INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, March 9, 1998

• 1530

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): Under Standing Order 108(2), I call the meeting to order. We are considering a study on information technology: preparedness for the year 2000.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses here today from Health Canada, from the Canadian Pharmacists Association and from the Canadian Healthcare Association.

What I propose is that each of the witnesses would do an introductory statement before we open it up to questions. I'll begin with Health Canada. We have Fruji Bull, director general; and Dann Michols, director general as well—different departments.

You may begin.

Ms. Fruji Bull (Director General, Information Management Services Directorate, Department of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Fruji Bull and I'm the director general of information management services for Health Canada. I have with me my colleague Dann Michols, director general of the therapeutic products directorate.

I have been asked to appear before your committee today to describe the state of preparedness of Health Canada for the year 2000.

The advent of the year 2000 and the repercussions for government computer systems and technologies are of major federal government concern. Health Canada has been working actively since 1995 to assess how the change of millennium could affect our business and program delivery requirements.

Internally, we have established a project office that coordinates our efforts on behalf of all branches in the department. I have attached to this statement an organization chart that outlines where activities are taking place. We have made this a priority.

A survey commissioned by the project office in early 1996 identified over 180 critical applications used by Health Canada. Each was individually studied to assess the effect that a millennium change may have on its operations. A planned schedule of repair was then put in place, which has been studiously followed over the past two years.

• 1535

I'm happy to be able to report that our program applications and administrative systems will be year 2000 compliant, most by the summer of this year and the remainder by the end of this year. Currently we are testing our repairs as most of the programming work is completed. As well, we have proceeded to assess the state of readiness of our desktop environment. Older PCs and operating systems software may not be compliant today, and we are currently determining what would be required to replace this before the year 2000. We will make the necessary investments in our hardware before the year 2000.

As a custodian of laboratory facilities across the country, Health Canada has also been cognizant of the need to address how the arrival of the year 2000 could have an impact on these assets. With regard to laboratory facilities, you will note from the chart attached that we have tackled this on two fronts.

First, we are working closely with Public Works and Government Services Canada, our facilities managers, to ensure that infrastructure that may rely on embedded technology such as elevators, ventilating systems and water power systems are ready in time and will not fail.

As well, we have formed a committee in the health protection branch that is specifically assessing problems that could arise related to the instruments and other types of equipment in the laboratory. Once the inventory is complete, the extent of risk that any malfunction could cause will be assessed and the equipment will either be replaced or repaired, in cooperation with the manufacturer, in time to be adequately tested.

As a regulatory department, Health Canada has various statutes that lay out our responsibilities as regulators. If there is any question of risk to health and safety because of the possible use of date-related embedded technology or computer systems, we have engaged these manufacturers in discussions to create awareness of the problem, to establish what plans they have to take corrective action, and we have in place plans to monitor their progress for repair.

For example, with the regulation of medical devices, we are initiating an awareness campaign directed at both medical devices manufacturers and users of medical devices. We will also be monitoring progress made by manufacturers to make their devices year 2000 compliant and will be making available to users information on the year 2000 status of medical devices.

As the regulators of the blood supply, we are working closely with the Canadian Blood Agency to ensure that contingency plans are in place in case the new system recently purchased by the Red Cross is not ready in time.

However, to ensure that we are being proactive on all fronts, statutory obligations or not, each branch of Health Canada has prepared an action plan. For instance, some of our smaller non-governmental organizations who are clients may suffer unduly because a systems failure in their organizations could cause significant loss of data or financial confusion. Health Canada relies on these NGOs to promote good health practices and to remain viable to act as our partners. Therefore, branches have already begun to raise the level and awareness of this problem with these clientele.

Although we are not directly in contact with the health industry on this issue, other than where we have statutory regulatory responsibilities, we have engaged the provinces in this general readiness of the health industry discussion to raise their awareness of this issue. We've established a committee of federal-provincial chief information officers of health departments that will deal with the implications of the year 2000 as a standing agenda item. Status reports on the health systems readiness will be monitored through this committee as well as through another not specifically health-related federal-provincial committee being set up by the Treasury Board. We are confident that our colleagues at Industry Canada will also continue to raise awareness in the health industry sector and will help us to monitor progress.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with the state of preparedness of Health Canada for the year 2000. I will be pleased to address any further questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Bull and Mr. Michols.

I'll now turn to the Canadian Pharmacists Association. We have Mr. Poston, director of research and practice development, and Mr. Loh, senior research associate.

Dr. Jeff Poston (Director, Research and Practice Development, Canadian Pharmacists Association): Thank you very much. I'm Jeff Poston, director of research and practice development for the Canadian Pharmacists Association. I'm joined by my colleague Dr. Elliot Loh, who is our senior research associate.

The Canadian Pharmacists Association is a national voluntary organization representing pharmacists in Canada. Our members are drawn from all areas of pharmacy practice, particularly community pharmacy but also hospital pharmacy, academia and industry.

• 1540

The issue being studied by the committee is one of major concern for pharmacists. Pharmacists depend on computers in their daily practice in order to document patient profiles, the medications that patients use and other pertinent confidential information. Such systems also support pharmacists' decision making as they check prescriptions and patient profiles for potential drug interactions, adverse drug effects and the appropriateness of doses and the appropriateness of prescriptions for individual patients. Pharmacists also use computers for claims processing, with a variety of public and private claims adjudicators. Over the years these systems have become on-line, real time, and the complexity is multiplied with every new drug benefit program set up by insurers, benefit managers or managed care companies.

Having recognized the importance and significance of computers for the profession early on, the Canadian Pharmacists Association has been actively engaged in the development of communications standards. Since 1988 we've developed the pharmacy claim standard, of which we're currently in the process of a major revision, and it will become known as the pharmacy electronic communications standard, or PECS for short. In summary, all information that's going to go to and from a pharmacy electronically will follow the pharmacy electronic communications standard.

One way to think of the standard is as a set of rules that's used by software programmers for information exchange.

We've also been working to ensure that PECS integrates with HL7, which is emerging as a common health information standard in Canada, so that pharmacy systems will be compatible with other health care systems and this will pave the way for the incorporation of pharmacies into the integrated health information systems of the future.

The focus we've had in revising the claim standard has enabled us to get some sort of early impressions of some of the issues surrounding year 2000. We've been aware of them and have been acting upon them with our members.

