Environment Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We'll move over to a video conference and the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

Ms. McClenaghan, you have the floor.

[Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you very much.

I would echo the thanks for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I also very much appreciate the opportunity to appear by video conference.

We too, unfortunately, did not have an opportunity to prepare our remarks in advance. We will ensure that they are provided to the clerk so that a written copy will make its way to you in due course. Our remarks are prepared by me and by Richard Lindgren, a long-standing counsel with CELA. His contribution was especially valuable because he was one of the people directly involved in the creation of the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights a decade and a half ago.

Let me offer a word about CELA. CELA is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation with a mandate to use law to advance environmental protection and advocate for environmental law reform. We're also funded as a legal aid specialty clinic on the topic of the environment. We have a particular interest in the rights of the public to participate in environmental decision-making, to obtain information about activities and decisions that affect their environment, and to ensure that this participation is available to all Canadians, no matter what their income and no matter how removed they may be from direct contact with those who make the decisions.

In our view, then, not only are the provisions of Bill C-469 important for environmental protection, but they also deal with matters of fundamental justice and equity in the provisions to better involve Canadians in the environmental decisions that affect them and provide statutory remedies.

I would note in passing that it's CELA's 40th anniversary this year. I've had occasion to be reviewing our archives and noted just the other week that 40 years ago CELA was calling, along with others in Canada, for an environmental bill of rights. Calls for an environmental bill of rights have surfaced in Parliament at least every decade since. We would submit that now it is time to proceed and that, furthermore, we now have the benefit of much experience with other EBR systems, such as that of Ontario, to help design a very good Canadian federal environmental bill of rights system.

I would echo the comments made earlier that we should have access to these kinds of rights regardless of where in Canada we happen to live.

Here are a couple of general comments. We strongly support Bill C-469 and we urge all parties to ensure its timely passage and implementation. We would still advocate that substantive environmental rights should be incorporated into the charter, but we support Bill C-469 because unless and until such amendments are made, it places long-overdue environmental rights and substantive procedural protection on a statutory basis. Even if we eventually were to obtain such charter amendments, in our view Bill C-469 would become an important adjunct to those constitutional rights.

As I mentioned, CELA has been advocating a bill of rights for the past 40 years, but in the early 1990s we were very involved in the drafting of Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights. We've made extensive use of the legal tools under Ontario's law since then, and we think there are lessons learned from the Ontario law that will help with assessment of the federal proposed bill.

I have some specific comments. I'll just touch on them, and then perhaps there will be an opportunity for elaboration later, during questions and answers.

The first comment is that we support the current version of the proposed bill, but we think there are also opportunities to improve and strengthen the bill, should the committee see fit—in particular, having regard to Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights experience to date.

First of all, clause 3, the interpretive section of the bill, says that the bill should be interpreted in accordance with various principles, such as the precautionary principle and so forth. We would say that these should not merely be interpretive aids, but should also be included in clause 6, which is the purpose of the legislation, and therefore should form part of the federal government's affirmative duties under the legislation. They should not just be interpretive aids, but also purpose statements.

We also note that in clause 10 there's a right to access environmental information. As others have noted, there are some other statutes that provide those types of access, although it's patchwork in terms of both rights and practice. We think this is an important addition here, but we also think it should be clarified that these rights would be additional to other existing broad federal access-to-information provisions, not replacements for them.

Furthermore, to echo the comments made by Mr. Kneen and others, the provisions under this bill would have to provide for a very timely access, because if the purpose in part is to allow the public to comment on decisions that affect them, then they need this information in a very timely way. We had some litigation in Ontario around that very point, with the commissioner for information provision here in Ontario saying that it's inappropriate to hold up public access to environmental decisions under the FOI statute when there's a consultation happening under the EBR.

We also support the standing provisions in clause 11. We would make a technical note that this should be broadened because it's generally the courts who make standing decisions. So we should specify that the federal government would not deny, oppose, or otherwise contest the standing of residents interested in environmental protection.

