NDP MP seeks to remove self-harm as CAF offence

[The Bread Guy]

Greater Victoria MP seeks to remove self-harm as disciplinary offence for Canadian Armed Forces
NDP’s third attempt to improve mental health assistance within the military
DEVON BIDALFeb. 12, 2020 5:30 a.m.

Suicide was decriminalized for Canadian civilians in 1972, in 2020 self-harm remains a disciplinary offence for members of the military.

Randall Garrison, MP for Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke and NDP Critic for National Defence, has reintroduced a bill to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence for members of the armed forces.

Garrison’s Bill C-203 addresses issues of suicide in the military and barriers faced by those seeking mental health assistance.

This is the NDP’s third time tabling the issue. In 2019, Garrison first tabled a bill asking that the “archaic” section of the National Defence Act designating self-harm as a disciplinary offence for members of the military be removed. At the time, the Liberals blocked the bill.

The NDP also attempted to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence by adding an amendment to Bill C-77 which sought to enshrine a Declaration of Victims’ Rights in the National Defence Acts which governs the military justice system. This was blocked by the Liberal government on procedural grounds, Garrison explained ...

More at link -- more on the private member's bill C-203 (contents, where it's at, etc.) here.

 

[Haggis]

I could only find one instance where a member was charged under NDA s. 98 (2 counts - s. 98(a) and (b) - both withdrawn) on the CMJ website.  I found none for self-harm (s. 98 (c)).

I can see how the existence of NDA s 98(c) as a service offence may dissuade members from reporting self harm or suicide attempts of their own or by others.

 

[dapaterson]

I would favour removing self-harm as an offence, but also retaining 98(c) in a modified form:

Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another

98 Every person who

(a) malingers or feigns or produces disease or infirmity,

(b) aggravates, or delays the cure of, disease or infirmity by misconduct or wilful disobedience of orders, or

(c) wilfully maims or injures himself or any other person who is a member of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith, whether at the instance of that person or not, with intent thereby to render himself or that other person unfit for service, or causes himself to be maimed or injured by any person with intent thereby to render himself unfit for service,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if he commits the offence on active service or when under orders for active service or in respect of a person on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.

In that way, deliberately injuring someone else to render them unfit for service remains an offence.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I would favour removing self-harm as an offence, but also retaining 98(c) in a modified form:

In that way, deliberately injuring someone else to render them unfit for service remains an offence.

I disagree.  The important element of that section is " wilfully maims or injures himself . . . with intent thereby to render himself or that other person unfit for service . . .". 

I'll readily acknowledge that some on these means will consider me a dinosaur with little firsthand experience of the psychological challenges faced by today's soldiers but I would suggest that removing this as an offence would do little to remove "barriers faced by those seeking mental health assistance".  In my now dated experience, most who self-harmed as a result of mental anguish usually did not disclose the incident (to neither medical authorities or COC) and it probably only became known because the extent of the injury required medical intervention or physical signs were evident to all despite attempts at concealment.  This would seem counterproductive if the goal was to avoid service since the COC would have to be made aware that a physical limitation precluded a soldier from doing a particular duty.

Though self-injuring (or malingering) as a means to avoid a particular duty may be very rare (no recent history of the laying of such charges would seem to support that), I would be surprised if it no longer occurs; it certainly happened during my time in the service.  While it would be exceedingly difficult to successfully investigate, charge or convict such conduct (as all of the incidents I was personally aware of were either undetected by the COC or dealt with in other ways), there still is a requirement to have a legal means to deal with such incidents.

Of course, the CF does have to do a better job of identifying and helping those with mental health issues.

 

[Blackadder1916]

To add to the discussion, the notes to the applicable QR&O article.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-2-disciplinary/ch-103-service-offences.html#cha-103-31

NOTES
(A) A charge of malingering should be laid only where the accused has pretended illness or infirmity in order to escape duty.

(B) A charge of feigning disease or infirmity should be laid only where the accused exhibits appearances resembling genuine symptoms which, to his knowledge, are not due to such disease or infirmity, but have been induced artificially for purposes of deceit, for example, simulating fits or mental disease .

(C) The words “wilful” in paragraph 98(b) and “wilfully” in paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act signify that the alleged offender knew what he was doing, intended to do what he did, and was not acting under compulsion.

