Mr. Chairman, on the issue of U.S. confidence, the U.S. is, as I understand it, very comfortable with the state of that building and its actual use. They have sent their own teams to have a look at that building. So they are now very comfortable.
The only thing I would say in response to the member's question or concern around U.S. confidence is that, as I think the relationship has shown over and over again, confidence comes from recognizing any errors we might have around these kinds of things and fixing them quickly, fixing them in a way that actually works for both parties. I believe that actually has been done in the context of the North Bay facility, just from the perspective of U.S. confidence.
On the issue of the JIRU building and whether we made a mistake, I think I would actually like to correct the record, or at least address the comment. I'm not sure the colonel said that we made a mistake. I think the colonel said that if we were to look at it again, if we were to look at the threat and risk assessments around this, would we have done this differently? And I think the answer is, yes, maybe we would have done it differently. So I'm not sure that I heard the colonel--but I stand to be corrected--definitively say that we would have done it differently.
On the issue of 99% and moving that down, we now have in the department, essentially operationally formally required next month, every project over $5,000 either requiring a security requirements checklist or certification--as proposed by the Auditor General--that there are no security issues.