I understand the section you're citing about scope of the bill, but scope of the bill is not a very narrow concept, and in this case we're reforming the entire military justice system. This bill makes multiple amendments to the code of service discipline, and in particular, my amendment amends the service offences and punishments section. The government bill that's submitted amends service offences and punishments nine times. It amends the very section of the National Defence Act that this amendment deals with. Either large segments of this entire bill are beyond the scope of the bill, which is of course nonsensical, or this amendment has to be in order.
I'll try to summarize fairly briefly. The task we've been given is to reform the military justice system. The task is not to look at the code of service discipline or service offences and punishments section by section. Bill C-77 as originally submitted amends sections of the code of service discipline. That's the normal standard in every committee on which I've sat, for whether a parent act can be amended. It's whether that parent act and the sections of that act are already before the committee. They clearly are before the committee in this case, and then more specifically, the division—I guess division is the right word in legal terms—of the code of service discipline is already amended.
I fail to understand how this can be beyond the scope of the bill.
What we're trying to do is make the military justice system, in general terms—and that's part of what scope of the bill means—more fair and more just, and to create a more effective system for the military. Certainly what I'm trying to do in removing the section that defines self-harm as a disciplinary offence is make it possible for members who suffer mental health issues to remain within the military, to get the treatment they need and to do what they signed up to do, and that's to serve their country.
This stands in the way of doing that. It seems to me, therefore, clearly in order.
The last thing I will say is that when the judge advocate general was here giving her testimony on this bill, I asked her whether the committee could do this. She gave a very careful response in her testimony that should the committee choose to do so, this would be the opportunity.
I'm going to stress again that if the committee sustains the ruling that it's beyond the scope, this will not happen for years to come. It took 15 years for most of these sections to get to this point and to this committee today, so it is very unlikely.
Now, I have two things to say about the minister sending a letter. One, I welcome his suggestion that we do a study on mental health, and I certainly welcome further briefings on the suicide prevention strategy. Those are all very good things. However, to receive a letter from the minister suggesting indirectly that we not do something in committee is a level of interference in our deliberations that I haven't seen before in either Parliament I've served in.
I respect what the minister is saying, that he believes we have a problem and he would like to solve it. I respect that. I don't think it's appropriate for him to weigh in just minutes before the committee comes to deal with this and suggest that we shouldn't do this.
We are the masters of our own fate in this committee. I believe this clearly is within the scope of the bill, and therefore, the section you have cited for ruling it out of order does not apply.
This is really a debate about what the scope of the bill is, and the scope of the bill, for me, is improving the military justice system in general. I believe this amendment fits within that.