(D) The particulars of a charge under section 98 of the National Defence Act should show in what way an accused person has malingered or what disease or infirmity he has been feigned or produced, or what particular injury has been inflicted, or of what misconduct or wilful disobedience alleged to have been committed.

(E) The word “injures” relates to a temporary condition whereas the word “maims” relates to a permanent impairment.

(F) The expression “active service” refers to the situation that exists when the Governor in Council exercises its powers under section 31 of the National Defence Act to place the Canadian Forces, or any part thereof or any officer or non-commissioned member thereof, on active service.

(C)

And for clarification, the effect of notes in QR&Os.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1-administration/ch-1-introduction-definitions.html#cha-001-095


In several countries that draw their military law from the British tradition, the wording of this offence is almost identical to that in our NDA, however on a quick glance at some of them it appears that Canada proposes the most strict punishment (a maximum of life imprisonment if on active service) while others seem content with two years as a maximum.  Similarly, the two year maximum (with or without hard labour) was also the punishment in the Canadian Army during WW2.

I would suggest that it may be more appropriate to make such changes in maximum punishment and in QR&O notes, though a notes change does not involve Parliament.  Perhaps something similar to the "discussion" (like our "notes") in the applicable articles of the US Manual for Courts-Martial

Discussion
Bona fide suicide attempts should not be charged as criminal
offenses. When making a determination whether the injury by the
Servicemember was a bona fide suicide attempt, the convening
authority should consider factors including, but not limited to, health
conditions, personal stressors, and DoD policy related to suicide
prevention.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Cynically, I wonder why Randall Garrison really cares?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Cynically, I wonder why Randall Garrison really cares?

Your comment made me curious, so I conducted a cursory search.  You may be right that it is cynical.  He seems, by all accounts, to be an honourable person who has worked hard at the issues that matter to him.  Perhaps you are referring to a backstory or some such, but a cursory review suggests that he is what he says he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Garrison

Randall C. Garrison MP (born August 27, 1951) is a Canadian politician. Elected to the House of Commons in the 2011 federal election,[1] he represents the electoral district of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and is a member of the New Democratic Party. He serves as the party's critic for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and transsexual issues, succeeding former MP Bill Siksay,[2] and for National Defence. Since becoming an MP, he has introduced legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, return federal environmental protection to the Goldstream River, and lobbied the government to implement an action plan concerning the endangered Southern resident killer whales. A former criminology and political science instructor at Camosun College, Garrison is openly gay and lives in Esquimalt, British Columbia, with his partner, Teddy Pardede.

Garrison previously stood for election in the 2004 and 2006 federal elections, both times as the NDP candidate in the Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca riding and both times narrowly losing to incumbent MP Keith Martin. He lived in Vancouver for a short time, during which he was nominated to be the NDP candidate in the Vancouver Centre riding during the 2008 federal election before dropping out for "personal and professional reasons".[3] After moving back to Esquimalt he was elected to the Esquimalt City Council for a three-year term starting in November 2008.[4]

Garrison has served on the boards of several non-profit organizations as well as the Esquimalt Police Board. He is also an international human rights activist. He has worked as a policing researcher in Afghanistan with Amnesty International, on a Christian-Muslim peace building project in Indonesia for the International Catholic Migration Commission, and as co-coordinator of IFET, an international non-government human rights observer mission for the East Timor independence referendum in 1999.[5] In May 2010, Garrison served as an international observer with the People's International Observers Mission (PIOM) in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao for the national elections in the Philippines.[6]


Contents
1 Background
2 Federal politics
2.1 41st Parliament
2.2 42nd Parliament
3 Electoral record
4 References
5 External links
Background
Born in Nebraska, Randall Garrison eventually moved to Canada in 1973.[7] He spent two years living in Yellowknife, working for the government recording vital statistics.[7] He moved to British Columbia where, at the age of 26, Garrison graduated from the University of British Columbia with a master's degree specializing in political science. He moved to Victoria where he worked within the B.C. provincial government as a public policy researcher and director.[7] By the 1990s, and until he was elected as a Member of Parliament, he taught at Camosun College, in criminal justice, political science, and Pacific Rim studies. In 1990, as a member of the Victoria Civic Electors, Garrison ran for Victoria City Council, but did not win a seat.[8] At the time he was president of the Vic West Community Association and executive director of the South Pacific People's Foundation of Canada.[8] In 1999, Garrison helped coordinate the International Federation for East Timor who acted as neutral election observer during the East Timorese independence referendum.[9][10] Garrison's other work overseas included peace-building between religious groups in Indonesia and investigating human rights issues in Afghanistan.[7][11] Back in Canada, Garrison became a member of the Victoria and Esquimalt police board.[12] During this time, Garrison also helped co-found the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre.[7]

