I'm sorry.
If it were left in the act, I would be concerned that it would then need to be acted upon, with the potential downside of the unintended consequences of weakening the public health system and draining away resources to no benefit.
As to whether you might need such a tool, I understood from reading the transcripts of your last meeting around this that the potential exists for a regulatory change immediately if one should discover an epidemiological situation in which a disease, whose characteristics I can't imagine at the moment, did make it necessary or desirable that we stop someone or have advance notice of their carrying the disease from a particular place in the United States to a particular destination in Canada. We could implement a way to block them or stop them at the border if such powers didn't exist in the existing public health, though I think they might.
For example, suppose somebody exposed a theatre full of people in Bellingham to smallpox, and we knew about it. If we knew about it in time, American authorities might be able to put a cordon sanitaire around Bellingham, or we might decide that we would stop land transport coming across the border at that time. In the absence of a defined epidemiological event like that, I don't think we need to have the tool in the tool box. I think we have enough tools, or could put additional tools in if we found a situation that merited them.