No, I don't have a clear answer for you on that.
What we're saying is the recommendations of the task force were that you would actually have a process that would move quicker. It would move faster. It would be proactive. It's not based on, again, complaints of particular groups, and presumably there would be more resolve to settle this.
If you think of the millions of dollars—and I mean millions of dollars—spent by Bell Canada and by the federal government when it was fighting its own employees on pay equity, that money could have been better used to do the work that needed to be done in proactive pay equity legislation and in the education that's needed in removing the biases from workplace evaluations of positions and getting the money into people's hands who deserved it because that's the reality. Whatever process you choose to come to, and we hope you come to choosing what the task force has recommended in terms of proactive legislation, it has to be on the basis that we can actually find solutions for people who are paid unfairly. This is discrimination in people's paycheques. I don't know if somebody has an easier answer on the comparison you ask, but that is the reality of what we're facing. It's the cost to women.
You can say, let's wait four years because the employer and the union.... Again, as has already been pointed out, it's a question of what the power relationships with the workers are in the workplaces. You can say, well, let's come back at this every four years. If it's your mother, your sister, your daughter, the women friends that you know who are being paid unfairly, do they get to wait another four years and then maybe another four because that wasn't agreed? It's already been pointed out that you can't bargain away human rights.