I have just a few comments with respect to the association's preparedness. We are in the process of replacing all of our hardware and operating systems and software with year-2000-compliant material. We have a major software program that we use for our membership services, and we're in the process of doing some major work on this to ensure that it's year 2000 compliant.

In accordance with recommendation 7 of the A Call for Action report, we are letting our members know in our annual review about the work that's being done.

Moving on to community pharmacy preparedness, we find that pharmacies across Canada are in various stages of preparedness for year 2000 compliance. Some of the issues to be dealt with are within their control; others are not. In order to assess the current situation and in preparation for this presentation, we called on pharmacy chains, pharmacy independents, as well as the major software vendors to identify potential problems linked to the century change. In general, what we're finding is that most pharmacies and pharmacy software companies have taken it upon themselves to ensure that their systems are year 2000 compliant.

From CPhA's perspective, the current pharmacy claim standard is being reviewed and a document is being developed to provide instructions on how to adjust the system to make it year 2000 compliant, although we hope that by the year 2000 migration to the new pharmacy electronic communications standard will be complete. This new standard is fully year 2000 compliant.

We do identify that there are some potential health risks associated with pharmacy systems that are not year 2000 compliant, and these largely stem from the inability of these systems to maintain and search patient profiles and patient records, together with an inability to transmit claims to the appropriate public or private payer.

Patient profiles constitute an important health tool in today's drug therapy. They enable pharmacists to assess whether a medication is right for the patient waiting for the prescription, to search for and detect potential drug interactions or adverse effects in specific patients. Should pharmacies lose their patient profiles, then the potential for health risks to the population would increase. Pharmacists would have to rebuild the profile with information provided by the patient and, where possible, the physician, and if files are lost, then we would anticipate some difficulties in rebuilding such profiles.

• 1545

We will need to address the issue of conversion of patient profiles in new year-2000-compliant systems to ensure that pharmacists are able to retain continuity of information on their patients. Most of the pharmacy networks that we have contacted across the country have assured us that their members are diligently working on ensuring that hardware and software are year 2000 compliant.

Our contacts with software vendors and insurance companies have also indicated that they have been actively addressing issues pertinent to the compliance of their own systems. All organizations we've contacted have indicated that they are working on or they've already completed the necessary upgrades to make their systems compliant.

A critical issue we have to address is whether these upgraded systems will be compatible with each other when messages containing year 2000 dates are exchanged. The proper integration of these systems is important for the uninterrupted delivery of services.

Current initiatives are focusing on the upgrading of individual systems unless work has been done on the assessment of the compatibility of the upgraded systems. It's been suggested that our association may act in the coordination of the integration of year 2000 systems by acting as a central clearing house for information on the status of individual systems. Unfortunately, we don't think we're going to have the financial resources to fully meet this challenge.

With respect to some specific comments on the recommendations in A Call for Action, we have some concerns about recommendation 3 concerning the need for lending institutions to require a formal year 2000 action plan as a prerequisite for loans. Although such a plan may readily be available for large pharmacy chains and pharmacy networks, some independent community pharmacists may be hard-pressed to produce a fully fledged plan, even though they are actually in the process of working with their pharmacy software supplier to address issues around being year 2000 compliant.

We recommend that exceptions to this recommendation be made for small businesses who can produce proof of purchase of equipment upgrades, as well as for small businesses who wish to secure a loan to upgrade their equipment. We also feel the same prerequisite for government grants in recommendation 11 could put an undue burden on small associations.

The Canadian Pharmacists Association strongly supports recommendation 15 on introducing revenue-neutral tax encouragement measures for small and medium-sized businesses. The additional financial burden put on pharmacies to be year 2000 compliant comes at a time when most payers are trying to cut professional fees, and in this context any financial assistance would be welcome.

In conclusion, as we've outlined, because of their constant use of computers, pharmacists in all areas of practice have taken it upon themselves to actively address issues surrounding year 2000 compliance. Nevertheless, some problems may not have been foreseen and we will only find some of this out when that final date arrives.

The A Call for Action document provides an opportunity to look at issues and prepare as much as possible. As a profession, we will commit to try to be ready for the year 2000 and will continue to work in partnership with health care stakeholders, insurers, and governments to ensure a smooth transition.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Poston.

We now turn to the Canadian Healthcare Association. We have Ms. Sharon Baker, the vice-president of corporate services, and Ms. Kathryn Tregunna, director of policy development.

I don't have a brief before me. Did you bring copies of your brief?

Ms. Kathryn Tregunna (Director, Policy Development, Canadian Healthcare Association): We do have some copies here.

The Chair: We'll have to begin. We'll make copies and circulate them afterwards.

Ms. Kathryn Tregunna: On behalf of the Canadian Healthcare Association, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the issue of hospitals and the year 2000.

My name is Kathryn Tregunna and I'm the director of policy development at the Canadian Healthcare Association. With me today is Sharon Baker, the vice-president of corporate services with the Ontario Hospital Association, which is one of our provincial members.

CHA is a federation of provincial and territorial hospital and health care associations. We hope we can share this information with our hospital and health care affiliates across the country.

• 1550

Our mission is to improve the delivery of health services in Canada through policy development, advocacy, and leadership. We invited Sharon, on behalf of the Ontario Hospital Association, to make this presentation today because OHA has taken the lead in identifying and addressing the year 2000 problems for hospitals. Sharon's presentation, while focusing on the Ontario experience, is relevant to health care facilities across the country.

Ms. Sharon Baker (Vice-President, Corporate Services, Canadian Healthcare Association): The Ontario Hospital Association appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today to present our views on the impact of the year 2000 computer problem on the hospital industry. The Ontario Hospital Association represents approximately 200 hospitals in the province of Ontario.

The year 2000 computer problem presents special difficulties for the health care industry. In addition to the business concerns we share with other service industries, for instance the need to avoid system failures in computer networks, software applications, billings, purchasing, scheduling, and record-keeping systems, critical issues unique to health care must be addressed. Complex technical and operational factors must be considered as the challenge of avoiding compromise of patient care is met. Hospitals must expend considerable energy to mitigate the potential risk of computer system, business dependency, physical plant, and public infrastructure disruptions or failures.

