I think there are two aspects to this. One of them is training, which is a component of what we provide our employees. I'd simply make the point: consultants and contractors are not employees of the Government of Canada.
The training we provide is on the basic elements of the code and the responsibilities, but there is an added component, which is the ongoing discussion, as I mentioned earlier, that deputy heads have through their management, through their employees, about what it means to deal with these issues on an ongoing basis.
Training gives you the core framework, but really, the value is in the ongoing discussion and engagement of employees, because training will not cover every single situation. You have to actually have a discussion, create an openness for those issues to arise. Not everything can be prescribed, and not everything can be thought of.
I was trying to give you an explanation that what is a conflict of interest in one department, given the business line, is very different from the actual conflict or perceived conflict. There are some general principles and values.
With regard to contracting, the onus is on the contractor to make that declaration. We have to make sure to the extent that we can, but we don't know the full business of every independent contractor or business. The recourse we have is basically to make sure they cannot benefit or profit.
I've had situations, for example, where someone in fact was a contractor, then found out afterwards that the person had applied for a grant or contribution, and we wrote the company to say you cannot put this person responsible for the application and the relationship, because the individual is in fact in a position of conflict. Is the company in a conflict? Do you bar the company from applying for a grant or contribution? No, because there is a legitimate business value in them applying for the opportunity to benefit from an investment.