I find it unfortunate that we are now just comparing the former model, which is costly, to the current Act. The proactive model, as advocated by the federal Task Force, has proven its worth: many women received salary adjustments, and wage discrimination was eliminated. The unions were involved, but not as part of the collective bargaining process. They were involved as partners, working with employers, moving through the different steps. It is quite true that unions have considerable expertise in this area. They were the first ones to develop it. They have made an invaluable contribution.
However, the reason this legislation is not deemed unacceptable is not just that the valuable contribution made by the unions is disregarded. Rather, it is because that contribution, if it is part of the collective bargaining process, does not result in the union playing the same kind of constructive role it plays in the Pay Equity Commission. It is important to keep that in mind. This model has proven its worth and been successful in a number of places, and is currently being imitated elsewhere. In Australia, for instance, a labour commission made proposals that draw their inspiration from this model. In Denmark and many other places in the world, this model is considered to be effective and countries are trying to copy it. So, why set it aside and develop something which dismisses a fundamental right and will again create conflict?