OHA has been studying the potential impact of the year 2000 computer problem on health care delivery. We have implemented a series of initiatives to assist our members in preparing for the date change. We have conducted information sessions around the province to raise awareness of the issue. We have surveyed our membership to assess the status of preparations. We have provided a variety of opportunities for health care providers to share experiences and ideas related to this issue. One such opportunity is a major conference being held tomorrow. It has attracted almost 250 delegates from the Ontario hospital industry.

We have worked with the Ontario Healthcare Providers Alliance to raise awareness and share information with health care providers beyond the hospital. We have prepared a guidebook for Ontario hospitals called Getting Ready for the Year 2000, which we have distributed and posted to our website. Other resources will be added there regularly.

At OHA we are very aware of how quickly time is passing and how important it is that information be shared and delays avoided. One of the most difficult and complex issues for health care providers is potentially non-compliant medical devices and equipment. Microchips or microprocessors that use date-sensitive logic are embedded in many medical devices and no one is certain to what extent those microchips will be affected by the date change. Examples of such devices include heart defibrillators, X-ray equipment, pacemaker monitors, and infusion pumps. Currently we have little information on the number of devices that are not year 2000 compliant. Therefore it is critical that accurate and thorough information be available from manufacturers.

Hospitals that have made the greatest progress in their year 2000 projects have informed us that while they have many letters out to suppliers asking for compliance information, replies are not readily forthcoming. I understand from my reading that similar problems are arising in other countries. This lack of information makes it very difficult to estimate with any degree of certainty the amount of work or the budget required to achieve compliance. Early indications are that the amounts will be significant. Some of our large hospitals are estimating over $10 million to become compliant. In our survey, virtually all hospitals indicated they will need assistance to cover their costs.

OHA recently arranged a meeting with a small group of vendors to discuss this problem and investigate solutions. The vendors present suggested that their resources are also strained and that as a result their efforts may be directed to their largest customers. This puts our hospitals and their patients at risk.

On Wednesday past I visited a hospital where one patient alone was supported by over 25 devices. Each one requires checking.

Health care providers must inventory and obtain year 2000 compliance information on thousands of devices and pieces of equipment. This step has the potential to create enormous duplication of process and to eat up precious time.

We believe we have a recommendation that has the potential to improve significantly the chances for all health care providers in this country to progress toward compliance and allow them the time to concentrate on the many other risks of date change, such as the supply chain and the physical plant issues. We recommend a national coordinated approach requiring manufacturers to disclose product compliance status. Such an approach will have a much greater chance of success and will reduce the negative impact on the resources of all concerned, including the manufacturers.

• 1555

We recommend that Health Canada, in its role as regulator of the safety and effectiveness of medical devices, use its authority to ensure that manufacturers of medical devices take appropriate steps to address the year 2000 computer problem and report the compliance status of their equipment in a manner that is useful to all hospitals and other health care providers. I have recently written to Health Canada to that effect and I have been informed of the process they are planning, described to you here today.

As mentioned earlier, the lack of information on the compliance status of equipment is creating difficulty in estimating the cost of compliance for hospitals. Once known, this cost for hospitals and other health care providers will be substantial and will require a coordinated funding approach from the federal, territorial, and provincial governments.

To summarize, we recommend that the federal and territorial governments encourage and support Health Canada to strengthen their planned process by compelling manufacturers and medical devices to investigate and correct year-2000-related problems and disclose year 2000 compliance information as quickly as possible. We also recommend that the federal, territorial, and provincial governments work together to resolve funding issues related to the cost of compliance as they become known.

Health care providers need to devote significant time, resources, and energy to the year 2000 computer problem without detracting from their primary focus of providing high-quality patient care. It is therefore essential that we all look for ways to assist in preparing the health care delivery system for the year 2000. There is an important role for associations such as ours and government in this effort. Your attention to this issue through hearings such as the one being held today is an important step.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Baker. I'll now open it up to questions.

Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for coming. It's good to have you all here. I suppose you could argue you are in the life and death business of the year 2000 compliance. In some cases it's that severe, I'm sure.

I would like to ask this of the Health Canada representatives: when will the inventory of who is and who is not ready be complete?

Mr. Dann Michols (Director General, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Department of Health): When you say who is and who isn't, do you mean external manufacturers of medical devices and such, or vendors?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It includes both of those.

Mr. Dann Michols: Okay. Perhaps I could add a couple of comments to Ms. Baker's comments on what Health Canada is doing with the industry it regulates. Therapeutic products directorate is responsible for the regulation of all drugs and medical devices on the Canadian market, so it falls to us to monitor this situation for external systems.

We are in the process of writing to all medical device manufacturers, all agents of foreign device manufacturers, as well as to hospitals and health care institutions, drawing to their attention the issue of year 2000, should anyone still not be aware of it. From the device manufacturers we are requiring by May 30 an indication of whether or not the devices they have on the market are year 2000 compliant. It's an attestation that they are. If they are not, then we're requiring from them basically an action plan for how they intend to bring those devices into compliance. We have set up a section of our website to make the information we receive available, information on those which are compliant and those which are not.

So the short answer to your question is that medical device manufacturers are required to report to us by the end of May. We will take some small amount of time to do the analysis and such, but that information will then go up as quickly thereafter as possible, and it will be available to anyone who wants to access it.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have questions related to that. I think the point made by Ms. Baker was that letters sent out to these manufacturers and providers of various medical devices were not coming back quite as quickly as they would like them to. May 31 is your target. If the experience of the Ontario Hospital Association is going to obtain here as well, what would be your proposal after that? What is your plan after that? Simply to ask them for a plan really doesn't make it happen.

Mr. Dann Michols: That's true, but we have the advantage over the hospitals of being the regulator. We can take the products off the market if we deem them not to be safe and effective.

• 1600

Mr. Werner Schmidt: May we take that as a commitment that if they cannot show they're compliant you would take them off the market?

Mr. Dann Michols: Absolutely.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay. That's pretty significant.

Does that give you some comfort?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Yes, that's exactly what our recommendation was bringing to point. With the regulatory authority there's much greater impetus for the manufacturer to comply.

We understand, however, that it will only work for those devices that are currently being sold. We may need to think about how we address devices that have been sold and are no longer being sold but are still in operation.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That was exactly my next question. That's all very well. That is what is to come. What about what was and is operating now? Do you regulate that as well? What happens in this case?

