I would second that.
In fact, right now, it's clear that the Federal Court of Appeal has essentially.... There is jurisprudence that really cemented in the last couple of years—and this goes back to what I said in my submission—where they have essentially said they're not going to look at the science. They're not really terribly interested in how this is being done because this is outside of their wheelhouse. They don't totally understand it. The idea is that there would be no consideration of an environmental effect in order for a review or report to be challenged.
I take the point, of course, that yes, we don't want to see these things being challenged. At the end of the day, we recognize that courts have a role in all of this. They ensure the rule of law, and they ensure compliance with the legislative regime. I totally support the notion that a specialized tribunal would be much more sensitive to those issues, and have a better ability to hold all parties to account to the spirit of the law.
In terms of whether or not you have that explicitly laid out in the legislation, that would not be a bad thing at all to make clear that there's a review on questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law. Absolutely.