PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

• 1544

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call this meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), we are resuming consideration of chapter 12 of the April and October 1997 report of the Auditor General of Canada, which deals with information technology preparedness for year 2000.

We have today witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Mr. Denis Desautels is accompanied by Ms. Nancy Cheng, the principal from the audit operations branch. From the Treasury Board Secretariat we have Mr. Paul Rummell, the chief information officer; and Mr. Guy McKenzie, assistant secretary, chief information officer year 2000 project.

Welcome. I understand you've just joined this department, Mr. McKenzie, so welcome indeed.

• 1545

We also have, from Human Resources Development Canada, Mr. Hy Braiter, senior assistant deputy minister, service delivery; and from Public Works and Government Services Canada, Mr. Grant Westcott, assistant deputy minister, government telecommunication and informatics services.

Welcome all.

We'll start with the opening remarks by Mr. Desautels, the Auditor General.

Mr. L. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss with you the federal government's progress in preparing for the year 2000.

In October 1997 we tabled a report on the status of the federal government's effort in addressing the year 2000 date-coding problem. We concluded that the rate of progress in government departments and agencies had generally been slow. Most of them were in the process of completing the inventory assessment and planning phase, and only a few had started to repair or replace non-compliant systems.

These results indicated that the federal government still faced 65% to 90% of the total effort needed to become ready for the year 2000. We concluded that if progress were to continue at the rate we had observed during our audit, it would likely be too slow to overcome the year 2000 threat. If this should happen, systems that support major programs and essential services may fail, and continuous delivery of these programs and services would be at risk.

Further to this committee's second report to Parliament on the year 2000, the Treasury Board Secretariat submitted two documents. The first, on March 30, 1998, was a revised progress report on the government's readiness as of the fall of 1997, and recently was the government's response to the recommendations detailed in the committee's report.

We reviewed the revised progress report. In my letter to the committee of April 20, I indicated that the report is consistent in all material respects with the survey information contained in the secretariat's files. The review did not include a validation of such information with departments and agencies.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, we have carried out a preliminary review of the government's response to each of the 14 recommendations included in the committee's second report. The response refers to the report by senior assistant deputy ministers as the "work plan". However, that report, which was presented to Cabinet in February, does not include timelines or the level of detail on necessary action to ensure a smooth transition of the government programs and services to the 21st century.

I am encouraged to see the progress that has been made by the government since our audit in 1997. The interest expressed by members of this committee and the Standing Committee on Industry has made a difference in maintaining a focus on resolving this imminent threat to the government and Canada.

Nevertheless, we must not become complacent. Time is passing and the year 2000 threat remains real and urgent. Departments and agencies need to continue to be vigilant. We need to hear about some successes. We should expect government organizations to come forward in the near future and declare that not only the government-wide mission-critical systems but also their respective departmental mission-critical systems have become year 2000 compliant.

[English]

My office, Mr. Chairman, is conducting a follow-up audit of the government's preparedness for the year 2000. We expect the audit to be completed in time for reporting by the end of this year. We plan to review surveys conducted by the Treasury Board Secretariat and examine progress made on initiatives, such as technical resources, funding, and vendor compliance.

We will examine the state of readiness for several systems and applications that support government-wide, mission-critical functions, as defined by the secretariat. In our view, a continual oversight and audit presence underscore the gravity of the situation and add impetus to departmental action.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks. Mrs. Cheng and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

We will now turn to Mr. Rummell for his opening remarks. Mr. Rummell, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Rummell (Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

• 1550

[English]

I'm Paul Rummel, chief information officer for the Government of Canada. I'd like to begin by assuring this committee that I and we do not wish to understate the importance of the year 2000 for the people of Canada and the Government of Canada. I would like to thank this committee and the Auditor General for raising the profile of this issue.

Today, the team and I will provide an update on the federal government's year 2000 actions. First, I'd like to introduce Guy McKenzie, assistant secretary responsible for the Treasury Board Secretariat's year 2000 project office. He was appointed on May 4, 1998.

Also with me are the authors of the Braiter-Westcott report on year 2000 readiness: Mr. Hy Braiter, assistant deputy minister for HRDC; Grant Westcott, assistant deputy minister for GTIS; and Jim Bimson, who has now joined us from the private sector as the project director for the year 2000 project office. Mr. Braiter and Mr. Westcott will be responding to any specific questions you have concerning their report.

Since I last appeared in October 1997, a great deal of work has been accomplished. I'll take a few moments to highlight the work that has been done to date, and describe our plans for continued escalation of management effort and contingency steps we're taking on this issue. We have completed two government-wide surveys—and I emphasize government-wide surveys—on the readiness of government departments and agencies. The results of the second survey were presented to this committee at the end of January.

Our continuing monitoring efforts indicate we have moved from 26% last fall to over 40% in April. Some of the key systems at departments, such as Revenue Canada and HRDC, have completed their conversion work and are well into the testing stage.

It is our view, however, that more attention will have to be paid to critical departments and systems. The Braiter-Westcott review team, during their independent review, identified 44 government-wide mission-critical systems that support the delivery of key services to Canadians. The repair or replacement of these systems should be considered to be the government's highest priority. The Braiter-Westcott report has been endorsed by cabinet, and its recommendations are the basis of our government-wide year 2000 work plan.

In early March we awarded a large procurement contract to seven IT companies for a minimum of $ 100 million of work. These contracts will supplement departmental resources and the $ 111 million in contracts that were already in place to ensure sufficient resources to repair mission-critical systems.

Two dedicated IT recruitment offices have been set up within the Public Service Commission, and we have been successful in recruiting 1,000 additional computer specialists into the public sector as part of our effort.

The Prime Minister has written to ministers to stress the priority of year 2000 work. The secretary of the Treasury Board has written to deputy ministers to urge them to implement the recommendations of the Braiter-Westcott report. We have ensured that funding issues do not become impediments to year 2000 efforts. The government is making interest-free loans available to departments that can demonstrate that sufficient resources cannot be found internally.

Departmental year 2000 funding submissions that have been sent to Treasury Board have been approved. There were no funding delays. Treasury Board submissions and memoranda to cabinet now must contain a year 2000 impact assessment. Discretionary initiatives not directly related to year 2000 have been halted until systems are compliant. Federal-provincial dialogue is ongoing, with a series of workshops and discussions with provincial chief information officers.

Although much progress has been made to date, we need to realize there needs to be a great deal more done. I would therefore like to turn to our future milestones.

With the 19 months remaining, we at the Treasury Board Secretariat are stepping up our action plan with departments. The scope of our monitoring activity is being enhanced and has been enhanced. The year 2000 project office is performing regular detailed assessments of departments, and will continue to provide more comprehensive report cards on government-wide and departmental mission-critical systems. That also includes embedded technologies. These report cards will tell us the pace of progress and help departments prioritize their efforts.

• 1555

The secretary of the Treasury Board is holding a forum for deputy ministers that can make them aware of key milestones and deadlines and will complete a risk assessment of government-wide mission-critical systems by fall of 1998, which will enable the Braiter-Wescott team to identify areas for additional contigency planning.

Contingency plans will be in place for the government by the end of 1998. Throughout 1999, testing activity and assessment thereof will be our primary focus.

We will continue to hold federal-provincial working sessions to ensure that areas of interdependency are addressed. We will continue to provide progress updates to the senior heads of departments. We will ensure that Parliament and the Canadian public are fully aware of our activities and the issues at stake. We have worked and will continue to work towards ensuring the continued delivery of essential services to Canadians.

Mr. Chairman, we're now prepared to receive your questions.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rummell, and I thank you for summarizing your report.

I would ask that we append your actual report to the minutes of this meeting when they are published, so that we have them in their entirety as well.

I've also asked the clerk to distribute a copy of the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which was tabled in the House of Commons on November 27, 1997. It contains the recommendations that are being responded to today. The clerk also advises me that the Braiter-Wescott report on the year 2000 readiness, which was made public two or three weeks ago, was delivered to all members of the public accounts committee, and if anyone needs an additional copy they are available from the clerk.

Mr. Mayfield, eight minutes please.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for being here today to answer the questions. This is an issue that really captures the imagination of people when they realize the seriousness of this issue.

I'm concerned about and would like to talk about two things to begin with. One is money and the other is personnel.

As I read the report of Mr. Braiter and Mr. Wescott, it seems to me that there has been a substantial amount of money put forward to spend on handling this problem, $ 1.4 billion maximum, I believe. And I understand that there's been about $ 2 million of that used to this point, at least to the point of the report. It concerns me that it takes time and talent to spend $ 1 billion, and I'm wondering why more of those resources are not being used.

The other thing that concerns me with regard to personnel is I understand from your comments that you're recruiting as many people as you can, but that there are also personnel who are members of the departments who are taking absence without pay to work for private concerns and who it seems are coming back to work for the government with another hat on.

How could you comment on these issues?

Mr. Paul Rummell: First of all, we started dealing with the year 2000 repairs early on. There was a basic recognition of the issue when we established the four-year date standard in 1988, and we can trace the progress on repairs back to 1989 across the federal government. We've been working on this problem since 1989, to assure the health, safety, and well-being of systems, to ensure the delivery of services to the Canadian public.