The other thing—I might as well put this question now because it is related. If both of you, Health Canada and the Ontario Hospital Association—and all other provincial hospital associations—are writing to their respective vendors, and many of them are common, isn't there a duplication of effort here? It seems to me we need to answer both of those questions.

First of all, what happens to the equipment that is out there now, and what will happen with some coordinating effort between what the hospital associations and Health Canada are doing?

Mr. Dann Michols: Our authorities stem from the Food and Drugs Act. Basically it's an act that allows us to regulate manufacturers. If there is a device in operation within a hospital that is no longer being supported by the manufacturer, that is going to cause the hospitals a problem. They're going to either have to determine how they go about upgrading that device themselves or how they exchange it or turn it in or purchase a device that is year 2000 compliant.

I'd welcome any suggestions. I don't know how we as regulators get at the devices that are no longer being supported by a manufacturer.

The Chair: Do you wish to answer that?

Ms. Sharon Baker: I recognize that this is a problem. I'm very thrilled by the fact that we've connected with Health Canada and have made the progress we have, and by the commitments offered here today. At this point I do not have an idea of how many such devices are in our hospitals, those that have been sold and are no longer being sold. Perhaps if we can investigate it further we can then contact Health Canada to come up with a solution.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have another question that has to do with the Canadian Pharmacists Association. I think you've raised more problems than you have provided answers. I think we are all aware of the difficulty that exists.

I wonder if you could give us some indication or description, if not the actual test, that you could or would apply either to a chain or to a small business or both that would prove to you, without any doubt, that yes, this business is ready for and compatible with the requirements of year 2000.

Dr. Jeff Poston: In the letters we're going to be writing to pharmacy software system vendors...we're asking them whether their systems are compliant and in what way their systems are compliant—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's a self-evaluation thing. What objective test could you apply that says...? I might say yes, I'm ready, but what proof can I offer you other than saying I really am?

Dr. Jeff Poston: You'd actually look at processing a prescription with the year 2000 date on it. That would be the simple system. You would try to construct a patient profile to do that.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Do you have such a test now?

Dr. Jeff Poston: We haven't developed a specific test to do that at the moment, no, but that would be a relatively.... You could soon set that up as a test to actually construct a patient profile and enter—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Are you sure it's going to be as easy as you've just described it?

Dr. Jeff Poston: I think that would be one approach. It would certainly be a relatively simple test to see if there's a major problem.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: May I quote you? I'd like to.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I'm still trying to figure out who has the ball here. Who's going to take responsibility? It seems to me we're saying, fine, we're going to deal with the issue of equipment out there now being sold, but clearly the real problem is that a piece of equipment, Y, stops working in the year 2000, yet somebody doesn't really know that. They still have it plugged into somebody. That's the problem, so it seems to me what you need is a massive inventory.

• 1605

Here you're saying you're going on a hospital-by-hospital basis, but it's clear that there must be tremendous duplication in what you're doing. There must be an envelope process here, one taking all the inventory of hospital equipment in Canada and then determining, cross-referencing, the similar machines in similar hospitals, which are non-compliant and which are not. Who is going to take responsibility for categorizing that inventory?

Ms. Sharon Baker: The work that has been done by Ontario hospitals to date has indeed been as you describe, individual efforts to inventory hospitals. Those I've spoken to indicate that at this point there really does need to be an individual inventory of equipment in order to find everything out there and still in use.

I have spoken with the Connecticut hospital association, which is taking a similar lead in the U.S. They have plans to bring all those inventories together, as you describe, to create a single inventory.

At this point I have not decided for myself just how useful that step would ultimately be. If we have a good database at Health Canada, listing the compliance status of equipment, then it's relatively easy, once a hospital has conducted its inventory, to test it against that central database. Hospitals are telling us that quite often equipment will vary by a single digit on the model number or serial number. Therefore you cannot assume it is the same piece of equipment.

I understand the gist of your question. It's certainly something.... As we have developed standard tools for hospitals to use in creating these inventories, if we find it is something that would be useful to pull together, certainly within Ontario we would be able to do that.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is this something Health Canada should be in the process of administering?

Mr. Dann Michols: I don't think it is a process Health Canada should be administering. The regulator can help in a number of instances, but as I said before, our powers really relate to the manufacturers. It's our intention to make as much information as possible available to hospitals and health care associations. We can be dealing with the input, if you like, into their inventories. We can be helping them determine whether or not a piece of equipment they have is compatible. But I don't think we have the resources to be able to coordinate that exercise for all the hospitals in Canada.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Would manufacturers have an inventory listing of the actual equipment they have in the hospital?

Mr. Dann Michols: It's possible on a range of what we would perhaps call the more high-risk equipment.

I think what Ms. Baker is saying and what we are saying is that the first step in this exercise is to determine exactly the extent of the problem. That's what we're attempting to do now. We will get that information back from the manufacturers. We will make it available. Then we will be able to begin to address specific examples of either non-compliance or areas in which we have to take particular action, as opposed to a broad inventory.

The Chair: Does Ms. Baker wish to reply to that as well?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Just to add that I think it's also important to keep in mind that certain steps can be concurrent. The work Health Canada is doing can carry on while hospitals are creating their inventories.

One of our concerns as a central body has been not to slow anyone down either, in an attempt to do some central coordination. I think the biggest benefit of sharing the inventories, as you describe, is to ensure that smaller hospitals don't overlook pieces of equipment about which it may not at first glance be readily apparent that they may have a compliance issue. We'll certainly do that from our leading hospitals.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: This is to the Pharmacists Association.

You took exception to recommendation 3, presumably because a lot of your members are small business operators, but I can't understand why. You say all lending institutions, whether federally or provincially regulated, should immediately require the availability of a formal year 2000 action plan from corporate borrowers as a prerequisite for loans. Can't small business operators prepare a plan for how they are going to solve the problem?

• 1610

Dr. Jeff Poston: I think for lots of them it would be relatively straightforward. I guess our issue is the definition of what is really a formal year 2000 action plan. At the level of lots of small pharmacies, to illustrate, it would be simply invoices that indicate they have actually purchased equipment upgrades and they have purchased software upgrades and they have certification from their suppliers that they are year 2000 compliant. That's realistically what it would mean to the individual small pharmacy. Providing that is acceptable as a formal year 2000 action plan, that would be feasible.

