Honourable member, it would probably be more than that. I would say get rid of paragraph 41.1(a) in its entirety. I would be as blunt as saying that. People could have the choice of whether they wanted to go through the grievance system or whether they wanted to have their case heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I have been doing this awhile, and I have seen this wall that has constantly gone up. Paragraph 41.1(a) is something that prevents human rights cases from moving forward, because they send them back to another grievance process and then they tend to languish. Third, I feel that we cannot allow the same people who perpetuate the discrimination and harassment to decide upon it. It's as simple as that. There is certainly a bias there, and there's every reason to believe that Ms. Nash couldn't possibly have been successful against the individuals she was accusing.
There's a second way that I feel the system needs to be fixed. Policies within CAF that are discriminatory need to be addressed and amended. That starts right away with definitions of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in current policies, which are too narrow and do not refer to the issue that jokes and innuendo in the workplace can actually be considered within the definition. Additionally, sexual assault is not defined in the same way as it is in the Criminal Code. I also believe that policies are defined for two-parent traditional families....
I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I have quite a bit to offer; I apologize for going over.