Mr. Chair, I think there's some confusion here that probably extends into the subsequent amendments.
The bill aspires to create parity between the civilian world and the military world.
Colonel Strickey, could you roughly sketch what the parallel would be on the civilian side? When we interact with administrative law, even tort law or any other kind of law in the civilian world, we're not subject to a burden of proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt. We're subject to a burden of proof that is on balance of probabilities anywhere else, other than in the criminal justice system.
That's the logic this bill is putting forward: to define, by regulation, a set of offences that are non-criminal in nature in order to deal with them expeditiously.
If you could make another comment on that, it might be helpful for colleagues on the other side.