It seems the recommendation could require a lot more from the lending institution, but if that would be acceptable, then that would be fine.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: My definition of a plan is just that. In fact, you describe something beyond the planning stage, the actual purchase of equipment and so on.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Ms. Baker, I have listened to your remarks very carefully. Obviously, you clearly understand the magnitude of the problems hospitals will have to face. You have indicated the measures you plan to take to deal with these problems. Among other things, you recommend that the federal government require equipment manufacturers to provide information on year 2000 compliance. But some manufacturers are foreign suppliers, and the government may not have the power to impose such requirements.

There is something else I would like to point out: you probably have maintenance contracts for many equipment items, and you could perhaps obtain the specifications you need under those maintenance contracts. What do you think of that notion?

[English]

Ms. Sharon Baker: As I understand the Food and Drugs Act and the regulations under which Health Canada operates, in my recommendation I'm speaking specifically of medical devices. Even for those that are foreign made, the sale of those devices is regulated in Canada by Health Canada.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: My point is they have already been sold. Going back to the foreign manufacturer might not be so easy.

Ms. Sharon Baker: I understand there may be issues with that. As I understand it, though, if Health Canada uses its regulatory authority to require that disclosure in this country, as Mr. Michols answered earlier, there is the possibility that sale of those devices could be suspended in Canada if they do not disclose.

Your point about maintenance checks is a good one. We have not yet been told by our hospitals that they are using that method to access their suppliers. It may indeed be a good idea in the area of physical plant equipment as well. We'll bring that back to our members.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Ms. Baker.

Mr. Poston, I cannot be as complimentary towards you as I was towards Ms. Baker. I find your brief to be fairly weak. Perhaps you can shed some light on a few issues for me.

In your brief, you state that patient profiles might be lost during the changeover from current systems to year 2000 compliant systems. But this will not be the first system change in history, Mr. Poston. Many companies modify their systems, or regularly buy new systems. The issues involved in changing from one system to another are very well known, and they are efficiently dealt with by the suppliers in question. You will have an opportunity to give me your views, but to my mind your fears are groundless.

• 1615

Moreover, in your conclusion, you state—and I quote:

[English]

Nevertheless, some problems may not have been foreseen and we will only find out when the fateful date arrives.

[Translation]

Moreover, when you were answering my Reform Party colleague a little earlier, you said you believed that a simple test on year 2000 issues would be enough. I would submit that testing a computer system is neither simple nor quick. Testing has to be done in depth. Serious suppliers and professionals perform these tests so as to ensure that nothing unexpected can happen. If we have the ability to launch satellites and space probes with computer systems that were not solely tested under virtual conditions, then believe me, a pharmaceutical system can be tested thoroughly. But the process is neither simple nor quick, and it cannot be put off.

In conclusion, I would point out that your report contains no quantitative information. You express fears, but fail to quantify them. Do you plan to quantify the problems involved in adapting systems for year 2000 compliance, the number of suppliers involved, and the number of pharmacies affected? How will the changes be made?

[English]

Dr. Jeff Poston: We are in the process of writing to all of the known pharmacy software vendors in Canada to ask them what their plans are with respect to year 2000 compliance.

We've actually spoken to the six or seven large software vendors and large claims processors, but there are over 65 pharmacy software vendors in Canada. So we are in the process of surveying them to assess the nature of their progress towards being year 2000 compliant and to actually ask them some of the questions you've asked me in terms of the testing the manufacturers have and the process for certification of systems. We're actually asking them to provide certification that their systems will be year 2000 compliant.

As I say, in preparation for this meeting, we've had responses from about 10 individuals we've contacted. We are planning a more extensive survey.

As an association, we'll make every effort to make sure that appropriate tests and evaluation methods are put in place to address the issues, but we are not a regulatory body; we're a voluntary association. The most we can do in many ways is inform our members, alert them to the issues, and encourage them to obtain appropriate assurances and certificates from their suppliers.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming forward, although I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the remarks I've heard. I'm trying to assess your preparedness a little better.

I'd like to first ask a question of Health Canada. You did talk a little about the manufacturers selling equipment and being year 2000 compliant. Am I to understand that you're going to be doing this or this has been done to alert the manufacturers that they should not be selling equipment or software without being compliant at this late date? I'm not sure what you said earlier.

Mr. Dann Michols: I said we are in the process of writing to each manufacturer and each Canadian agent of a foreign manufacturer, requiring that they present to us a certain range of information by May 30 of this year.

• 1620

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Am I to get from this that we could have manufacturers today selling health equipment and health software requirements in our country that are not year 2000 compliant?

Mr. Dann Michols: No. We have included within the criteria, if you like, that all of the products that we are now in the process of reviewing and approving, if they are to be used over the year 2000, must be able to deal with the year 2000. We have a pre-market review mechanism for those products that are coming on the market or seeking to come on the market now. The issues I have been addressing have been the products that are currently on the market.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: When you mention in your report that Health Canada itself will be mostly year 2000 compliant by the summer of the year, with the remainder by the end of this year, could you give me some percentages that you will have done by this summer?

Ms. Fruji Bull: I would say that pretty well about 90% of our systems and applications will be done by the summer, with the remainder by December of this year.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: When you say you're currently testing your repairs to make sure they are year 2000 compliant, I take it what you're doing is making sure through a system of tests, which show the requirement for the year 2000, and you're double checking that they are producing it properly.

Ms. Fruji Bull: Yes.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The financial institutions reported to us that they were taking complete systems of theirs into a separate year 2000 model and running their programs to make sure they are year 2000 compliant. Are you doing the same?

Ms. Fruji Bull: We're doing that with some of our more serious systems, such as our financial system, for example, because it is a large system we use. However, many of the applications we use are smaller applications. It can very easily be determined if they are indeed able to cope with the year 2000 by simply feeding that kind of assumption information into the application and seeing whether the application fails or the system goes down.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

Ms. Baker, you were talking about the hospitals, and I think you did mention that 200 hospitals belong to the Ontario Hospital Association. Do you have any hospitals that are year 2000 compliant as of today?

Ms. Sharon Baker: No.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Do you have any benchmarks to have x number of hospitals compliant by the summer or by the end of this calendar year?

