I think Mr. Fine is correct. There are elements in all the models that are promising in terms of pay equity implementation and maintenance. In general, the commission has taken the position that the task force's recommendations will likely lead to the most robust and most effective right to pay equity, both in terms of implementation and cost.
There was a question earlier equating this to proactive bylaw enforcement. A study has not been done on this but based on the commission's experience it is possible if not probable that a proactive model would involve less cost for government. The reason is that investigations, and pay equity investigations in particular, are extremely costly. When a pay equity investigation unfolds, it takes many more resources for an institution like the commission than other types.
But returning to your question about other aspects of the model, in addition to the Bilson task force recommendations, I think the commission would recognize there is a role for collective bargaining in the maintenance of pay equity. Once you've achieved pay equity away from the bargaining table, away from the kinds of forces that can influence the outcome of the collective bargaining process, then yes, it makes sense for parties going forward to have an obligation to maintain at the collective bargaining table.
I think in general, those are the elements from the different models that would make sense.