Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to continue where I was a moment ago.
Given that 216 of 220 fees that have been looked at have not been increased since 2004 when the act came into effect, I'd be curious to know whether there is an opinion—and I don't need it today—from the Auditor General as to the reason. Is it because the act is too cumbersome, too complex? Or is it because there was initially—and I recall this was a private member's bill, not a government-generated bill—still a built-in resistance to having Parliament issue directives through legislation, which is its mandate, its authority.
I join my colleague Mr. Cullen, who was talking a bit of an affront to Parliament here. I would like an opinion, if there's one to be had, from the Auditor General on that, because it's been four years, going on five. That's on the increase side.
Then, I must admit I'm very surprised that it's you, Mr. Monette, who is here today for Treasury Board. I must admit that I had a different conception of the role of the Comptroller General of Canada from one of your sitting here organizing or setting policy—or at least, if not policy, then methods and best measures and so forth—for fee collection. I've always thought or conceived of the comptroller general function as one that oversees spending and that comes into play where any new spending has to be authorized, as opposed to only involving collection on the fee side. I want to put that on the record. I may have a misconception of the role of the Comptroller General's Office.
I'm sorry, though, that there isn't someone here from the Treasury Board Secretariat, which I don't think you represent—and if it's the case that you do, then really I think we have to explore the conception and the role and the reporting mechanisms and so forth—who can talk about the fact that over four years nothing has been done.
All of what you've said, Monsieur Monette---