Ms. Sharon Baker: We have survey results that indicate our hospitals' intentions. Similar to the Canadian Pharmacists Association, we are a voluntary organization and we do not have the authority to require compliance by a certain date. We will be doing everything in our power through our central program to move that progress along.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: To me, for the care of our constituents and the people of Canada, and the people in the province of Ontario in your case, it sure would be more comfortable to be able to say yes, we have 100 hospitals compliant by this summer and we're working on the rest because of systems, equipment, and dollars. I think you make me uncomfortable by not being able to give me those records.

Ms. Sharon Baker: We have a benchmark.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

On the pharmaceutical side, I understand your dilemma in trying to coordinate with the various pharmacies, but a number of your remarks pointed out that you're going to be doing certain things. Our experience, and my personal experience just last week in dealing with small businesses, is that it is something they're going to get around to fixing in the last month of the year 1999. Of course, the alarm we've put forward very clearly is that you can't leave it till the end because you might not have the resources or equipment to help you out.

I'm concerned that from the pharmaceutical standpoint you're also not benchmarking, trying to achieve certain items by a certain date. Hopefully the areas that aren't compliant will then be put forward, front and centre, not only to your organization but to constituents in their areas.

• 1625

Do you have any benchmarking such that you are trying to get certain stuff done by a certain date? I guess my question to my pharmaceutical company next week will be, tell me when you are compliant and who is first and who is last.

Dr. Jeff Poston: The survey information we've had from the large pharmacy software vendors we've contacted to date would indicate that about 90% of them claim to be compliant already. There are some smaller ones, and it's the smaller ones we have to survey and follow up on.

One of the things we are doing is we are in the process of raising awareness now not only through direct correspondence with suppliers but also through our association's literature to our members. We have an annual conference in May at which we are going to be raising this issue and giving more publicity to it. Contacting suppliers for information on their state of preparedness and alerting our members about the issues are the two actions that have been open to us to pursue, as a voluntary association.

The Chair: Dr. Loh, did you wish to add to that?

Dr. Elliot A. Loh (Senior Research Associate, Canadian Pharmacists Association): Yes, just a clarification. Our survey indicated that a report by the pharmacy software vendors, who also oversee a lot of pharmacy hardware, indicated that 90% of the pharmacies now have computers that are year 2000 compliant, a Pentium or greater, or something to that extent, or whatever is applicable.

The software itself is not yet year 2000 complaint with respect to the claim standard. However, the amount of reprogramming required to make it year 2000 compliant is relatively simple and straightforward. Those vendors and the claims adjudicators I've talked to feel it is not an overly onerous job for them to deal with in the next 20 months or whatever it is

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I put some basic questions to small businesses, including pharmacies, just last week: how do you know you are compliant, and show me the piece of paper from your manufacturer which says you are. In three cases none of them had that information and they are going back to get it. It will be very interesting whether they get that information properly.

Dr. Jeff Poston: Yes, that is something we've actually informed our members they should be asking for from their suppliers: that they should be requesting certificates of year 2000 compliance and exactly what that means in their system.

The Chair: Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Thank you very much.

What type of money have you folks budgeted for legal liabilities? You just said some manufacturer is going to give you year 2000 compliance. Chances are he's not. What type of money has Health Canada...that they are going to be compliant by the end of this year, into the year 2000? Could legal liabilities come out of all the work you've done?

Ms. Fruji Bull: Hopefully not. We are pretty confident that the systems we are going to be repairing will be firmly repaired and there will not be any liabilities out of the information produced by those systems.

About other issues, such as medical devices, there is a possibility that could be an issue. However, governments are self-insuring and we do not have the option to set aside moneys for liability purposes.

Mr. Jim Jones: What about Ontario hospitals?

Ms. Sharon Baker: To my knowledge, there has been no specific budgeting yet, as a matter of fact, for any of the costs associated with year 2000. As I indicated in my brief, one of the issues is not knowing the extent to which medical devices will need to be replaced. We understand that's fairly common across the provinces, with perhaps the exception of Alberta, which has just approved a budget for 1997-98 to deal with year 2000 compliance.

Many of the hospitals in Ontario belong to a health insurance reciprocal. One of the lead underwriters from that organization is speaking at our conference tomorrow.

The funding issue as a whole is something that will be a difficult issue for our province.

• 1630

Mr. Jim Jones: In the financial industry, at the end of the year they audit the books and the auditor gives a seal of approval that it's all in accordance with good accounting standards. What kind of audit are they going to be doing on hospitals to make sure everybody has done everything possible to make sure they are safe and we're not going to have any liabilities down the road?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Related to year 2000?

Mr. Jim Jones: Yes.

Ms. Sharon Baker: Our hospitals are audited each year, as is the financial industry. As a matter of fact, I attended a dinner sponsored by Deloitte & Touche for the CFOs of their client organizations just last week, and one of the issues on that agenda was the year 2000. The CICA, as you know, has issued a guideline, and we have informed all our hospitals they will be audited for year 2000 plans, and progress against plans. We expect auditors to perform that function.

Mr. Jim Jones: When is that going to be done?

Ms. Sharon Baker: March 31 is the year-end for hospitals in Ontario.

Mr. Jim Jones: March 31, 1999?

Ms. Sharon Baker: No, 1998. According to the CICA guidelines, auditors will be assessing the extent to which organizations have plans and are following those plans and that they are reasonable plans to ascertain year 2000 compliance.

Mr. Jim Jones: And they will give them a year 2000 compliance certificate or something like that?

Ms. Sharon Baker: No. What the auditors' guideline is saying is that they will audit for the reasonableness of the plan; not that you are year 2000 compliant but that it is a reasonable process by which to determine that you are.

Mr. Jim Jones: So people are going to audit the reasonableness of the plan but they are not going to do an audit to see if certain devices are compliant.

Ms. Sharon Baker: That's right; not the chartered accountants who would audit your financial statements.

Mr. Jim Jones: I think it should be done.

Thank you.

The Chair: Dr. Poston, did you wish to add to that?

Dr. Jeff Poston: I think the issue of legal liability is an interesting one, and something we hadn't really pursued from a.... It's a good question whether the normal professional liability insurance that pharmacists have would cover...how that would stand up with any problem that could arise out of non-compliance with the year 2000. We will work with our regulatory colleagues to pursue that a little further, to explore that.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

I would like to know if anyone has a “no” answer to this question. Are you currently working with, or have you worked with, the task force on the year 2000? You've all worked except....

