Debates of Sept. 21st, 2018

Sittings of the House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

Firearms Act

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by nearly 2,000 Canadians from all across the country.

This petition calls on the House to enact legislation requiring convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts to report any change of address and this information be made available to police in a database on the Canadian Police Information Centre.

I signed this petition.

Canada Summer Jobs Program

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to table this petition containing hundreds of signatures from residents of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The petitioners add their names to the thousands of Canadians calling on the Prime Minister to defend the freedoms of conscience, thought and belief and withdraw the attestation values test on applications to the Canada summer jobs program.

Despite receiving signatures from thousands of concerned Canadians, the Liberals have yet to rectify this situation.

The Environment

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because there is unprecedented global awareness about the calamity of the oceans plastics problem and grievous images of entangled sea turtles and drowning sharks, citizens from Nanaimo—Ladysmith petition this House to adopt Motion No. 151 in the name of my NDP colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. He urges the Government of Canada to go much further than its announcement yesterday and not simply voluntarily include banning plastics from its federal procurement but to actually go ahead and regulate mandatory measures to deal with the disaster of marine plastics.

Petitioners remind this House that this is not a problem that comes from overseas. We have plastics generated from our own country and from our own aquaculture industry on the coast that are polluting our waters and interfering with coastal ecology and coastal jobs.

Canada Summer Jobs Program

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of constituents who have raised concerns. This Prime Minister has often talked about his Liberal Party being the party of the charter.

In the petition I am presenting here, the petitioners would disagree with that, simply because they believe that section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms identifies, among other things, freedom of conscience, thought and belief as fundamental freedoms. The attestation that the Liberal government has attached to the Canada summer jobs program says otherwise.

My constituents and these petitioners specifically believe that the government should start acting like it is 2018, not 1984, and get rid of this attestation that devalues those fundamental freedoms in the Charter of Rights.

The Environment

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners, who are residents, business owners and cottage owners of Round Lake, Saskatchewan, and those concerned for the well-being of the body of water known as Round Lake, Saskatchewan, wish to draw attention to the extreme low water level of the lake due to the uncontrolled outflow of water.

The uncontrolled outflow is affecting business, the environment, families and the future of Round Lake. The uncontrolled outflow of water on the lake is the result of a disagreement between the Government of Canada and the first nations of Ochapowace and Piapot. Controlled structures and compensation agreements were reached between the Government of Canada and first nations communities on lakes upstream in the Qu'Appelle Valley. The Round Lake issue has remained unresolved since 2008. The petitioners are calling on the minister to use her authority to re-establish communication with Ochapowace and Piapot nations to work towards a resolution on this matter.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Defence Act

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the government today on a matter that concerns fairness and justice for all Canadians. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

On May 10, our government proudly introduced legislation in this House that proposes adding a declaration of victims' rights to the military's Code of Service Discipline, thus amending the National Defence Act. This is good news. It shows that military justice in this country continues to evolve in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces, by putting them first. It shows that this government recognizes the harmful impact of service offences on victims, the military and society. It shows this government's commitment to strengthening victims' rights in the military justice system. It is our view that this legislation would advance Canada's position as a leader in maintaining a fair and effective military justice system with support for victims.

We recognize Canadian law has evolved since the last time significant changes were made to the military justice system. The improvements debated today would ensure the system remains compliant with Canadian law and reflective of Canadian values. These improvements would also enhance the efficiency of the military justice system. Our government is committed to recognizing and upholding victims' rights. This legislation would see to that. The amendments in this bill would strengthen victims' rights within the military justice system and ensure these rights mirror those in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

How would these proposed amendments recognize victims of service offences? Simply put, the legislation would create and extend rights for victims in four separate areas: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution. These rights would be available to any victim of a service offence when they come into contact with the military justice system.

Let me explain each of these four rights.

The first would be the right to information. Access to information is crucial for anyone interacting with the military justice system, especially since most of us are not experts in the finer aspects of military justice. With these proposed amendments, any victim of a service offence would have the right to general information about their own role and about how Canada's military justice system works. As a matter of course, victims would be informed about services and programs available to them. Victims would also have the right to know how their own case is progressing within the military justice system. This would include any information related to the status and outcomes of investigations, the prosecution or the sentencing of the person who harmed them. It is vital to keep victims informed during what we all agree can be a very complex and foreign process. This would only be the first step.

