Thank you for the question and your work in this regard.
I think the best description of the necessity for these two parallel systems, with the ability to overlap and the flexibility to incorporate the best of both, is found in the decision that Mr. Justice Lamer has handed down in the Généreux case and that gave rise to some of the changes we're now contemplating. It really is rooted in the important matters of discipline, culture, efficiency, and contributing to the sense of morale, which is very important to military members and their families, and also in some of the fundamental principles of justice around fairness, around confidence that the justice system is working for members of the military.
Having that separate and distinct system I think reinforces that formula, if you will, that necessity for discipline, efficiency, and morale, but at the same time is taking the best of the existing criminal justice system and some of these important changes that we've talked about: the victim impact statements, the tenure of judges, and the modernization, if you will, of how the law is now applied and how it works in a courtroom or tribunal. This contributes to very fundamental and important issues of readiness and of the ability for the force to do what's expected of them.
To give them their separate system also allows for the continuation of these very distinct matters of discipline that apply to everything about military life: from the way they dress to the way they conduct themselves and to the way they interact with one another, the way they train, and the way they prepare. Readiness is a very important issue for our military, as we've seen, given the high tempo of operations in recent years, the expectation of what they do both at home and abroad, and how they conduct themselves while deployed.
All of this plays into and, I strongly suggest, reinforces the need for this separate military justice system that applies to them in their life, in their work, and in their daily interaction with others.