The effect of the addition of this new proposed paragraph 94(7)(c) would be essentially to impose a requirement on the employer with regard to using replacement workers. Before the employer could resort to using replacement workers—who would otherwise be illegal under the act to deal with some of these exceptional circumstances, like threat to life, health safety, etc.—the employer would be required to give union members the opportunity to do that work during a strike or lockout before resorting to those otherwise illegal replacement workers. It's adding a step, essentially, before the employer can use the exception listed here.
I'm happy to elaborate on that. I don't know if that's clear.