First, a policy approach for proactive pay equity is one that's very complex. It is one that involves the public sector but also federally regulated employers. Mr. Albas asked an important question. With any legislative approach we take as a government, we'll consult broadly.
Don't underestimate the importance of the consultations that this committee is doing. When you have an employer group here before this committee, it's really important. We are not operating parliamentary committees as branch plants of ministers' offices, these are important legislative creators of policy and recommendations and we respect the work you're doing.
The work you're doing is very important, but in terms of any legislative approach we take, of course there will be a broad level of consultation as part of that. I want that to be clear. But again, this committee's work and the independence of this committee is important. Don't underestimate the time required to get this right in terms of the complexity of this issue. We need to have the right data; we need to have the best methodologies.
I believe that you're studying some of the wage comparison methodologies—job to job, job to line, line to line, job to segment—and the pros and cons of each. This is an area of public policy of which I think Mr. DeCourcey said that the principle is simple. We all understand that as a committee, as a Parliament. Getting it right is the part that in something as big as the public service and all federally regulated industries is really important.
Our parliamentary secretary at Treasury Board, Joyce Murray, has experience as a provincial minister in British Columbia, as does Minister Mihychuk. We can learn from and draw from those examples of provincial governments in Canada, and governments in other countries, as we look at the best way to move forward. That should be part of a process that is more comprehensive.