Public Safety committee  I'll just say that I think the current penalty is prescribed in regulations. It hasn't been updated in a long time. As you've said, it's important to get the incentives right, given the seriousness of the offence.

Public Safety committee  No. In the amendment to the act it's at $500,000. The current one is much lower. I'm not sure....

Public Safety committee  We'll have to get back to you on that.

Public Safety committee  That's right.

Public Safety committee  I'm not able to do that. We may be able to find the fine for you; we're just going through the regs. Again, Transport Canada would have to give you a bit more of the history on how many times that fine has been used.

Public Safety committee  Yes, I believe that's correct.

Public Safety committee  Absolutely, and I think it would depend on the situation and on how that jurisdiction was managed in terms of law enforcement. I would like to clarify, though, that obviously if someone is dangerous and is showing up in an airport, law enforcement and intelligence agencies ofte

Public Safety committee  It is not really location-based; it's more the size of the planes. Planes with fewer than 20 passengers are exempt from the passenger protect program. Every other plane and every other carrier need to screen their manifest for the specified persons list under the passenger protec

Public Safety committee  To echo your comment, we just got this five minutes ago—Public Safety, on the policy lead with Justice—and hadn't a lot of time to look at it. A gut reaction is that this already happens. Transport Canada already works hand in glove with CATSA . Adding a legislative amendment l

Public Safety committee  My initial reaction would be, yes, it would complicate things. By bringing in the concept of imminent, it would create issues on how you meet that definition and how that would be prescribed. It's much easier to keep things open-ended in case the minister needs to take other kind

Public Safety committee  No, sir. Could you repeat that?

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  No, the threshold for the passenger protect program has been the same since its inception. I think it was in 2007-2008 that it was originally created with the Department of Transport. It's always been reasonable grounds to suspect.

Public Safety committee  To terrorist travel.

Public Safety committee  My response would be that the consequence of switching from “relevant” to “necessary” as the amendment proposes would put the many departments and agencies in government in an awkward position. They would be forced to become the national security experts to understand what is nec