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. The courts say that this is not the interpretation.
It is very important to understand what the reasons are. I recommend that you read Justice Bauman's decision. He makes a distinction between polygyny, polyandry and polyamory, which are three different things. That judge found that polygamy includes all those things. The intent of section 293 of the Criminal Code is not to target barbaric practices but rather to protect the institution of monogamy. That is a very different intent and that is why section 293 was found constitutional.
If the lawmakers start interpreting the Criminal Code provisions on polygamy differently, the situation in terms of the constitutionality of the procedures taking place right now in Bountiful, for instance, might change. That might not be provided for in Bill S-7. What is not clear for us is the conduct being targeted, because based on the current interpretation, the conduct targeted is not described by the Criminal Code.