I want to focus on the whole issue of pay equity. Mr. Streiner may be more equipped to give us some information and some clarification on that.
Basically, there are three major restrictions in the new bill. Despite the comments from the government that it mirrors the Ontario system, it actually does anything but.
The first restriction is that it will limit the number of female-predominant groups that can claim pay equity to 70%, which means if the predominance of women working in a certain section is under 70%, then they're cut out. The current number is 55%. This, by the way, applies only to government employees and not to the crown. They are not being affected at all and are excluded altogether.
It defines the criteria used to evaluate whether women's work is of equal value by introducing the market forces. I don't see what market forces have to do with comparing equal pay for work of equal value. It will limit the comparisons of family within, but that's another piece. Then it goes on to say that the pay equity will be negotiated along with the issues raised during the collective bargaining.
In this legislation there is no obligation on the employer to actually do pay equity assessments. There is no obligation on the employer to share relevant information with the union. There is no obligation for a remedy for equity gaps. This is not proactive pay equity legislation. There is nothing that forces them to do anything.
Also, it removes proactive employment equity from the human rights framework. Workers in the public service can no longer file complaints to the CHRC. Individual workers can file a complaint with the labour relations board, but that doesn't have any real expertise in this area. Essentially the complaints are left to an individual. If a union tries to help, they charge $50,000.
All of these provisions make matters so much worse than they really are. They do not help in any way.
I would like to know on what basis these changes were made. On what basis do we claim that this is the Ontario model when there's absolutely nothing here that resembles the Ontario model? What was the rationale in going from 55% to 70% in the labour market, and all of the things I've said?
It really is very detrimental to women. It actually makes it worse than the current system. Is there anyone who can give me an understanding of why we're going in this direction and why it's better?