Thank you for your question. I will try to answer it. Then, my colleague can take over.
As I was telling the committee a little earlier, it is very difficult for us to explain why a legislative provision is used or not used.
I indicated that 70% of the offences are always the same, so it is very difficult to explain why this provision is used or not used. However, I can certainly say that section 98(c) has not been regularly used since 2000. Its very specific goal is to establish penalties for, or to deal with situations when, someone wilfully harms himself with intent to avoid his service responsibilities.
In my testimony earlier, I said that, between 1939 and 1945, during the Second World War, this section—or its equivalent at the time—was used more than 300 times. So we can see a correlation between periods of heightened operational activity and the need to use that section.
It has also been brought to my attention that there are many offences in the Code of Service Discipline for which charges are not regularly laid. Refusing an immunization is an example of one offence that will not normally incur a penalty. It does not mean that we do not need provisions for those situations. It simply means that, at a certain point, in a certain situation, the offence is not automatically punished.