I believe last time we talked about how this creates a bifurcation, that what Mr. Perkins proposed would essentially create two potential pathways for individuals to pursue.
One would be through the OPC, which I think was originally contemplated to be the main interpreter of this law, and then this would create another track where someone essentially would be able to go through the court system. I hear the argument that, yes, some things could still end up in the court system. I get that, but I think that having the OPC and the tribunal set up seems to streamline the process so that less would be needed to be heard before the courts.
I guess what I'm trying to come back to is that I think there are some significant points that we heard on the concept of natural justice being so important to how this legislation was crafted. To me, I think that, as a core set of principles, that seems to be at the heart of the debate we're having with regard to both. It's coming up with regard to the subamendment but also with regard to the amendment.
I want to give Mr. Chhabra, perhaps, a little bit more time to just go into the details of.... Again, my understanding of natural justice is that it's supposed to maintain public confidence in the legal system and that it is a set of principles where you're supposed to be able to, to the greatest degree possible, remove bias and have a right to a fair hearing. However, there may be other pieces of it that he would like to highlight.
Could you maybe speak to that? It could be either one of you, so if you would like to contribute too, Ms. Angus, that would be helpful.
Thank you.