Second would be the victims' right to protection. It would have to be considered in any matter in which a service offence has been committed. It is why this bill would extend to victims the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages in the military justice system. The legislation would give victims the right to have reasonable and necessary measures taken to protect them from intimidation and retaliation. Victims would also be able to request their identity be protected. This would be paramount in ensuring victims' rights are protected when they come into contact with the military justice system through no fault of their own. It would protect vulnerable participants by giving military judges the power to order a publication ban, the power to allow testimony outside of the courtroom and the power to prevent an accused person from cross-examining a victim in court martial.

The third way this government would be recognizing victims would be by enhancing their right to participate in the military justice system. We would be doing this by expanding how victim impact statements can be presented at court martial. We would also be enabling victims to share at various stages of the legal process their views about decisions that affect their rights, and have those views considered. This would ensure victims' views and the harm and loss they have suffered could be fully considered by appropriate authorities in the military justice system.

It would also allow for a community impact statement to be submitted, describing the harms, loss and overall impacts of a service offence on the community.

In addition to victim and community impact statements, the bill would enable the submission of a military impact statement on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces when one of its members commits a service offence. Such an impact statement could describe the harm done to the discipline, the efficiency or morale within the unit or the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole. The statement would be taken into account alongside victim and community impact statements. A victim's right to participate before a court martial is a crucial part of recognizing the losses, damages or wrongs he or she has suffered.

The fourth and final right for victims in this legislation concerns their right to restitution. This would ensure victims can ask a court martial to consider ordering restitution for damages or losses when the value can be readily determined.

The new rights in this legislation demonstrate our government's firm commitment to victims within the military justice system. We know that service offences can affect various types of victims, from Canadian Armed Forces members and their families to members of the broader civilian community.

As I mentioned earlier, the military justice system can be unfamiliar terrain and potentially intimidating for many. We want to help victims stay informed and well positioned to access their rights. That is why this legislation allows victims to request a victim liaison officer to be appointed.

The new role of the victim liaison officer would be to explain how service offences are charged, how they are dealt with and tried under the Code of Service Discipline. The victim liaison officer would also help victims access any information to which they have a right. On top of this, if victims feel that any of their rights have been infringed upon or denied, they would be able to file a complaint in much the same way as is provided for victims in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

The military justice system is a distinct and necessary part of Canada's larger justice system. By maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale, it helps the Canadian Armed Forces achieve its mission here at home and around the world. Adopting the declaration of victims' rights in the Code of Service Discipline would strengthen the rights of victims within the military justice system. It would ensure that victims have the right to information, protection, participation and restitution when they have been wronged. It would reinforce Canada's position as a global leader in maintaining a fair and effective military justice system, one that evolves in harmony with our civilian laws.

For all of these reasons, members on this side of the House will be supporting this bill. Through debate earlier today, we understand that members on the other side will also be supporting this. Therefore, I look forward to moving forward on this in a way that helps all Canadians and those men and women who serve.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and the government for their support for this important legislation.

This legislation was largely pushed forward by the Conservatives before the last election. I am wondering why it took the government 76 other bills before bringing this very important matter to the House.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if I could, through the Speaker, I will ask a question of the member.

Why would the Conservatives table such an important bill in the last days of a dying government when they knew they were not going to be re-forming government? They have criticized what we were trying to do in the first three years, when they had 10 years to do something that is so important for our men and women who serve, and they left it on the floor to die at the end of the last Parliament.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his great work on the Standing Committee on National Defence.

I wonder if he could talk a bit about how this framework in Bill C-77 connects with the excellent reputation of the Canadian Forces abroad, the discipline, the operational effectiveness and the feedback that we are getting from our allies and pretty much anybody with whom we interact overseas on the great work that we are doing in peacekeeping and international security.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we do work very well together, as we do with members from the other parties, in the Standing Committee on National Defence. One of the things I enjoy most in the House is the work we do on national defence. All members work toward a good working relationship on that committee, and I appreciate that.

I am very proud of our new defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. We unveiled it in June of 2017. It marks our first steps in the priorities of everything we are going to do and are planning to do for the Canadian Armed Forces for years to come. We have a concrete vision, informed by diligent consultation with fellow citizens from coast to coast to coast.

