Citizenship and Immigration committee  It's not that the power would be arbitrary or discretionary. The problem we see is that we don't know in advance what the interpretation will be. Based on the current interpretation in the briefing notes, the intention is different from the only interpretation made by the courts.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  There are two aspects to consider. First, we should create another definition that specifically targets abusive polygyny. The entire discussion is not about polygamy, but about the victim in the polygamous relationship. The so-called barbaric practices are much more limited than the scope of what Justice Bauman described as polygamy and that was presented by the Attorney General of Canada as the scope of polygamy.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  There are two different situations. The first one would be if it happened in Canada. In that case, that would clearly be a crime. There is no doubt that genital mutilation constitutes a crime in Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you. Thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. I will briefly talk about the changes proposed to the Civil Marriage Act before I turn my attention to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We agree that steps to reduce the incidence of forced marriage are laudable, in particular by stating that marriage requires the free and enlightened consent of two persons.

Public Safety committee  The short answer is that it addresses one problem with the section. Ultimately, the question for me—and I've listened to a lot of the discussion and the debate around this bill—and the issue that I've yet to hear an explanation of is why the CSIS Act definition is not being used and why this broader definition is being created at all.

Public Safety committee  Our thoughts—

Public Safety committee  I think that the question is a much more fundamental one and it comes down to the part that we don't understand. I think nobody has been able to explain, and the bill itself doesn't explain, how this bill interacts with the Privacy Act. What is the interaction between these bills?

Public Safety committee  The problem is that the wording of the bill is ambiguous. It's up to us to determine whether those people would be affected or not. In terms of a protest being “lawful", and I'm not sure what the corresponding terminology is in French, a number of people have made the following comment to the committee.

Public Safety committee  No pressure. I'll try not to go over 10 seconds. The brief addresses the impact that certain provisions in the bill could have on charities. As far as sharing information and responsibility are concerned, charities are being put in a position that isn't clear. In our view, those provisions need to be clarified, as does their potential impact on charities.

Public Safety committee  I'd like to start by pointing out that certain parts of Bill C-51 are clearly unconstitutional. According to the bill, a judge can authorize violations of the charter. No such precedent exists in the law. I think it's important to stress the fact that none of the legal experts who appeared before the committee stated clearly and in no uncertain terms that the provision was constitutional.

Public Safety committee  I'm going to come back to the example of the Canada Border Services Agency. With respect to CBSA, what we're talking about is an agency that has enormous powers. It has powers of search. It has powers of seizure. It takes the position that any cellphone, laptop, device coming across the Canadian border can be searched at will.

Public Safety committee  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I am going to echo the sentiments of my colleague, in that the security of Canadians is extremely important to us. At the same time, it's important to acknowledge that we can never be 100% safe. The balance between fundamental rights and security at times requires compromise, but the two are far from mutually exclusive.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The problem actually has to do with this bill's lack of criteria and its punitive aspect. The only criterion is the mode of arrival. People should not be detained on the basis of such a criterion. There is no link or logical connection between the detention and the reasons behind it.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Regarding the designation of foreigners based on their mode of arrival, I think I can talk about the current system and the proposed system. The designation we are talking about goes well beyond the mode of arrival. Any group—even a family arriving by plane or by car—could be designated by the minister.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think that Professor Dauvergne, who will testify before you, will be able to tell you about the Australian experience. My understanding is that people bring their wife, their children and other vulnerable members of their family on the boat or other potentially dangerous means of transportation, as they don't want to be separated from them for years on end.