In the 2004 federal election, the 53-year-old Garrison became the New Democratic Party candidate in the Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca riding. The election was seen as a three-way race between Garrison, the Liberal Party incumbent Keith Martin and Conservative Party candidate and former Martin aide John Koury.[13] Garrison placed second, 4.6% behind Martin who was re-elected to a fourth term. A year-and-a-half later, with another federal election expected soon, Garrison was acclaimed the NDP candidate,[14] and again faced Martin, but this time the Conservative challenger was lawyer Troy DeSouza. This January 2006 election was again considered a toss-up and as a result CBC Radio One's Cross Country Checkup broadcast a show highlighting the riding and the candidates.[15] However, Garrison again lost to Martin, this time by 3.6%. Subsequently, Garrison and his partner moved to Vancouver's West End where, in January 2007, he was acclaimed the NDP candidate in the Vancouver Centre riding for an expected election.[16][17] The next election did not occur until October 2008 and by that time Garrison had moved back to Esquimalt and withdrew from the Vancouver Centre election.[18]

Instead, Garrison stood in the November 2008 local government election where he won a seat on the Esquimalt municipal council. On local issues Garrison was critical of police budget request increases of 10% in 2009 and 5% in 2010 and argued that Esquimalt's merger of its police force with the Victoria Police Department was not producing the benefits that were promised and costing the municipality more than it should.[19] The council adopted a resolution, proposed by Garrison to fund the full budget requests of the police minus one dollar.[20] Garrison advocated for stricter targets of greenhouse gas emissions reduction,[21] and passed a motion supporting a permanent ban on coastal drilling and tanker traffic in BC waters. Garrison lobbied to get the municipality to adopt a living wage policy.[22] At the time a living wage in Greater Victoria was calculated to be $17.31 per hour for a full-time worker.[23] The council adopted the proposal in principle, but ultimately approved a policy that only applied to limit situations.[24]

Federal politics
In January 2011, Garrison was again acclaimed as the NDP candidate in the Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca riding.[25] With Liberal MP Keith Martin no longer seeking re-election, the riding was seen as a potential win for the party.[26] The election came in the spring 2011 and other candidates included home-maker Shaunna Salsman for the Green Party,[27] Canadian Action Party leader Christopher Porter and independent Louis Lesosky, as well as Langford councillor Lillian Szpak for the Liberal Party. Garrison campaigned on supporting development of light rail and universal child care. He was endorsed by the Conservation Voters of British Columbia.[28] The Conservative Party candidate, Troy DeSouza, was supported by party leader and Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who visited the riding early in the election campaign.[29] Garrison won the riding over DeSouza by 0.6%, due to rising NDP support nationwide and significant votes from Saanich and Esquimalt,[30] thereby joining the official opposition caucus, with the Conservative Party having won a majority government.

41st Parliament
As the 41st Parliament opened, Garrison was appointed to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and party leader Jack Layton appointed Garrison as the NDP critic on LGBT issues. During the 2012 New Democratic Party leadership election, following the death of Jack Layton, Garrison supported Peggy Nash, saying she "embodies the NDP values of social justice, environmental sustainability and prosperity for all".[31] Following Nash's defeat on the second ballot of the contest, he supported Thomas Mulcair, the eventual winner. Mulcair added public safety to Garrison's critic duties.[32]

Following the election, fellow British Columbian NDP MP Jean Crowder was appointed his political mentor.[33] While Garrison and Crowder shared an office in Ottawa, Garrison opened his constituency office in View Royal.[34] Locally, Garrison joined with fellow NDP MP Denise Savoie, provincial Member of the Legislative Assembly Rob Fleming, and local councillors, and the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce to advocate for federal and provincial funds to develop a light rail transportation system from Victoria to Langford, a system which had already had commitment from Victoria Regional Transit Commission, the Capital Regional District and the BC Transit.[35] Garrison also successfully fought the attempted deportation of a constituent through a public campaign to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney.[36]