The commitments we have made to our men and women in uniform will provide them with a more dynamic, more prosperous and resolutely positive work environment that guarantees respect for individuals and individual rights.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague highlighted some great items in the bill, but I want to follow up on my other colleague's question about why it is such a low priority for the government. It has taken three full years to bring in a bill for victims' rights.

I am not interested in hearing about what previous governments did. We are here to discuss today's government and why so many other bills were more important than this legislation.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I guess, Mr. Speaker, I could answer the question almost the exact same way: Why were so many bills more important to the previous government than its bill on victims' rights? It is exactly the same answer to the previous question. We have done this in three years. We have been working on it for two. We have consulted. We have gone across the country to find out exactly how we should proceed. We have gotten this right.

I commend the Conservative Harper government for doing the work, but not for dropping it on the floor of the House of Commons just before an election, knowing full well it would die, and leaving it for the next government to do the hard work and heavy lifting, which we have done. We have done this now and we will move forward on this.

Again, I thank the members across the way for the work they have done on this. We have finished this off. We have seen this as extremely important and we see this as more important than perhaps the Conservatives did in their mandate.

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to strengthening victims' rights within the military justice system. The code of service discipline recognizes the harmful impact of service offences on victims.

Bill C-77 makes two significant changes to the Conservative bill with respect to sentencing. One of those is that it adds gender identity and gender expression as special consideration in sentencing. Could my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour reflect on that change in sentencing provisions?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, for some reason, I thought we had moved on to another level of debate. Therefore, in all fairness to the hon. member, I was moving on and I did not focus. Perhaps he was speaking about first nations relationships or LGBTQ. Those two things were missing in the previous government's work. We felt that those two things were important to add to the bill.

When we talk about amending the National Defence Act, these things will make the National Defence Act stronger and more reflective of the values of Canadians.

I apologize to the member if I did not get the exact wording of his question, but, again, we are moving forward in a way that more reflects the values of Canadians.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as our government made clear when we tabled Bill C-77, Canada's military justice system is both unique and necessary. It contributes significantly to the ability of the Canadian Armed Forces to achieve its missions in Canada and around the world. However, it must also continue to evolve in order to represent Canadian values.

I would like to take this opportunity to reflect for a moment on the many different facets of our Canadian Armed Forces, including the facets that are manifest in our communities.

I would like to give particular thanks to two organizations in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore, the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans Branch 262 and the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 82. I have watched them both work tirelessly to cultivate an environment where current and past members of the Canadian Armed Forces receive the support they need and deserve, while at the same time promoting a culture of leadership, respect and honour for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is exactly who we are putting first with this new bill.

Today, many of my colleagues spoke of the benefits of the set of amendments being made to strengthen the legislation. Allow me to take this important opportunity to provide context to this discussion by giving an overview of the current military justice system, some of its elements and how they actually work in practice.

The first thing parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians, should appreciate is that Canada's military justice system, while unique, forms part of a larger Canadian justice system, sharing many of the same underlying principles. It is subject to the same constitutional framework, including Canada's Constitution and of course our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Exactly like the civilian system, its overall role is to ensure that justice is administered fairly and with respect for the rule of law.

Military members are liable for their conduct under both the code of conduct service discipline and provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. However, the military justice system has a second purpose. It is also designed to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces. It does so by supporting the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale among military members.

The operational realities of military life mean that service members are often held to a higher standard of conduct than what would be expected of a civilian. That is because military personnel are often required to risk injury or even death in the performance of their duties, both inside and outside Canada. This necessitates discipline within and cohesion of military units.

The chain of command must have a legal mechanism it can employ to investigate and sanction disciplinary breaches. These breaches require a formal, fair and prompt response, one that ensures the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces reflects Canadian social values. Even though members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to the highest standards of conduct, they do not give up the rights that are afforded to them under Canadian law, including under the Constitution. However, an individual's rights coexist with the basic obligations of military service.

The Canadian Armed Forces' capacity to operate effectively depends on the ability of its leadership to instill and maintain that discipline. This is a balancing of rights against the need to maintain a disciplined and effective armed force. It is important to understand this when considering the Canadian military justice system. The challenges of the armed forces are profound and are not shrinking in magnitude, both domestically and overseas.

These realities of military life and service have been acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Canada. On multiple occasions, the court has directly addressed the importance of a distinct military justice system to meet the specific needs of the Canadian Armed Forces and its serving members.

