Public Accounts committee  Yes, it is mandatory now. I was getting there, but I'll cut to the chase. We have already put in our form, in Public Works, a requirement for a “no” box. It's there.

Public Accounts committee  No, this was contained within Defence and DCC, so we were not involved in the NORAD....

Public Accounts committee  The Public Works workload is generated by Public Works. I would have to assume that the differential between 100% would be coming from other departments to Public Works for assessment.

Public Accounts committee  Security requirement. So essentially what they are asking us to do is this. A requirement is identified, and we carry out either the clearances or the screening and we provide them with the clause that is required in order to cover the requirement that is identified.

Public Accounts committee  No good reason that I can think of. Frankly, I've been there for years...and I will look at my colleague Gerry. I would like to think that probably the majority of sensitive contracts emanating from a department come our way for assessment. So most of the highly sensitive ones would.

Public Accounts committee  I would say if a requirement had been identified, the program would have carried out the necessary assessment and clearances and all that. If the requirement had not been identified, we would not have known.

Public Accounts committee  Yes.

Public Accounts committee  I must admit that I came prepared for this discussion today, so I'm not.... I will go by memory here to the extent possible, if you can bear with me.

Public Accounts committee  I think it would probably be more appropriate, if you don't mind. I know exactly what you're talking about. I know the file. My level of detail will probably not satisfy your questions.

Public Accounts committee  In the same way as I looked at the 24 contracts, I also looked at the overall sample of 86, and quite a number of them were done correctly. It was important to me because I wanted to understand if there was something systemic or systematic in the industrial security program. The answer to that is probably no, because the majority were done correctly.

Public Accounts committee  To pick up on that point, all 24 contracts were security cleared, so I want to leave that very clear image with you. What I'm saying here has been said by the OAG. She acknowledges that in all those cases the clearance was given; the issue was totally timing--i.e., the contract was given before clearance--but I want to leave the very clear statement with you that clearances were provided.

Public Accounts committee  We have the four-phase action plan. We have it addressing, first, all the recommendations made by the OAG. That is done. I'm not talking about a month from now or two months from now; we've done that. There is one component related to IT that we will have completed sometime next October.

Public Accounts committee  I will answer the question--

Public Accounts committee  Since 1941.

Public Accounts committee  Essentially the answer lies in what I explained vis-à-vis resources. We have a program that has not been resourced at the right level. I think the department really made efforts to top up that budget in a very responsible fashion. To give $6 million, on average, in the last couple of years to a base of $6.7 million is quite telling.