We also like the positive duty created in clause 12 to ensure meaningful public participation. We would strongly submit that this has been in practice one of the most important aspects of Ontario's EBR, and we strongly encourage similar provisions at the federal level. It's a major discrepancy right now that citizens in this province in particular--Ontario--can access postings of decisions, policies, and laws and make comments on them before the decisions are made when it's much less certain whether they have that opportunity federally.

We think it might be useful to include specific sections as to how the participation would be undertaken; for instance, by way of maintenance of electronic registries, mandatory public notice, and minimum comment periods, either in the statute itself or in regulations that should be provided. Let me say that the provision of a registry in Ontario has been a very important piece of the success of the EBR in Ontario, in that although the various provisions may well be subject to other notice opportunities, at least there's one place that Ontario residents can access to see a variety of instrument proposals or a variety of ministries' policy proposals and see which ones they're interested in commenting on.

In terms of the right to seek a review in clause 13, we note that it should be broader, to be consistent with the purposes section of the act. It is somewhat narrower than the purposes section of the act.

We also very much support the public right to request investigations, but we would note that one of the experiences in Ontario is that the official may confirm that an offence has been committed and then isn't actually obligated to undertake any action to address it. This is something that should be done in the federal bill, and we also think it should be done in the Ontario bill, for that matter: that there would be a positive duty to institute appropriate legal action in the case of a finding that an offence has actually been committed.

Similarly, we are very pleased to see the proposal in clause 16 establishing a public right to seek judicial review. We think it would be an extremely important mechanism, particularly in light of the remedy specified in the clause. But we would echo the point others have made, which is that judicial review is only used by our clients, environmental groups, and citizens' or ratepayer groups as a last resort. Normally, people pursue all the non-litigious methods they can, and only when they are not achieving any success and it remains an important matter do they proceed to judicial review action.

We also think that the limited undertaking as to damages and special cost rules are quite important. The fiscal barriers are otherwise very important. As I noted, we see this statute as an important access-to-justice statute that would take away access differences, such as how much money you have to spend on litigation.

The civil right in clause 23 would be an important additional right. We, too, do not anticipate that clause 23 would result in a floodgate of frivolous or vexatious civil actions, because of the cost, complexity, and uncertainty associated with environmental litigation.

Finally, we also support the proposed amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights. As we said, we would like to see substantive environmental rights included in the charter, but in the meantime, given the difficulty and complexity of achieving a charter amendment, the Canadian Bill of Rights amendment should be undertaken as an interim measure and should remain in place.

Finally, we would echo that we strongly support enactment of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. We think it would help ensure access to environmental justice in Canada. We would submit that the committee should recommend its passage in an expeditious manner, either in its present form or in accordance with the recommendations for change that we and others have made.

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and we look forward to further discussion this afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. Thank you for staying on time as well.

Last but not least, we have Mr. O'Connor, with the Maritime Law Association.

You have the floor.

Sorry, we can't hear you, Mr. O'Connor.

[John O'Connor, Chair, Committee on Pollution and the Marine Environment, Canadian Maritime Law Association]

Maintenant?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, you're on.

[John O'Connor]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am speaking to you from Quebec City. I was not able to be with you in Ottawa today.

I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to participate in this session by teleconference.

My name is John O'Connor, and I am the chair of the environmental committee of the Canadian Maritime Law Association.

Unlike some of our colleagues here, the Canadian Maritime Law Association has been around for many years, long before the federal Department of the Environment was commenced. In the marine field, as a matter of fact, one of the more important years was 1967. That was the year of the huge pollution, the very large oil pollution, in Europe that led to an international convention that is enforced today in Canada. This very important convention, which we call the civil liability convention, is enforced in this country. Canada is a member to this convention.

That was in 1967, and we, the Canadian Maritime Law Association, commenced our environmental committee immediately after that accident. We participated with the Government of Canada in the adoption of that convention, or at least in having input into the adoption of that convention, in 1969.

Canada did not join the convention, by the way, until 1989, but we did eventually become a member.

In the meantime, in 1973, Canada put together what was then part XX of the Canada Shipping Act, which was the very first piece of federal legislation in the marine field that had anything to do with civil liability and oil pollution.

