INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 19, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I'm going to call the meeting to order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on information technology preparedness for the year 2000.

We're very pleased to have the Department of National Defence with us this morning. I just want to remind our members, we have another witness scheduled at 10 o'clock. We're running a little bit behind now, and I want to apologize to our witnesses for that.

That being said, we have a couple of opening statements. We're very pleased to have here Mr. Paul Thibault, the federal coordinator for the Y2K national contingency planning; Lieutenant-General Raymond Henault, deputy chief of the defence staff; and Vice-Admiral Gary Garnett, vice-chief of the defence staff.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Thibault.

Mr. Paul Thibault (Federal Coordinator, Y2K National Contingency Planning, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to address your committee today, particularly as it's the first time in my new role I'll be appearing before a parliamentary committee. You've mentioned them, but just to formalize it, I have with me the vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Garnett, and the deputy chief of the defence staff, Lieutenant-General Henault.

I have some brief opening remarks, and so does the deputy chief. Then we'll of course be prepared to answer any questions you may have.

[Translation]

If I may, I will begin by outlining my mandate and responsibilities. Then I will provide some information on our strategic approach to contingency planning. Finally, I would like to give the committee a sense of some of the challenges we face.

You will be aware, from material provided to the committee, that I began my duties as federal coordinator for Y2K contingency planning on October 26, following the prime minister's announcement. The Minister of National Defence has the responsibility for coordination of the development of national contingency plans.

I have been appointed to head a new group established to fulfill this mandate. It made sense to consolidate Y2K national contingency planning coordination in one unique and centralized unit. This is the group where interdependencies, which are critical building blocks to national contingency planning, will come together.

• 0910

We are co-locating various capacities and personnel, including: some of DND's assessment capacity; and some of DND's emergency preparedness capacity; along with expertise from other government departments, particularly those with responsibility for aspects of Canada's national infrastructure.

[English]

Our four primary objectives, from a prudent planning perspective, are to ensure that there is no loss of life; basic community needs are provided for; business continues as usual or resumes quickly; and confidence in government is maintained.

Let me talk for a moment, with your permission, about the overall approach. There are basically three phases: prevention phase, preparedness phase, and response phase. The main focus to date has been on the prevention phase, on ensuring that public and private sector organizations will be compliant and ready for year 2000.

Government and industry are identifying mission-critical systems and non-compliant technologies and devising strategies to address the problems. At the same time, we are collecting information that will form the basis of our risk assessment analysis and conclusions.

Our focus is on Canada's critical infrastructure, such as utilities, transportation, safety, communications, government, and services. We are taking into account Y2K planning being done by other countries, other levels of government, and the private sector. This is occurring at the same time as various levels of government and private sector organizations are also undertaking assessments. They should also be developing contingency plans.

Let me take a brief moment to attempt to define what contingency planning is. It's the area of business continuity process where an organization attempts to ascertain the kinds of crises most likely to occur and prepares to deal with them. Typically based on risks deemed unacceptable or that require significant mitigation measures, the overall purpose of contingency planning is to recognize and address as many uncertainties and risks as possible so that organizations can maintain control over their operations when a crisis occurs.

Everyone has a responsibility for contingency planning. Every country, every level of government, every department and agency, every private sector organization, and even every individual citizen must be getting ready and doing some planning for January 2000.

[Translation]

Analysis and risk assessment is a prerequisite to preparedness. We are relying entirely on the co-operation of the public and of the private sector to provide the information we need. We will then be able to analyze this information and produce a national infrastructure risk assessment. Interdependencies will be a key component of this assessment.

The national infrastructure risk assessment will identify potential risk areas which will form the basis of the development of potential scenarios. All organizations will need to evaluate their contingency plans and identify their deficiencies, in relation to the potential scenarios. The aggregate deficiencies identified will be addressed in the development of the national contingency plan. This national contingency plan will then be evaluated and recommendations will be made, based on the four primary objectives.

Contingency plan testing will begin in the summer of 1999.

[English]

Prudent planning will enable us to respond as warranted to events and situations that occur. We can all conjure up potential scenarios, but I prefer not to do so at this stage, suffice to say that the operating assumption is that we have to cover all bases.

I share the observation made by the committee in your May report. You said you do not intend to spread panic about the future, nor do I. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, awareness is in some instances accompanied by an air of complacency.

One of the challenges we face is how to achieve and sustain the appropriate balance that goes from the two extremes of complacency and panic. We must ensure sustained attention and involvement at senior executive levels. This is a problem for CEOs of government and industry, not just CIOs.

That is the approach of the Canadian government. It's the approach the Americans are taking. I met with our counterparts in Washington last week, and we will be working closely with them because Canada's national contingency planning cannot be done in isolation. We have so many interconnectivities and share critical national infrastructure, such as communications, transportation, and energy, in particular.

• 0915

Although the magnitude of the U.S. challenge is much greater, domestically and internationally the approach is the same. We're both preparing, assessing the state of readiness, making decisions to ameliorate or minimize risk, and ensuring that we have contingency plans in place.

[Translation]

Before turning to the deputy chief of the defence staff who will speak about the Canadian Forces strategic approach and efforts being undertaken to ensure readiness and compliance, there is one question I would like to address.

I have noted that the question has been raised as to how DND can hope to coordinate contingency planning, if it is not yet compliant. I would like to share two observations since arriving at DND.

The first relates to technology. The complexity of DND's systems and the extensive use of imbedded chips do indeed pose some real compliance problems. This does not necessarily impact, however, on our ability to undertake effective contingency planning. Systems which are integral to the contingency planning process will receive priority attention.

[English]

The second point relates more to competence. The Canadian Forces have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment and competence. They can plan missions and they can deliver. We've shared the ice storm and the Quebec and Manitoba flood experiences. We should have no doubts about the ability of the forces to deliver when their contribution is called upon. Nor do I doubt their capacity to plan strategically.