The efforts for the year 2000 really started being stepped up within the federal government in 1995, when the first committee meetings were held, the advisory committee on information management was notified that this should be a priority for repair of the systems. And when we talk about the $ 1 billion that you refer to in your remarks, sir, that was money we started to spend over a five- or six-year period for these repairs, and some of that money will even be spent across the year 2000 timeline.

• 1600

You also asked about personnel. We've been very successful in terms of recruiting personnel into the government, and one of the recommendations by the Braiter-Westcott report is that we not provide leave for these people to make sure that they don't return from the private sector to the public sector on contract. So we're trying to make sure that this recommendation is complied with across the government.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

Another issue that concerns me and is related to this is the readiness of telecommunications facilities that carry the computer messages from one computer to another. This has been an issue that's been raised with me before I read this report, and it seems to me to be an issue of profound proportions. You may have your systems all set up and working perfectly within themselves, but these systems are not complete without the ability to communicate with other systems. I'm wondering what progress you have made in dealing with these telecommunication systems.

Mr. Paul Rummell: For the honourable member, yes, we can certainly answer that question. I'll refer that question to Mr. Westcott. He moved from the Department of Justice and has now taken responsibility for the government computing and telecommunication service.

Mr. Grant Westcott (Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services, Public Works and Government Services Canada): I'm responsible for the primary liaison between the government, as a user of the telecommunication facilities, and the industry itself. We, in conjunction with the CRTC, share that interface between industry per se.

Thus far, the telecommunications industry has not been forthcoming with definitive dates as to when they have assured us they will be ready. They're concerned to some extent with liability issues, and because of that they've been less than forthcoming. We are taking very strong measures with them to suggest that as one of the largest consumers of their services in this country, they have an obligation to us to be more forthcoming in that sense, regardless of liability.

It's a sensitive issue, because we can only do that as a consumer, not as a regulator in that sense. So we're taking all the actions we possibly can to ensure that from the point of view of the Government of Canada they would be responsive to our needs.

I have had discussions with two of the major telcos, and they assure me that from the point of view of the ongoing systems they use to handle the data communications, not necessarily some of their business systems but the systems that count to us, they anticipate they will be ready in the September timeframe.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: September of 1998?

Mr. Grant Westcott: Of this year, yes. But we have not got a definite statement to that effect, and we continue to press them that way.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Are you able to press them, like, soon?

Mr. Grant Westcott: We are pressing them as hard as we can press them within—

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Excuse me, but there's a quorum call in the House. It's been called by the Reform Party, and the Liberals are going to have to go in—

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): It's an opposition vote?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They don't want to have quorum. Imagine calling quorum and it's an opposition day.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Do you want quorum or not? We'd like to be here at this committee, but I want the people watching to know that the bells are ringing and members are being called into the House. It was a quorum call called by the Reform Party. We feel we have to go if you're going to call quorum. We can't be here in committee down the hall.

The Chairman: The quorum is being called in the House, I understand. If any member feels obliged to leave, they may do so—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chairman, if they leave it will break quorum and you won't be able to continue the committee here.

The Chairman: The normal rules of the committee are that we need a quorum of five, including three government members, in order to commence, and as long as quorum is not called here, the committee can continue to hear testimony while people are absent. So we'll continue on in the meantime and we will continue to hear testimony.

Mr. Mayfield, you were asking a question.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Yes.

When we were gathered with you earlier there was a question asked that caught my attention and my imagination, and that is, if it fails, if we fail to reach it and the cheques cannot go out to the computers, what would you do? The response was you will write cheques by hand, which strikes me as not being a very imaginative answer to the question, considering the number of cheques that are issued on a daily basis.

• 1605

Now, as I read this report, I see that in one little component of a power company, five people took three weeks or something like that to isolate one little component, and that was only to diagnose it, not to fix it. The proportions of this problem are so enormous.

I want to know how many departments are going to be testing their systems by September 1998, remembering that the planned test date was April 1. How many are going to be ready to begin testing by September 1998?

Mr. Paul Rummell: If we could start answering your questions with the preparation of cheques, perhaps—

The Chairman: Before we start to answer any questions, we'll go a little bit longer because of the interruption we had with Mr. Mayfield's time. We'll try to keep the answers relatively brief.

Mr. Rummell.

Mr. Paul Rummell: Perhaps I'll get Mr. Braiter to answer the question. He's from HRDC, the largest producer of cheques in the country.

Mr. Hy Braiter (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you.

One of the recommendations we made when we did this study back in January and February was that in the fall a second review would take place of the type we did in January and February. For any government-wide mission-critical system that has any element that looks like it's at risk—for example, say it looks like they will not be completed by January 1998—then contingency plans start being prepared for how they would do things like writing cheques.

In our department, for example, HRDC, we do employment insurance cheques and we also all the CPP and OAS cheques, although we print them through Public Works Canada. We wouldn't even think of writing cheques by hand. First of all, we're quite confident that those systems will be ready, but putting that aside, we would be looking for contingency plans that are practical and doable plans.

For example, if the absolute worst happened and we could not issue Canada Pension Plan cheques in January 2000, our contingency plan would be to reissue the exact same cheques that were issued in December, January, February, and March until the systems were ready.

So these are the types of contingency plans we're talking about. Departments would be called upon to prepare these plans if any part of their system looked like it was in jeopardy.

For example, if cheques couldn't be deposited into banks automatically—some 70% of seniors have their cheques deposited automatically—we would be looking at contingency plans to see how we would print those cheques and have them delivered to them.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: What contingency plans would they be?

Mr. Hy Braiter: We would print the cheques and have them delivered.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: This is only one small aspect, though. Look at something like the atomic power commission, the navigation systems, or the medical research systems. What contingency plans can you offer in these areas? The problem is so enormous, and it concerns me that we have to have some answers about when the testing can begin.

Now, in September, we're already months late.

The Chairman: Mr. Mayfield, I think that we're going to move on to Mr. Laurin. We'll come back to these questions later on.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, eight minutes please.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, reading this report I noted that a deadline was mentioned, namely April 1st, 1998. This deadline is now almost two months past and we realize from reports that in most departments, at least 60% of the work remains to be done. I find that very worrisome. The repair and replacement of systems is supposed to come ahead of all the other government priorities. The review team listed 44 systems essential to the mission of the federal government. Among these 44 systems, which are those that are most at risk at the present time, at risk of not being ready? Are all 44 not ready since we've already passed the deadline?

I would like you to describe to us what exactly the present situation is. Do we still have some hope of being ready or are we headed towards a national disaster?

[English]

Mr. Paul Rummell: We're making significant progress in terms of converting the government-wide mission-critical systems. We've certainly held the government-wide mission-critical systems. Those that are most important to the health, safety, and well-being of the public are our first priority. We're making excellent progress in terms of converting those systems.

A number of the significant systems are now in the test stage. A number of the systems at HRDC are being tested at this point, as are systems that provide services such as the child tax benefit. Those are also in test for organizations such as Revenue Canada.

• 1610

We're going to make sure that those most important systems to the public are the ones converted first, and that's why we've devoted our attention to those systems as our very first priority. We're going to be sure that the systems are converted and the contingency plans are also in place to be sure those services are not put in jeopardy for the Canadian public.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Rummell, in your presentation today, you said you will have made an assessment by the fall of the risks to the mission-critical systems of the federal administration. So at the present time, we do not yet know which systems may not be ready since you say you will not have done this evaluation before fall. By that time there will no longer be 19 months left before the year 2000 but only 13. So what can we expect?

[English]

Mr. Paul Rummell: We're starting the evaluation of contingency plans this summer and then we're going to have a review, an assessment, of those plans in the fall to be sure they're adequate. So it's just a double-check. We anticipate that they'll be put in place this summer.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: You also say that you will keep on working to prevent an interruption of essential systems for the population of Canada. It would appear at the present time we have no assurance that essential services for the population will be ready or protected. I repeat my question, what are these essential services that run the greatest risk of not being ready?

[English]

Mr. Paul Rummell: The Braiter-Westcott review team has done a review of the government-wide mission-critical systems and can provide some comment on the status.

Mr. Hy Braiter: Yes, I can comment, but I cannot comment on each and every department in the Government of Canada.

What we did was identify one tranche of systems: those that relate to health, safety, security, and economic well-being. Those are listed in annex A of the report. There are 44 such systems belonging to 19 departments. We said the government must make sure these systems are ready. This is what the public will see. This is what the public depends on for critical services.

We've made 16 recommendations to the government, and if the government undertakes them—and by and large, as Mr. Rummell has explained, the government has made good progress on these recommendations—we feel the Government of Canada can be ready with these mission-critical systems, if it does such things as provide the funding and eliminate competing priorities, including not passing new legislation that might affect getting ready, and including freezing all discretionary systems and moving all the resources to these.

By and large, our department, HRD, has done these things. We've recommended that we streamline the procurement process, that we make it easier to hire staff when we need them, and that we have access to consultants when and if we need them.

Back in January and February, when we reviewed the departments with such systems, they were working quite hard on these systems, and most of them had schedules of early January, February, or March 1999 for when these systems would be implemented, finished, complete. We will be able to see very clearly by the fall if in fact these departments are that close to implementing. If they do implement in January, February, or March 1999, that will give them all at least three-quarters of the year to watch these systems operate in reality and fix anything they might have missed—and there will be things missed.