Our committee has been around for a long time. I personally have chaired it for many years, and we have spoken to many bills. I must say that today is a fun experience for me. I'm always somehow in the group of the industry people who are usually speaking negatively about bills. Today, to hear all these committees speak positively about it, it's heartening. We too support much of the bill.

Our view is that many of the frustrations and problems that other areas of the environment have encountered are less present than in the marine field. In the marine field, when there is an unfortunate accident, or pollution, it's often very high-profile. The government does not sit back and do nothing. On the contrary, our experience is that not only is the Department of Transport very active but also even the Department of the Environment itself has taken a great interest in marine activities over the years.

Just as reference, you may think of Bill C-15 in 2005 and Bill C-16 in 2009. I was flattered to be asked to speak to those bills in both the House and the Senate, by the way.

I think what I would like to do, in the time I have, is simply underline that our association is in favour of anything that will assist in reducing pollution or improving the environment. The bill, then, certainly is not something we're against. However, there are three points I'd like to raise, because I think there are three flaws in the bill and I just want to bring them to your attention. Perhaps this committee will be able to address some of these problems.

First, you have to understand how the bill is divided. Clause 16 creates the environmental protection action. Clause 19 talks about remedies. Clause 22 talks about a true judicial review under the Federal Courts Act in section 18.1. Finally, clause 23 creates a new civil action.

It's a bit complex, the way they've done it, but I've heard people today talking about “patchwork” application. To my mind, patchwork application means that in different parts of the country there are--or there are not--different pieces of legislation available for use in environmental matters. But patchwork doesn't just mean horizontal. It can also be vertical. The problem we have in Canada is that with all the good faith we have in trying to settle these problems, we have built overlapping levels of legislation. This is a problem that the CMLA has spoken to before.

In other words, we adopted these international conventions, which are very strict and very clear. We tried to create clear and obvious remedies for when environmental problems involve vessels. Then we'd go and adopt Bill C-15 and Bill C-16, which give almost overlapping remedies without any clarity as to whether the convention should overrule or be overridden by the legislation.

I'm sure you know that Parliament is sovereign enough that if it enacts a piece of legislation, the fact that it may have adopted an international convention does not mean that the convention overrules. It's the contrary: Parliament is so sovereign that it can decide not to respect its international obligations, if it wishes.

Our view is that we should have some clarity on how the conventions and the legislation fit together. To do so, we have addressed three points.

The first is in clause 19 of the bill. Where we're talking about the remedies under clause 16, there seems to be something that I personally do not understand. Subclause 19(2) says, “If the Federal Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment”, it may “(a) suspend or cancel a permit or authorization” of the defendant.

Yet clause 16 clearly states there's only one defendant; ìt's called “the Government of Canada”. The Government of Canada does not hold permits, so I'm wondering how subclause 19(2) fits into the scheme. I think it may be a bit of an oversight, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

My second point has to do with clause 23. Clause 23 creates a civil action. The Canadian Maritime Law Association feels that the civil action that is created in the marine field is not necessary, for the simple reason that we already have civil actions under our CLC, the civil liability convention. Then they added civil actions under the environmental legislation that was amended under Bill C-16 and Bill C-15, notably the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, both of which allow a civil action that seems to overlap the CLC action, which is enacted under the Marine Liability Act. Now we're adding a new civil action.

We do not speak out for any environmental section except marine: we don't believe it's necessary to have a new additional civil action in clause 23 for the marine world. But again, we're not speaking about other sectors of the environment.

We noted that subclause 23(3) clearly states that it “is not a defence to a civil action” that the activity was authorized by an act of Parliament or a regulation. This is in contradiction to the Ontario legislation and frankly seems a bit surprising. If there is federal legislation on the table saying you are supposed to or you are enabled to do something, and it somehow comes into a pollution question, at least in the marine field, it's difficult to understand how this would work. You would say that you're going to have someone taking a civil action and that you cannot set up a defence that it's permitted by legislation.

