of mefloquine, which is a medication used to prevent or treat malaria. Sadly, mefloquine has been identified as a medication that can poison the brain. There are many veterans across this country who do not know that they may have the impacts of mefloquine poisoning and that their symptoms may relate directly to that. Some veterans have died by suicide, and there are questions as to whether it was due in part to the undiagnosed impacts of the use of mefloquine. This also must be addressed. That is why this is so important.

I want to acknowledge that I have not touched on every vulnerable community across this country that faces a higher suicide rate. Those stories need to be heard, and I hope to see all members in the House support this motion so that this work can be done. I am very glad to hear that so many here will support it, but we need to make sure that everyone does.

Currently, Canada does have a federal framework for suicide prevention, but this framework does not provide funding, goals, timelines and activities that would reduce suicide and does not assign responsibility to jurisdictions. We know that if responsibility is not given, if the jurisdiction is not given, if goals and resources are not given, the work simply does not get done.

I have to say how honoured I am to be in this place when we are discussing one of the most difficult conversations. We are all facing the challenges, being brave to make noise where often there is silence. I encourage all of us and all Canadians to remember to reach out to those people, even when it is hard and uncomfortable. Sometimes we need to stand with people where they are uncomfortable. We have to admit that we are also uncomfortable, but we have to let them know that we are with them and that we support them.

I think this bill will take those steps and I am really thankful that we are going to support it and see change happen in this country.

Mental Health

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, each month, on average, the Canadian Armed Forces continue to lose one serving member to death by suicide. This is an epidemic that continues, despite some positive steps toward addressing mental health issues in the forces.

The House had a historic opportunity to address this issue directly earlier this year when we passed Bill C-77, the military justice reform bill. In committee, I proposed an amendment to remove subsection 98(c) from the National Defence Act, the section which makes self-harm a disciplinary offence under the military code of conduct. Unfortunately, the Liberals defeated my amendment on procedural grounds.

I have reintroduced my proposal to remove subsection 98(c) as Bill C-426. Soon I will be asking for unanimous consent for passing the bill at all stages in order to make self-harm in the Canadian Forces a health issue instead of a disciplinary matter.

The mere existence of subsection 98(c) continues to be a barrier for Canadian Forces members seeking the mental health assistance they need and the House has only one more opportunity to fix this. I hope when the time comes, the bill will have the support of all members.

National Defence Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to see Bill C-426 in its entirety. I only just heard about it an hour ago from our colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. It seems well-intended. I imagine that our national defence critic will provide a reasoned approach to it.

I believe our colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman also referenced Bill C-426 in his intervention. While I have not seen the full text of the bill, I look forward to seeing it. I am sure it will have support from all sides of the House.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, removing paragraph 98(c) is about removing self-harm as an offence. He talked about that himself.

When the amendment moved by my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke was rejected, he decided to introduce his own private member's bill, Bill C-426, to correct this issue.

Does my colleague plan to vote in favour of Bill C-426 to correct the problem he was talking about?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House that I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Before question period, I was talking about the intervention by our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on Bill C-77. The beauty of the House is that when one pays attention to debate, we can learn things. So many of our colleagues bring expertise and knowledge to the debate. One only has to just pay attention and listen.

My hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke brought up two areas of Bill C-77 that were missing. I want to bring them up as well and address them.

One is the issue of mental illness and injury of those who serve in our Armed Forces and their death by suicide, self-harm, and the fact that section 98(c) is still in military law. The simple act of removing that could do so much to break down the stigma for those who still suffer in the shadows.

I worked tirelessly in getting my Bill C-211 through the House and to royal assent, which took place on June 21 of last year. I am proud to say that the round tables for Bill C-211 are taking place within a month in Ottawa. Stakeholders, representatives from the provinces and territories, ministerial colleagues from across the way as well as military from Veterans Affairs and National Defence are coming together to have that overall discussion on mental health and how we can stem the tide of the epidemic of suicide due to mental illness and mental injury. This is so important.

