Finance committee  Most definitely the intention is not to be transparent. The reason why this was not addressed at this stage is that it can be technically complicated. Crossed lines is a situation that can occur in various environments, as you pointed out. It's probably not that common at the s

Finance committee  It's not in the spirit of the legislation. It's not a job-to-line or job-to-curve.... The spirit of the legislation is to align averages. You have an equal average or equal line, so on average it is equal.

Finance committee  The rationale, as you explained, of the amendments proposed, I believe is mostly pertaining to the equal line method. They want to modify the way it applies. Particularly, it is focused on the notion of crossed regression lines. By applying the amendment, it would undermine the

Finance committee  I think you're right.

Finance committee  Now you've triggered my memory. I inverted the numbers. I apologize.

Finance committee  I will.

Finance committee  For public sector workers, that's available, and it's higher. It was 94.1¢, if I'm not erring, last year. That was the ratio, 94.1¢ on average, for female workers compared with men.

Finance committee  That's right.

Finance committee  I apologize if I provided the wrong number there. There are numbers for the core public admin and numbers for the public service. They vary. We can get back to the—

Finance committee  The wage gap for the public sector wouldn't include private sector, because unless the Crown—

Finance committee  We can check what data we have available. TBS doesn't have data on the federal private sector—