You will also notice that paragraph 23(3)(b) goes on to say “there is no reasonable or prudent alternative”. Unlike other sectors, you can think of certain pollution in the marine field that is unfortunately absolutely necessary. For example, a vessel is unable to have a propeller that's turning unless there is some lubrication of the propeller shaft.

It's provided for in federal legislation that this small amount of pollution is legal. It has to be. Otherwise, the ship would not be able to function Therefore, it's baffling as to how this would work. You would have someone saying you're polluting because of your propeller shaft. We would be saying that it's provided for under the legislation and under the international conventions and someone would say that's not a defence.

With regard to clause 23, we would suggest that it be limited to fields other than the marine field. At the very least, it would seem that subclause 23(3) goes one step too far.

I would like to conclude by talking about international conventions. We've heard people speaking about international conventions this afternoon, and in our submission to Parliament we have added a suggested clause, which is on page 3 of our submission. It's in English and in French. Simply, why not add a clause to this act stating that it is intended to complement our international convention obligations and rights, not to over-ride them? That way we would at least know that Parliament intends to have the international conventions it has adhered have priority over this act.

As a final point, I would like to say--and this is my own error, as I put this together in great speed and haste to try to get it to the committee in time--that on page 2, I refer to sections 54, 55, and 57 of the Marine Liability Act because I was looking at my own handwritten copy. But in fact that was changed with Bill C-7 in 2009 and should read sections 48 and 78. I apologize for that error; it is entirely my own.

The other thoughts I've expressed are those of my committee.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.

We're going our rounds for members to ask questions of witnesses.

I will ask all the witnesses, because there are five of you, to keep your responses short and concise. We have a limited amount of time for each member to ask questions.

We're going to kick it off for seven minutes with Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the participants.

I'd like to address some of the broader questions that are coming into play here. It's a very broad act. It purports to be about rights for individuals, but to access it, there needs to be an entity like Ecojustice and so on in place, I would imagine. This is not something that.... The average person would need assistance with in terms of accessing the remedies under this act--perhaps.

Here's what I would like an opinion about. Does an act that is this broad, with these remedies that I guess are filling gaps--or at least overcoming gaps, as I've heard them described--help simplify the regime we have? In terms of trying to make this work, how much difficulty will we be in?

We heard a little bit from the marine folks on this front, but you've had an occasion to think about this. I know that this has been in discussion for many years, and I know there have been earlier efforts or at least discussions about it, so I'm wondering if you could address that notion that we're going broad with this act and what that will do to the existing regime of protections that we have in place. That's an open question. I'm just hoping that somebody can give us some of the considered thinking that's gone on behind this.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

I might start with the first part of your question, which is whether you need specialized help to access the provisions in the bill.

That is definitely not the case in Ontario. On the contrary, as I mentioned, this is a great leveller. Yes, we can run workshops, but even without workshops people can very easily get on the registry and start to watch the notices for their community, start to watch the proposed pieces of legislation and regulations in a ministry they're interested in, and start to make submissions.

It turns out that those submissions, whether you're talking about something significant like a whole new statute, or something really specific like an instrument for a facility in a community, are very much influenced by the things the members of the public say. By and large, the tens of thousands of submissions that have been made under the Ontario system have come from individual citizens. Only a fraction of those have been assisted by CELA, Ecojustice, and other environmental groups. It's been an extremely important statute for Ontario. It would almost be unthinkable now to imagine that these decisions could proceed without this kind of access.

Without using up too much time, I will say that in terms of the broader civil remedies, the Ontario remedy is vastly underused, because it has very onerous thresholds about whether anyone could prove harm to a public resource, which is one of the tests. It's pleaded now and then, but has not made its way into any decisions.

Our advice would be that you don't make it so onerous that it's worthless to people. It needs to be something that has a real chance of affecting outcomes.

[Prof. William Amos]

Could I answer that? Because that's a good question.

At the end of the day, it's intended to be a principled document and it's meant to be a broad statement of values. But at the same time, it gets into a bunch of nuts and bolts, and it would appear to open the door for recourse to judicial proceedings where a lawyer's assistance might be necessary.