In 1997, former chief justice of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, conducted an independent inquiry of the military justice system. In his report, he concluded that “the need for a separate and distinct military justice system is inescapable” and that the chain of command is central to this justice system.

The military justice system also enables Canada to respect its international obligation to hold members of the military accountable for their actions during naval, ground, and air operations, including those that fall under the law of armed conflict.

Two other independent inquiries of the military justice system have been carried out: one, by another former chief justice of Canada, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, in 2003; and the other, by the Hon. Patrick LeSage, former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in 2011.

Justice Lamer concluded, and Justice LeSage agreed, that “...Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence.”

I want to assure my hon. colleagues that leadership and training are central to maintaining discipline, and furthermore that disciplinary action involving the military justice system is not to be taken lightly.

The military justice system ensures that military decision-makers act appropriately and within their authority when making decisions affecting a service member's rights. Such decisions must conform to the law and be just. A lack of fairness can seriously undermine cohesion, morale and discipline and it can adversely impact unit effectiveness.

While these disciplinary actions are not to be taken lightly, each year hundreds of service members find themselves before the military justice system. It is a system that is used and it is a system that must be effective and efficient.

When there are reasons to believe there has been an offence, an investigation is conducted to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to lay a charge. If the complaint is of a serious or sensitive nature, the Canadian Armed Forces National Investigation Service examines the complaint and then investigates as appropriate. Otherwise, investigations are conducted by military police or at the unit level. With the exception of certain service offences of a minor nature, legal advice is required before a charge may be laid.

The military justice system employs a two-tiered tribunal structure. More serious matters are addressed at court martial where a military judge presides, whereas minor matters maybe dealt with at summary trial, where there are qualified officers who preside. Both tribunals can be held wherever the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed and this is an operational necessity.

Courts martial are formal military courts and they are presided over by independent military judges. These tribunals are designed to deal with more serious offences and they are similar to Canadian civilian criminal courts.

The accused person is entitled always to be represented at a court martial by defence counsel from the director of defence counsel services at no cost or by a civilian counsel at his or her own expense. There are two types of courts martial. A standing court martial is conducted by a military judge who sits alone and who is responsible for the finding on the charges and imposing a sentence if the accused person is found guilty. For the most serious offences, or if chosen by the accused person, a general court martial will be convened where the case is presided over by a military judge and the verdict is decided by a panel of five other members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Summary trials are designed to deal with relatively minor offences. That is important for the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency at the unit level. These trials are presided over by officers from within the accused person's chain of command, including commanding officers, delegated officers to whom a commanding officer has delegated his or her powers and superior commanders. All presiding officers are trained in a curriculum established by the judge advocate general and are certified to perform their duties. Summary trials allow military commanders to administer discipline, enabling members to return to duty as soon as possible.

An offender may request a review of the findings of a summary trial by a review authority. If he or she remains unsatisfied, the offender may then appeal for judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada.

In each and every case, an accused has the right to be tried in the official language of her or his choice and, in each and every case, an offender convicted at a court martial has the right to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, a civilian court comprised of three judges selected from the Federal Court of Canada. These decisions can in turn be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The military justice system remains a vital facet of the Canadian Armed Forces. It must also continue to evolve to meet the expectations of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is precisely what Bill C-77 sets out to do.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with our hon. colleague from Edmonton West.

It is an honour to stand and speak to Bill C-77.

Today we are talking about Bill C-77 and the military justice reforms from the government. Essentially in the eleventh hour and pre-writ for the most part, the government has chosen to table a bill which it has said is going to be absolutely transformative and is so important. The Liberals believe very strongly in it, yet there are so many other pieces of legislation that came before this bill, such as changing the words to our national anthem and the cannabis piece of legislation, and now we have Bill C-77 which talks about enshrining victims' rights into our military justice system.

I will say right at the outset that the Conservatives always err on the side of victims and believe that victims' rights should always be there. As a matter of fact, it was our previous Conservative government that enacted the Victims Bill of Rights Act. We support enshrining victims' rights into the military justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71.

People who are listening to this debate should not get that bill confused with the backdoor registry Bill C-71 that has been talked about in the last couple of weeks, which the Liberal government is trying to bring through this House and unfairly punish law-abiding gun owners. I am talking about Bill C-71 which was brought forward by the previous Conservative government. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour actually thanked us. It will go down in Hansard that we actually had a Liberal thanking us for all the hard work that we did. We actually did the hard work on this file.

