I think it's a backwards step. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say whether it is contrary to the charter. I think that's a current challenge before the courts, actually, but I think it is an unfortunate step backwards.
There's no real requirement in that act, no mechanism in that act that I can see, that will actually give effect to pay equity. It's odd, in a way, that the preamble states unambiguously that the House agrees to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, yet the legislation that follows is so Byzantine that most of us who read it think, “My goodness, there are all those pages; it must be doing something”.