Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the minutes of the health committee meeting. I note that the parliamentary secretary, on the issue of conveyances other or beyond watercraft and aircraft, had somehow explained and he said:
When Bill C-42 was developed, a decision was taken to remove the requirement for advance notification by land conveyance operators, such as buses and trains, and to focus only on air and marine conveyances. This decision was based on an assessment that land conveyances posed a limited threat to Canada.
Even at the time when the issue was first raised, I believe it was raised in debate during second reading, the exemption for trains and buses and trucks, et cetera, seemed to be questionable decisions to have taken.
It goes so far as to say that maybe there was some method in the exemption and whether or not there was a trade off between economic considerations and public safety and health considerations certainly was an issue.
I raise it for the member that the parliamentary secretary himself simply sloughed it off as having a limited threat to Canada. It just does not seem to be a very substantive answer to a significant question. Has the member received from the witnesses some indication to a greater extent that the exemption in fact was an error rather than a decided situation to be put in the bill?