Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Benedet, Ms. Parker and Dr. Fehr, good afternoon. Your participation in this discussion is important. We're proud and fortunate to benefit from your insights.
I'm going to reiterate what the chair just said, that we'd be delighted to receive your notes. In particular, page 473 of your document, Dr. Benedet, seems to be a page worth reading, which I'd be happy to do. The same goes for you, Ms. Parker: You can send us the documents that you think will be useful.
I have questions about certain aspects of the bill, but I'd like to stick—at least for now—to the issue of publication bans and the potential conflict of interest that could arise for the Crown prosecutor when speaking to victims. You mentioned this, but I'm still puzzled. I wonder how we can articulate something useful and effective other than asking the prosecutor to explain things to the victims.
Ms. Parker, you mentioned the possibility of mandating private sector lawyers to offer advice to victims. Yes, it's a possibility, but is it the best way to go about it? I don't know. There are situations where it could become complex.
Is there anything else either of you would like to say about this? Is it the judge, the Crown prosecutor or an independent prosecutor who should be giving explanations to victims? If it's the latter, should there always be an independent prosecutor in trials involving publication bans?
I'd like to hear what you have to say first, Ms. Parker.