Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ms. Mathyssen, for the question.
I'd start by recognizing and accepting absolutely the concern that underlies the question and the proposal in the bill. It's a valid concern and one that we have to take seriously.
I think the key in giving effect to our intention to address it is finding the right balance between addressing that concern and ensuring that an important disciplinary concern continues to be addressed; that is to say, the provision deals with an important operational and disciplinary concern. We need to ensure that we can count on members of the armed forces being ready to serve when called upon to do so.
It's a matter of balance. This is a provision that was used several hundred times during World War II and has been used a handful of times in the more modern era. Our allies, all of those whose legal systems flow from the Anglo tradition, continue to have that provision in their code of service discipline or the equivalent.
In terms of what we can do going forward, the proposal submitted to Justice Fish was that we consider putting in a note to clarify the legislator's intent, to clarify Parliament's intent, that this is not a provision intended to capture those who, as a result of mental illness or mental disorder, seek to harm themselves. It's our thought that this is an appropriate way to strike the balance between the concerns you're raising, the concerns that are raised in the bill and the operational concerns.