Thank you so much.
Ms. Stewart, I want to come back to you. Thank you so much for giving us that information. I know the Merlo Davidson class action was brought forward by so many brave women who were trying to obtain justice. Tragically, what we saw, of course, was that VAC's clawbacks not only defeated the purpose of that action and the objectives of the settlements; they also revictimized women.
Not only, in my opinion, did it revictimize; I think it also silenced other women who may otherwise have come forward. The whole point of these actions, I think, is to stop the behaviour, so I want to know your thoughts on whether this also blocked women from coming forward.
Second, you talked about the committee having a strong recommendation moving forward on this. Do you think a recommendation saying that the legislation should be changed to acknowledge...?
I actually don't think your definition is too broad. I think that any time a person is in the workplace and is violently attacked as a result of being in that workplace, especially in this context, we need to honour that.
Did it block other women from coming forward? Are we now missing a bunch of women who could have come forward? Is the legislation the smartest way for us to go forward as a committee in our recommendation?