I'd like to continue on the vein of this dispute resolution entity.
From my understanding, having been a counsel at the CRTC, the challenge is that this is a model where you have a regulator that also performs a quasi-judicial function. In this circumstance, would the impact assessment agency be a regulator as well as an adjudicative body, or...? I'm just trying to figure out exactly how it would be structured. We've heard other witnesses suggest that it should be something entirely separate; it shouldn't be the impact assessment agency.
Furthermore, how would one ensure that indigenous considerations would be appropriately built in and consultation appropriately achieved so that such a body would actually pass muster pursuant to UNDRIP and constitutional obligations?