It is very important that at all times we build trust not only for those who suffer from mental illness and mental injury, but fort hose who suffer from sexual assault as well so they know they will be believed and they can get the services they require. It is very important we build that environment of trust so they feel they can come forward and there will not be that stigma attached to them. Throughout this debate, we have heard that this still remains, because Bill C-77 does not address that.

My hon. colleague talked about his Bill C-426, which could address the removal of section 98(c). Again, it is a simple thing. I do not accept the argument that we need to study it. The wheels of bureaucracy move slowly. We tend to study things to death and then we are victims of our own inaction. We refuse to act when simple things could be done that would have such a major impact. Section 98(c) is one that my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman mentioned it as well.

This is not my file, but I read some of the amendments put forward by the my colleagues in the official opposition, and this was brought up by a number of colleagues. I did not know that in military law there there is no provision for reporting the proceedings of a summary hearing. There is also no provision compelling an officer presiding over a summary hearing to give reasons for his or her findings. I had no knowledge that no notes were taken or recordings of proceedings. I am shocked that there would be not requirements in military legal procedure to take copious notes. That makes it very difficult for the appeal process.

As Conservatives, we always believe that the rights of victims should come before those of the criminal. We will always stand tall to ensure the rights of victims and their families are considered first and foremost.

Over the course of the last week, and indeed leading up to Christmas, we had a lot of opportunity to talk about victims' rights and ensuring that those who we trusted to protect us and serve our country were armed with the tools to complete their mission. We must ensure they are safe and secure and remain healthy when they come back to their families.

Earlier this week, we were talking about the rights of victims. I brought up Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer and how the families of his victims had been re-victimized time and again. We recently found out that he was transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security facility.

Our hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has committed to reviewing that case. It is my hope that he will take swift action to reverse the decision, similar to what he did with Terri-Lynne McClintic. I am not sure why things always have to get to this point.

Going back to my earlier comment about subsection 98(c), I note there are simple things we can do as leaders and elected officials within the House. The 338 members of Parliament have been elected to be the voice of Canadians. There are simple things we could do to make the lives of Canadians better. Rather than overthink things, we should use a little common sense.

Sometimes in this place we get mired under the bubble in which we work. If common sense could prevail, we would be far better off.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Forty-five? Again, we do not have a good count of the reservists.

We know that even though the strategy was put in place, this continues to be a serious challenge for the Canadian Forces. It is a challenge, obviously, on the humane grounds of taking care of those we ask to do difficult and dangerous work.

...it is disturbing that even today under paragraph 98(c), a service member could face life imprisonment for attempted suicide. It would be more appropriate to consider self-harm under such circumstances as being symptomatic of a serious and urgent mental health concern, and signalling the need for appropriate and immediate medical intervention.

She is calling on us to make sure those supports are available, to make sure those barriers are removed. She said very clearly:

There is no benefit to leaving paragraph 98(c) in the National Defence Act, nor is there a downside to removing it. In my heart, I believe it is morally responsible [to remove this section].

I do not mean to be too crass here, but it is also a challenge when we invest in people to serve Canada and the result of that service is that we lose their skills and their contribution because of mental health problems.

The Canadian military has said it is committed to removing obstacles to providing mental health assistance for those who need it in the Canadian Forces. When the bill came to committee, I moved an amendment to it that would remove the largest symbolic and practical barrier to providing mental health assistance for those who are considering self-harm. That is paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act, which makes self-harm a disciplinary offence.

When I talk to people outside the Canadian military, their reaction to this situation is that 30 years ago, in civilian life, we moved way beyond regarding attempted suicide as the fault of the individual and began to treat it as a mental health issue, as an illness that could be dealt with and treated.

In the National Defence Act, to which all recruits are trained, it says self-harming is a disciplinary offence. In practice, when I talk to leaders within the military, I hear that this measure is not used very often and is rarely applied, but the fact that it exists and presents self-harm as a disciplinary offence creates on onus on the individual not to seek help, because what they are considering may become not just a mental health issue but a blot on their military career. It creates another obstacle to reaching out for help.

