Government Operations committee  I heard of these allegations, I sat down with my staff, and I'm satisfied that no such attempts were made. That's the answer.

Government Operations committee  No.

Government Operations committee  I'll turn to my colleague Liliane.

Government Operations committee  Maybe I can add a few points and then I'll turn to my colleague. It's just as further emphasis to what the minister said. Going back to the question about capital increase or decrease in our budget, this year, Tim, if I remember, we are getting $54 million, a tranche, which is meant to support further steps on the West Block.

Government Operations committee  Thanks, Minister, Madam Chair. A very accurate analysis of where we stand.... It's an older system. There's no question that 40 years is accurate, so with that comes a lot of manual treatment of the information. Now, we in Public Works essentially manage that centralized system, and we have what we call pay administrative clerks in various departments, but they're using the main system of Public Works.

Public Accounts committee  Briefly, Mr. Chairman, we are working hard on an action plan, on a way-forward basis, on the so-called 3,000 contracts. In my remarks I committed to keeping the committee informed of what we find. I know there is interest in this, so we will be doing that.

Public Accounts committee  I very much agree with Madam Fraser. It's not one-size-fits-all, and this is important for committee members to appreciate. I'll give you an example. If, for instance, someone requires a contract, they require a screening, a reliability check, at the lowest level--protected A--it can be done in days.

Public Accounts committee  Until we have a stable funding formula for the program, it will be difficult to establish a multi-year formula. So there will be constraints. Let me be very clear. I want the program to be as stable as possible, but I want to do so within the financial constraints. There has been a new allocation of approximately $6 million, but this, simply put, always impacts other departmental priorities.

Public Accounts committee  Basically, there are three figures. Base funding for the program is $6.7 million. Over the past few years, we allocated another $6 million on average within the department. Recently, in September, we received $11.3 million from Treasury Board for the contract security program. There was an increase from Treasury Board, but those funds run out at the end of the fiscal year.

Public Accounts committee  I agree with you. Frankly I try to look at it as the glass half full, but on sensitive contracts I don't question the point you're making. In the course of assembling the sample, we did pick one area that was different from high sensitivity. This was secret/top secret. It has to do with protected information, which is different, as you may imagine.

Public Accounts committee  It's different in three ways. First, for those contracts that we generate, our acquisition branch now systematically flags, per a policy, the requirement for security. That is not only done manually, it's going to be done through our IT system. So that's the first thing. We have reinforced the need for that through communication and discussion with our staff.

Public Accounts committee  All the recommendations made by the OAG have been implemented. The so-called “requirement for security checklist” is happening. Resources have come from Treasury Board in the amount of $11.2 million, so that has augmented the base of $6.7 million. These things are happening today.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, essentially the answer falls into two areas. When a requirement is identified, there's an assessment carried out, and a contract clause is put forward. In order for the successful bidder to be able to get the contract, he or she or the company has to be able to meet the security requirements.

Public Accounts committee  No, it is only if there's a requirement, but it is not overall.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chairman, the checking out of the “no requirement”, which is what Madam Fraser and I are making reference to, was not a requirement clearly stated in the government security policy. At the time of the audit, we were of the opinion that what we had done--and probably my colleagues around the table would say that as well--was consistent with the intent of the government security policy, and I think the board would probably confirm that.