Thank you, Mr. Albas.
I have to tell you that I have difficulty with PSECA from a couple of perspectives. The way it was introduced as part of a budget implementation act didn't start off the conversation well. Let me say that I'm not being partisan. I'm speaking as someone who has been a legislator and as somebody who is now representing a government. I believe an issue this important ought not to have been part of a budget implementation omnibus bill.
This is an important issue and there was little or no consultation with important partners and stakeholders who ought to have been consulted and ought to have been part of the process. This committee, and the mandate of this committee in this study, is a very important step and is only part of the consultation we have to do over the next period of time.
However, what is clear is that the emphasis in PSECA on market forces is a bit of an issue. It is a significant issue, in fact, because the pay equity issues, the gap in pay between men and women, is greater in the private sector than it is in government. There is a real challenge in that government ought to lead, but there is a risk that we might import some things that may not be working well in the private sector.
Bargaining agents have made clear their strong opposition to PSECA as it was brought forward in 2009. Two of the largest unions have launched a charter challenge against the act on the grounds that it violates equality rights, freedom of expression, freedom of association. We're concerned about that and we want to consider what other solutions may exist. Any new pay equity law needs to be based on evidence. It needs to be developed through important and meaningful consultation with partners and stakeholders, including bargaining agents. We as a government are averse to bringing PSECA into force.