Okay, right. I think we probably both mean a victim in a different sense, possibly in a larger scale of things.
To the point of the bill here, would you say that the other family, the parents, others of the particular three individuals who perpetrated that crime, that murder of your dear daughter, should be able to take time off and receive EI benefits? Because in the wording of the bill—and we checked it out, we actually did get the right wording in the bill, which did make the point that if their presence is required by the employee’s minor child, under 18 years of age, “who has suffered a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence that renders the child unable to carry on regular activities”.... In effect it is saying that those parents, if you will, of the individuals who perpetrated the crime against your daughter would be able to take time off and receive benefits.
Now, I cite a case.This is not just theoretical stuff—