Ms. Sharon Baker: No, we have not. I have read the report. We have not worked with them.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: And the pharmacy group?

Dr. Jeff Poston: We're the same. We've read the report. That's as far as we've been.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Whoa.

Okay. Have you ever heard of the ninth day of the ninth month of 1999 possibly being a problem, any of you?

One person out of five or six.

Yes, there is a problem. A lot of programs are indicated as “99” That's the end, the termination of the period. It's just like when you see a press release, “30” at the end means fini, kaput.

You appear to be waiting for the year 2000 as if it were the big party on New Year's Eve, saying everything will be fine tomorrow morning; it being a holiday, everything will operate fine. It worries me that you're not even cognizant that the ninth day of the ninth month in 1999 could be a possible problem in your area. It could be. I'm not saying it would be.

Ms. Sharon Baker: I'm afraid I misunderstood your question. In our presentations to our hospitals we have been advising them that from today forward they may encounter failures, depending on how far forward their systems are calculating. As a matter of fact, we did point out “99” as being a possible end-of-record condition, and the leap year issue with the year 2000.

Dr. Jeff Poston: We certainly see that as an issue, and we've certainly talked to our members about the fact that their systems may just not boot up in the morning and they just won't be functional at all. We've also heard some stories about forward dating—that the current systems won't take forward dates beyond that. That's certainly an issue out there and it has been recognized.

• 1635

To some extent I misunderstood your question too. There is an awareness that there is a potentially significant problem with the year 2000, and people are beginning to act on it.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Two words: “benchmarking” and “testing”. You've told us you've been writing diligently to all the people you are involved with, beware, beware the ides of March; it's coming, it's coming. It's nice to advise the fire department to be ready if there's a fire. The test is to see if they are ready for a fire. Ring the alarm. Have a run. Let's see how much time it takes you. When you unfold all the equipment and the material, you're doing it properly. What will happen in a real-case scenario?

So there's testing. I have the impression, as I listen to all of you, that the testing part will come later. I've heard figures that 90% might be ready, or will be ready, or hopefully will be ready, by such a date. I forget the date, but it's obviously before the year 2000. But that benchmarking of testing so people are compliant: are you not doing that? Are you just wishfully thinking it will be done, that it will be ready for the big fire?

Mr. Poston.

Dr. Jeff Poston: Our information—and Dr. Loh will perhaps add to it—is that, for example, a big area for pharmacy systems will be the whole process of claims processing and claims adjudication. Those systems get changed routinely, with various upgrades and modifications, and the manufacturers do have built-in test procedures where tests are made for compliance with certain standards.

Systems were an example you gave for the financial institutions. Systems are tested before going real-time. Our information is that this sort of testing either has been done or is in the process of being done. But certainly we haven't received any commitments on dates for that.

Dr. Elliot Loh: Dr. Poston is right. Most of these software systems that pharmacies use are not static. They are constantly being modified and updated, frequently because of changes in drug plans in deductibles and what have you. So there is a system in place for upgrading the software portion of the system, and usually a system in place for a relatively rapid distribution of the software at the pharmacy level. At the claims adjudication level there are only a few players, and they are fully capable of doing that and they do it frequently.

More of an important issue is that these systems are updated in different ways. With the issue of dates and the fixes that are developed to deal with these year 2000 or “9999” issues, the solutions may not be the same for everyone. One of the important things we will have to be looking into, and we cannot do that until the systems are updated, is the integration of the systems once the patches and the fixes and reprogramming are made.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In the comments that were made during the presentation, one by Madam Baker and one by Mr. Poston, Madam Baker made a reference to the possible cost of $10 million. The impression I got is, oh, we have a financial problem, so we may not be able to resolve that. Is that—

Ms. Sharon Baker: I'm sorry if I left you with that impression. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Part of the work we're doing at the Ontario Hospital Association is to try to get a good assessment of the true cost for the province so we can raise that information with the Ministry of Health. As many of you may know, our hospitals have been under cuts for the last two years.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Bring up the idea of what the cost to the government could be.

Ms. Sharon Baker: Yes.

• 1640

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you in some kind of negotiation period? What if they say, well, that's too much? What happens then? Do you go back to your pencil?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Compliance has a cost. As you indicated, financial institutions are creating entire test beds in order to test the systems that are supporting their operations.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Will you fix it at any cost?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Some things will have to be fixed at any cost in order to continue.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What will happen to the other things that won't be fixed?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Hospitals, like any other business, will be assessing those items that are critical to their business continuance and to the safety of their patients. Those will get first priority for being fixed. Many industries, ours included, will be employing fixes well into the year 2000, I would suggest to you, for systems that are non-critical.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have a last question for Mr. Poston.

Did I understand correctly that you suggested that in some areas of the country some pharmacies may not be able to comply and that in your mind banks are being a bit overzealous in insisting on compliance for further loans? I wonder if you could reassure me of what exactly you said.

Dr. Jeff Poston: What I'm saying is that the recommendation gives the impression that it requires fairly significant detailed action plans as a basis for loans. The concern we were raising is that the level of documentation that may be required, because it's not specified, could be onerous for small businesses, whereas in fact small businesses could probably demonstrate through much simpler means that their systems are year 2000 compliant.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Lowther, please.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I apologize. I was here a little late and didn't get to hear all the presentations, but I have looked through the material.

I'm reminded of when the banking folks were here. They made the claim—and they're probably the furthest along in addressing this year 2000 problem—that even with all their great efforts and everything they were doing, there were still going to be some problems in the year 2000 that they would be unable to quantify...or be sure they've tackled everything. Here we have the best experts still saying that, and now we're talking about health care.

I read through your submissions and there's something I didn't see here. I'm curious as to why it's not here, and I'll start by introducing something that was mentioned in one of the reports. A patient who was supported by 25 devices was visited. If we can imagine ourselves around this table all dependent on a device—we're in the hospital looking at this device, ticking away, sustaining us until we're healed—I think we would all admit we'd be a little nervous about the new year. Are the lights going to go off? Are they going to escalate the dosage? What's going to happen in the new year when I'm lying here in this hospital bed?

