If I understand your question correctly, I'm advocating for an appeals body that would potentially review decisions throughout the process, starting potentially from triggering decisions and then determinations on the scope, the information that is needed, and process options—all along the way. To me, the basic concept is that you want appropriate statutory direction, and you want appropriate regulatory direction. There will still be discretion. We need discretion to make good decisions.
Also, then, you have the opportunity to appeal the decision, if you're unhappy with it, to this independent tribunal. That independent tribunal, throughout the process, then can ensure consistent application and the responsible application of the guidance that is provided in the statute and regulations.
I'm actually not at all focused on the ultimate decision. The ultimate decision, in my view, should be a political decision. Even there, there can be aspects that can be reviewable. For example, whether or not the decision-maker has applied the factors in proposed section 63 should be reviewable, but the decision itself, in my view, shouldn't be.
I do see the appeals body as an efficient way of developing a consistent application of the statutory and regulatory criteria that are established for all the critical decisions in the process.