So certainly I think we'd like to have a commitment to be able to work together on this.
On the second point, I think my colleagues can speak to the removal. Clarity on what would actually be the framework for level 2 would be very significant. That's where quite a bit of the concerns are about the impact it's going to have on operations.
In terms of what's left, from our perspective, the other remaining area of concern is for levels 3 and 4. It's really level 3 that's of concern to everyone else because the only level 4 is the government lab in Winnipeg. We still have this conflation of biosafety and biosecurity, and measures for biosafety, which are obviously very significant and very important, are attached to a bill that criminalizes lack of compliance.
If someone working in the labs is not compliant with the legislation in a strictly biosafety framework, you try to work to improve people's quality and so on, but this legislation hits them over the head with the threat of criminal sanctions, including jail sentences. It's the criminalization of a set of activities that really supports laboratory practice, whether it's in clinical practice or in research.
The final piece is around the minister's authority to collect and share information. Again, within the bill as drafted, it allows the minister to define, in the minister's own opinion, whether the request is within the purposes of the act. There's no reasonable test applied. Then it allows for the sharing of that information with other parties, potentially including foreign governments, without the consent of the individual from whom that information is drawn.