In my opening statement, what I was attempting to outline is some of the improved oversight we've put in place in terms of a conflict of interest situation that could arise from a relationship existing between one program official who in this case may have used a consultant who then later came back and used that expertise to secure a contribution agreement.
What we've done at NRCan, and I believe in many other departments, is to put in oversight mechanisms so that we are ensuring there is adequate review outside the program area, as was recommended by the Auditor General. There would be a review on those grants of over $100,000 by a committee, which includes legal services, under the directorship of our financial management branch. Then, for any of the higher-risk contribution agreements of over $1 million, there would be a committee chaired by an ADM of corporate services and our chief financial officer, which would involve three other ADMs not in the program area, and our chief counsel, who is our Justice representative, who would review not only the contribution agreement but a very detailed checklist to ensure that there has been an adequate review to prevent any conflict of interest, as well as compliance with the other policies in terms of section 34.