I think that's a very good question.
When we're talking about data collection and thinking about the federal scope, I would encourage everyone to think about the way StatsCan's disaggregated data action plan should be implemented nationwide with regard to the types of collection of data. The disaggregated data action plan is calling on us not only to move beyond gender-based or just sex data but also to think about where we are looking to identify systemic inequities—and to use that, then, to track the ways in which we work to narrow those inequities. Applying an expectation within all areas, including through post-secondary, that we're working in accordance with that disaggregated data action plan is a key part.
I'm also looking forward to some of us hearing the results of what UCAS, the Unis and Colleges Admissions Service, did in their pilot study. This was using human resources data and trying to create a more unified form. Now, this is one issue where there's an expectation or a sense that perhaps we'd be collecting the data around equity, diversity and inclusion—demographic data—in a consistent manner. I'm not sure whether all those who signed up as part of Dimensions have actually followed through on that and are collecting the same way, but I think this is another way of bridging together the national initiatives—things that are happening at the federal level—with what's happening locally.
Then, the other realm, I would say, is thinking about administrative data. How do we actually make those links to administrative data, much like in the health realms? How do we think about joining the systems so we're also not thinking about survey fatigue?