The more disconcerting problem for me is the risk that Canadians will complacently decide that the Canadian Forces will handle everything. Vivid TV images linger in the minds of Canadians of the armed forces working alongside firefighters, police, and hydro workers, along with their American counterparts, during the ice storm. I'm concerned that Canadians will assume that this handful of committed Canadians will shield us from any potential Y2K problems.

We cannot repeat too often that contingency planning, like readiness preparation, is everyone's responsibility. The solutions are multifaceted, yet they're as complex as the problem.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the importance of the work your committee is doing. I would be pleased to return at future junctures to report on where we are and how we're doing.

I'll now ask, with your permission, Madam Chairman, the deputy chief of the defence staff to provide his remarks.

The Chair: General Henault.

Lieutenant-General Raymond R. Henault (Deputy Chief, Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Madam Chairman and committee members, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

[Translation]

Good morning and thank you for giving us this opportunity to meet you this morning.

[English]

The purpose of my presentation this morning is basically to describe Operation ABACUS, more commonly known as Operation ABACUS, which is the contingency plan of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces for our response to year 2000. The Operation ABACUS plan details the preparations that are being made by the Canadian Forces to be ready to respond to potential requests for assistance by civil authorities and to help address possible disruptions to essential services as we transition to the new millennium.

[Translation]

Op ABACUS contingency planning was first made public with the issue of the Op ABACUS strategic direction and warning order on the 31st of August 1998, that is, not so long ago. For your information and for ease of reference, I have provided you with a copy of these documents today; they are in the back of the room.

Since August, our planning has progressed well as I think you will be able to conclude yourselves over the next several minutes as I explain to you what the present state of planning is.

[English]

Operation ABACUS contingency planning is of course closely linked to the year 2000 operational readiness program of the Canadian Forces. It emphasizes the priority of effort that the Canadian Forces will provide to our civil authorities here in Canada during the year 2000 transition. The aim of that operational readiness program is to provide the Chief of the Defence Staff with a top-down, mission-oriented focus on the year 2000 compliance program, which is the technical aspect of year 2000.

The operational readiness program further defines the operational posture for the Canadian Forces during the year 2000 transition period. It provides the focus for the department's compliancy effort. It also sets clear priorities to ensure that we fix the right systems the right way at the right time. It further addresses the validation of systems, and of course groups of systems, that are deployed into the field, as we call it, or out onto the bases and units across Canada and overseas.

On April 1, 1998, the operational readiness program identified 12 representative Canadian Forces missions. After careful review in September, the deputy minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff prioritized the mission-critical systems within that operational readiness framework. For example, search and rescue, regional and national types of missions, as well as systems deployed on current Canadian Forces missions overseas were designated as priority one in our operational readiness program. All other systems were assigned lower priorities.

• 0920

Many of the systems we operate are of course highly sophisticated systems, including state-of-the-art weapon systems, which will not be required for the direct support of civil authorities as part of Operation ABACUS. Instead, we've placed top priority—that means number one priority—on those systems required for Canadian Forces domestic tasks, which is the domestic response, including search and rescue and also our response to Operation ABACUS.

[Translation]

By the end of September 1999, we will have a viable and validated operational posture in the field and we'll have our forces trained, equipped and ready for the year 2000. As such, we will be able to operate effectively throughout the millennium event.

More clearly defined, Op ABACUS is the name given to the Canadian Forces contingency plan to prepare the Canadian Forces to assist civil authorities in the mitigation of the potential effects of the year 2000 problem. Its focus will be on support to essential services, that is, those that are critical to the well-being and security of Canadians.

[English]

Operation ABACUS has been the Canadian Forces number one operation priority since August 1998, and will remain so as we transition to the millennium. As a result, the operational activities planned for by Canadian Forces over the next year have been very critically reviewed with a view to making the maximum number of capabilities available for training and support to Operation ABACUS.

With potential disruption in some essential services and the resulting requests for assistance during the millennium, the Canadian Forces is conducting what we consider to be a prudent level of contingency planning, following what Mr. Thibault has mentioned. During the next year, all DND and Canadian Forces personnel will be engaged in year 2000 planning and exercise activity, with a view to completing that training, specifically the operational training, by the end of September 1999.

At the turn of the century and on request from provincial, municipal, and other authorities, where the needs are assessed to be the greatest, we will be prepared to respond. This will engage a wide range of military capabilities, including both personnel and equipment. Our priority throughout the event, of course, will be to preserve the safety and well-being of Canadians while continuing to fulfil our defence tasks, whether they be national or international.

Given the information currently available to the Canadian Forces, Operation ABACUS planning is focused on our ability to provide a flexible response to those areas of the country where essential services may be affected. A key element of our preparations is the establishment of a reliable command, control, and communication structure based on the existing land force area headquarters. These are army area headquarters located in several capital across Canada, such as Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, and Edmonton. These headquarters will be linked to provincial emergency measures organizations—they currently are so linked, by the way—during the millennium transition period in order to be aware of the situation—this means to maintain a very good situational awareness—as the situation itself develops.

It's this military command structure that will likely be deployed prior to January 1 so that we are prepared in terms of strategic communications, while the bulk of Operation ABACUS personnel and equipment will remain poised to respond if and when requested to do so.

[Translation]

To execute Op ABACUS, a deployable joint task force headquarters will also be deployed. This headquarters will conduct the operational level planning and on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff, will exercise command, control and communications over the Canadian Forces personnel assigned to Op ABACUS.

[English]

The Canadian Forces have developed a comprehensive training program to exercise and test the readiness of our equipment and personnel over the next 15 months. We are sharing our training intentions at the national level with other federal departments and locally with provincial authorities.

• 0925

It's our belief that during the next year we'll be able to validate our plans through a number of exercises that are very much in the advanced planning stages both internal and external to the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence.

[Translation]

The current training program includes a number of seminars at various levels, which will help to achieve individual readiness in mission specific functions. The first national seminar for Canadian Forces was conducted in Ottawa in September. Two additional national seminars will be conducted at the national level in March and November 1999.

