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.
Our discussions here and in the Senate do not deal with this small part of so-called barbaric practices. We can include this definition in the IRPA or in the Criminal Code. In that sense, the constitutional situation could change if the objective set out in the Criminal Code is not the institution of monogamy or its protection. The section was found almost constitutional. Aside from a small part that was considered slightly too broad with regard to young people between the ages of 16 and 18, the section was found constitutional by Justice Bauman.