Bill C-71 and Bill C-77 are almost identical, with the exception of a couple of minor things. All the Liberals did was take the cover page off and change the name, which is what we see them do very often with a lot of the good pieces of legislation they have brought forward. They did change C-71 to C-77. They have to put their Liberal spin on it, and we will get into that in a bit.

Also, prior to getting into the depth of this, I will say that this is not my file. I do not profess to be proficient in all the legal terms and all the benefits that Bill C-77 would bring, but I will talk about victims' rights.

It is interesting that earlier during question period and throughout the week, we were talking about a gentleman who committed a heinous crime and through the course of committing that crime gave himself PTSD. He committed murder. He actually murdered an off-duty police officer, put her into a garbage bin and then rolled it out and like trash tossed her aside. Now he has actually stepped in line with veterans, stepped in line before the veterans, and is receiving mental health services.

I receive messages from veterans and first responders every day about mental health challenges. I also receive messages every day from victims of crime who felt that when the Liberal government came in and started its hug-a-thug programs, the process was rigged against them. I actually get calls and messages from law enforcement officers who say that the system is now rigged against them, that it is harder for them to do their job. We should be doing everything in our power to give those whom we trust to protect us, our silent sentinels, every tool to be able to do their job, to be able to do their mission and come home and remain healthy and productive.

We should be giving the victims every opportunity to be protected and to know that when their day in court comes, the focus will be on them and their rights and not on the person who committed the crime.

I sat through the debate on Bill C-75. This is a piece of legislation where the government is looking to speed up our judicial process. We should not be speeding up the process. We should be making it effective, making sure that those who come before the courts get the appropriate rights and freedoms that we all enjoy, but those who are found guilty, if they do the crime, they better do the time.

I will not get into that. I am not a lawyer, but there is a lawyer sitting in front of me. There are far too many lawyer jokes that I could insert here, but I will not do that.

It was interesting to sit through the debate on Bill C-75. I listened to the witnesses who came before committee. They were very articulate and they all said the same thing. They all had the same concerns. They said we should not weaken our system, that we should make sure that victims are not revictimized through the court process. They want to know that they will get their day in court, that every tool available will be there to make sure that the perpetrator of a crime, if found guilty, will serve the time.

Bill C-77 is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-71. There are a couple of changes which I will talk to right now.

The main difference between the two bills is the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act in Bill C-77. This addition would mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces who face charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted. I will not say “will”. This document says “will”, but I would say “may”. I still believe in our judicial system. They may face lighter punishment if convicted.

It also would mean special consideration for indigenous members, taking in their background and perhaps what they went through. We have heard horrific stories over the years.

We need to make sure that there is a parallel system and the addition of special consideration for indigenous members that results in sentences that are perhaps less harsh versus their other CAF colleagues and comrades. The concern would be that perhaps that could undermine operational discipline, morale, and anti-racism policies. It may be well intended but it could have unintended negative consequences.

We support getting the bill to committee where we can study it further and hear from groups that come before us and offer their opinions. I look forward to that.

I want to go back to the couple of hours of discussions I sat through on Bill C-75. I am conscious of the short amount of time I have to speak, but I want to comment on this. My hon. colleague down the way mentioned this as well. First, we should do everything in our power to give those who are enforcing our laws every tool possible for them to complete their mission and to remain healthy. Second, we should be doing whatever we can to make sure that we institute mental health components within our legislation to make sure that they come home healthy. We should not be trying to speed up our judicial system. We should be finding ways to make it effective.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his commitment to this issue.

If we set aside the sometimes cantankerous politics of a Friday afternoon, there is actually much broader consensus across the parties than may appear. I think we all fundamentally support this bill and recognize its importance.

Perhaps my colleague could talk a little about three particular things that are part of this bill. The sentencing principles are now opened up to indigenous Canadians and also Canadians of minority gender identity and expression. I see the Canadian Forces not only as an incredibly important instrument for Canadian foreign affairs and defence policy and international engagement, I also see it as a place of employment for Canadians. With the introduction of these three principles, it opens the Canadian Forces up more broadly to consideration by recruits across our social spectrum.