Yes. Well, I know that certainly the departments and agencies are interpreting it that way, but notwithstanding that, even if you take that legal interpretation, the Treasury Board issued some very clear guidelines that there should be performance standards, that there should be.... I forget the exact wording—I don't have it with me—but the President of the Treasury Board was fairly clear that the spirit and intent of Bill C-212 would have been applied to all of them.
I must say that if you look at the reporting annually, it's been a pretty sad commentary. I've looked through some of the reports. In terms of benchmarking or whether performance standards have been met, I saw that one department wrote in, “Well, we haven't had any complaints”, and this sort of thing. I mean, it's really an affront to Parliament that people would actually do things like that.
As I say, I accept the fact that it can be evolutionary, but the evolutionary pace is so slow that it's really an affront to Parliament.
I would like to come back to the question of the passport or the consular fees. I haven't studied this as carefully as I might have. Was this an increase in a fee or a new fee? And if so, did the department table it in Parliament, as is clearly required under Bill C-212?