[English]

From the regional or operational perspective, as I explained a little earlier, the joint task force commander will initiate a series of seminars at his level starting in January of the coming year. The various task force headquarters and air component headquarters, which will be an element integrated into joint task force headquarters, and national level units of various kinds, will also conduct training seminars from March to May of this year.

With respect to individual and collective training, we'll rely primarily on a normal training cycle to achieve our training aims. The individual training program will include a review of basic military skills, which means general purpose military skills such as first aid and cold weather training, and this will be conducted throughout the spring and fall of 1999.

Collective training will focus on the provision of command, control, communications, and information services to military and civil authorities at all levels. Accordingly, we expect to see increasing levels of civil and military integration and cooperation throughout the training period.

The exercise program culminates with a Canadian Forces-wide exercise in September 1999 to validate our operational readiness posture for the year 2000.

Later this month, the interim plan for Operation ABACUS will be issued to the Canadian Forces. This plan will commit and provide formal direction for individual and collective training, as I've just discussed, and the readiness and sustainment requirements of the Canadian Forces. Logistic preparations will also be directed to ensure the requisite quantities of supplies, critical stores, personal equipment, and infrastructure are available at the turn of the millennium.

These interim plans will be refined throughout the year, particularly as the national contingency planning group, under Mr. Thibault, completes its national assessment. The final versions of our strategic and operational plans will be published in July and September 1999 respectively.

In conclusion, as we plan for the arrival of the millennium, we are aware that the most likely impact of year 2000 is still to be determined and is still somewhat unknown. We therefore consider it prudent to apply our maximum effort to training and preparations from the Canadian Forces' perspective and to be prepared to be respond to whatever degree is most appropriate at the term of the millennium.

[Translation]

The Op ABACUS posture attempts to strike a balance between an appearance of overreacting to the problem and appearing to be too little prepared for the operation. We consider that we are on the right track, based on information currently available to us.

[English]

The awareness of Canadians to the challenges of the year 2000 has been helped by many things, including public reports such as the recent report, Year 2000: A Special Report from Parliament Hill, which many of us living in the riding of Carleton—Gloucester received in the mail last month.

As mentioned again by Mr. Thibault, we all have a responsibility to inform Canadians of their role in meeting the challenge of year 2000 and in being prepared from our point of view as well.

Therefore, on behalf of the Chief of the Defence Staff and with my two colleagues here, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this morning on Operation ABACUS. I look forward to not only your questions, but also to a future opportunity, a future visit, to update you on our planning and the progress of our operational readiness program.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to committee members for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, General Henault.

We're going to turn now to questions. I'm going to begin with Mr. Lowther.

• 0930

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

Thank you to the witnesses. I apologize, I was a bit late this morning. I didn't hear everything you had to say, but I did catch a large part of it and some excellent comments.

I guess my questions are along the lines of the communication that's going to be offered under your mandate, Mr. Thibault, to the people who are out there on the street. The concern is to have a good balance between informing people and avoiding panic. Are you planning any regular update on your progress as we move toward the date to which the public will have access?

Mr. Paul Thibault: That's a very good point, Mr. Lowther. Let me just give you a couple of thoughts on that.

The first goes back to the comment I had that we all have some responsibility. I'm simply a coordinator. Certainly the work your committee has been doing in making public interesting and useful information is critical. Parliamentarians have a critical role to play in the communication. I'm a bureaucrat, so my credibility is probably nowhere near what yours is in your ridings and among your constituents. You're the elected ones; I'm simply a bureaucrat.

Notwithstanding that, let me get to the substance of your point. You will recall I mentioned the word “prudence” a couple of times in my statement. Until we have what I consider to be a really good assessment not just of where the sectors are, but the interconnectivities, which to me are critical, and a really good idea of what the risks are, how and what government says will have to wait until that time.

It's important. You are all experts in this area of public communications. You know you can chase after messages once they're out if it's not the right message. So my recommendation to the government is to make sure the message is right, based on the critical assessment and including the interdependencies.

Certainly in terms of sensitivity to the issue and awareness of the issue, with respect, that's what parliamentarians are doing, and they're doing a very good job of it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Just on that very point, one of the documents we've been given here talks about the date August 31, 1998, deputy chief of staff, strategic direction, Operation ABACUS, this particular document. Under risk assessment, item 5, it says the risk assessment related to this strategic direction has been issued separately and is to be read in conjunction with this document.

Unless the clerks or somebody can fill me in, I don't think I have a risk assessment to be read separately. Is that because there isn't one done yet, it's coming, or it's secret? Do we get to know what the risk assessment is at this point?

LGen Raymond Henault: The risk assessment is still being developed at this time. With the establishment of his organization, risk assessment work is now being concentrated under Mr. Thibault's direction. So the risk assessment we're talking about there will emanate from the national contingency planning group and will ultimately be read in conjunction with that plan when it's completed.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Do we have a target date when we'll have the first kick at the risk assessment?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I guess I was expecting this question, so let me be very forthright and honest with you. On the risk assessment and where we are in the connectivities, if getting that information were an issue the federal government alone controlled, I would be able to give you a date. But we are totally dependent on the cooperation of not just the private sector in what information we get and how we assess it, but also the provinces and the municipalities.

So I can't really give you a date when I'll be ready. What I can give you, because it's working back from January 31, is we have to be in a position to be testing what our contingency plan is by the summer. But for me to arbitrarily give you a date when my risk assessment or the risk assessment we'll be doing will be completed, it has no basis of validity right now. I just can't give you that.

• 0935

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have another question that's more on a micro-management level.

You talked about contingency plans, and you're one of the first people I've heard before this committee say “personal contingency plans”. Are you including in your mandate here some sort of advisement to the man on the street, the apartment dweller on the 14th floor, the everyday person, on what, if any, contingency plans they should be taking? Is that part of your overall mandate, for lack of a better word?

