Government Operations committee  I might just add to what Liseanne mentioned earlier. I'd gone through a similar exercise in the private sector. One of the conclusions as we approached the end of approximately six years of very much the same type of work was that as we went through the work—we didn't know this w

Government Operations committee  That's what we did, but also, there was a pretty well-developed set of processes in the industry around managing large-scale organizations such as this. There were things such as ITIL and other things. I won't bore you with all the technical terms, but things had evolved after a

Government Operations committee  It was a combination of both. Some departments had proceduralized things very well. There is no shame in plagiarism, so in many respects, as we were putting it together, we would take the procedures that had already been developed and just change the name to Shared Services Canad

Government Operations committee  Of course.

Government Operations committee  Thank you for that question. I was hoping somebody would ask it.

Government Operations committee  I understand, so I'll do the sound bites. I think the most fundamental issue of all is that the creation of Shared Services Canada had a huge impact on all of the people who work in IT in government—not just the folks who were transferred to Shared Services Canada, but also the

Government Operations committee  That's a very good question. Just to recap, I'll go back to what Liseanne mentioned. There were 43 departments that which had been organized that way since the beginning of IT. So for approximately 50 years, there had been largely independent decision-making with respect to how