Absolutely. I'm going to go back to the piece around third party reporting, because I think that's a really good, concrete example.
When Operation Honour happened, when there was an emphasis on our having to eradicate this behaviour, it was still framed as this: We have to get rid of the couple of bad apples. I feel like that attitude still hasn't changed, but the belief was report, report, report everything you see, but because it was framed from a legal perspective and not, as Christine said, from an ethical perspective, you had bystanders who were just reporting things right away to, frankly, just cover their own backs should it ever become public.
That's what happens when you don't have survivors informing the policy, because the survivor-directed approach would say what's best for the person who has been harmed in this moment. This isn't about checking off a box. This is about making sure that the person is empowered to make a decision.
Maybe that person doesn't want to report because they just want to confront the perpetrator and have a conversation with them directly, but you removed their ability to do that.
The last thing I would say is I really think it's important for us to address the fact that we have a woman who has come forward right now because she was outed by someone who leaked her story to the CBC. Whether they leaked it for partisan reasons or they leaked it because they thought they were doing the right thing, that victim was not helped. I think she has been very generous in saying that her accuser was also deprived of a fair trial because it was leaked to the media.
I think that's a clear example of survivors owning their stories, and nobody should be able to take them away from them.