Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to go back to Ms. Sherman. First, directly to you, and for the record, none of my questions today have as their intent to impugn your integrity or your record of public service. I have the utmost respect for that. As I said, I think it's unfortunate that both the Prime Minister and the minister referred the committee to you.
I do think what your testimony reveals today is a parallel to the culture of denial and deflection in the Canadian Armed Forces, and also, to one which we heard from Colonel Boland today about deflection and denial within DND. The parallel here seems to be that the privacy of the accuser seems to be much more important than responding effectively to the complaints of sexual misconduct.
With regard to Mr. Baker's comments that the committee is not actually pursuing a solution, I beg to differ. What I have heard very distinctly from those who have filed formal complaints, and many who have not, is that they want to know that there's an understanding at the top level of what sexual misconduct is, and there's a commitment that there will be effective action taken on those complaints.
Without that confidence, we're left with a program like Operation Honour, which failed precisely because it didn't have that understanding and support at the highest levels.
Ms. Sherman, let me go back then and say, once you had reported to the Clerk of the Privy Council that you could not proceed—I won't dispute with you again, whether or not you could have—was there any reason that the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister would have believed there was an investigation taking place on the sexual misconduct allegations that were presented by the military ombudsman?