Mr. Paul Thibault: No. My mandate is to prepare a national contingency plan that covers the issues in the major areas of health, energy supply and basic services, and things like that. But it goes back to the point—maybe I didn't make it clear enough—on the accountability issue, which is that clearly we all have roles and responsibilities in planning for things. There is no one person who is going to do everything for us. For example, the federal government has a role, the provinces have a role, municipalities have a role. And as we get further into the situation, as we have a risk assessment of what the issue is, and as we get into the public communications aspect that I mentioned to you earlier, then obviously individuals have a role and responsibility in taking their decisions.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So if we have the risk assessment, and we're further down the pipe here, there is the possibility of some sort of a directional piece being given to the person on the street that there is a real risk here, and prudent preparedness might suggest you have certain things in line.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes. I would go back to how this is a critical role for your committee. You make public reports, you make public recommendations. You're the elected representatives, and you are making, when you put out your reports, recommendations to your citizens and constituents. In that respect, obviously, your messages are messages you're giving to the citizens. So you're saying right now that there's a Y2K problem. You're saying people should be aware of it. I assume at a later stage you may want to be making recommendations as what people should be doing with regard to that. Yes, I think it's important.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

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

Firstly, I would like to thank the military for the help you gave Carleton—Gloucester and the rest of Canada during the ice storm. My municipality was very appreciative.

I have full confidence in the military, and I have full confidence that the military will be ready for the year 2000. However, I still have some questions.

It was reported in the Canada Gazette recently, this past October I believe, that your budget for Y2K was $230 million. The estimates have gone up to $300 million. You started in 1995, and this 1998. That's three years now, and to date you've spent only about $35 million. That would leave $270 million to spend in one and a half years. If we only look at the financial exercise, one could be worried that you may be falling way behind. Can you explain that?

Vice-Admiral Gary L. Garnett (Vice-Chief, Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you for the question.

When we make an estimate of the overall cost, and I believe the figure that's public is more than $300 million, there is a precise figure one could go to and look at. In terms of new contracting, let's say, where we have brought in consultants or advisers, or indeed people who directly have expertise in this field, you would find a contracting figure. We are planning to probably double that kind of direct contracting for the skilled advisers in this technology field by the end of this fiscal year. The overall framework of the dollars we're talking about are dollars that are being redirected internally in the department and would not be seen in new contracting.

Let me give you an example. We spend about $1.3 billion a year on spare parts and the continuing repairing of all our fleets of airplanes, ships, trucks.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But on Y2K, what budget do you have?

• 0940

VAdm Gary Garnett: What I'm trying to explain is in that $1.3 billion, whilst repairing or working on a truck, they are doing the Y2K compliancy issue at the same time. So the same funds being used, which would be used anyway, are being redirected or indeed—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: How much of that is allocated to Y2K?

VAdm Gary Garnett: It's not a top-down directed figure. It's a program that says we know in each technical area, let's say, whether it's a truck or a ship or whatever, that this number of systems need to be tested. And what we're saying to the people who spend the money doing the annual maintenance and repair on a ship, which in ships' cases is a little over $200 million a year, is whilst doing that they must also do the Y2K compliancy work.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So there's no specific figure right now.

VAdm Gary Garnett: The figure is that globally it will cost us more than $300 million, we expect, most of which is internally redirected funding to do this.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But right now you've spent approximately $35 million.

VAdm Gary Garnett: I would suggest we've spent a lot more than that, but a good deal of what we have spent has been in the normal expenditure of internal resources, not specifically directed contracts where you could find this is a contract for Y2K.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What percentage of your computers have you tested to date?

VAdm Gary Garnett: Of the pure computers?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

VAdm Gary Garnett: I'm not sure I can give you a precise figure on computers. What I can say is that in what is defined as government-wide mission-critical systems, the number has grown to in the order of nearly 2,000. I can tell you that using the statistical analysis the Treasury Board reports at the end of October, some 75% of those have been deemed to be Y2K compliant or do not have a Y2K compliancy problem.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to quote from an article in Business today:

The Canadian military doesn't yet know which computers will be affected, according to a report released at a two-day conference on year 2000 in Washington.

Do you have any comments on that?

VAdm Gary Garnett: I don't know that I have any specific comments on that article, nor am I aware of the source of that information. What I can do is, as General Henault and Mr. Thibault have done, assure you that Y2K and our contingency plan is the first priority in the department, and that's why I can assure you that resources are being reallocated internally to attack the Y2K compliancy program.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: How much dependency do you have on the electrical power provided by each province, and are you part of any joint committee?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I certainly couldn't answer on— You're talking about how much is National Defence dependent on the electrical power supplied by each province?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Ontario Hydro, for example, Quebec Hydro, B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Paul Thibault: I'd have to provide that information to you separately. I don't have that right now.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): I intend to share my time with Ms. Lalonde.

I don't have the transcript of our last meeting, but I do remember that some committee members expressed concerns after noting that, of all the departments we heard from, National Defence was perhaps the least advanced. We were all the more worried because you are the ones who will be taking charge of services that are not working properly and taking over when the planning of others proves to be inadequate.

I realize today, with your nomination, Mr. Thibault, that the Department of Defence seems to have realized its delay and its responsibility for coordinating all contingency planning. It may be because of your experience in diplomacy that we've been given such a good presentation of the situation. In any case, there is certainly no fault to find with your explanation.

• 0945

I must say I do not feel particularly reassured when I find out this morning that the various tests will only be concluded by the end of September 1999. Of the various groups we have heard, some have already completed up to 80 percent or more of their tests.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Where can I begin? Let me start by answering your last question.

I mentioned that we will be carrying out exercises this summer. In other words, all the tests of our systems, particularly the National Defence ones, essential for emergency and contingency planning, will have been done. This summer, we must be ready to test our contingency plan. I believe that General Henault talked about a military exercise rather than system tests. It will already be done.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In that case, what stage have you reached concerning your technical tests, the tests on computer equipment?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I'll ask the Rear Admiral whether he has any comments to make on the progress of the tests.

[English]

VAdm Gary Garnett: Permit me to reply in English, please. I think I have a better technical ability.