Ecojustice would echo the comments of Ms. McClenaghan. Ecojustice isn't going to be representing any more people because of this. Our resources are limited; that's just the reality. But what we might be able to do is assist citizens who are concerned and help them understand what their rights are and how they can participate in the process more effectively.

Theresa's comments are well taken that in Ontario there's a registry and citizens can follow a process from the beginning to the end. Following a process and understanding where decisions are coming from, and why, and seeing a basis of documentation, is absolutely critical. I'd say that at the end of the day this opens more doors for the average citizen in terms of access to justice. I note that in paragraph 21(2)(a), they talk about “counsel fees” being made available for litigants whether or not they have representation, so I think there are specific references to situations where that might not be the case. I think the goal here is to move this away from the domain of the lawyers and move it into the hands of citizens.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I wondered if maybe the question wasn't really phrased easily enough to get at this, but the idea is that this is a fairly broad and encompassing effort. By definition, it touches on principles, and those principles are then meant to be relied on, I suppose at various stages of different hearings and so on. I don't know what the overarching value is in the sense that it's not actually in the constitution and so on and what reliance there could be in conjunction with other acts.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not asking for a legal opinion. I'm just trying to understand its place. What will this bring that's new and different? Is it totally supplementary? Will it displace some of the things in place today? I'm trying to get that sense or a lay perspective of what the existence of an environmental bill of rights would do for citizens out there and how they can understand it, as against the protections we currently have.

I've heard a lot about the gaps, and I understand them, but I just want to know how it addresses those gaps. Does it make this somewhat more complex? Do you rely on one thing and then you might try another...? Or does this simplify things? Does this clarify what citizens can have by way of what they know is there and legally protecting their right to their environmental health and well-being?

[Prof. William Amos]

My answer to the question would be that this is going to allow Canadians to put on a pair of glasses through which they can see how myriad federal statutes are going to be applied, because there's going to be an assumption that this is the baseline. The baseline is that public participation is guaranteed, that information is going to be provided, and that the public is going to have access to the processes involved in implementing various federal statutes.

So to the extent that there are gaps in federal statutes not allowing participation or not providing information, or where registries aren't available, this bill of rights is going to serve as a lifting up. It's going to serve as a baseline, if you will.

The interpretation, at least from our Ecojustice perspective, is that the ideal would be for this law to allow--and I believe it's drafted in such a manner that it would allow--federal laws to be interpreted with a view to its provisions. So the application of the Fisheries Act or of the Species at Risk Act would be impacted, and the ministerial discretion that is available pursuant to those acts would be impacted by the provisions of the Environmental Bill of Rights. That is, if there is going to be significant harm to the environment pursuant to a discretionary decision, then there is going to be an opportunity for citizens to try to force the government to take a second look at the situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The time has expired for Mr. Kennedy.

You have the floor, Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses who are here with us and those who are elsewhere, in Quebec City or anywhere else.

The more witnesses we hear from and the more we read about the topic, the more we realize that creating environmental legislation is no small task, to say the least.

Like my colleague Mr. Kennedy, I am trying to find my way in all this and to work out an approach. It seems to me that we can choose two routes, the first being to work from current legislation. Since I got here in 1997, we have been called on to work on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Is it not better to strengthen current legislation and make the state and its citizens subject to clear obligations in environmental protection, rather than to create new legislation for every member of the public? Is it not better to work from the legislation we have at present and make sure that those laws are strengthened and enforced, instead of creating new legislation?

In the situation at hand, we have no case law at our disposal. But there is environmental case law stemming from the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I should make it clear that I am not dismissing the principle of environmental law. It exists in Quebec and in Ontario too. But do you not think that we should further strengthen the laws we already have rather than make new ones for everyone?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

As you noted, this is related to the earlier question as well. The way we see this bill, as in the Ontario case, is that it's an overlay. It provides some commonality across the way departments and ministries make their decisions. It provides some principle to those decisions. It doesn't take away from the fact they have specific jobs to do under those specific statutes.

In the Ontario case, what happens is that the particular ministries are required to prepare something called a statement of environmental values, which they do as they see fit for the kind of mandate they're dealing with, whether they're the ministries of environment or natural resources, and so forth. Then they have to carry out their decisions in accordance with those values.

