Similarly, I was struck by what appears in the brief from the Canadian Bar Association. The Bar Association is clear on this point. You will also note that this is not the first time the government has addressed the subject. The brief says:
The government's Press Release and Backgrounder dated May 16, 2007 ("Canada's New Government Introduces Amendments to Deny Work Permits to Foreign Strippers"), indicates that the intention of the Bill is to prevent entry of "strippers" (exotic dancers) and other "vulnerable" applicants, including "low skilled labourers as well as potential victims of human trafficking." "The instructions would be based on clear public policy objectives and evidence that outlines the risk of exploitation [foreign worker applicants] face."
As the Canadian Bar Association so aptly puts it:
Despite the government's stated purpose for introducing the Bill, neither exotic dancers, nor victims of human trafficking, nor low skilled workers are mentioned in its terms. The Bill authorizes an officer to refuse an otherwise valid work permit to any worker, in any occupation or industry, subject only to (as yet, undisclosed) Minister's instructions. Foreign worker applicants do not exist in a vacuum. For every applicant there is a corresponding employer in Canada who has offered employment and who will be affected by refusal of the work permit. In most cases the employer has applied to Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC) for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO).
The Canadian Bar Association's concerns are clear and I agree with them.
I think this clause may seem fine on paper. However, it leaves so many vague and nebulous points that it will be extremely difficult to be sure that the objects of this bill will be achieved.
Those were the comments I had at this stage.