So the surveys that continue to be carried out by the project 2000 office give us some assurance that these departments are doing the work they have to.

In terms of priority, the Prime Minister has told his ministers in a letter that this is one of the top government priorities. The secretary of the Treasury Board has done the same in a letter to all deputies. The report was included. So the ministers of each of the departments and the deputies of those departments are responsible for making sure these systems are ready on schedule. By and large, their schedules give them three-quarters of a year, half a year, or up to a year of comfort, so to speak, and this is about what the industry tells you you should be doing.

• 1615

In terms of HRDC, where I am now—in February, after my two months' study I went back to my normal job—I can tell you our department is on schedule to have all its mission-critical systems in place—employment insurance, Canada Pension Plan, old age security, and so on—for January of 1999, giving us almost a full year of comfort.

Now, if in the auditor's reviews and in the project 2000 office reviews it seems like we're in trouble, they should raise hell and we will have to be accountable to make sure we do it. But right now there's reason to be optimistic, cautiously optimistic. I think we have to keep probing and pushing and reviewing and monitoring and auditing, but that's all you can do, and keep it as a top priority.

The money is there. I think the people are there. The contracts are there. The priority is there and now we just have to keep monitoring.

We've also recommended that the ministers and the Treasury Board regularly monitor progress as well and get these reports. This is a reasonable approach to making sure it can be done.

However, I don't think anybody is going to guarantee anything. It's a once-in-a-lifetime event, and all we can do is put all hands to work on this issue and monitor it carefully and put the money to it and eliminate any competing priorities. That's the only comfort I have.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: There's something else that worries me. In the government's response to the 14 recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, great emphasis is put on the fact that the departments are responsible for the repair and replacement necessary to adapt their systems to the year 2000 and the Treasury Board Secretariat apparently does some type of planning for all departments. Still no one seems to have any power to force action in case things do not work properly. That is something I find disturbing. What is going to happen?

Who has the power to tell a department that is running behind schedule when things don't work out and it is not meeting its deadlines? As a matter of fact, there aren't that many time constraints as was pointed out by the Auditor General. No one seems to have the power to crack the whip and tell the departments to get into line, we've only got 15 months left, then 13, then 12. What is your reaction to this government response?

[English]

The Chairman: Would you like to respond, Mr. Rummell?

Mr. Paul Rummell: I will defer to Mr. McKenzie.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy McKenzie (Assistant Secretary, CIO Year 2000 Project, Treasury Board Secretariat): Let me describe to you, Mr. Laurin, how we see things and what we have started doing.

First of all, I'll repeat what my colleagues said. The departments are responsible for conversion since they are the ones with knowledge about the systems. Our evaluation system, however, enables us to keep regular track of progress. During the summer, as was already mentioned, we will have the results of a very detailed evaluation and will thus be able to determine the progress made by departments.

Meetings will take place with the higher-ups in the departments, as my colleague said, at the deputy minister level, and a risk assessment will be done. This week and during the past weeks—I've just come back—I attended private sector meetings dealing with the same subject. They operate in the same way. They're making efforts to ensure that there will be the necessary repairs and conversion. The private sector is also doing a risk assessment.

This will be done during the summer and we also expect to involve a multi-disciplinary team, people from internal audit, program managers along with information technology managers to ensure the most consistent approach possible.

In the fall, once we have this detailed evaluation, we will be able to make emergency plans, in the same way the private sector does. I repeat that I was agreeably surprised to see that we were working on basically the same premises. As for our emergency plans, it's simply a matter of being able to deal with situations as they occur. As we already explained, no matter what happens, we'll be ready to face the music. Trials will be taking place throughout 1999.

[English]

The Chairman: I think Mr. Laurin's question was who is in charge, not what are you doing. Perhaps you could answer that question, quite briefly, please.

Mr. Guy McKenzie: In fact the departments are responsible for fixing the systems, but we assure you that we are properly monitoring them around the table all the time to ensure that the work is done and according to a certain schedule, of course.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Caplan, eight minutes please.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much.

I can't believe it's six months and we're having this discussion again. What this tells me is how important it is that we do this on a regular basis because the time is going quickly.

As you know, I raised a question in the House on this topic, because I believe it's in the interests of all Canadians to be aware of what the government is doing and to know that we have declared this as a priority and remain vigilant.

• 1620

I want to make sure I heard you correctly. You believe that all departments will actually have their plans in place by the end of 1998 and that the year 1999 will be available for testing of those systems. Is that correct?

Mr. Paul Rummell: That's correct. We certainly appreciate your support in terms of raising awareness on this issue. This is a very important issue for the public. To restate your question, the plan is that we'll be doing the repair work. We've done the assessment work. We're doing the repair work right now for the important systems for the government. We'll have those in place by the end of this year, for the most part, and then we'll be starting to expand.

The year 1999 will really be a year of tests to be sure that all those systems are shaking down and are running very properly within any potential situations at the year 2000. So we're allowing lots of time here. We're making sure that very strong contingencies are put in place to make sure that we don't rush any of these repairs on these big complex systems that serve the public.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That was my next question, contingencies for the major systems as well as the testing. You have a contingency plan in place for all of those you've declared as essential services. Is that my understanding?

Mr. Paul Rummell: We're not only going to make sure they're converted but we're also going to be providing assurances that there are contingency plans in place. So if there are situations we can't account for at this point or can't determine if another service is going to be available as a result of an interdependency, then we're going to be sure that an adequate contingency plan is in place to the highest practices of risk management.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The next question I have is about all of those who communicate electronically with government. Have you considered what's going to happen to them if they are not repaired, and is there such a thing as their lack of preparedness causing a problem for the government? Is that far-fetched, or is that a concern?

Mr. Paul Rummell: We've taken a two-pronged approach within the government, first of all to deal with the repairs of the systems that are internal to the government. The second approach we took is through the Task Force 2000 through the industry committee, which has done excellent work through the industry leaders that have been on that committee. I've had the good fortune of being on the committee. We've sent mailings, I think, to almost 600,000 or 800,000 businesses across the country. We've also taken out advertisements to be sure that businesses have made repairs to their systems. To increase awareness we've worked with organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and others to be sure there's a lot of awareness on the issue and that people start early rather than late in dealing with the issue.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But is it a potential problem if people doing business with the government have a problem? Could they affect government systems?

Mr. Grant Westcott: By way of illustration, I'm responsible for the interface between the Canadian government and the financial institutions in this country. In particular, approximately 70% of our social payments and many of our general disbursements are done electronically directly into people's bank accounts. We are in the process right now with the Canadian Payments Association as part of our testing activities to ensure that their systems are certified and reliable, in order that we can assure you that the direct-deposit regime will continue uninterrupted throughout the transition.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Direct deposit is just one example of—

Mr. Grant Westcott: It's the most significant.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's the most significant one.

Mr. Grant Westcott: Yes, that's correct.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I guess the concern that people have is, you know, the year 2000 is going to happen once. I don't think many people have thought about what the implications are. Part of the advantage we have at this committee, because it's televised, is to start to perhaps tell people what they should be aware of. I'd like to give you the opportunity, whether they're dealing with government particularly or with....

For example, one of the things I saw was that Health Canada had an advisory that people with pacemakers or devices that might have a computer chip in them should seek advice, likely from the people who installed such device. That was something I hadn't thought of. I'm wondering whether the practitioners are being notified to let their patients know, or whether patients are being notified, and whether that's the sort of thing you're looking at when you're doing the audits of those who perhaps are not directly government, but certainly where government has the opportunity to raise the awareness of the public to the sorts of things that might be impacted by the year 2000 computer glitch—or is that a good word?

• 1625

Mr. Paul Rummell: We have a particular concern about embedded systems.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Embedded systems?

Mr. Paul Rummell: It's where a microprocessor or microchip resides in a piece of equipment. It's not only the larger computers that sit upon the desktops or the computers that sit in the big rooms that provide services but it's also those embedded chips. That's an area we're dealing with.

Perhaps Mr. Bimson could comment on that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Give us some examples, if you could, of what an embedded chip might be.

Mr. Jim Bimson (Program Director, Year 2000 Project, Treasury Board Secretariat): For example, in the home, sometimes you can find an embedded chip in such devices as VCRs, where it's computer-controlled. Some cars have them in the engine system, measuring the temperature and this type of thing.

With respect to medical devices, in fact the Department of Health is concerned about that and is working on the regulation of the industry, dealing with the provinces, because as you so rightly point out, Madam, it is a concern.

The Chairman: Mr. Bimson, before we continue, I didn't introduce you when we started off. I think I'm correct in saying that you are the program director in the year 2000 office.

Mr. Jim Bimson: That's correct, sir. I was also part of the Braiter-Westcott review team.

The Chairman: My apologies.

Continue. You have two more minutes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you, because I think this is very important.

The ordinary Canadian tends to see this as somebody else's problem, but when we start to think about those things that may have an impact.... If you bought your VCR, your microwave or your car within the last couple of years, you're probably okay. If it's five years old, should you be concerned? Do you have any sense of when manufacturers started to be aware that they had to consider this?

