Secondly, Rear-Admiral Bernatchez promised us a paper on self-harm in the military codes of conduct of other armed forces. I believe there are significant differences. I don't believe we've received that either.
Let me turn to the witnesses now and say a tremendous thank you for being here. I know that it's difficult to talk about personal situations, though I'm sure I can't understand how difficult that is. Secondly, I know that there is a fear of being singled out. It's not just the taboo but it's also attitudes toward mental health, both outside the military and inside the military, that somehow it is the problem of the person who's suffering from mental health challenges rather than the actual problem of our response to those challenges. I really do thank you very much for being here.
There's a sort of disconnect we're seeing in these hearings. We heard from Canadian Armed Forces personnel on the question of access that 90% of positions are filled and we have guidelines on waits, yet what we heard from you today as families is that there are significant problems with access to services. We did not see any acknowledgement of that in the formal presentations from the Canadian Armed Forces. Thank you for reinforcing what we're hearing from all families.
There's also a disconnect on the question of self-harm being in the code of conduct. We heard from Rear-Admiral Bernatchez that there are no charges laid so this is not a problem, as if the code of conduct is not the foundation for all discipline within the military.
My specific question today is about the response of the Canadian Armed Forces in particular to suicidal ideations. What I've heard many times before is that discipline is often the first response, and if it's not formal discipline it's measures that look an awful lot like discipline to the person who's suffering from those mental health challenges.
Maybe, Madam Archambault, I could start with you. Did it seem that discipline was the first recourse from the Canadian Armed Forces?