There are two things.
One is that we will be consulting on the consultation process for the development of regulations with provinces and territories, stakeholders and others to make sure we have the consultation process right and we have all the issues right in terms of what people have raised. That will be transparent, that will be open, and there will be many opportunities, bilateral, multilateral, a whole range of things, and people will see it. It's up to this committee, and ultimately the House, what will come back where, and we're quite comfortable with however you wish to handle it.
There is an irony to it all. This is now several iterations of trying to get a bill on this to pass. The previous one was much more specific, and what we heard in all the consultations from across the country, from our colleagues in research and others, was to make it less specific, because they don't want all level 3 pathogens in. They want some time to think about what should be in and what should be out, and with level 2 and how to manage that. Make it less specific and then deal with it in the regulations, which are more amendable if there are new pathogens or new issues, etc. We changed it in that way, but now the concern is that it's too general and too complex. It was done based on our colleagues in science and elsewhere saying not to make it so specific, but make sure they're consulted well on what's in, what's out, the regulatory regimes, and all of that kind of stuff, which is our intent and our plan. That's how we will proceed, depending, again obviously, on how the House pursues this legislation.