I'll refer back to the decision in the polygamy reference, where a number of definitions were put forward by different intervenors. At the one end, you had very limited definitions that specifically dealt with exploitation or the types of problems you see that are the target of much of the discussion about polygamist relationships around this table, for example, the ideas around the abusive nature of, the inequality, and the other problems that arise in certain polygamous relationships. When I say “certain polygamous relationships”, what Chief Justice Bauman found was that polygamy is much broader than just the polygynous relationships that have been the focus here.
If there were a focus on the polygynous relationships and whether or not certain people are inadmissible.... When we are dealing with cases of spousal abuse, for example, the person who is the victim of the abuse is not rendered inadmissible by the abuser. In this case, the problem with certain forms of polygyny is that the man with several wives is the focus of abuse or exploitative relationships in certain circumstances, but it renders all the people in the relationship inadmissible. You are talking about rendering the wives inadmissible as well.