Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all our witnesses coming today. We appreciate your testimonies and your discussions on things that are important to the issue of procurement.
I think we've probably got a broader topic today than we have any ability to decipher down, but I just want to focus in on ITAC for a number of minutes.
It's my sense we're going to have to take a couple of steps back here. We, as a committee, have not spent a lot of time understanding the reasons the government has been pursuing GENS or shared service initiatives. It's something I think we might have to take a step back from.
Now, my understanding is that right now there are 120, plus or minus, networks that government agencies and departments rely on. The idea, the thought, is that by moving to a single shared service network there would be quite significant efficiencies created within government, on the capital side and also in terms of the ability to facilitate the business of government. Right now there seems to be a significant amount of spending that's focused on things that are not necessarily supplying the core business of government or supplying the services government is responsible for. Instead there's a lot of money and a lot of time eaten up by government departments focusing on their systems.
Now, it's important for me to put things into layman's terms just for my own understanding. My understanding is that essentially what government is suggesting is they are going to replace 120 separate houses with a skyscraper that has the same square footage but is a single building. With that there are obviously a lot of tensions, because right now there are a number of different companies that are supplying a single repairman for every single one of those 120 houses. When there is a single building that will replace those 120 structures...obviously, to fix the windows on the 120th storey of a skyscraper is going to be quite a bit different from somebody from a local window supply store replacing a piece of glass in a single-floor building.
I know I'm dragging in an analogy that may or may not be appropriate, but I'm wondering if that's generally the initiative. I think it's important that we then understand why small businesses are concerned. Small businesses that may just be supplying a single individual to repair something on a smaller structure have no capacity to be involved in possibly putting on the 120th floor of a 120-storey skyscraper.
Have I convoluted the initiative even further, or are we getting to a point where that's possibly an analogy that works?