I think the thing I'm looking for is...there's no mention here of contingency plans. No matter what you do on the year 2000 problem—it seems you're pretty early along in this stage compared to some of the people who have presented to us—you're still going to have some unforeseen things. It would seem to me you should have some sort of priority plan or contingency plan for patients. If the machine goes haywire, what do you do to sustain that life? Which ones are critical on machines? There's no mention of patient support activities beyond just addressing the software challenge. Is that something that should be considered? I'd appreciate your comments on it.

Ms. Sharon Baker: As our presentation stressed, we see medical devices as one of the critical components that with a concerted national effort we can address in time for the year 2000. Indeed, our hospitals are part of the plan we are using in the template we've provided, which was kindly supplied by the CIBC. We are suggesting that contingency planning is part of the process of year 2000 compliance. As a matter of fact, in the Ontario Healthcare Providers Alliance, of which I am vice-chair of the IT committee, at our last meeting we discussed possibly working on contingency plans that go beyond hospitals to the entire health care community as something our committee could do while hospitals are working on the other aspects of the plan.

• 1645

Mr. Eric Lowther: It would seem to me that would be a place where you should priorize your efforts, because being experts in health care and not software, you could come up with contingency plans if dependency on machinery breaks down, or if the high-tech machinery breaks down, and continue to beat the drum with suppliers and others to prove that it is going to work and to try to test it. Perhaps your focus would be better spent on what we do if the machine doesn't work and how we know soon enough and how we sustain life if someone is dependent on it. I invite you to entertain that kind of thrust in your future submissions and in your go-forward initiatives.

I will pass it over to Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you.

The phrase that almost stopped my heart was “no one is certain of date-sensitive embedded chips”. Is there a way we can find out where those date-sensitive embedded chips are and how they can be detected?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Again, I would suggest the recommendation we have made on supporting Health Canada in the process to require manufacturers to submit their compliance information by May 30 is the best thing we can do to get at that answer. Anyone I have spoken to or read about on embedded chips feels part of the difficulty is that indeed many of these machines may have no date issue whatsoever. But at this point we do not know.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That is precisely the point. It seems to me the system of asking the manufacturers to do this is probably not adequate. This is why I asked the earlier question about this testing system. There should be some way of determining this, or else they have to be somehow liquidated, or something happens to them.

I'm sure the Health Canada people are only too well aware of this. The new material coming on the market is all properly regulated, and I have no trouble with that. I'm looking backwards to these medical devices that are probably no longer supported, no longer being warranted by the manufacturers. They are off the shelves. In fact, they are probably so obsolete they would say, well, we would never do that again. Yet they could be life-determining issues. That is what I am concerned about.

Mr. Dann Michols: I think that is exactly the sort of information we will pick up in the exercise we are running now. We are asking the manufacturers, who ought to be in the best position to know, whether or not there are date-sensitive operations within a particular device. If a manufacturer comes back to us and says “Yes, and we've looked after the problem”, that is one thing. If they come back and say “Yes, and we haven't looked after the problem”, then we take a look at what plans they have to look after the problem. In that case we will start to look at contingency plans, should that corrective action not be adequate or timely. If they come back to us and say “We don't know”, then I suspect that immediately indicates which set of devices we ought to be moving towards testing on some apparatus or mechanism of our own.

But the first step is to do this inventory and find out exactly which are compliant and which are not compliant, then move into the non-compliant. It is going to depend too on which devices are non-compliant but do have alternatives—that is a separate course of action—and devices that are not compliant and do not have alternatives, when the contingency plans really become essential.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Do you have a time line for when that will all be completed?

Mr. Dann Michols: The first step in the time line is the May 30 deadline for reporting.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: This will be later.

Mr. Dann Michols: Then I suspect it will be a case of looking at individual devices or groups of devices as the data are analysed.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So you don't really have a benchmark for when this will be completed.

Mr. Dann Michols: We do have the year 2000.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: We all know that one.

Mr. Dann Michols: In many instances it is going to be device or system specific, and we are going to have to be dealing with those gradations.

• 1650

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

I don't know of anyone else who wants to speak. Did you have any other questions, Mr. Lowther?

Mr. Lastewka, one last question.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I just wanted to make a comment, with probably some assistance from the witnesses.

The year 2000 problem was really highlighted for us last year when the minister created the study team, and then this committee asked the study team to go a little faster and come back to us earlier, which they did. That study report really exploded the importance of doing the audits and knowing where we stand and knowing that there have been tests put in place certifying that, yes, we are compliant.

I hope everybody understood that this was the reasoning behind our questioning. We have great concern, all of us around this table, that there are too many people leaving things to the last minute and that “Some day we'll take care of it when we get some extra cash to fund it” or “It's not a priority at this time”. In the meantime, as a committee, we have been seeing over and over the importance of having things done by a certain date, because other areas are looking for that information.

What I got from the last discussion is that the OHA is looking for information to be got from Health Canada so they can go back and do some more work with 200 hospitals. If that's not benchmarked and critical dates aren't met, everything gets pushed on to a later date.

Ms. Baker, I think it was your request that the work by Health Canada needs to be done, needs to be done quickly, needs to be factual, so you can go and do some other work.

Ms. Sharon Baker: And actually so we can test it against work already being done.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I'd like to thank the witnesses, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

I'd also like to thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today. We know Health Canada has a large task in ensuring which manufacturers comply and which don't comply. We also have the big unknown as to those that are no longer in production. Ms. Baker, we know you're dealing with that as best you can through the hospital association.

Dr. Poston, you mentioned that you have insurance. We have the insurance sector scheduled to come before the committee to see if they have enough insurance, because we don't want the lawyers to necessarily get rich off the year 2000 problem and we don't want the insurance sector to go under because of the year 2000 problem. We want all businesses, small and large, to take responsibility for where they're at and their actions, and the health sector is critical. You can't necessarily test your systems the way other manufacturers or businesses can. The hospitals can't afford to run the year 2000 date and see what happens. We've heard stories of businesses doing that and everything shuts down except for the lights. Obviously you can't do that with critical care patients in your facilities.

Dr. Poston, you obviously can't do that. You can't afford to lose that information because of allergies, etc., for people for whom you're going to be filling prescriptions.

So we know you have large challenges ahead of you and we urge you to encourage your members to deal with it and not think solely about legal contracts they may have. More so, though, how do you fix the problem and ensure that you're ready?

We thank you for coming before us and helping us try to make others aware of it.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.