Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to all of our guests.
I'm not confused here, but maybe I'd just like to play devil's advocate for a second. We have the Auditor General stating that we have aging IT systems that are a major risk. We have all of the departments basically agreeing with the Auditor General that there have to be improvements. And yet, individually, all of the testimony here today from departments basically gives us the indication that things are in pretty good shape: 97% or 99% efficiency; really not a problem; things are in hand.
Well, then, where did the Auditor General get that information from such that 40 information officers requested...? Do you have a problem with spending more money to solve that problem? Do you need new systems? Who's going to say no if you have a chance to...?
I drive an old 2003, although I could probably drive a 2010 car. It works well, gets me by, and does a great job. Do I need the 2010 model? If I need it, we'll go out and buy it. It's very easy to ask if you would like the new and improved version of the same. Wonderful--but does the product that we now have work? Is it efficient? Do we need the Cadillac version of the Chev? These are some of the questions that I would like to expand on.
Auditor General, you're suggesting that for the safety and efficiency of this country, we need to spend, spend, spend more on our IT file to have it up to date. According to the chapter, we're already spending over $5 billion a year now. Obviously, somehow, in some way, this is either inadequate--it's not enough, or it's not being spent efficiently--or our systems are sadly outdated.
I'm really getting some mixed messages here.