I'd like to make three points. The first point is that in the counting of systems, National Defence has double the number of potential Y2K systems of the entire rest of the government. But many of those systems are, if I could use the word, “sophisticated”—weapons and missiles that are not very relevant to the kinds of potential operations we would have in aid of the Canadian public at the potential event of Y2K, year 2000. So we have a number of those systems that are not necessarily relevant.

We talked about prioritizing based on missions, which General Henault talked about, and therefore all our effort is being focused on those systems we need to do the kinds of humanitarian aid and search and rescue at home first, as well as those systems for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are in Bosnia, the Central African Republic, or elsewhere.

Therefore, we prioritized the programs such that all the effort is focused on the systems that support those missions. That then reduces drastically what we are focused on. At a lower priority, only when we fix those in a pure technical sense will we move on to the others, the more sophisticated ones that are not of a high priority. But within that there is a whole training program for all the members of the Canadian Forces—and I'll ask General Henault to talk to you about that—that will make us ready in this program.

[Translation]

Lgen Raymond Henault: Mr. Chairman, by the month of September we expect to be completely ready, having carried out the operational training of the Canadian Forces to prepare for the year 2000. That means, in addition to looking after the priorities mentioned by the Admiral and allowing us to respond to domestic needs, that we shall continue to carry out our domestic and international missions where we are called upon to deploy troops.

Our training is therefore based on this list of priorities. It is taking place at the same time as we are looking at the technical side, that goes without saying. As far as we are concerned, it applies not only to each of our soldiers, sailors and aviators individually but to our personnel as a whole. That is necessary for us to make sure that we can respond adequately to the requirements of the year 2000.

That means that the two programs are complementary. I think that we are quite capable of carrying out the plan that we have developed. We have already started to implement it. We have begun holding seminars and offering training that will continue until the month of September.

• 0950

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Will you suspending the privatization process underway in the depots? I'm quite familiar with the Longue-Pointe reserve and I know what is being done there. It seems to me that it is in contradiction with preparations for the year 2000. I know what they were able to do during the ice storm we had in Quebec. So will you be suspending the privatization operation?

LGen Raymond Henault: I cannot give you an answer. But Admiral Garnett is responsible for the privatization program. I'll ask him to enlighten you.

[English]

VAdm Gary Garnett: The program of looking at support activities to see if there are more cost-effective ways of doing business is proceeding. The timetable is such that although the process proceeds, the decision-making in any potential outcomes would not occur in the near term. In other words, the strategies of where we might go and what we might do are still unfolding over time. They would not cause a change to take place until after the turn of the millennium, if they were to proceed down the road that you are suggesting.

All our support activities throughout the Canadian Forces are being reviewed in the department to see if there are more efficient and cost-effective ways of doing business.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you. I intend to come back to this in the second round.

[English]

The Chair: Hopefully. We have another couple of witnesses you should be aware of, starting at shortly after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to try to get in three quick questions and a request.

My first question is to Vice-Admiral Garnett. You mentioned the mission-critical systems in the forces, and you're about 75% down the road. When do you anticipate you'll be able to say that the armed forces, as far as Y2K is concerned, are mission-critical compliant?

VAdm Gary Garnett: We are confident that in terms of our prioritization of missions, they will be fully tested. On the kinds of roles General Henault has talked about for humanitarian aid, search and rescue, we're fully confident they will be fully tested, the command and control and anything that's being used for them, by September 1999.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Isn't that a bit late for the forces that need to be doing all the additional things?

VAdm Gary Garnett: We find ourselves in a position whereby, given our circumstances, we can only make the targets that are achievable and we can live up to. If we were to have different missions or a different timeframe, we could give you different answers.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Thibault, first of all, congratulations on your new assignment. I know that it's not going to be an easy one. My concern about your assignment is that you can't do a lot of work until you receive a lot of information from across the country.

Do we have target dates by which we expect to get information across the country—a preliminary date in say June 1999 and a more firm date in September 1999 in order for you to be able to do your work as far as contingency is concerned?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Thank you for the congratulations. It may be condolences, or it may be congratulations. Who knows?

Sir, I really don't want to give you any timing that subsequently would leave you with a false impression.

I'm a coordinator. I'm dependent on others. To a certain extent, in all of this we are all interdependent and dependent on others. What we're trying to do is keep a simple system.

There are federal government departments; there are mechanisms out there that exist. I don't want to duplicate anything that's there. We don't have the time, the money, or the interest to do that.

• 0955

We have deputy ministers and ministers who run big departments who have federal-provincial meeting systems. They have lines of communication to the private sector. They're getting the information.

We are talking at the same time to the private sector—for example, to the Electricity Association, the Canadian Bankers Association, not so much to duplicate that information but to look at interdependencies.

You mentioned that I haven't been here long. The one thing I have recognized is that we are facing an enormously complex, multi-faceted problem. For me to come out and give you a date on when I expect to have an assessment, a plan, I think would be irresponsible.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My concern is that organizations from various areas of the country, those that are behind, those that are not meeting dates, will say they'll be there and then at the last minute they will dump on you and say it looks like we're not going to be there—it's over to you.

Mr. Paul Thibault: I understand your concern, and I'm not saying I don't share some of those concerns. I'd be more than happy to come back to this committee when you come back after Christmas, if that's your wish, and report to you on where I am at that point in time.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My third question is to General Henault. Nowhere did I see anything about work done with the reservists or about what will be done with the reservists. We receive reports from the military. Are they left right out of it? Could you tell me what work you've done to date and what work you're going to do with the reservists?

LGen Raymond Henault: Yes. Thank you for that very good point.

The reservists are an integral part of our response to Operation ABACUS. In fact the strategic guidance that was given included the requirement for the inclusion of reserves in the overall program. I might add that reserves are a voluntary force, and therefore we're trying to make sure we know how many reserves might be available to us on the event.

We also recognize that those reservists are no different from other Canadians when an event occurs. If there is a requirement for a response, those reservists will also have personal issues to resolve. They'll also have families to take care of. They'll also have military responsibilities within their own geographic areas they serve in.

