Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I'm coming to an opinion of my own as we continue these talks and have these discussions. The opinion I'm developing is the sense that government, by its nature, specifically maybe this department, has become very risk averse. It seems, possibly because of past events, that everyone is averse to risk. There now seem to be a set of policies and a framework that ensure that risks aren't taken and that there's no chance things might fail.
Of course, we all know that when we're thinking about innovation, development, creating value like you've talked about, and investing in or contracting to companies that don't have a proven track record with technologies that have proven track records, there's a possibility of risk. These may be some of the limiting factors, so maybe it isn't an issue of set-asides.
When I hear of set-asides, I get a little concerned, only because that doesn't allow for the innovation and creative spirit that are unleashed by small businesses, something that I was part of and something that I know many people within the small business sector are. I believe strongly that this is going to be the real saving of the economy, that the stabilizing factor and also the impetus for saving the economy are going to come out of the small businesses, because they're going to come up with the new ideas, the new innovations, and the new products.
Maybe you'll just comment in terms of the risk factor. Obviously there's risk involved. In many cases, there may have to be a change in the framework of the rules when it comes to even competing for these contracts, because I think you've identified certain circumstances where there is possibly only one provider for a particular product. How can we move to address that and still address the desired outcome for competition in these contracts and the rest of it? It's a big issue, but maybe you could comment in terms of the risk issue.