I really feel we're splitting hairs here, because the amendment does clearly say “to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”. As I have pointed out, numerous rulings from the board--and I would ask Ms. MacPherson if she disagrees--use the term “essential services”, sometimes 60 times in one ruling, or 15 times, and the interpretation they give will vary from case to case.
This amendment is not narrowing it, nor is it broadening it. It is simply further defining that maintenance of activities and essential services are things that are considered by the board, as we can see from their ruling. I really fail to see how you could interpret this to mean that somehow this will actually narrow what the board can do, because, by the jurisprudence that's built up, it's very clear that they already have this leeway to deal with essential services and maintenance of activities. This amendment will not change that in any way.