The Canadian Forces response is very much linked to the reserve. The militia is the largest reserve force that we have and the one that will hopefully augment our regular force. It is intended to augment it in a very meaningful way.

The air and naval reserves are also going to be involved in the program. The naval reserve, for example, has the responsibility for operating the maritime coastal defence vessels and it will have a role to play in that respect. It also has reserve divisions across the country.

The air reserve will also have members who will be directly operating in support of us. The air reserve, for example, is fully integrated into air operations and therefore is a total air force. Our reservists already form a very large complement, or at least a significant complement to our air operations across the country. Surplus to that are those who are not required to actually carry out already identified national tasks or indeed international tasks. Several of our reservists who are also deployed on international missions will be made available to provide support during this particular event.

I might also highlight in that respect that this was very much what occurred during the Manitoba flood and the Saguenay flood, and perhaps more recently and more significantly during the ice storm. It was a very large reserve contribution that helped us to provide our response.

Thank you for bringing that up. The reserves are very much a part of this and they are fully integrated into our overall plan as well as our training program and our employment plan.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Thibault, you indicated you needed the feedback to do this risk assessment. You really can't do too much until other people deliver to you so you can coordinate this.

You're probably aware of the legislation that was recently passed in the United States, reducing the liability people have. I would suggest that perhaps people are reluctant to forward to you their state of readiness or to take firm positions if they're fairly well along in the process for fear of overcommitting or some unknown coming out of the woodwork and making them liable. What's your position on that kind of an approach legislatively? Would it speed the process for you? Do you think it would grease the wheels and move us along a little faster?

• 1000

Mr. Paul Thibault: Let me start off by apologizing that I'm not a lawyer to those of you who are, and to say I think you could get a more fulsome answer from the Department of Justice on it. But I'll give you a couple of quick takes.

First of all, from the comments I heard when I was in Washington last week and saw the Senate committee members who were involved in the legislation, evidently some of the feedback that's coming in on the good Samaritan legislation they have down there is that it's not as airtight as they might have hoped. It certainly doesn't have any international implications. So many companies and corporations now are multinational, and this is an international problem. What protects you in the U.S. doesn't protect you elsewhere.

Secondly, frankly this is a real question you have to ask the private sector people who come to see you as to whether they need it and what they feel about it, because ultimately it's what affects them and how they provide information. Let me say that it hasn't to this date impeded any information that I understand has been coming into various departments. I understand you had some private sector people in here just a few days ago who themselves were not quite sure whether they required this or not. Again, I'm not an expert, but the federal-provincial dimension on who has responsibility for this type of thing is certainly not clear. So that gives you my spin on it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: At a previous meeting we had a couple of weeks back, we had the new chief information officer talking about a national planning group under the Department of National Defence. Are you the person leading up the national planning group there?

Mr. Paul Thibault: That's correct. It's called the National Contingency Planning Group.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you for that clarification.

I would make a final comment that as the national contingency planning coordinator I think somewhere along the pipe that does include contingency planning down to the man in the street level. I would suggest you need to include this in your scope of contingency planning advisements that go out there. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): General Henault, when you were talking about the priorities in mission-critical systems you mentioned search and rescue as one of those. We all have in mind the recent tragedy that occurred with the search and rescue mission down east a while ago. I'm wondering if you are able to reassure us that in a crisis situation, as may occur with this Y2K problem, the search and rescue service will be capable of performing. I realize it's under stress right now, when there are not emergencies taking place. I'm wondering if there is some reassurance you can give us that it will be operating properly.

LGen Raymond Henault: Thank you. Yes, I can say quite confidently that the search and rescue services we provide will be capable and ready to operate. They are on a day-to-day basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and every day of the year.

The recent Labrador accident was certainly a tragedy, and one we regretted of course, but we are doing everything possible to find the cause of the accident and also to put in place whatever is needed to do to prevent it, if that's possible.

The aircraft are back flying again, as I think you are aware. The chief of the air staff has made the decision to put the aircraft back into the air. The aircraft are very well maintained, as I think everybody would appreciate. Our maintenance system in the Canadian Forces aircraft maintenance is among the world's best; if not the best in the world, it's one that's renowned, as is our flight safety system. We're confident everything will come together to at least give us the reasons for this particular accident.

• 1005

I might also add the Labrador has done a number of rescue missions since that accident, even during the period when the restrictions were quite significant on the aircraft. The aircraft is not operating fully yet. It will be in about 40 days or so, once we're able to lift any remaining restrictions on training and so on.

I might also add that even though the Labrador was somewhat under stress, as you mentioned, during that timeframe, we also have fallbacks, in that we can use our other helicopter resources in the Canadian Forces to fill the gap during that timeframe. We use the Sea King to help us do search and rescue, and also the CH-146 Bell Griffon helicopter to do that job. We would do the same thing again if we were required to.

Of course we have total confidence in all the aircraft. As a pilot, I wouldn't fly in the aircraft, I must admit, if I wasn't totally confident of the maintenance that's done on those airplanes. After 30-plus years now of flying, many of those years flying helicopters, I have absolutely every faith in our system, not only in the Labrador but every other aircraft we fly. So I can assure you from my point of view at least, and I would suggest that from the air forces' and the Canadian Forces' perspective overall, we're very confident.

I might also add one last thing, and that is the navy does a certain amount of search and rescue off the coasts in conjunction with the coast guard. We operate in lockstep with the coast guard in doing search and rescue. They also have aircraft, and helicopters and so on, that contribute to the mission. There is a very large portion of the number of government departments that contribute to the mission. We're all confident that we can do the job.

Mr. Ian Murray: I was one of those who had an opportunity to work with the military during the ice storm. One thing that was fascinating was watching the military work with civilian authorities. The military needs a civilian authority normally in order to start doing something, and it was clear that some of the civilians were much better prepared than others. I'm talking about mayors or reeves of townships, this level of authority.

