Thank you, Mr. Valeriote. Excellent questions.
Yes, in the previous consultation we did on user fees, the issue of public good versus private benefit was hotly debated by our stakeholders. I think most recognize that there is an element of public good. I'm getting a little bit off the topic here because now I'm getting into the user fees rather than the amendments, but they are supposed to marry up here, so I think that is relevant.
There will be a component of public good in our funding. We anticipate it will be around current levels of just over $5 million a year. We're waiting to hear what our stakeholders say this go-around with our change in services.
But you're right, there's an element of grain safety. There is an element of what we do that is recognized as being for the benefit of all Canadians. However, the larger portion of what we do benefits industry players; it benefits the companies. We do a lot of work for the companies. It benefits producers. We do a significant amount of work for producers, and under the User Fees Act, where we do that kind of work, the cost should go to the benefactor, which is an individual or a company player in the industry.
Up to this point, increasingly the taxpayers of Canada have had to subsidize those services because our fees were frozen in the mid-nineties at 1991 levels. We all know what has happened to a cup of coffee over the last 20 or so years; it costs a lot more, and of course our services cost more. The taxpayer was having to subsidize us almost to the tune of 50% on an annual basis, even though the majority of what we did was for private benefit, not public benefit.
So I think we need to rebalance, and that's a debate, and we're looking forward to seeing how that transpires through this consultation process.