In this case with the federal bill, the principles are being set out in the statute, these interpretive provisions and the purposes, and the departments would have to make sure they operationalize or decide how their job—which isn't changing—under the Fisheries Act or under CEPA still has to be done, but in a way now that's consistent with this bill.

So it exactly gets at your point, which is a valid one, that we do need to reinforce and enhance the existing statutes. This is a very useful way to do it and a very common way internationally of doing it: by way of an environmental bill of rights.

[William Amos]

I think that it is absolutely necessary to amend a whole range of environmental protection legislation at federal level. But I do not think it is realistic to have to wait for all that to happen.

In the review process for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we had to wait from 2000 right up to 2003 before the changes were included in Bill C-9. The process leading to the creation of the Species at Risk Act took from 1995 to 2003. In my opinion, the same thing is happening with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Canadians see nothing efficient in waiting for each act to be reviewed, nor does that interest them. As Ms. McClenaghan has just mentioned, if it is possible to amend several acts at the same time and to make sure that they are enforced, it will greatly help us, all across Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. O'Connor, you were trying to respond as well?

[John O'Connor]

I share the point of view that seems to be at the crux of the matter. At federal level, unlike in Ontario and the other provinces, I find the focus to be on a relatively limited number of sectors of the environment. I feel that putting various laws on top of each other, layer after layer, creates confusion, whether it is Bill C-15, Bill C-16, or this current Bill C-469. In my field, we are left confused. We wonder what is a priority for enforcement and what is not.

I understand that my colleagues are interested in seeing, or even are anxious to see, the bill before us become law. Perhaps they are afraid of losing one, two or three years if the choice is for consolidation. But I think it would be a good idea. No provisions would disappear; they would be included in a clear act in which the priorities would be laid out. That is one of the major problems we face in the maritime law sector.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have a little time left.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

My last question goes to Friends of the Earth Canada and Ecojustice Canada.

You have launched a number of lawsuits against the federal government in recent years. I still remember the one on September 20, 2007 about the climate change act. That case went before the Federal Court.

Could you tell me what you think that passing this bill would have changed in a lawsuit such as the one you filed on September 20, 2007?

[Beatrice Olivastri]

You're referring to the case that was the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act--

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes.

[Beatrice Olivastri]

--the domestic act that brought the requirements for Canada at a domestic level. That case was not permitted to proceed at the Supreme Court. At the point that it was at the Supreme Court, I think our expectation was that it actually was a broader question about the rule of law, the democratic process, and what the role of Parliament was in agreeing to this act that then was not acted upon.

So as for what would be different, Will may have something in addition to this, but in my estimation it would be that, as I commented earlier, I would hope that this environmental bill of rights would require all such acts to have—and someone's going to help me with the terminology—judiciability. That would be a requirement: that these kinds of decisions made by Parliament must be acted upon. I think that's a clear message that's required. I would have been very pleased, in fact, to have had that work done under the mantel of something like the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time is up.

Ms. Duncan, it is your turn for seven minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

First, I'd like to thank all five witnesses for taking the time to come and testify. It was very constructive input for my part, being the one who tabled the bill, and I found the effort you took to propose amendments very helpful. I'm the first to admit that there are some things that can be corrected—for example, correcting the headers under some of the sections. I really appreciate the hard work that all the witnesses have done in looking at the bill.

I also wanted to thank all the witnesses for their hard work in the past for providing effective ways for the public to participate constructively in decision-making. Of course, that's what the bill is all about.

I had one quick question to Ms. McClenaghan. Thank you for sharing the information about the Ontario situation. Obviously that's a beginning model for this bill, as well as a few models from other jurisdictions like the Northwest Territories and Quebec.

I appreciated your input on the registry. I'm wondering whether you think the bill would be improved by an actual amendment to require the creation of the registry. We heard last week about the value of the registry and how that in fact has turned around and opened up the door to the public actually participating in environmental decision-making. Do you want to elaborate on that at all, about your experience with the registry?