Certainly. I think the bill is changing many areas of law, and an area that I pay attention to is the changes in immigration law. In the last five years there have been dozens of changes that have restricted the rights of immigrants, temporary residents, permanent residents, and citizens. I think the potential to criminalize forced marriage can become a place where someone becomes vulnerable for deportation. If someone is involved in a forced marriage and they have a conditional status as a permanent resident, they may lose their status if they seek help. This is true for any form of violence, not only forced marriage. Leaving the conjugal home or the conjugal relationship can make one vulnerable to losing one's status.
As well, the criminal convictions associated with forced marriage or early marriage may create a space for deportation. The omnibus crime bill, which several years ago made a deportable offence anything with a six-month sentence or more, creates a larger capacity for the Canadian government to remove people based on their criminal offences. This creates more vulnerability for different groups of immigrants.
The provisions related to polygamy in deeming groups inadmissible are the areas that I think are particularly concerning. I think the expanded powers of discretion for immigration officers who may perceive someone to be in a polygamous relationship are very broad. I think the earlier witness was speaking about the lack of certainty about how we define polygamous relationships. That's something we need to pay attention to. Are we talking about someone who has many mistresses as a form of polygamous relationship? Are we talking people who have codified relationships? Certainly, under Canadian law you can only be legally married to one spouse, but many people living in Canada may have multiple partners. So how will the Canadian government define polygamous relationships in this context of very diverse relationships and sexual practices? Removing someone's immigration status or deeming someone inadmissible—I think those powers are too large.