Well, we're talking about consensus, not unanimity, madame.
I think there is a concern that what we had once thought we needed as a tool.... Why wouldn't you just leave it in the tool box, even if you never used it, as opposed to getting rid of a tool you might need?
I see the argument that when you're coming by land, you can hop off before you get to the border. But could there not be a situation where the person has hopped off before they get to the border, but the rest of the land conveyance is all now exposed?
I guess I'm still not understanding how international health regulations are not, as I had thought, a minimum standard rather than a maximum standard. Even though the international regulations don't make us do it, what has changed between the original bill and now, that we all of a sudden have decided we don't need any more?
I understand Dr. Kendall's concerns about resources: that if this is there, it shouldn't just be a piece of paper but should actually be the capacity to do it. But is there some way, as the parliamentary secretary asked, whether through a communications strategy or infrastructure, whereby you can...? Is there a compromise or something that would allay the fears of this committee that at some point there'll be a situation where we'll wish that we, in terms of our due diligence, had left the tool in the tool box?