Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, witnesses.
I want to go back to an issue raised by Ms. Mathyssen earlier.
Before I was elected to Parliament last year, I was a lawyer. I practised for 25 years. In fact, some of the cases you mentioned—the Bell Canada case, the Air Canada and Canada Post cases—were worked on by the firm that I practised with for 25 years, both for the employers and for the unions.
I can tell you, Ms. Pageau, that for many years, the number one client of that firm was public sector employee unions--number one in terms of billings--and the same fees were charged to the unions as to the employers.
You mentioned that these cases went on for years and years, at an enormous cost, I think you mentioned, Ms. Byers. I can tell you it's in the millions and tens of millions of dollars, both to the union members and the employers and the taxpayers.
Why would you want that money to go to the legal profession? The system here is good work for lawyers; I can tell you that from personal experience. Why would you want the money to go to them, rather than into the pockets of the women whom you represent, or stay in the pockets of the taxpayers?
And why would you want to delay the justice that you seek to have done for women? Isn't the old system of forcing women to litigate to get their rights later—10, 15, or 25 years down the road—a worse system than having it negotiated up front, even if it has to be done through some kind of a subcommittee process with the experts on these matters that all of you have in your unions? Isn't that a better way to handle it than having these things litigated over 25 years?