It sounds like you have a lot to tell us. Perhaps I'll canvass my fellow colleagues and maybe we'll be able to get you back before the committee to elaborate even further.
I think the committee could have a role in this study. I put it out there. I think the minister could have asked this committee to do the study, as opposed to the outside panel. I think we had something to contribute there. I think we should be doing some follow-up on this.
I did talk about studies from this committee. We're doing a counterfeit study, and one of the things that surprised me when we looked over the estimates here is the national counterfeit enforcement strategy from the government, and this is in the public safety blue book, page 41. We're hearing testimony saying this is a big issue, and yet when you look at 2007-08, it goes from $0.2 million to next year down to $0.1 million. We've just heard how everybody thinks they have enough money. Yet we're hearing the problems here at the committee. We're doing a report on counterfeiting, and you've cut the enforcement budget. I just will note that right now. I'd like to know what's being cut on that. You can send it to the committee.
My final question is to Mr. Judd. I know Transport Canada and you are involved in the passenger protect program, which is the no-fly list in Canada that's being developed. The last time we heard about this in this committee we were told that there was no in-person appeal if your name gets onto this no-fly list and you don't really know why you're on the list. We've had some Supreme Court of Canada terrorism cases since that time. I think it was pointed out by one of my colleagues in his questioning in the last meeting we had on this passenger protect list that we might want to do a rethink on what we do on a technical appeal situation. Could you give me an update, Mr. Judd, on where you are with this? I understand it's coming up soon.