Thank you, Chair.
I thank the three witnesses for being here. Their testimony is extremely important.
We don't have much time, so I won't waste any more than I have to, but I agree with what my colleague, Mr. Brock, said. I can't figure out why it took six months for Bill S‑12 to be introduced in the Senate after the Supreme Court's decision. We literally wasted six months. Now we find ourselves rushing you to testify, which is just rude, if you ask me. I apologize on behalf of all my parliamentary colleagues. I'm sure they're no happier about this than I am.
That said, we don't have much time, so I won't look at every aspect of the bill. Pretty much everything has been covered. However, there's one thing we haven't really looked at, and I'd like to hear what you have to say about it, Ms. Stephens.
Just a side note, Ms. Andrews, I have your proposed amendments in both French and English. That's good, and I can assure you I'll take them into account.
Ms. Stephens, the issue is publication bans when there are multiple victims. For example, there might be a 14-year-old girl, a 20-year-old woman and a 30-year-old woman. Some want a publication ban for their and their family's peace of mind, but others want to talk about it because that's therapeutic. There are many different points of view, all of them equally valid.
How should a publication ban be set up when different victims have different perspectives and different needs?
I realize that a 14-year-old girl needs to be protected whether she wants that or not.
Would you please comment on that, Ms. Stephens?