Thank you very much.
I have to say, listening to the discussions today, being part of this committee, many times our opposition colleagues do their jobs and they very passionately oppose most of what the government does, and that's their job. With you ladies here as witnesses, I believe you want to bring an objective contribution to this discussion.
So I appreciate Madame Demers' recognizing that we all want to see pay equity for women. We are not interested in being mean-spirited or appalling and regressive. And when I hear you talk about what has happened--women having to sit for 18 months and be cross-examined--that is regressive, that is mean-spirited, that is appalling.
Our goal is to not have that happen. We want to see pay equity achieved and this government truly wants to see it proactive. We believe there is a role, and it's a positive role, that the unions can play in it.
I really want to understand where you're coming from. Do you believe the union doesn't have the expertise in order to recognize when there are inequitable compensation situations?
The reason I ask that is because my colleague Cathy McLeod made a very good comparison to safety. We all have a basic human right to personal safety. That is not negotiable. You talked about some expert groups that look at work scenarios. Is safety ensured? We have to talk about this; we have to work it out.
I would say that this falls into the same thing. We have a basic right to be treated equally as women. Nobody can discriminate against me as a woman. And yet as a union, you have such a powerful role to play in helping women. If you recognize that something is not being achieved and that women aren't being treated fairly, you have such a positive role to play.
Do you feel that you don't have the expertise, that you can't do it?