I will summarize what I just said. The visibility of the specific characteristics of female work has an effect on the evaluation methods used by employers. These evaluation methods, on which compensation systems are based, will therefore result in wages which are discriminatory and which are lower. Pay equity was designed to resolve that specific problem.
What is the best model for achieving pay equity? A number of models have been tried. At the international level, Canada is considered to be a laboratory for the various pay equity models that exist. We started out with a complaint-based model, which is the current model and which was, in any case, the model used to develop the Canadian Human Rights Act.
As my colleagues have just pointed out, that model has been a source of dispute. When complaints were filed, settlements would only be achieved some 15 or 20 years later. Many people never saw any money at all, because they had already died by the time the case was settled in court. In fact, it was an ineffective model which ultimately did not do people justice. It was also extremely costly. You may recall that the court case involving the Public Service Alliance of Canada cost between $3 and $4 billion, including the back pay that was owed.
In light of the enormous costs of the complaint-based model, a number of jurisdictions have adopted what is known as the proactive model. Manitoba was the first to do so, followed by Ontario, which also extended it to the private sector, whereas in Manitoba, it covered the public and parapublic sectors. Quebec then did the same, and also extended it to the private sector. Quebec used the Ontario model and improved it using--
Let us just say that it is a proactive model. The federal task force that I sat on considered that model to be the most effective for achieving pay equity. I will start by describing its main components and then compare it to what is proposed under the current act.
Here are the main points. In a proactive model, pay equity is an obligation for all employers and it is their responsibility to enforce pay equity in the workplace. That is the first feature. Unlike the reactive model, which is complaint-based, the proactive model does not wait until a complaint has been filed to ensure that pay equity is achieved.
The second feature has to do with a specific timeline. When a complaint is lodged, we do not want to wait 20, 25 or 30 years for pay equity to become a reality. As recommended by the Task Force, a proactive model provides for a three-year timeframe for the work to be completed—in order to determine what wage gaps exist, for example—and three years to then pay compensation to the individuals who have been discriminated against.
The third feature is that the Task Force laid out a step-by-step program. That program included determining the predominance of different jobs—in other words, which male and female jobs should be compared and what the best method of evaluating them would be. The evaluation method must always include four factors, as we just saw: qualifications, responsibilities, the conditions in which the work is carried out and effort. I won't go into detail with respect to all of the steps, because you have all of this in your copy of the Task Force report.
Another important feature is the joint participation of workers, their representative and the employer in what is called a pay equity committee. The two parties get together to develop a program: they determine the best applicable method of evaluation in that specific workplace, the method to be used for comparing wages, and so forth. This is not a negotiation; it is work carried out by both parties jointly on the pay equity committee.
The employer has an obligation to provide all the necessary information to committee members, to allow them to carry out their work. That means information on wages, and all the necessary data in order to measure the wage gap and correct it. That is an important obligation.
The Task Force also recommended the creation of an independent entity, to be called the Pay Equity Commission.
I will just quickly run through the primary differences. One major difference is that in the Act, achieving pay equity is rolled into the collective bargaining process. However, a fundamental right cannot be included in the collective bargaining process because, when negotiations occur, there are necessarily compromises to be made. For example, you cannot say that you're going to reduce wage discrimination by 5 per cent and leave it at 95 per cent because, in exchange, workers will have a shorter work week. That would be as ridiculous as maintaining a certain level of discrimination against visible minorities in the workplace, in exchange for a shorter work week, for instance.
A fundamental right, an equality right, cannot be subject to compromise. If it is part of the collective bargaining process, that will lead to endless conflict and we will find ourselves right back at square one, with disputes lasting 10 or 20 years.
One of the advantages of pay equity, as mentioned in relation to the proactive model, is that it allows you to avoid disputes. This model, which sets out all the benefits of pay equity, is discussed in one of the documents that have been distributed to you.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.