I would just like to put on the public record that some of the material that came from the agency in trying to get us to pass these amendments suggested that they were technical, but I think the questions from both sides of the table have illuminated us to understand that these are not technical, except for the technical difficulty the staff is having in developing regulations. This is a major policy change from the intent of Bill C-12. Now, maybe Bill C-12 was unimplementable, but none of these same officials told us that at the time. So I'm not going to take the blame as a parliamentarian for the fact that we enthusiastically supported it.
Mrs. Davidson asked whether we ever had land rules. We had the expectation that the land rules and quarantine officials were going to be available at land border crossing points, not just at the airports and ports, as they had been in the past.
And if Mr. Batters wants to know why Canada went further, first of all, in time we were first, but I believe that our SARS experience informed the high standards we were trying to set. Very few of the other countries making these international health regulations had had a SARS epidemic as we did. So we were trying to set the bar rather high. I'm not naive enough to think that this Quarantine Act is going to save us from anything that will ever enter our country again, but we were trying to suggest ways that we could protect ourselves better than we had on an act that was 70 years old, and perhaps better than some other countries.
The problem with international health regulations is that when countries get together, in the same way as when provinces get together to agree, sometimes the standards have to go down to what the various members can afford. So sometimes you do get the lowest common denominator, which is why, while I respect the fact that there are international health regulations, I don't think our fate should be completely determined by them.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.