I would just say that frankly we do this to ourselves as deputy heads—we set the policies for our own organizations. One thing we've realized is that we have to be smarter in our way of delivering our mandatory training. At CFIA, we have about eight modules that are all mandatory. Rather than run eight different courses, we're looking at how we do orientations for new employees, and we put all of those eight modules into one learning so that we can do it all at once.
The same is true when we promote somebody to the managerial level: there are a number of mandatory courses there. Rather than deal with them as separate courses, we're trying to put them together—working with the Canada School, as Deputy Shugart said—to be smarter about the way we deliver them.
With respect to the risk-based comment that I made, I want to underscore that we do that when we're trying to catch up. Rather than “blunt force” treat everybody as equal, when we realize we haven't been where we need to be we prioritize who is trained first.
I would say that we would look at some of those transient workers and say that there probably is a risk and that they should have training around fraud. It's just that when we look at whether we want to spend some time, while we're catching up, training somebody who is only going to be with us a few months rather than an employee who is indeterminate and there for the long term, we choose.
Once we're caught up, we will behave far more rationally. Mandatory will be mandatory, moving forward.