No, I don't think it does. If we are actually collecting the totality of the funds that are appropriate, then no, it shouldn't.
To the earlier question a few moments ago, CATSA, in the corporate plan submission—I'm not sure of the exact name of it—that it made to the government in July outlined that it's going to be facing further funding crunches, if the means by which it receives its funds are not consistent with how many passengers they're getting.
The biggest issue over the past several years—and in an equal effort, Madam Chair, to annoy both sides of the House, this was under Conservative governments and under Liberal governments—is that for many years this funding has not reached the level it should. You've had a multi-year experience of passenger counts across the country increasing. WestJet has been exponentially increasing its capacity in the market, Air Canada has, Porter Airlines has, Air Canada carriers have through Air Canada's capacity purchase agreements. A heck of a lot more people are flying today than was the case even 10 years ago. What hasn't kept pace with that is the CATSA funds actually flowing on a one-to-one basis. You pay it; it goes into security.
For your smaller airports, then, what you face is to some degree the reality of the policy for the past five to six years whereby CATSA has been starved of the totality of its funds. If you change that system, then perhaps you have to look at some top-ups.
It has happened on a per-budget basis that you look at some top-ups for smaller airports. Again I go back to the United States, which has a very different model, but the United States' federal government does provide direct financial support in a quantum exponentially beyond anything we do in Canada for small regional airports. It's probably something we should take a look at from the standpoint of the economic development that this then unleashes.
Thank you for your earlier comments. We're going to put that on Youtube as an ad.