Mr. Jim Bimson: I wouldn't want to commit myself on which manufacturers were aware of it, but I would suggest that anybody who has such a device might wish to ask the people from whom they purchased it if in fact it is year 2000 compliant.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So the question is, is my device—fill in the blank—that might have a computer chip in it year 2000 compliant? What if it's not? What can they expect to happen on January 1, 2000? Will it stop working? Will it blow up? I mean, what likely is going to happen?

I'm thinking particularly about people who perhaps have embedded devices in their bodies—pacemakers, that kind of thing. What's going to happen to them if they haven't been contacted and notified that they may have a problem? Do we know what's going to happen?

Mr. Paul Rummell: I can't speak to the biomedical devices issue per se, but it is an important issue, and Health Canada is looking after that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You're satisfied they are contacting the provinces and developing a plan to make sure that public consciousness is raised?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Yes. They are doing that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What about appliances generally; is there a standard? Who has the responsibility for letting the public know what appliances might not be 2000 compliant?

Mr. Paul Rummell: At this point we're not doing appliance testing. We're looking at the computer systems and embedded systems for the federal government.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal, four minutes, please.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome the ladies and gentlemen to the committee, particularly Mr. McKenzie, who has been recently appointed assistant secretary.

I will restate that Canadians are demanding that essential services not be disrupted when the time comes. Canadians are demanding assurance that their safety will not be jeopardized. We have less than 600 days to go, and most of the concerns mentioned in the report still remain unattended. I am concerned about that, and I would like to know the timeframe for when 100% of the work will be done.

Out of this report I found out that there are 44 identified government-wide mission-critical systems. How many of them have the contingency plan ready to go, and tested, or are you still planning to write the cheques manually?

I would also be interested to know who's organizing and coordinating the compliance project, and who will be accountable to Canadian taxpayers for the value they are demanding for their money.

• 1630

Finally, I would like to know the total dollar value of the budget you are forecasting at this time. Is it still $ 1.4 billion, or are you expecting more money than that?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Rummell, do you want to handle these questions?

Mr. Paul Rummell: First of all, we want to be sure that we're making repairs to the government-wide mission-critical systems first, and that we've started the assessment and repair activities for those systems. We have contingency plans for our systems at present.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: How many departments have them?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Most of our departments. For all of our departments we have contingency plans, but they're probably not as complete as we would like for the year 2000, because there are more types of problems that could occur.

For example, during the ice storm we were able to operate a number of our departmental systems in a number of areas across the country, very successfully, running under contingency plans. We don't want to repeat the type of problem that occurred during the ice storm, but our contingency plans for our systems, our data centres, for government telecommunications and information services—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: And the timeframe for when they will be ready?

Mr. Paul Rummell: We've had contingency plans in place but we're going to have enhanced contingency plans for 2000 to be sure that we deal with a broader range of issues that can occur—not a natural disaster, but a disaster that's of a different type. That's what we plan on doing for the year 2000.

We've had a contingency planning effort in place in the government for many years now to be sure that they're in place for vital electronic systems.

The Chairman: You had a question, Mr. Grewal, about the cost of the contract, $ 1.4 billion. Do you want to pursue that?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes. I want to find out if that's the final figure or if they are expecting the figure to rise.

Mr. Paul Rummell: Again, that was a preliminary estimate, but with the Braiter-Westcott review team we went through and made a review of the estimates for repairs of the systems. For the most part, those figures held true through their review. For repair systems, for the most part we've been trying to fund this out of existing reference levels and existing budgets.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But you are not expecting it to be as high as $ 20 billion, as was reported in the media some time ago.

Mr. Paul Rummell: I wouldn't think so at all. We still hold by the estimate.

They can comment on what they found in their review.

Mr. Hy Braiter: I can't add very much more to what Mr. Rummell said. By and large, we found that $ 1.2 billion or $ 1.3 billion was the estimate to fix the government-wide mission-critical systems. We found that departments could absorb about half of it by diverting resources to this problem and suspending systems activities on discretionary systems.

For the other half, we recommended very strongly that the government find a solution in terms of getting the money flowing. The government chose to get the money flowing by means of an interest-free loan and a repayment schedule that is reasonable for the department. In that sense, our department, HRD, made estimates a year ago, and we're still sticking by those estimates.

So by and large, it's in that ballpark.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

The Chairman: You said, Mr. Braiter, $ 1.2 billion to $ 1.3 billion for the mission-critical systems, but what about the government in its entirety? What's it going to cost, and when's it going to get done?

Mr. Hy Braiter: I can't give it to you categorically, but I can give you a subjective feel. The mission-critical systems by and large are the key systems. The rest will be done within departmental budgets. That's basically the current feeling.

Now, that could change as we see things unfold and as departments discover new problems, but I think the estimate of $ 1 billion to $ 1.4 billion seems to be a pretty good estimate.

The Chairman: And the timeframe for the non-mission-critical programs?

Mr. Hy Braiter: We looked at the mission-critical, by and large, but I can tell you, from the experience of my own department and that of other departments I've spoken to, that within the departments they have to do them all, of course.

Now, we had to make a choice. What we're saying is, do the mission-critical first so that at least we have health, safety and security out of the way. Then get to the others, even if you can do them all.

In our department, for example, we're working on all of them, but we're absolutely assuring ourselves that we'll get the mission-critical done.

The Chairman: But you missed the point of my question. When is the government going to get the job done?

Mr. Hy Braiter: I can't answer that except for mission-critical.

The Chairman: Mr. Grose. Four minutes, please.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Having returned from the games being played in the House, I may have missed something while I was away.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On the other hand....

Mr. Ivan Grose: Right. On the other hand, I may not have missed anything at all.

I intended to make this point much earlier. For the benefit of the people watching who may feel they've tuned into the middle of a bad movie in which the actors run in and out of the scenes, could we go back to square one and briefly describe exactly what the year 2000 problem is?

• 1635

We're using a lot of big words here, systems management, and billions of dollars, and so on. What is the problem? And give us the ramifications of what could happen if we're not ready.

Mr. Paul Rummell: I'd be happy to address the question.

The year 2000 date problem is based upon what appeared to be a relatively simple approach to programming computers, which is to use a two-year date field. So it would be the month, it would be the day, and it would be the year, for two dates, rather than using a four-year date field.

The computer business really took off thirty years ago, and many computer programs used the two-year date field. Computer disc storage was extremely expensive, computers themselves were extremely expensive, and that convention was used for 20 years by computer programmers to set up systems.

So 1968 from 1978 would provide you with the result of 10 years, and that's the way the logic works within the computer programs. Those that were built in 1968 and 1978 were probably built with that two-year date logic, because computer disc storage was very expensive.

When I started my career in this business 28 years ago, it would cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a very small disc pack for a computer system, or we had to use a tape or computer cards to do that, and we were just trying to save space. There was a recognition that those systems would last for maybe five years and ten years, and then they would be replaced before the next millennium arose. We found many of the systems have been in use for 20 or 30 years now, so they have very long histories.

Perhaps Mr. Braiter could provide some additional commentary.

Mr. Hy Braiter: That's an excellent description, but maybe there's even a simpler way of saying it.

When we reach the year 2000, computers will not be able to tell the difference between year 2000 and year 1900, because they'll be looking at “00” as the date field. When they look at “00” and they don't know which is which, a lot of things can happen. If they do mathematics on it, they can come up with some very funny solutions. If it's a manufacturing process getting reports regularly, they could abort, saying this is an invalid message, I have a report from 100 years ago, and so on and so forth.

It's the same with your tanks that maybe have a scheduled repair system internally. You turn the key and it says, gee, this tank hasn't had an oil or grease job for 100 years. And so things happen.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It may be true, though.

Mr. Hy Braiter: Although I think there's good reason for it historically, including the 80-column card, which many of us used in our school days if we were old enough. Two digits out of an 80-column card was a lot, and that's where we stored computer information. So this carried on, and it became a tradition in the computer industry to use two digits. It has carried on right until very recently. Even manufacturers supplying micro-computers in the last few years have still been using it.

Basically, I think a lot of people presumed that this was a technical problem for the techies, and that Mr. Gates or some other wizards would come up with a silver bullet that you would implement and it would fix everything. It hasn't happened yet. And the unfortunate part is we have to go through every single line of code that was ever written that's still running, every single piece of hardware, every single piece of software, and you have to test it, fix it, replace it, retest it and implement it.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

That's what I wanted, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Pagtakhan, four minutes, please.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the presentation by the Auditor General, as I was trying to read through his notes, he has identified, from my point of view, at least two remaining concerns. One of them is the absence of timelines and levels of detail on the necessary action plan with respect to the work plan as presented by the government.

Mr. Auditor General, since the beginning of this meeting, has that been addressed by the witnesses from the government side?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, the question of the adequacy of work plans hasn't really been dealt with so far today, and that's an issue that I believe is still relevant.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On that score, then, I ask the witnesses from the government to address the specific question raised by the Auditor General in his presentation.

Mr. Paul Rummell: Thank you, honourable member, for the question.

