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?