Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here.
Ms. Rosenfeldt, I think you mentioned there's no faint hope for victims. I think that's very compelling, because the victims in these cases are gone. The families are left behind.
When I was in my teens, 15 years seemed like a tremendously long time. But as you get older, 15 years seems like less time. It would seem to me those 15 years would go by for a victim's family and then all of a sudden they're faced with having to come to terms with.... You've laid it out, and we've had other witnesses here, families of victims, who made it quite clear they are going to participate in the process. So when an offender applies under the faint hope clause, the victim's family is going to participate. It seems that's the overwhelming evidence we've heard.
After these 15 years, being forced to revisit, relive, can you let us know, in your working with victims' families, what goes into the thought process, the preparation? What is the impact on families when these hearings come up? If someone could reapply after two years, I would think one would just be putting the first hearing out of their mind when there's the potential for a second application.
So could you comment on the type of preparation, the type of work, the type of communication the victims' families would have as the time approaches for the offender to apply?