As the NDP's LGBT critic, Garrison introduced a piece of legislation, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) (Bill C-279) which include gender identity and gender expression among the characteristics protected from discrimination and eligible to be considered in sentencing crimes motivated by hate. Similar legislation had been introduced by Bill Siksay in the 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments.[37] The bill was amended by the House of Commons to remove the term 'gender expression' and sent to the Senate where it died on the order paper.[38] He also spoke at a remembrance ceremony for a teenager who had committed suicide due to bullying concerning his sexual orientation.[39] After Conservative Party MPs made an 'It Gets Better' video in response to the bullied teenager, a video which received independent criticism regarding its hypocrisy (the MPs had previously voted against same-sex marriage legislation) Garrison explained that, while well-intentioned, they were just repeating a slogan and did not understand the concept.[40]

Garrison introduced Bill C-509, "An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Goldstream River)" [1] in October 2013. The legislation aims to return federal oversight to the "ecological and culturally significant river". Garrison also introduced a motion (M-460) to implement an action plan via the federal government to save the remaining Southern resident killer whales.[41]

42nd Parliament
Garrison stood for re-election in the 2015 election. Challenging him in the Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke riding was government lawyer David Merner for the Liberal Party, Colwood councillor Shari Lukens for the Conservative Party, small-business owner Frances Litman for the Green Party, and student Tyson Strandlund for the Communist Party.[42] Garrison held the riding for the NDP but the fell to third party status for the 42nd Parliament.

Party leader Thomas Mulcair appointed Garrison to be the critic for national defence and LGBT issues. After Mulcair's resignation as leader, Garrison endorsed Jagmeet Singh in the NDP leadership election.[43] Following Singh's victory, he kept Garrison critic role the same. In December 2015, Garrison again introduced the private member bill An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) (Bill C-204). While Bill C-204 did not advance beyond that, its contents were finally adopted in the Minister of Justice's Bill C-16.[44]

Is it because he supports Israel?

https://yvesengler.com/2019/05/21/ndp-mp-randall-garrisons-disgraceful-anti-palestinian-politics/

Or that he exercised his duties as an elected parliamentarian to propose this private members bill four years ago?

NDP MP Randall Garrison introduces bill to repeal anti-terror Bill C-51

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-mp-randall-garrison-introduces-bill-to-repeal-anti-terror-bill-c-51/article32062915/


Like I said, seems to be a decent person.  I don't agree with his politics, but I cant see a reason to doubt his motives.

:dunno:

 

[Journeyman]

Cynically, I wonder why Randall Garrison really cares?

Your comment made me curious, so I conducted a cursory search.

I was more taken aback by daftandbarmy being a cynic.   

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was more taken aback by daftandbarmy being a cynic.   

Well, he defeated a retired Colonel in the PPCLI in the last election, not far from Work Point barracks, so I naturally assume 'conspiracy theory'.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Cynically, I wonder why Randall Garrison really cares?

Probably would attribute this to stupidity/ignorance rather then political gains. I don't think anyone would conceptually be against getting rid of charging someone for attempting suicide, but pretty easy to read it and see that's not the intent. To be honest, know of more then a few people that have gamed the system like this, so surprised there hasn't been someone charged, but probably not really something that anyone wants to be seen as investigating.  Probably more useful as a wartime measure where you had massive influx of recruits. Even if it's unlikely to ever happen, doesn't hurt to have it on the books, especially when they can't demonstrate anyone actually being harmed by it.

There is a massive administrative cost to getting legislation marching through the system so hopefully someone slaps this down before he wastes everyone's time.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think Mr Garrison fundamentally misunderstands the intent behind this part of the NDA. It has nothing to do with suicide or attempted suicide. It is intended to draw a line in the sand that it is morally wrong to take the Queen's shilling and then when in it is your turn in the breach to either feign illness or actually injure yourself to avoid duty. This places your comrades at increased risk because they now have to pick up your slack and it burdens the medical system. If you have actual mental health issues, there are no shortage of resources or understanding in the CAF to help you.

The fact that it has rarely, if ever been used is of no account. How many times have the Treason, Sedition, or Cowardice in the face of the Enemy sections of the NDA been used in the past 100 years? Yet, they remain in place as moral markers to the CAF. I say leave this part of the NDA alone, with perhaps the addition of a note to make it clear that it is not intended for uses in cases of attempted suicide.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think Mr Garrison fundamentally misunderstands the intent behind this part of the NDA. It has nothing to do with suicide or attempted suicide. It is intended to draw a line in the sand that it is morally wrong to take the Queen's shilling and then when in it is your turn in the breach to either feign illness or actually injure yourself to avoid duty. This places your comrades at increased risk because they now have to pick up your slack and it burdens the medical system. If you have actual mental health issues, there are no shortage of resources or understanding in the CAF to help you.

