It seems to me, from what I heard you say earlier, that really the instruction is based on some objective criteria, that there must be some research, and there must some basis, and there must be some connection between the instruction and what you're hoping to achieve. It would seem to me that there would be certain types of employment more likely to have the potential for the type of treatment that foreign nationals might find themselves facing, so that's one aspect of it.
Another aspect that plays into this is that a foreign national comes into a country and perhaps doesn't have the language skills they might otherwise have. They might not yet be integrated into our mainstream economy or community. You might find that they don't have the support systems that are in place to ensure that they don't have to face that type of abuse. We're looking at a situation in which you take into account a combination of factors--the type of employment, the type of person you have coming in--and you might, in that circumstance, decide that you ought not to have that person come in because you know what the propensity might be. As I understand it, up until now the minister would not have had the discretion to deal with it if they otherwise qualified, while, the reverse of that--if they hadn't qualified--you could override. This sort of balances the scale.
Is that the bottom-line proposition of the essence of the instruction?