I think that is a very interesting question. It's interesting to look at the differences between the IAA legislation and the CER legislation.
For the CER legislation, what we have now is an expanded list of the criteria that are found in the National Energy Board Act. I think that the expanded list does clarify, in fact it largely reflects, the practice of the board, which has been to take into account a broader range of considerations. What's missing in the CER legislation is any specific reference to climate change, and we've already discussed that.
What's more interesting, actually, is the direction given to the Governor in Council in the CER legislation, because the CER legislation is completely silent on that question. It doesn't tell us how the cabinet is to be making those decisions. By contrast, under the IAA legislation, there are three or four specific considerations that the minister or the Governor in Council must direct their minds to.
One of the things I say in my brief is, why aren't we following that same approach in the context of the CER? In other words, why aren't we giving cabinet more explicit direction and then, as you say, making it possible to have a more objective review of that decision by a court, if necessary? That adds to transparency, accountability, and public trust.