I appreciate that comment and there's wisdom in what Mr. Brison said. I completely agree,
That's why, perhaps at the risk of overstating it, the amendment is there for you to see. NDP-6 says “few or no benefits accrued to the employer”, so there's an effort to make sure that if it's employment it should be paid employment, unless it's for that worker's CV to get experience in the workforce.
The wording, “few or no benefits” talks not about an absolute test, as you can tell, but something less than that. That's what Ontario has done. I believe British Columbia and other provinces have gone the same way. If an employer is receiving a substantial benefit from unpaid labour, that is exploitation.
That is contrary to the letter and spirit of every employment statute in the land. I don't see why we would treat unpaid people this way. If the employer's benefiting substantially from their employment, they should pay these people. Period. Full stop.