We heard moving testimony from witnesses at committee, including Sheila Fynes, whose son died by suicide while serving in the Canadian Forces and who did not get the help he needed despite repeated attempts to harm himself while serving. Instead he was subjected to discipline several times as the solution to his problems, instead of being recognized as suffering from a mental illness and receiving the treatment he needed.

Ms. Fynes is most dignified and has resisted all tendencies to become bitter about what happened with her son, instead working tirelessly with 161 other families of those who died by suicide to try to make sure this does not happen to any other families. Here is what she said at committee:

Other witnesses spoke from their experience within the Canadian military as commanders who faced these crises. One of those was retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron, who appeared before the committee last November, noting that paragraph 98(c) refers both to self-harm and also to asking someone else to do harm. He said clearly that there is no downside to removing section 98(c) as it refers to self-harm and went on to say that if the worry is about someone in the armed forces asking someone else to harm them, that's already covered by lots of other regulations. Assault is the main one that would apply. If a serving member asks someone else to harm them so they can get out of service, that person is already guilty of offences if they carry it out. He saw no downside to removing this section.

The Judge Advocate General's office made it clear that this section is rarely taken through the formal process. In other words, it is not used very often. However, the fact that it makes it a disciplinary offence means that it is sometimes applied at the command level. I think there was only one case in the last 10 years of someone being prosecuted for self-harming through the military justice system, but the fact that it is there as a disciplinary offence allows lower-level decisions that apply discipline rather than assistance to these mental health issues.

It was a big missed opportunity. The Liberals, as I mentioned, argued that it was outside the scope of Bill C-77 to remove this section of the National Defence Act. That was a very technical argument and one that is very difficult for me to accept, in that Bill C-77 already amended eight other sections of the code of conduct, so it would have been very easy for the committee to decide to proceed with this amendment.

Although the Liberals have not done so and the bill is now before us without my amendment, I still support the bill. I think there are many positive things in it. However, I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-426, which does the same thing. It is a very simple bill. It suggests taking paragraph 98(c) out of the National Defence Act.

The Liberals argued at committee that doing it at committee was not the right way or the right place, but they were sympathetic, so my challenge to the Liberals now is this: If the committee was not the right place to amend Bill C-77 in this way, will they join the Conservatives and the New Democrats in now supporting my bill to take this section out of the National Defence Act and remove one of the major barriers preventing those who are suffering with mental illness from getting the treatment and help they need?

With that, I will conclude my remarks, and I will be happy to take questions.

I am happy the bill is moving forward. I am happy it is going to be done before we go to another election so that we do not have a further delay on victims' rights in the military justice system, but I remain disappointed that we have missed a big opportunity to do something about the crisis of death by suicide in the Canadian Forces.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the good work the hon. member does on the defence committee, where I am pleased to serve with him.

When this bill was at committee stage, I proposed an amendment in committee to take advantage of this opportunity to remove the question of self-harm as a disciplinary offence from the military code of conduct. At that time, the Liberals in committee argued that it was beyond the scope of the bill and it was not the appropriate way to deal with this problem. Since that time, I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-426, which would do the same thing: remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence.

I wonder whether the member, at this point, having not supported that amendment at committee, is prepared to support my private member's bill to take self-harm out of the military code of conduct.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise on Bill C-77. As the veterans affairs critic for the NDP, I have met many veterans, many of whom have served in our military, and I have been witness to the struggles many of them have faced. I want to ensure that we put the right tools in place for the individuals who have served our country, to ensure their long-term well-being is in good order in return for their service in uniform.

Our servicemen and servicewomen deserve to have a fair and impartial justice system that is working for them. I believe Bill C-77 takes many of the right steps in that direction. That is why I am happy to be supporting the bill, along with my NDP colleagues.

However, I cannot express how frustrated we are by the lack of urgency in getting this bill to where it is now. Bill C-15 was passed in 2013 and the enforcement of that bill just came into force last year, five years later. Here we are now in 2019, looking to continue the job we started in 2013. I very much hope these important changes do not take another five years to enact and implement, because our men and women in uniform deserve better than delay after delay.