• 1640

We've had a year 2000 project office in place in Treasury Board since 1996. We have had an action plan, a work plan, for that office. We have been continually stepping up our activities since the inception of the office, and we will continue to do so. We have had a work plan in place. We started with a group of eight people and will probably have a team of about forty people providing the coordination for that office. So with the growth in that office, we will now be setting up more formal action plans. Those action plans are now in place and we'll be sure to have them enhanced.

In addition, one of the things we've been reviewing across the departments is whether there are formal work plans in place. We are pleased to report that for the departments we've dealt with, there have been plans in place to deal with the year 2000 issue. That's where the specific changes to these systems are being made, and we feel quite comfortable that good plans are in place and there are various levels of plans, depending on the complexity of the department. A very complex plan is required for large departments like HRDC or Revenue Canada. But there's also a much simpler plan for very small agencies with just a few people in them. So we have a variation in terms of—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Earlier I heard that you are happy about the progress. To me, one way of measuring happiness about progress is meeting the deadline or timeline. In the work plan you have just alluded to, are timelines included or not, and if not, why not?

Mr. Paul Rummell: The timeline we've set for completion of the repairs of the systems is toward the end of this calendar year. In addition, we are going for testing in 1999, as I said.

Grant, do you have additional comments?

Mr. Grant Westcott: By way of an example, one of our mission-critical systems I'm responsible for is compensation and superannuation. That's one of the government-wide mission-critical functions. A sub-function of that is members of Parliament retirement pay, for example.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't be messing that up.

Mr. Grant Westcott: I want to reassure members that, by way of detailed planning, we started on the system in April 1997. We completed all the assessments. We completely repaired it. We fully tested it and it was fully certified by May 1 of this year. It's complete. Now I can't say that all of the compensation and superannuation systems are done, but that's an example of where we had a start—progress reports. We're finished, it's certified and complete. That's an example of how we do it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It is not clear to me that the concern raised by the Auditor General has been addressed faithfully by the responses. Maybe I am overestimating my expectations, but I would like to defer to the Auditor General. Has your expectation of reply been attained?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I think we're talking about a huge project. We're talking about a project that has to be backed up by very specific plans, as we just heard, at the departmental level and on a system-by-system basis. But as with every overall large project like this, I think you need at least a superstructure and plans at different levels—from the top level coming down to more detailed levels all the way. We heard today a lot of discussion about having identified government-wide mission-critical statements, for example. So there's a need to rank priorities and assign priorities at different levels all the way through the organization I would call the Government of Canada.

We would like to see plans that would be applicable, first of all, to the government as a whole and driven by the year 2000 project office. That has to be then supported by more specific plans at the department level, because that's where most of the action will obviously take place. Those plans, at both levels, must have tasks, dates and responsibilities. In my view, they also have to be updated on a very regular basis so you can monitor progress.

At this time I'm not satisfied. I think there is some good stuff going on in individual departments, as we've just heard, but there's a need to bring it together in a clearer picture so it can be managed more clearly and more punctually.

• 1645

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I heard from that—with the permission of the chair, just say yes or no—that you made a distinction between government-wide versus respective departmental mission-critical systems when you made a distinction between the two kinds of critical systems. Did I comprehend it more or less correctly?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I didn't quite mean that. There are government-wide critical systems that are the responsibility of some departments. They are the main architects of that, but there are also critical systems that are applicable only to a department, and not necessarily government-wide.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Myers, four minutes, please.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to first of all thank the witnesses. I think this is most enlightening, interesting, and educational. I'm certainly sure that most Canadians also are very concerned about this particular problem.

Mr. Westcott, while I found the example of the parliamentary pension interesting, I find that's hardly a priority of the government, nor should it be. I'm sure you can give us assurances that there are other more high-priority kinds of examples you can give that are much more in keeping with what Canadians want and need. Perhaps you could do that now.

Mr. Grant Westcott: Another example would be that I'm responsible for the standard payment systems and the standard cheque-issue systems that support many of the government operations across departments.

Our plans right now are that we are going to complete the standard cheque-issue system in September 1998. Similarly, we'll also do the standard payment system, which also goes beyond just the issuance of cheques to actually interface into the direct-deposit world. Again, that is scheduled to be completed by July 1998. We are roughly 75% finished in our work, and our intention is to have that completed by this fall, as I mentioned earlier. So those are very significant ones in that sense.

Mr. Hy Braiter: In the Department of Human Resources Development, the social insurance number issuing system is tested and ready to be implemented. The payment of annuities of Canada, which are not being sold any more, is tested and ready.

The Canada Pension Plan is 45% in production, which means that it's not only tested, it's implemented, because the Canada Pension Plan looks ahead in order to be able to pay people in 2000 even today and know that there are certain entitlements. By January, the entire Canada Pension Plan system will be ready.

Old age security is in testing, and the employment insurance system will be ready by the end of January 1999.

With those kind of high-level dates, if the Auditor General or another review team comes back in the fall and says we're four months behind what we said, then of course we've got a problem. Then of course you get into your contingency planning issue and ramifications in terms of government holding the departments accountable, etc.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you. The whole key for me is to ensure that ordinary Canadians have their cheques and that their lives are not disrupted. I think that's the absolute bottom line here that we're dealing with.

I wanted to go on to contamination. Is there a possibility that even if you have your systems compliant that some outside system could in fact contaminate the good work you have in place? Can somebody respond to that?

Mr. Hy Braiter: Maybe I'll give it a try.

One of our recommendations had some people saying it was sort of obvious. It was on the emphasis on testing and in terms of total functional testing and in a year 2000 environment. Total function testing means that when you think the job is done, you have to pretend it's year 2000 and you have to pretend you're running, say, the EI system in a year 2000 environment with all of its arms and legs, with all of its connectivity, with all of its online connections, with all of the information that might be exchanged with Statistics Canada or Revenue Canada or provinces. You want to run the entire function, the mission of functional test in a year 2000 environment.

Before you do that, you can't be absolutely sure, because human beings will make a mistake, and all of the individual testing in the world will not catch the final test, which is to pretend you're running the whole thing with all the interconnectivity.

We really need a year's grace to be able to catch anything we've missed. Or if we can't connect with certain vital partners, we have to create some other way of exchanging the data so that, to the client, it's transparent. The client doesn't know. They get their cheque. They don't know that we transmitted the data. We changed tapes. We carried tapes. We shipped tapes instead of doing an electronic exchange, and so on. The functional testing, that kind of thing, has to be a critical part of the plan.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Myers.

• 1650

The report the public accounts committee asked for from the Treasury Board, we got back in January, and then we got a second report in April. When we analysed the April report, we found, it seemed, that you were stepping backwards and hadn't accomplished as much as you had in January.

Did you take a look at these two reports, Mr. Desautels, and do you have any comment on that? From my perspective, it seemed that they were stepping backwards rather than forwards.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I don't think it's a question of stepping backwards or forwards. When we looked at the initial report, we found that it was using some data that was not really the right data. You asked for a status report as of the fall of 1997 and some of the data that was used initially was not as of the fall of 1997. We brought that to the attention of Mr. Rummell and his colleagues, and therefore a revised report was prepared after that, which showed the situation as we believe it was in the fall of 1997.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We've dealt today primarily with averages. What department is furthest behind, Mr. Rummell?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Again, we feel that all the departments dealing with government-wide mission-critical systems are making significant progress in terms of their repairs.

The Chairman: Are they all making the same progress or are some lagging behind others?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Again, I think they're making significant progress, and I think the proper steps are being taken. According to the Braiter-Westcott report, we'll be able to cross the finish line with them before the year 2000.

The Chairman: So you're saying that every department will meet its deadline.

Mr. Paul Rummell: For the government-wide mission-critical systems, the priority systems, we're going to make sure that those systems are in place or that plans are in place to deliver those services to Canadians.

The Chairman: The report that we got from Treasury Board indicated that 45% of the entire time and effort will be in the testing situation and about 9% in the implementation. That adds up to 54% of the entire effort in testing and implementation.

Now from what I understand, you don't expect to be getting into the testing situation until next year, which is the last 12 months. If the testing shows that there are problems, you have to go right back to repair and start the testing system again. What assurance do we have that you're going to be able to test it all within one year?

Mr. Paul Rummell: There are a number of testing methodologies that we're using. First of all, we're doing unitests as we go. As we do the changes themselves, we're trying to make the actual repairs or test the repairs. And what we're looking for and what we're talking about in 1999 is the full integration test.

So we want to be sure that the systems will be operational by themselves during this year, 1998, and then in 1999 we'll be doing testing with all the external dependencies. That's when you're testing in conjunction with the banks, in conjunction with other interfaces that spread out across the country. We want to make sure they are tested with the financial systems.

The Chairman: But if these tests fail, you're back to square one. You have to go back, debug, repair, and then start testing again. What assurance do you have you'll be able to do that in the time allotted?

Mr. Paul Rummell: That's why we're leaving a lot of time to go through the process in those systems. They're the big systems that are affecting the overall.... The public systems are being tested now. That's why, for example, the systems that Grant Westcott and Hy Braiter were talking about here today.... That's why we have these systems in test right now.

That's where we have a number of our systems that provide important things, like the child tax benefit for British Columbia at Revenue Canada. That system is now converted. We're now testing that system to be sure that we can still deliver the child tax benefit to the people in British Columbia. That's why we're making this a very serious priority, a number one priority of the government. We want to be sure that we take no chances with the very important services for the public.

