Ms. Hughes Anthony, in your presentation, you talked about the proposed subsection (2.4) of the bill. You took this section out of its context, in subsection (2.2), to give it an entirely new meaning.
Earlier, I raised a point of order on the subject with my colleague Mike Lake, who recognized it. I think that you were in the room at that time. I hope that you and the people who are in this room and who are listening to me will not go back to that, because you cannot use the proposed subsection (2.4). The words "The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures" refer back to proposed subsection (2.3) which precedes it and which reads as follows:
(2.3) The application of subsection (2.1) does not have the effect of preventing the employers from taking any necessary measures to avoid the destruction of the employer's property or serious damage to that property.
The proposed subsection (2.1) deals with prohibitions relating to replacement workers.
Next, subsection (2.4) says, and I quote:
(2.4) The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production [...]
The measures we are talking about are the measures that the employer will take, in other words he will undoubtedly hire additional personnel.
While the proposed subsection (2.4)does not apply to all of the proposed subsection (2.1), it is consistent with proposed subsection (2.3).
Is that clear, Ms. Hughes Anthony?