Thank you very much, Ms. Harder. I would because I actually did quite a bit of work to understand it.
The issue with policies is that they are defined for two-parent, traditional families and not for the single parent or the non-traditional family. That needs to be recognized. The military needs to move into 2019. The fact is that we have more single women who are doing everything that they can to be mother and officer at the same time, and we need to recognize that.
The flight policy that Ms. Nash referenced is the leave travel assistance. When she gave birth, she lost the benefit to be flown back to see her family while all her single friends got two free flights. There is something drastically wrong with that. It's blatantly discriminatory. The email she received that told her that, because she had a baby, she was being bumped down to a second-tier category to fly on Airbuses is blatant discrimination.
The furniture and effects policy that Ms. Nash referenced is about the relocation of furniture and personal effects. Ms. Nash was in the very same class as a male officer; he got room and board, and she didn't. I can't see anything more blatantly discriminatory than those policies that I referenced.
Then there is the day care. Having 20 day care spots for 3,000 people and a two-year wait list does not assist anyone. With great respect, the child will be grown by that time. People need day care if they are going to serve our country. Our children need to be looked after. If it's a single mom who is as courageous as Laura Nash, we need to have those day care spots available.
In the failure to accommodate, which I have seen for years and years, the CAF is allowed to discriminate. In the private sector, that really results in a huge lawsuit, but it's not the same in the CAF. There is a fine of maybe up to $2,000, and that's not adequate. The CAF has to recognize that someone's having a baby as a reason to move careers is an accommodation, not a blatant barrier to being able to switch jobs or redeploy. The CAF has to realize that it cannot threaten to terminate a woman's employment if she has a baby. If you do that in the private sector, as we all know, that will result in extraordinary damages, and that is the subject of my book—moral, punitive, tort actions, you name it in employment law. Those failures to accommodate are based on family status and marital status, and if it's not okay in the private sector, why is it all right in the CAF? There is no recognition of those rights.
Lastly, my third point that I spoke about is that the medical care is so lacking at this point. When on a temporary medical leave, such as Ms. Nash was on, or while on release under VAC, it is imperative that women get the therapy and the counselling that they need. It's the same situation as that of a man who has had his leg blown off. The woman needs the same therapy, and it is not there. There are no resources for counselling. There is no resource for depression, anxiety or chronic adjustment disorder. The suicide rate that has been stated in the Canadian statistics report frightens me, and we're only going to see an increase if we don't, in fact, provide these necessary things. You heard Ms. Nash's testimony about what she has been through. I've been with her every step of this four-way journey, and I can tell you that it broke my heart when Ms. Nash told me that she had been struggling to get a physician and to get a dentist to fix the bruxism that is a direct result of the discrimination and harassment.
I believe we have the ability to do this. I believe we need to turn our minds to it and really get into the legislation and changing the attitude of the CAF.
Thank you very much, Ms. Harder, for giving me more time. I appreciate that.