With respect, I do not see how that strengthens the section. The proposed motion seeks to remove “whose services were used contrary to subsection 94(4)”.
You are saying “to any other person”. What is your definition of the word “other”? It can be interpreted in various ways. Section 87.6 says, “in preference to any person whose services were used contrary to subsection 94(4)”.
Subsections 94(4) to 94(8) deal with the prohibition on replacement workers.
I do not see what this amendment would strengthen. I do not understand the spirit.
As well, you say it would resolve an NDP amendment. Which one is that?