Dr. Carrie, it would certainly help to alleviate my concerns. I would say that if there were clarity in the amendments, that level 2 versus level 3 and 4 pathogens were different, that level 2 pathogens didn't need security screening, and that the criminal penalties for level 2 were less, it would give you a better bill than what you have now.
The question I'm asking is whether that would be the best bill. What I'm really proposing to the committee is a very simple solution.
This bill is perfect for levels 3 and 4, and it needs to be urgently passed. I really support it, because there's a big gap here internationally. You don't want to have no federal power in level 3 and level 4 labs; that's not a very good situation to be in.
So the solution I would propose is to pass the bill with respect to levels 3 and 4, but with respect to level 2 pathogens, refer the question of what is the best mechanism to promote biosecurity in level 2 labs to an independent group, such as the Council of Canadian Academies. They can compare criminal sanctions, provincial laws, institutional regulations, and other types of approaches.
They may come back and say legislation is best. They would do so within two years or 18 months, and then you could amend the legislation. It would be about the same time as you'd be passing regulations for level 2 pathogens anyway, but you'd have some more confidence in the right way to go for level 2 pathogens.
That's really my position. I hope that's helpful.