Maybe I'll begin, and then I'll turn to Rebecca.
The number one thing for us is that of course we want every single woman and child to have safe alternatives, but the reality is that building a shelter in a community where there are no other housing options, regardless of whether it's transition or second-stage, is such a band-aid solution. Women might be there for three days, in some communities, if they're lucky enough to live in a community with a shelter. Perhaps they're there for six weeks. However, where do you go if most people are living in overcrowded housing? Wait-lists can be years long.
It has to be a simultaneous investment, and yes, ensuring that there are safe alternatives that are responsive to the needs of Inuit women, not just what we see here in the south necessarily, and implementing that in the north. There also have to be massive investments in terms of healing and housing. I don't think we can look at it as a one-pronged approach.
Of course we're in favour of supportive living arrangements to get women back on their feet, whether it be through employment, life skills or counselling, but the reality is, where do they go next? That's where the danger is and where the harm is. That's why people make educated choices. They're not going to leave if there's nowhere for them to go with their children.