The fundamental principles that are being debated in the bill are still working from the excellent framework provided to us by Antonio Lamer in 2003. I think we have seen today that all parties in this place are working to get the bill passed quickly, which we are grateful for. Partisanship has not been at fault for slowing this process down. It has been a lack of political urgency by previous governments. I feel strongly that we need to do better.

Here we are again in 2019, once again under the gun to get the bill passed before the next election. Canadians deserve better than to have the legislation die on the vine.

I do not want to mislead anyone that Bill C-77 has our full support. There are still steps that need to be taken to improve our military justice system. New Democrats have brought forward an amendment to the bill through our great defence critic, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, which would have struck paragraph 98(c) from the military code of service discipline. It has to do with the effects of self-harm. In my mind, and in the minds of most Canadians, the stigma and attitudes toward mental health are changing for the better, and this section looks to me like a relic from another time.

The committee heard that officials throughout the military are taking significant steps to address the mental health needs of their service people. Tragically, we have seen the impacts that inaction on this important issue has had on our servicemen and servicewomen in the last number of years. Therefore, while I have no doubt that we are taking a better and more compassionate approach to mental health issues, it is important to highlight that paragraph 98(c) is now out of place. As long as people can still see it on the books, they will still potentially be scared to bring forward their struggles and challenges. Those who are in the most vulnerable position need to have that avenue to seek help.

In discussion with my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, he spoke about how his amendment, which would have removed this clause, was at first well received by the committee. Soon, the Liberals on the committee changed their tune. They felt it should be a different study. Once they had their marching orders, the chair said the member's amendment was ineligible.

While I feel like most members in the House recognize the importance and independence of our committees, as we have seen at the justice committee over the last few days, the Liberals are ready to give up on that independence once they receive their marching orders from a minister's office or the PMO. It sounds to me that a similar situation occurred in the removal of my colleague's amendment to the bill.

We heard some very compelling evidence regarding this amendment, which should be heard as the bill returns to the House. As Sheila Fynes explained at committee:

...it is disturbing that even today, under paragraph 98(c), a service member could face life imprisonment for an attempted suicide. It would be more appropriate to consider self-harm under such circumstances as being symptomatic of a serious and urgent mental health concern, and signalling the need for appropriate and immediate medical intervention.

That speaks for itself. This is obviously undue punishment for a member who is suffering. We need to reach out and look after these members.

She went on to add, “There is no benefit to leaving paragraph 98(c) in the National Defence Act, nor is there a downside to removing it. In my heart, I believe it is morally responsible.” This is from the testimony she gave on November 1, 2018.

Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron, who took a much more conservative approach, added:

Including yourself, but if we focus on the other person, which I think you were leading up to, we have numerous other offences—assaults, attempted murder, name it—that would penalize you for the action you've committed toward the other individual that are captured in a way by paragraph 98(c), so we could reach the same result.

I am proud to say that I know the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and he will not be giving up on this fight easily. I look forward to having the opportunity to support his private member's bill, Bill C-426. If we are truly committed to ending the stigma around mental health and wellness, we need to commit ourselves not only to improving our services but also to ending the systems that reinforce these wrongly held beliefs.

This is the most important step the bill takes with respect to the compassionate treatment of victims and their families. It is imperative that these individuals have strong protections and that the military justice system supports them in a compassionate way throughout the legal process.

Bill C-77 would harmonize the military justice system with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights so that victims in the military justice system would have many of the same resources that victims in our civilian courts have. This would include keeping victims informed regarding the progress of cases, which I know can be an incredible relief. By nature, lawyers keep everything close to their chests, and not knowing what is going to happen next is a significant source of anxiety for victims and their families.

The other addition that would be most significant for victims is the appointment of a victims liaison officer to be assigned to support them through the process. We often ask our military personnel to do some of the most difficult and dangerous tasks for our country. Tools like a victims liaison officer are needed to show that we have our servicemen's and servicewomen's backs when they are suffering.

