The Public Health Agency is receptive to clarifications or assurances that we will treat risk group 2 differently from risk groups 3 and 4. We certainly agree that there has to be a degree of flexibility for risk group 3 so that in the regulations and through consultations we can distinguish those of high lethality and impact versus TB or HIV or others in risk group 3 that could essentially be handled differently.
We do want to take a measured approach to risk group 3. It is meant to be risk based.
I just want to reiterate that the legislation is a made-in-Canada solution built upon our existing laboratory safety guidelines, and those distinguish very clearly the differences between risk group 2 and groups 3 and 4.
Then I think the laboratories were concerned about the security aspects and the added burden as a result of that. We did include wording in the current legislation that indicates a security clearance for select pathogens and toxins. It gives consideration to flexibility on risk group 3. Again, the agency is receptive to proposals in terms of more specificity or clarification around that point.
The bill actually does indicate that those who don't have a security clearance can be supervised by those who have. That is currently included in the wording of the bill.
I think the cost, especially in these current economic times, is a concern. Through the regulation and program development process we envisage a reasonable timeline. While we cannot predict what the economic climate will be in five years' time, we would want to approach the implementation in such a way that we can actually take into account the circumstances and the context in which laboratories are working so that they will have time to adjust to certain requirements.