Yes, it is a problem.
I actually wanted to address the issue that Mrs. Gallant raised.
I strongly recommend keeping the amendment that would exclude military judges from the Military Justice at the Unit Level Policy 2.0.
I suggest that, although it could be seen as a great equalizer, no one is above that military justice at the unit level. We have to think about military judges. They preside over courts martial. They have to be sufficiently independent and impartial to provide decisions free of apprehension.
I'm citing the Valente decision, which is a landmark decision in terms of the independence and impartiality of the military judiciary or judges, period.
Thinking about the potential undue influence whereby a judge could now be charged and punished by their non-judicial chain of command, who is a representative of the executive branch, is an obvious and flagrant issue in my mind. I would also suggest that the fact that military judges are still subject to the code of service discipline, on that same line of thinking, is still an issue.
I would provide, hopefully, some reassurance that, if military judges are removed from the code of service discipline, they're still subject to the Criminal Code, as Mr. MacGregor mentioned earlier. There are different mechanisms to remove judges administratively within the judiciary as well, so it would be well covered from a professional regulation perspective as well as a criminal perspective. Contrary to what Justice Fish recommended, I would suggest that, provided they're removed from the jurisdiction of the code of service discipline, they don't need to be relieved of their rank, because their rank would be perfunctory at that point.