I understand what you're saying about adapting a group. Here's my fear of that training, which I witness in the real world when it comes to places where I work. The reality is that you set up a training matrix for those who work full-time or on a regular basis, and that you intend to have for the next ten years. Then you look at the next subset, which are your temporary employees, who are going to be there for a year, and say “Maybe I can fit them in, but if it's the last month of the contract, why would I train them? I don't think I'm getting them back. If some other department gets them, let that budget go there.”
When it comes to contractors, you clearly said that you don't train them at all. You get them to sign a declaration. I guess that begs the question: Did the folks the Auditor General was talking about in the 2007 report sign a declaration? If they did, when it was found that they had actually breached that declaration, what happened? Did you fire them? They only have a contract anyway.
At the end of the day, what kind of leverage do you have over a contractor who is on a short-term contract of a year or two, who you find out at month 19 has breached the code, and you say “See you later, you're out of here”? Do you punish the company that they actually helped to set up a contract for by saying “You can't have the contract because the employee was gone in three or four months anyway“? The punishment doesn't really fit the crime, in my mind.