Was there a lesson learned by the military from that experience in terms of working with civilian authorities? I noticed that quite often the civilian authorities had to be prodded by military officers. Once the civilian authorities realized what was possible, because in the military they give orders and the orders are carried out, it's very different from what these people are used to— I thought in terms of your contingency planning it might be something to keep in mind, if you haven't, that countrywide you may want to have some way of informing civilian authorities as to how to operate with the military in the event of a crisis.

LGen Raymond Henault: That's a very good point. I might also highlight the fact that we operate in response to a provincial request for support, as opposed to the other way around. So it is very important for us, and a critical part of our makeup, to make sure that we do cooperate and liaise very closely with provincial authorities.

The task force commanders, who I talked to you a little bit earlier about, our area commanders, as we call them, who are located in cities such as Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and so on, are in fact responsible for providing support to provincial authorities in their areas or their regions of responsibility. For that reason, they have very close links to provincial authorities in the provinces for which they are responsible. So that relationship is very well established and it's one we intend to nurture even more as we go in to the year 2000 timeframe.

Your point is a very valid one. But I think what's perhaps more important from a Canadian Forces' point of view is that we bring a very wide range of general purpose military skills to an operation like the ice storm or others, and perhaps in the case of year 2000 as well. Perhaps it will be important for us to make sure that authorities are aware of the kinds of skills we can help with, things like transportation, setting up and maintaining shelters, for example, assisting in re-establishing central services and those types of things.

So I would suggest that in the longer term, with those links we have through emergency measures and also through our area commanders we will be able to provide that kind of feedback and cooperate very closely with Canadians at large.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today, General Henault and Admiral Garnett.

No, Madam Lalonde, I apologize—-

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] —

[English]

The Chair: Madam Lalonde, we were ten minutes late starting because we didn't have an opposition member here. I apologize, but we have two—-

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The representatives of the two other parties are not present. Just one question, please.

[English]

The Chair: No. I'm sorry, Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That isn't fair. There were two of you asking questions on the other side and I—

[English]

The Chair: Madam Lalonde, I keep accurate track of time here, and the opposition and the government members have had equal time. I apologize.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I don't think it's fair.

• 1010

[English]

The Chair: We have two other witnesses we have to hear from.

Mr. Thibault, General Henault, and Admiral Garnett, I—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] —from the official opposition but I'm here as well.

[English]

A voice: Well, we waited for 20 minutes.

The Chair: With all due respect, this isn't appropriate in front of the witnesses. I apologize to our witnesses.

We appreciate your presentation today and your answering our questions, and we appreciate the offer to come back to us. We will have you back. I note that you both talked about support that's critical to the well-being and security of Canadians. I have several questions I'd also like to ask about my own riding and international border crossings. I throw those out so that you can think about them for the next time.

We do appreciate you and all your colleagues being with us. We wish you luck, but we'll also do what we can do notify Canadians.

We're now going to exchange witnesses. While we're exchanging witnesses, you have in front of you a budget submission. Could I have a motion from Mr. Lastewka to move the budget?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Chair, I move that the committee approve a budget of $20,000 for witness and miscellaneous expenses from November 18, 1998 to December 31, 1998 for studies on the year 2000 and Bill C-54.

The Chair: Thank you.

You have in front of you a budget submission that's been prepared by our clerk, Elizabeth Kingston. You should be aware that presently we have no money for hearing any witnesses. A liaison committee meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday, which is why we've put this in with such short notice. I apologize that we weren't able to circulate it, but it only came to our attention yesterday that some of the witnesses we called drained our expense account—in particular your witnesses, Mr. Pankiw. The Fraser Institute cost us a lot of money. It was an unexpected expense of about $6,000 to bring them in. We'll have to keep that in mind in the future.

Mr. Pankiw, go right ahead.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): I didn't know that witnesses' expenses were covered, or partially covered. I'm wondering what formula is used. I see here you have 34 witnesses times $500. Is it $500 per witness?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: How does this work?

The Chair: It's an average. In fact what we do cover is basic airfare, if they request it. When we fly someone in from very far on short notice, unfortunately that's what we have to deal with: the costs can be very high. We have to use an average.

Some witnesses don't claim any expenses at all, and the majority of our witnesses don't. So I was quite surprised when the clerk told me we didn't have any money left, because usually a lot of our witnesses come from the Ottawa area, and they don't claim any expenses whatsoever. We've had a couple of witnesses from far. The Canadian Bar Association as well had a few people come in from the west. When they come in from the east coast or the west coast, we try to cover their airfare. That's it—not their time for being here or anything, but just their airfare. It's strictly airfare.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: And it's a simple matter: if they request it, the committee covers it?

The Chair: No, no. We try to accommodate the requests of committee members for witnesses, and if they ask for expenses, we normally cover them. I can ask the clerk, if you want, to let us know if she thinks there's been there's been an unreasonable request.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, no. It's just for general information. I'm just wondering how this works. If we request a witness and that witness requests that their expenses be covered, then they're covered.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay. Then my only other question is, under “Miscellaneous”, what do things such as “hospitality” and “working lunches” refer to?

The Chair: Well, every meeting, we have coffee and juice at the back, and we are having the all-day session next Thursday on Y2K, at which time we'll work through lunch.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Oh, I see.

The Chair: And we'll probably work through dinner. So we'll serve sandwiches or something at that time.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: And hospitality?

The Chair: That's what it's called: hospitality. I don't know—

Mr. Jim Pankiw: So it's all the same thing.

The Chair: This is a draft budget to cover things in case there's something that we're not—

We have two witnesses we have to hear from.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: —

[Inaudible—Editor] —

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, with all due respect, we cover basic airfare for whatever witnesses request it. So in the future, if we're going to bring witnesses in from far, we'll have to try to see if there are other ways.

An hon. member: I don't need any lectures.

An hon. member: Sorry, Madam Chair.

• 1015

The Chair: I apologize. Maybe I should have looked to see if there was an alternative method to hear from the witnesses.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Sorry, I'm just inquiring about the process. As far as I'm concerned, the Fraser Institute were the only witnesses who were worth hearing.