The Chairman: But if you find that these 20 or 30 mission-critical systems.... And I understand that they are supported by hundreds and hundreds of systems that are less critical, that each feed in.

For example, when I look at the Braiter report, I see that the first one is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the report talks about the malfunctioning of these systems. This is not one system that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has; it has a multitude of systems that ensure our food is up to the quality that Canadians expect.

If these feeder computer systems aren't integrated or repaired, they could cause problems to the mission-critical systems as they feed in incorrect data. Is that correct?

• 1655

Mr. Paul Rummell: To rephrase your question, we have 44 government-wide mission-critical systems. Those are major business functions that are delivered by the Canadian federal government through ourselves and through our partners.

We've identified about 1,100 systems that basically are parts of that overall group of 44 government-wide mission-critical systems and we'll make sure that those systems work in unison to deliver the essential services for specific functions, like the one you mentioned, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The Chairman: So you're not actually fixing 44 systems; you're fixing 1,100 integrated systems. And if, after all your testing, you find an embedded microchip somewhere down the line that throws the whole thing right out of whack, you're right back to square one again, aren't you?

Mr. Paul Rummell: No, because we're building contingency plans and checkpoints into the project plans to make sure that we don't have to go back to square one. We're really using best practices in terms of the types of repairs that we make, whereby we're going through and doing risk assessments to be sure that we don't have to go back to square one. We're being very prudent in doing this. We've been very successful in terms of the work we've done to date.

The Chairman: In your earlier remarks, when the question came up about this contract whereby you're going to spend a guaranteed minimum of $ 100 million on the seven contractors who are going to be providing outside services, I think it was Mr. Mayfield who said that only about $ 2 million of that has been taken up to date. I think your words were that it takes a lot of time and management to spend $ 100 million or $ 1 billion. You mentioned that it was going to be spread over five or six years. Aren't you going to be spending that before the year 2000 to ensure that the job is done?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Again, the overall budget for the year 2000 project we're looking at is spread out over five to six years, so we really started stepping up to the issue of the year 2000 in 1995. And some of it will spread past the year 2000.

The Chairman: But this contract that was granted by the government just a few months ago, this open-ended contract of a minimum of $ 100 million going up to potentially $ 1.4 billion, is that going to be spread out to the year 2000?

Mr. Paul Rummell: It goes beyond the year 2000.

The Chairman: How far beyond the year 2000?

Mr. Paul Rummell: I don't know the exact terms and conditions.

Mr. Jim Bimson: It goes to June of the year 2000.

The Chairman: It goes to June of the year 2000, so that's six months. So the bulk of this money.... The point is that it takes time to gear up to spend $ 300 million, $ 400 million or $ 600 million. There are only 19 months left. Are you going to be able to utilize these outside sources properly? There seems to be no urgency at the moment to update these outside contract services.

Mr. Jim Bimson: Mr. Chairman, the contract was put in place because we expect that resources are going to become increasingly difficult to obtain as we get up to the year 2000; there's a competition, not only within Ottawa, but in other parts of Canada and the United States. To date, we've redeployed several thousand public servants to repair in regard to the year 2000, we've spent probably somewhere in the vicinity of $ 100 million on contractors, and since the contract—

The Chairman: You've spent that already? You have spent $ 100 million?

Mr. Jim Bimson: On the year 2000 already, and since that contract was let in March, I think roughly $ 5 million now has been let, but with what is in the pipeline we've already identified about $ 20 million in the first two months. We talked to departments at the advisory committee for information management a week or two ago, and they are all presenting procurement plans, so we expect that the $ 100 million and more will be taken up before 2000.

But I think the essential reason for that contract isn't so much because of the $ 100 million but to make absolutely certain that we have the resources to effect the repairs, given the competitive nature of the business coming up on the year 2000.

The Chairman: We'll keep an eye on that, because as Mr. Grewal I think pointed out, there are the people taking leaves of absence from the civil service who are going to work in the private sector and being contracted back to the public service at a higher rate. I hope you keep an eye on that too.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I really appreciated getting this report and having a look at it. It's really heavy-duty stuff. I notice that your report says that contingency planning for failures of systems or services outside the direct control of departments should commence immediately, and that for government-wide mission-critical systems within the departments' control, contingency planning should start in the fall of 1998 if the systems appear to be in danger of not being year 2000 compliant.

• 1700

To my mind, you're really saying something has to be done on a fairly urgent basis to cover all the systems, and much of your report reflects that. And as I listen to you gentlemen today, I get the impression that everything is pretty well in hand. Do you stand behind this report that was issued? Is this still current and valid?

If that's the case, I would like to ask you about what is the liability of the government should these contingencies not be met, if there is harm or loss. What is the extent of liability of the government? I would suspect that the Auditor General would be interested in this question, because if it comes to a situation where the private sector or someone is looking at this through the legal lens, they'll also be looking at the Auditor General's reports and figures with a great deal of scrutiny as well. Do you have any comments about the legal implications of what we're involved in here?

Mr. Hy Braiter: There's a corollary to that as well, which drives us into the legal issues, and that was a recommendation made that departments that have a regulatory role take this on in a proactive and leadership manner and that a committee be formed, chaired by the secretary of Treasury Board, of all departments that have a regulatory role over industry. And that committee is also looking at the liability issues and the liability issues being led by the deputy minister of the Department of Justice. And there are many briefs on the extent of liability that the government may be subject to if they're not ready or if the industries they regulate are not ready.

Coming back to your first observation, we did make a recommendation that where we're reliant on outside interventions we start contingency planning now, and beyond that we look at contingency planning in the fall. When we wrote the report we had two choices. We could have said all departments start contingency planning now; show us how you're going to write your cheques by hand. This is where the idea you're going to write all these 60 million cheques by hand comes from. We said no, if you do that you're going to divert all your attention and resources to designing this phantom new system of writing cheques by hand at the cost of using your resources to try to solve the real problem.

After discussion with the major departments, we said okay, give the departments a chance, let them get to the job and we'll take a look at it in the fall, and if in the fall they look like they can't pay employment insurance, that they're falling behind, or CPP, then the Treasury Board should demand a written contingency plan of how they're going to give the service. We felt that a year and a year plus some is enough lead time for departments to create such a contingency plan.

But we also felt they wouldn't have to create an entire contingency plan, they would have to create a contingency plan for those elements that look at risk, like the linkages with the banks, or, as I mentioned earlier, the contingency plan would be a costly one, like we could just continue issuing cheques in January and February—cheques that we used to issue in December.

Where it comes to outside reliance, like power, we said start planning now. Make sure those computers can run. Make sure your back-up power supplies are there and that you can continue to operate. Make sure your back-up communication—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Is that happening?

Mr. Hy Braiter: Those were our recommendations, and as Paul Rummell said, to some extent those plans are in place and part of the monitoring should be to make sure that is happening. I can't tell you. I submitted a report in February.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Auditor General have an opportunity to respond, if you would allow that, please.

The Chairman: Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Just on the liability ramifications.

Mr. Denis Desautels: On the liability issue, Mr. Chairman, I can't add very much. We did raise in our chapter that this was an issue that had to be considered seriously. And we didn't go as far as assessing the actual seriousness of that risk, but I think it's quite urgent that the kind of committee Mr. Braiter was describing be in action immediately in order to basically tie down or identify the kind of risk we're looking at. So I think it's an issue, obviously, and it has to be taken very seriously.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mahoney, four minutes, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

One thing that gives me some optimism and encouragement as I look at all of you at the table is you're likely not going to be retired in two years, so you'll all still be here. And hopefully we won't be asking you what went wrong and hopefully the opposition won't be asking us in question period what went wrong.

• 1705

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I sure hope so.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I know you will. Why do I somehow have a feeling that—

The Chairman: I think I have to clarify: we will be in government, you will be asking us.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As you know, we have intergovernmental relationships, provincially, municipally; we have agencies we have relationships with, NGOs, and we have systems that have been privatized, NAVCAN and others. That one, in particular, causes me some trepidation, considering how much time we all tend to spend in the air. What are we doing as, if you will, an overseer? Number one, are we the overseer? And if so, what are we doing to ensure that there is compliance and that the same kind of due diligence is taking place with all of these other organizations? Even beyond the province and municipalities, I think of registration of chemicals and trains that cross our country and the potential—coming from Mississauga, where we had to evacuate an entire city in 1979—for catastrophic occurrences because the computer couldn't function properly.

Just how deep does the problem go, and how deep does the influence of the federal government go to ensure that somehow we get all of these criss-crosses and interactions to work together?

Mr. Paul Rummell: First of all, we're trying to be sure that we avoid service disruptions. We're making sure that the vital systems, the air navigation system and other systems like that, are operational and safe at the year 2000. I think that's the best assurance we can provide to the public. Then if there are going to be problems we're ensuring that the government provide warnings of potential service interruptions so the public can be properly prepared. We're going to make sure those types of steps are in place.

The Department of Justice has prepared a legal issues paper that sets out a framework for analysing potential legal implications, and we wanted to be sure that we have—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm sorry, potential—

Mr. Paul Rummell: Legal implications.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That seems to be an after-the-fact plan.

