All right.
The second sentence in that article basically says that nothing in the settlement agreement will prevent the minister from making the reductions they're allowed to make under that act. From my perspective, what we are looking at is a very important clause or article in the settlement agreement that is inconsistent. First it says, “No, we won't.” Then it says, “Yes, we might.”
We have raised that point. The council has raised that issue in connection with section 25 and the reductions that have been made to some of the veterans who put in for disability pensions for PTSD, but the reaction we have is that this is the interpretation of section 25 that has been given, so there's nothing in the settlement agreement that says they can't do this.
That may be, but if that is the case, then our council would hope that one of the things this committee will do is push for an amendment to the Pension Act to make specific exclusions, and I'll give you some specific wording on that. Basically it would clarify that settlement awards for any kind of harm or injury resulting from inappropriate sexualized conduct of any kind—sexual assault, intimidation, bullying and aggression—are specifically excluded from the clawback provisions of the Pension Act. If that seems too broad, then we can make it specific to Merlo Davidson.
Another option, if I may quickly jump in, that has just arisen to my knowledge in the last day or so is related to the Krista Carle affair, which I mentioned earlier in my testimony. That change to the understanding and approach of the assessor to the date when claims were filed and could be assessed, as affecting a veteran's entitlement, was changed by consent of all the parties, by court order. The agreement itself was amended to clarify what the cut-off date would be, and it went out too. If somebody was alive before the opt-out date, their claim would be assessed and their successors would receive that money.