Another area in which the bill takes a positive step is reconciliation. I had the pleasure of working on the veterans affairs committee's report as the committee's standing vice-chair. The report is entitled “Indigenous Veterans: From Memories of Injustice to Lasting Recognition”. While the report lays out some very important steps forward, it is also a stark reminder that indigenous members of our military have not always been treated equally or fairly.

As the Supreme Court determined in 1999 with the Gladue decision, it is appropriate to take Canada's colonial legacy into account for sentencing. I am glad to see that Bill C-77 will extend that decision from our civilian courts to our military ones. Our military justice system often deals with serious offences, and it is imperative that every important factor is considered when these decisions are made.

While I am proud of the additional victims' rights, which will be added in Bill C-77, the bill also takes steps to make the military justice system more fair and impartial for all parties involved. Regardless of which side of the justice system people find themselves, it is vital that they have confidence that the system is arriving at a fair and impartial decision. While this can be all the more difficult in the trying situations that our military members often find themselves in, it is our duty to provide the tools and resources for fair trials to occur. By expanding the rights of an accused individual to go to trial by court martial rather than by their commanding officer, we will be better able to protect Canadians' constitutional rights.

I believe my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke put it in the most simple terms:

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to a high standard of discipline, therefore, their judicial system should also reflect that high standard. Those who risk their lives for our country should not be denied their charter rights when facing trial.

I would also like to read a quote from Tim Dunne, a columnist with The Chronicle Herald, in regard to this very same topic. He says:

Until Bill C-77 is passed, commanding and designated officers with little legal training presiding at summary trials are not required to prepare a transcript of the proceedings, so there is no provision for appeal; there is no requirement to apply rules of evidence to assure a fair trial; an accused can be compelled to testify against himself or herself, so there is no constitutional right to protection against self-incrimination; adverse inferences can be drawn from the silences of the accused; and the accused cannot be represented by a lawyer.

As I conclude my thoughts, I want to once again say how important it is to ensure we are able to enact the changes outlined in Bill C-77 in a timely manner. It has been years since we have known that these steps needed to be taken, but we have delayed. In that time many Canadians have proudly worn a uniform. We owe it to those members and their families to ensure that our military justice system is more supportive to victims and fairer to everyone.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member say very clearly that we need to restore the rights of victims, and I did listen very carefully.

Given the reality of PTSD and mental health issues among Canadian military personnel and the failure of the Liberal government to strike paragraph 98(c), which makes self-harm a disciplinary offence that could mean life imprisonment for a victim of PTSD who attempts suicide, will the member continue to support NDP efforts to remove paragraph 98(c)? Will he support the private member's bill, Bill C-426, that seeks to finally do the right thing and remove paragraph 98(c)?

National Defence

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces continue to lose more than one member per month to death by suicide, yet one of the barriers to serving members getting the help that they need is the fact that self-harm remains a disciplinary offence in the military code of conduct.

Since the Liberal members ruled my amendment to fix this out of order at committee hearings on Bill C-77, let me ask the minister.

Will the government now support removing self-harm as a disciplinary offence by agreeing to support my private member's bill, Bill C-426, and expedite its passage through the House?

National Defence Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-426, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (maiming or injuring self or another).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that aims to remove a significant barrier to members of the Canadian Forces receiving the mental health assistance they need. It would do so by repealing subsection (c) of section 98 of the National Defence Act. This archaic section of the National Defence Act makes self-harm a disciplinary offence in the military code of conduct.

The Canadian Forces are still losing more than one member per month to death by suicide. We have lost over 195 serving members in the last 15 years. Removing this section would send a strong message that self-harm is a mental health issue and not something to be addressed by discipline.

This is a matter that I had hoped could have been fixed by a simple amendment to Bill C-77, the military justice reform bill, recently dealt with by the House. At that time, New Democrats and Conservatives supported my amendment, but the Liberals indicated they felt amending Bill C-77 was not the way to proceed. This private member's bill offers an alternative way of taking the actions necessary to send a positive message to Canadian Forces members struggling with mental health issues. I trust it will receive broad support in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)