Yes. Again, you'll find that this is a legitimate concern. If you were to look at this through the lens of how civilians might see the necessity of certain types of behaviour, certain types of dress, certain types of activities that are undertaken by the military, they might question why our system of justice in the military is geared in such a fashion. Those questions are answered again in the necessity of how the military train, how they respond, how they accept a certain doctrine by virtue of joining the Canadian Forces.
It was again the subject of considerable deliberation by Justice Lamer in the Généreux case. He talked about the need to sometimes add quickly, to frequently instill what might be deemed a more severe punishment for what are more mundane breaches of codes of conduct. This is all about maintaining that high standard of discipline, readiness, and behaviour that is in line with being effective as a member of the military but never being out of step with basic principles of fairness. The word “harshness” was thrown around a little bit during the debate, I know.
Bill C-41 incorporates something else, which is the principle of restraint. It uses those words “principle of restraint” so that the military system doesn't go overboard in applying sentences or discipline when it comes to certain what are more summary types of offences. Again, I think the bill itself is aimed at providing statutory protection for unduly harsh sentences while also upholding that code of discipline, that code of conduct, expected of members of the military in the pursuit of their career and in the pursuit of their objectives.