For us there's always a choice in terms of recommending what would go into legislation and what would go into the regulation, but as I was saying the last time I was before the committee, it's very complex, and members and witnesses are rightly saying you need to work with stakeholders and get it figured out. A lot of this is working over a long period of time to make sure the governance systems mesh, to make sure the program is designed in a way that makes sense and the regulatory system fits the issues we're dealing with. To try to get that right in legislation, where it's locked in, is very difficult, and the regulation moving it in there allows us to have the consultative process we need at the Public Health Agency of Canada to be able to set up the best program.
Beyond that, though, we are here today saying, for instance, we're not going to have security clearance for level 2. We're in front of the House committee to say this is our intent in moving forward with that, that the inventories will be more simple, that the licensing for the regime for level 2 will be a web-based system where you'll put in your request to the Public Health Agency and analysts will have a look at it and make sure you've got an inventory, and there's your licence. So we're really trying to make this difference between the really deadly level 3 and level 4 pathogens and what that's going to look like and very clearly articulating that on level 2 the focus is going to be on good biosafety, just so we know who's got what and that what they actually have in their lab is a level 2 and not a level 3 or a level 4. So we need to find that out, and that's why we're going to the level 2 side.
But on the regulatory side, we want to get it right. We want the dialogue with stakeholders, and the regulatory process allows us to do that much better than the legislative process does.