Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to pick up on Ms. McLeod's comments. Everyone here agrees that the spirit of the bill is good and the remarks in the House reflected that. All the witnesses said the same thing. Dr. Sarabia said that the important thing was the balance between safety and research. I think that everyone can agree on that.
However, all the witnesses say that they are fundamentally afraid about the way in which the bill will affect their work. My colleagues on this side and I think so too, and so does Dr. Bennett. Dr. Descoteaux even talked about training. If years of work can be wiped out for want of trained staff, that is serious.
At this stage, we have no answers. I think that Dr. Bennett's suggestion is important. The government should go back and do its homework, consult, and propose amendments that would address the fears of our witnesses, the researchers and the people in the trenches. The government should come up with a preliminary regulatory framework so that these people know exactly what is intended.
What do our witnesses think of that way of going about it? If the government were to propose amendments designed to allay all your fears, including removing all the pathogens in group 2, would that be sufficient? If you had before you a regulatory framework that you could comment on before this committee delivers its verdict on the bill and returns it to the House, would that be a positive move on the government's part?