As we point out in the report, there are two kinds of fees. One is based on the costs. For example, the consular fees, which we mentioned, shouldn't exceed the costs of providing those services. There are other fees, though, that are based on the value of the good or the opportunity that is being provided through, for example, a licence.
In the report, we mention licences that are provided to fishermen where the fee that is being charged takes into account the value of the catch. You're providing someone with an economic right, if you will. Those fees should be based not on the costs necessarily of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to manage this process but on the value of the right you're giving to this individual or corporation.
What we're saying in the report is that for many of these fees, government doesn't know--hasn't updated or doesn't know--either the actual costs when it is a cost-based fee or the value of the right that is being conferred. For example, if we talk about catches, the values of catches have significantly changed from when the fee was originally established. That needs to be updated to see if it is still reasonable. In fact, the values of some catches may have gone down whereas others have gone up.
So there are the two kinds of fees. We've looked to try to see how the departments are establishing their costs and whether they have good management systems in place. Most of them in this audit did not. They didn't take into account the full cost of the services they were providing. It doesn't mean they necessarily have to charge the full costs of the services, but they should at least know. It should be an element that they consider.