Mr. Paul Rummell: What we're going to make sure is that we fulfil our regulatory responsibilities. We've asked ministers to look at the regulatory responsibilities and they're looking at the regulated industries across government to be sure they're year 2000 compliant and that those industries have a very high sense of awareness on the issue.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My colleague Mr. Myers talked about people getting their cheques on time, and I share his concern, but provincial governments, for example—and the opposition would argue that the statement I'm about to make is less and less true—do rely on transfers from the federal government, the municipalities rely on transfers from the provincial governments, and the whole system could break down. Are there intergovernmental committees in ministerial silos, if you will, that are working to make sure all this work clicks?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Thank you for the question.

We have had a number of meetings with the provinces. There are several other year 2000 project offices similar to our project office, and we've had a coordinating meeting. We're going to have another coordinating meeting of this group, which provides overall coordination for the provincial governments and provides a liaison to our government, in June.

In addition, for most of the provinces now there are equivalent chief information officers. I've had several meetings with them to discuss this issue, and I can assure you that they also hold this in the highest priority. Also, on the departmental basis there are liaisons that occur between systems such as at organizations like HRDC or organizations like Public Works, where there are transfers of information back and forth between those systems. Then we're making sure that we have individual meetings to go over and review those interfaces between provincial jurisdictions. Then in turn we expect the provinces to deal with the municipalities, and where necessary we'll step in on those situations.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal, four minutes please.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions, of which the second question is more important to me, so please leave me one minute at the end.

As we heard in the conversation and debate, and as I heard personally from Mr. McKenzie earlier, there can be no guarantee or no assurance that the system will comply on January 1, 2000. Is that right, Mr. McKenzie?

• 1710

Mr. Guy McKenzie: I don't remember having said that per se, but certainly I don't think that anybody at this point can guarantee that all systems will actually be functioning.

What we have said and repeated very often is that Canadian citizens must be assured that programs and services will actually be delivered. All the emphasis right now is going into fixing, repairing, and making the conversion for critical systems of the government. And, as any prudent manager in the government would, we're going to work as well on contingency plans. As we are talking right now, most of these programs already have contingency plans just in case, and we're going to make them more detailed and precise as far as Y2K is specifically concerned.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm asking this question because we are spending $ 1.4 billion at least. Canadians would like to know why there is no guarantee, and there are less than 600 days left before we are expecting these results.

Americans were guaranteed ten years before the man landed on the moon that the man would be guaranteed to land.

I think Canadians will expect a guarantee, particularly when we are talking about essential services and the safety of Canadians, because we are talking of atomic issues, we are talking of transportation—people have to travel in planes—we are talking about health care, power, and so on. Someone should be there who is accountable, and I don't know who's accountable at this time.

Mr. Chairman, my second question is sort of a scientific question from a politician's point of view. We know that in history our calendar has been moved. That's why September is not the seventh month, but the the ninth, and October is the tenth month, not the eighth. What we are focusing on at this time is fixing the hardware, but is there any possibility that at an international level something could be done with the calendar, to move the calendar? I know we are living in a complex world, but is there any possibility of that? Did you study that thought?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I can answer that question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Let me hear from the witnesses if they have studied that possibility or not.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So you think Canada's calendar should be different from the rest of the world's?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, no. International.

The Chairman: I don't think we're going to introduce a piece of legislation there, Gurmant.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm asking from the international point of view. Has any study been done on this?

The Chairman: Let's get back to your first question to Mr. Rummell.

Mr. Paul Rummell: First of all, again we want to be sure that the systems will function properly in the year 2000, so we're trying to be sure that we make all the necessary repairs, to ensure that those systems function so there's really no risk for the public.

We are going to make sure that the services are provided to the public through the systems or through our contingency plans. I think that there's very, very minimal risk that services will not be delivered. I feel very positive about the work being done by the thousands of people across the government who are actively working on this issue.

We've had tremendous support, I think. I'm very proud of the support we've received in terms of dealing with this issue. The project is going certainly better than I would ever have hoped or guessed.

In terms of the accountability, again, at the last meeting of this committee I indicated that I was providing, through my office, the overall coordination across the government. We're reporting back through this committee and other important parliamentary committees on how we're doing on this very large undertaking. We take some responsibility in terms of doing that, and I still hold by that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If you would, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be fair to point out how Canada ranks with the rest of the world in preparedness for the year 2000, since Mr. Grewal was considering that we should try to stop the clock. My understanding is that Canada is way ahead—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, no I didn't say that.

Mr. Paul Rummell: I can quote here from a company called the Gartner Group, which is a think group in the United States, from Boston. The Gartner Group's recent survey of year 2000 preparedness of countries around the globe confirms that Canada is ahead of the rest of the world, with the possible exception of Australia. So we're rated as one of the top four countries in terms of dealing with this issue.

The Chairman: That's good, Mr. Rummell, but if we're not there, we're still not there.

Mr. Grose, four minutes.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In my estimation, we've been doing a lot of dancing here today, and I don't dance well. I think Mr. McKenzie answered my question when someone else asked it, but I'll make it very simple. Being a simple fellow, I like to be able to understand the answer.

• 1715

Is there the remotest possibility that any government department—not the overall picture, but any individual government department, no matter how obscure—may miss the deadline? Yes or no?

Mr. Guy McKenzie: We've always said the same thing—the fact that they are computer systems, and we are putting all human resources behind them to fix them; and that what is important is the health, safety, and economic well-being of Canadians. Therefore contingency planning will be done in parallel to that, to assure that this is the most important thing.

For the computer system per se, I don't think we can give an absolute guarantee. For well-being and service delivery, I think we can. Is that fair?

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you; you answered my question.

I have another question that stems from that. You always mention the contingency plan, but the only one I've heard is writing six million cheques by hand. It may be a plan, but it's unworkable.

A voice: Sixty million.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Well, whatever. They can leave mine out. I have $ 15 in the bank.

It worries me, this contingency plan that you talk about, but which I find unworkable. If we're not going to make the deadline, let's realize it now. Who knows—we may be in the top four in the world, but everyone may fail, including us, and then we'll have a real mess. I'm not blaming you. I'd just like to know now, so that we don't say you told us everything would be all right, and that wasn't what you were telling us at all.

Mr. Paul Rummell: We want to be sure that our systems are operational. We want to make sure that's our primary focus, and I feel for the most part that our systems are in great shape coming across the finish line.

Beyond that, we want to be sure that there is safety, and assurance that the systems will be repaired, and if they're not, that there are contingency plans.

There are other things that could happen. There could be problems with power disruptions; there could be telecommunications disruptions that could affect the delivery of our service, and we want to make sure that we have plans to work around those situations if they should occur. That's why we talk about contingency plans. We're just trying to make sure that we play it very, very safe, because we hold your level of concern about the delivery of those services to the public.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you. I'm worried; I hope you are. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Laurin, four minutes please.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: In their report, Messrs. Braiter and Westcott mentioned that their examination did not reveal many indicators of an overall technical co-ordination of administration activities, and they go on to say that each department tends to come up with its solutions on its own rather than taking a collective approach. I'd like to know what your response will be to this observation.

This is the follow-up to my previous question because although there is planning at the federal administration level, the departments seem to be doing it on their own. Is this still the case? What measures will you be taking to correct the situation?

Please leave some time so I can put a second question to the Auditor General.

[English]

Mr. Jim Bimson: I'll be very quick, Mr. Chairman.

Essentially there are two things happening. One, for some time now there's been an interdepartmental working group, which has sub-groups addressing particular problems. There's one, for example, dealing with telecommunications, one dealing with embedded systems, and one dealing with testing.

In response to the recommendations of the task force, and in my new duties, I am in the process of recruiting specialists in those areas, who will work with the departments to make sure that we're sharing best practices, information, and solutions across the system. Those are the things we started in response to the task force, but there already was the interdepartmental working group that had started in advance.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: My second question is addressed to the representatives of the government and to the Auditor General. If, from the answers we've received, it is unlikely that the timetables can be met—they don't know and they tell us all sorts of things can happen—I'd like to know when we can be assured that this is a realistic timetable. I wouldn't like to find out on the 25th of December 1999 that things won't be working on the 1st of January in the year 2000.

• 1720

I'd like taxpayers, our fellow citizens, to be informed ahead of time so that those who are able to come up with makeshift measures can do so. If people won't be able to get their old age pension for the month of January in the year 2000, they should be warned more than two days ahead of time so that they can get the money they need for groceries.

As part of his continuing audit, can the Auditor General promise that he will make the results of his investigation known to us before the end of the year? Can he let us know whether he thinks the timetables established by the various departments are realistic, with specific information about the 44 priority departments, noting for example that 15 will not be able to make it by the year 2000 and indicating which ones? When can we expect this information?

I'm putting the question to the government and to the Auditor General. I suppose that the government will tell me that it's up to each department to ensure it is prepared to meet the timetables, but I'd like the Auditor General to let us know whether, as part of his audit, each department has done what is necessary and to give us his objective opinion on how realistic the timetable is.