The fact that it has rarely, if ever been used is of no account. How many times have the Treason, Sedition, or Cowardice in the face of the Enemy sections of the NDA been used in the past 100 years? Yet, they remain in place as moral markers to the CAF. I say leave this part of the NDA alone, with perhaps the addition of a note to make it clear that it is not intended for uses in cases of attempted suicide.

He’s setting some kind of pattern he seems to have started in the prison system https://o.canada.com/news/prison-watchdog-raises-concerns-about-inmate-self-injury-6-years-after-death-of-ashley-smith

 

[mariomike]

injure yourself to avoid duty.

Not necessarily limited to the CAF.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .  hopefully someone slaps this down before he wastes everyone's time.

This is the third time that the NDP has attempted to change that item in the NDA, but the previous two attempts were procedurally blocked by the majority Liberal government.  It is a different ballgame now.  I can't see any politically astute MP rising in the House (or in committee where his comments are recorded) and making a statement in defence of maintaining the status quo re this service offence.  Such an action, and the politician, would be quickly trounced on by the opposition parties (and media) as insensitive, uncaring and anti-soldier/veteran.  When Mr. Garrison last introduced his measure, one brief exchange in the House on 15 May 2019 with the Minister provides an example of a government response that says nothing.

In Hansard

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP):      Madam Chair, I will begin with some brief remarks, but I want to spend the majority of my time on questions to the minister.
  . . .

    While there has been progress in acknowledging that not all injuries within the military are visible, we still have much more to do. We had one very big opportunity to do something in this area earlier this year. When we were talking about Bill C-77, the military justice reform bill, I proposed an amendment to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence in the Canadian military code of conduct.
    We held hearings and we heard from witnesses, such as Sheila Fynes, who lost a son to death by suicide while he was serving. We heard from experts on mental health. We heard from senior members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We had indications from a majority of committee members that they would support my amendment. I want to thank the Conservatives for their early support in trying to remove this barrier to treatment of mental health issues that is both symbolic and practical.
    However, 30 minutes before we were to vote in committee on my amendment to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence, the minister sent an email to every member of the committee asking us not to do this. The Liberals then voted against my amendment, saying it was out of order in a military justice reform bill, which is passing strange, since this is a bill that was already amending the code of conduct in several other places.
    I have a very direct question for the minister. Why did the minister ask the committee not to remove this barrier to the treatment of mental health issues and to this very severe problem we have with death by suicide in the military? Why did the minister ask committee members not to remove paragraph 98(c) of the military code of conduct?


Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan:      Madam Chair, I thank the member for his passion and his dedication to our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces and also for his advocacy when it comes to mental health.
    I actually agree with the objective the member is talking about. How do we reduce the stigma? How do we make sure that we reduce the number of suicides? One suicide is too many.
    We have a number of initiatives. With regard to this, we want to make sure that people can get the support they need. We want to make sure that we study the issue of self-harm further. I encourage the member, and I am happy to continue to work together on this. I am very proud of the work that has been done on the bill, and I thank the committee members.
    I have also spoken with many families. I know far too many people who have suffered those challenges. We have to continue to evolve our support. I have been working very closely with the Minister of Veterans Affairs on the joint suicide prevention strategy. This is something we are going to have to continue to evolve.
    I encourage the member. We can work together on this. A lot more work needs to be done. I thank the member again for his efforts.

Or to see it as it happened.

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20190515/-1/31552?Embedded=true&globalstreamId=20&startposition=17961&viewMode=3

(Edited to add)

And previous to that exchange in the House, in a SCONDA meeting on 23 Oct 2018, Mr. Garrison raised the issued while the Minister was testifying which can be seen here:
https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20181023/-1/30279?Embedded=true&globalstreamId=20&startposition=1687&viewMode=3

After Minister Sajjan departed, the issue was again raised when Cmdre Bernatchez, the JAG, was being questioned.
https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20181023/-1/30279?Embedded=true&globalstreamId=20&startposition=3091&viewMode=3

The written record here https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/NDDN/meeting-113/evidence