Perhaps I'll start.
I don't take issue with anything in the report. I just worry that trying to do everything at once may be too ambitious. For example, when pay equity was implemented proactively in Ontario, there was a phase-in of certain issues. It was a phase-in on employers. Large employers had requirements before smaller employers. You may look at something like that.
In respect of expanding the jurisdiction, going into new areas, I'm not saying this is wrong. In fact, I'm agreeing with it. To look at dependent contractors as opposed to employees, to look at the federal contractors program—these are ambitious, valuable initiatives. This will cover universities and others. But if you're going to do that, you need to have enforcement mechanisms. As was the case before, employment equity under the federal contractors program could have only two people doing the reviewing. In such situations, there's no real compliance. If you're going to set yourself ambitious targets, ambitious legislation, there has to be money to enforce it.
I am concerned about intersectional discrimination. I've argued many human rights cases, and many of them have involved intersectional discrimination. There's no question it exists. Again, it's something you might want to phase in. Get it right first. It's easier to deal with occupational segregation in standard pay equity issues and gender predominance and then phase it in afterwards. There's a lot of work to be done here. You need experts to do it. That's key. It's not clear to me that the Bilson report was saying to segregate this matter from the federal Human Rights Commission. I would strongly urge you to do this, so that it receives the priority it needs. Otherwise, it gets folded into the commission with other money. It needs a separate agency and a separate tribunal. We wasted so much time having to prove that there was gender gap in Canada and having to prove other things that were ridiculous. We now have proactive laws that will help.