[English]

The Chairman: That was a simple question from Mr. Laurin, so we'll have a short answer, please. Mr. Desautels.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desautels: I can start off with an answer to this question and the other witnesses can continue. Mr. Laurin wants to know whether this timetable may not be attained by certain departments. It's an extremely important question and a very valid one. If this is so, he wants to know when this information can be made known.

I previously heard the government representatives tell us, I think it was Mr. Braiter, that by the end of 1998, we should start preparing emergency plans for those who may perhaps not be ready on time. If we set the end of 1998 as a deadline, I think it would be fairly logical. If there are systems that seem to be in danger towards the end of 1998, it would leave us 1999 to attempt to deal with the problem and at the same time prepare an emergency plan.

I think that the audit we promised for the end of 1998 will also cast some light on the preparedness and the particular risks that may have been noted.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll have a short response from Mr. Rummell.

Mr. Paul Rummell: We established the greater Westcott review team to be sure that our schedules were realistic and to review the schedules of Treasury Board. We're trying to make sure we double-check the schedules for the departments in Treasury Board. We've done that. We've completed the third survey, which will be done in another month. We'll then be starting up a continuous process to be sure systems are coming across as promised.

The Chairman: Therefore, Mr. Laurin can be assured he won't wake up on Christmas morning of 1999 and find out it will fail the following week.

Ms. Caplan for four minutes, please.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I can guarantee Mr. Laurin he will not be at work on January 1, 2000, because it's on a Saturday.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: How could you do that?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's a Saturday. You see, I have a compliant 2000—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: You have problems, Ms. Caplan.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So you have to worry about January 3 to see whether or not that's going to work. I can absolutely guarantee you will not be at work.

Mr. René Laurin: The programs have no day.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The other thing, Mr. Grewal, is we never have any guarantees about anything, but today I am more comfortable than I was six months ago when the team appeared. I'm aware that Canada's leading the world—along with Australia—in the work we're doing. The important thing is that we not be complacent. We must remain vigilant and committed to testing, as well as have the contingencies in place.

I see this is a non-partisan issue, frankly, and I understand that the opposition want to puff and all the rest of it, but the truth is I think everybody around this table is equally concerned that Canadians be well served as we enter the new millennium.

• 1725

I think it would be very helpful for me and all Canadians to be able to keep in touch with what's going on, and if we could have a commitment that you will come back in December before the House adjourns over the Christmas break, to let us know how those plans are and whether or not you've identified any problem areas you're concerned about. Then we on the government side, and certainly those on the opposition side, will be able to do what we can, as far as letting the message out loud and clear, not only to the people of Canada but to the people in charge of implementing the new systems and fixing the problems. I think that would be very helpful, so I'd like to make that suggestion.

My second suggestion is—I think there are some ancillary areas, and I started to discuss them—once we have some confidence that the Government of Canada will be ready, there should be some thought about a public education or information campaign to let people know the sorts of appliances they should be concerned about in their daily lives. I'm wondering if you will have any time to start getting a group together to think about that. It would be a public service the Government of Canada could provide to its population, so on Saturday morning, January 1, 2000, all of our television sets or radios don't go on the fritz because we haven't thought about it.

The Chairman: At this time, Ms. Caplan, when we're still trying to deal with the mission-critical programs, I think it will be a ways down the road before they have the time to worry about televisions.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I asked them a question. I'd like to know whether anyone is thinking about that next step, which would be information to the public.

The Chairman: Mr. Rummell.

Mr. Paul Rummell: Again, our objective is to be sure that all services continue for the public.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's our first priority, we all agree.

Mr. Paul Rummell: We want to be sure to provide information to the public, as it's received by us and as we gather it. We've completed testing 5,000 software products at this point, and we've posted that information, so it's available to other governments and to the public, so they don't have to recreate our efforts. As we do that for other areas, we'll be sure that information is posted for the public, so they don't have to go through the great amount of work we've been going through.

We appreciate your concern about this issue. We appreciate your grasp of this issue, because it's certainly one that affects us all.

The Chairman: I have one or two questions, Mr. Rummell. One is about the embedded chips you say have to be replaced. Some of these may be fairly old. Do we still have a supply of these older style of microchips so they can be replaced, or do we have to replace the complete hardware? Will that be possible before January 1, 2000?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Your assessment of the situation is correct. It's a combination of things. There are certain older pieces of hardware with defective microchips that have to be replaced. We're trying to locate the manufacturers of that equipment, and if the manufacturers don't exist then we'll have to replace the chips or the equipment. There are equivalent chips available. There are a number of different solutions available for replacing those systems. It's anywhere from 2% to 3% to 5% to 20%, depending on the different types of embedded chips within the systems.

A very interesting statistic is a number of the micro-computers we receive may have problems too, so we have to make sure they're compliant. We have to go out and check all the micro-computers that exist in your offices and throughout the government, to be sure the hardware is compliant as well. That's also a type of embedded system.

The Chairman: The other question I have—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Westcott also has a response, Mr. Chairman. I just thought I'd point that out to you.

The Chairman: Briefly, Mr. Westcott.

Mr. Grant Westcott: My response is not to that question, it's to your point.

The Chairman: We'll come back to that later on, Mr. Westcott.

Mr. Braiter, at the press conference you had a couple of weeks ago you mentioned there's no guarantee the power supplies will be on, because maybe the utilities won't have their systems up and running. Yet you have a regulatory responsibility to ensure that is the case. Will you be able to meet that regulatory responsibility now?

Mr. Hy Braiter: Part of our recommendation was that the government take their regulatory responsibility extremely seriously and not just limit themselves to the sort of the minimum duty of care, but take a very proactive role and actually stick their nose into where it doesn't belong. We've had it confirmed by the legal advice that by sticking their nose in, being proactive, asking industry what's going on, and asking for reports, they do not assume a greater liability. In fact, the more they do, the less liability they assume.

• 1730

That's pretty well the bottom line of my report of these hundreds of pages of legal briefs: Do more rather than less. Get out there and stick your nose into it, even if you don't think it belongs there. That way you will protect the public's interest.

The Chairman: I think we could continue on, but time is drawing to a close.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Can Mr. Westcott answer my question, please, before you adjourn?

The Chairman: Mr. Westcott, briefly.

Mr. Grant Westcott: Industry Canada has a very active communications program for the small business community of this country. You see it in the Globe and Mail every day. It's called SOS 2000. In there they've established a communications vehicle on their web site to help small business so that they understand the implications of the year 2000 on their own circumstances.

That's another reach-out activity that is proving to be quite effective, I believe.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Westcott.

Before we get to closing remarks by the Auditor General, I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that in our last report we did call for semi-annual reports from the Treasury Board.

We expect these will be forthcoming, Mr. Rummell, and on time. Is that correct?

Mr. Paul Rummell: Yes, that's correct.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Desautels, do you have some comments to make in closing?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me say that I'm really happy to see that the level of awareness within the federal government has gone up significantly in the last little while. I think this is an absolutely essential ingredient of success if we're going to win this particular battle.

I'm also happy to hear, as we've heard today, that some systems here and there are getting ready and compliant. I think it's quite encouraging to be able to declare victory here and there. I hope we'll be hearing that more frequently in the weeks and months ahead.

However, I think the remaining task still remains a huge challenge. It contains a high level of risk as a total project and also on an individual systems basis. The government does recognize, I think, now more than ever, the need at some point in time for some contingency planning.

I think the approach that was explained today by government representatives on contingency planning is a logical approach, and I would support that. There are three things, however, that have to be done right to improve our chances of success. I would respectfully submit those to the committee.

First, there has to be an accurate identification of risk and a continuous monitoring of the progress in eliminating that risk across the system. I think we're in a risk-management situation, and we have to manage that well with regular updating of that assessment of our situation.

Second, I think there needs to be proper work plans and project management techniques in place with tasks, dates, and responsibilities both at the macro, government-wide level and within each government department or agency.

Third, as I think some members have mentioned today, there's a need for clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of the various actors in this. I sense there's a difference of views on this between Treasury Board Secretariat, for instance, and this committee. If I compare the recommendations of this committee with the responses to those recommendations, I think there's a difference of view. I also think that difference of view can be narrowed, and it would be a good thing if we could narrow that difference in perspective.

For our part, as I mentioned, we've promised you a chapter on this for the end of this year. Again, I hope it will give you a better appreciation of the current situation at that point in time.

In the meantime, we'll be working hard at that. The fact that we're working on that chapter will, I hope, help advance the project.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

To bring the meeting to a close, tomorrow there will be a briefing by the Auditor General for the May 28 and June 2 meetings.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. I notice that this refers to the Braiter-Westcott report. I'm wondering, is this the “Braiter” and that the “Westcott”?

The Chairman: Yes, you're correct. That's the Braiter and this is the Westcott.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's why you smile every time they say “Braiter-Westcott” report.

Mr. Hy Braiter: Well, if there's credit to be given, Jim Bimson worked very closely with us.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you. It's good to put faces to the names.

• 1735

The Chairman: On Thursday, May 28, we'll be meeting on chapter 3, “National Defence—Equipping and Modernizing the Canadian Forces”, part of the April 1998 report. Next Tuesday, June 2, it will be chapter 4, “National Defence—Buying Major Capital Equipment”, also in the 1998 report.

This meeting stands adjourned.