I would strongly agree.
I'll share with you, just for your own note and for the note of the people who are on this committee and the folks who are watching, that there's a compliance policy in this. I've taken a keen interest in this because it also impacts many other groups.
In that, if a contractor is found in non-compliance, then the contractor will be placed on what's called the federal contractors program limited eligibility to bid list. Why I bring this up as a note is because the footnotes is that there are no names currently on the limited eligibility to bid list. Based on a previous motion I'm bringing to your attention that you could bring back to your committee, it seems as if it's the government's position on this policy that all of the contractors in the federal contractors program are in compliance, which, quite frankly, I find very difficult to believe.
In wrapping up my questions in this round to you, Ms. Bull, I'm going to ask you to take the remaining time here to suggest.... You brought up a motion, but are there other clear ways in which we can ensure that existing government programs are actually meeting the mandate? Notwithstanding that there's probably going to be a third wave, and knowing what we know now from your time on the council, what would be some recommendations that this committee could take away to ensure that all the well-intentioned good-language programs of this government, “bringing meaning to procurement”, the set-aside program for aboriginal business, are actually having tangible results for the communities that they claim to support?