The Chair: I really don't want to get into a discussion. I just want to explain why we're out of dollars. I apologize, because I wasn't prepared for that. But we have two witnesses who are waiting, and we're waiting to hear from them.

So there's more discussion, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I was wondering, why 34? Where do we get the magic number of 34?

The Chair: It is based on the number of hearings from now until the end of December and the number of witnesses we're calling. Next Thursday we're meeting from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. If you haven't noticed, that's come across your e-mail. And there are a number of witnesses who have been called for that day. So we have to base it on the average— the number of witnesses.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So the answer is it's based on the number of meetings and witnesses we still have planned.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Eric Lowther: And the calendar year for this is that December wraps up—

The Chair: No. In fact this budget will continue until the end of March, if there are dollars still left. In fact we're anticipating these are the dollars we'll need until the end of December. We'll put in a new budget request, if required, in February and March when we return. However, these dollars could carry over until the end of March, because our year end goes until the end of March.

Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I was also wondering about that but you told us that we had already incurred expenditures for which we didn't have money.

The Chair: I beg your pardon?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You said that we'd already incurred expenditures for which we did not have money, for example in the case of the Fraser Institute.

[English]

The Chair: No, that's why we've run out of money. We had a budget of $10,000 for witnesses. In the past, that's been adequate for us as a committee; we haven't gone over that within the year. However, we haven't had people come in from far away before. We had a couple of groups, not just the Fraser Institute but also the Canadian Bar Association earlier in the year, that brought people in from the west. We have to respect the fact that airfare is very expensive and we can't ask them to undertake those costs. Nor do I. I'm just trying to explain where and why we need this when we don't usually.

If there are no other questions—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have another question. Are we not normally given 48 hours advanced notice? Should we not have received this budget before coming to vote today? Personally I feel that I'm ready but those are the rules we normally follow.

[English]

The Chair: For budgetary items it doesn't usually follow. According to the clerk, there's no practice in committees that we give a 48-hour notice. We do try to circulate it in advance. However, the liaison committee is meeting Tuesday morning; we don't meet until Tuesday afternoon. If we don't do it today, we'll have no money and we'll just have to cancel the meetings.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm ready but I think that this goes against our practices.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: How much did it cost to have the Fraser Institute come here?

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, the witnesses claim their basic airfare. The basic airfare, as everyone on this committee should be aware, is approximately $2,700 to fly from the west coast to Ottawa. So I don't think it should come as any surprise to committee members.

We have two witnesses who are waiting, so I'd like to move the question. All those in favour of the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'd now like to call our next two witnesses to the table and apologize for the delay.

We have two witnesses here today. I'm not sure if we're going to hear something different from what we've heard from the federal side, but I'm looking forward to hearing from both Emergency Measures Ontario, Mr. Doug Harrison, the deputy director; and Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Mr. David Noble, the director of provincial programs, disaster services branch.

I believe you both have opening statements that are being circulated. I would ask Mr. Harrison to begin, please.

Mr. Doug Harrison (Deputy Director, Emergency Measures Ontario): Madam Chair, committee members, thank you for inviting me to speak for the Province of Ontario on the year 2000 challenge public safety preparedness program.

Our cabinet has declared the year 2000 issue as the number number one information technology priority for the Government of Ontario. Like the federal Treasury Board, Ontario's Management Board has established a Year 2000 Corporate Project Management Office to coordinate and monitor efforts to address the various issues that will arise as we move toward January 1, 2000.

All of our ministries have established similar offices to work with the Ontario public service staff and the people and organizations we deal with in the normal course of our duties.

• 1020

In my own area, the justice Y2K project office is coordinating readiness activities across both justice ministries—in this case we have two that are linked, Solicitor General and Correctional Services and Attorney General—and is providing advice and support to division and business unit heads.

The project office is helping managers obtain the financial and technical resources they will need to successfully carry out their responsibilities for compliance assessment, conversion, and testing work. The project office also provides monthly reports on progress to the senior management of the two ministries, individual division and business unit heads, and the management board Y2K corporate project management office.

The primary goal of all our efforts is to minimize the impact of any Y2K-related system failures on public safety and the administration of justice in Ontario.

I would now like to describe how the province is dealing the much broader Y2K public safety challenge within Ontario. The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, and specifically the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, is responsible for public safety in Ontario. Within his ministry, Emergency Measures Ontario is responsible for the formulation and implementation of emergency plans throughout Ontario. This is my branch. In short, the branch is responsible for the coordination of federal plans with provincial plans, and community plans with provincial plans.

We have taken a very broad approach with respect to emergency preparedness in response to the Y2K challenge. Our goal is to ensure that public safety is not threatened as a consequence of systems failure. We are determined that all identified organizations should have Y2K preparedness programs. Identified organizations include emergency response partners and other stakeholders whose operations could affect public safety. These identified organizations are found in both the public and private sectors.

We are being assisted in our response to the challenge by many other coalition partners, both public and private sector. An example is the Ontario essential service providers forum, a gathering of Y2K partners such as Bell Canada, Ontario Hydro, the Municipal Electric Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and others.

Our critical partners in this process are communities throughout Ontario, both municipal and first nations; the eleven designated ministries in Ontario that have assigned special emergency responsibility areas; our emergency service providers, police, fire and ambulance; and industry in terms of hazardous installations. The Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada are working closely with us to consult with industries that have hazardous facilities. Emergency Measures Ontario is also responsible for the provincial nuclear emergency plan, which details off-site nuclear emergency preparedness in response and arrangements.

We have divided our program into five phases. In phase one we are promoting awareness, developing guides to assist critical partners, conducting hazard identification and analysis—this really means systems that require remediation—promoting action plans for mitigation and remediation, and conducting surveys to determine the state of Y2K readiness. This phase will largely be completed by the end of December 1998.

In phase two we will complete a provincial risk assessment, promote and develop Y2K contingency plans to supplement the generic all-hazard plans already in place, and specifically develop contingency plans for our provincial nuclear emergency plan, our provincial emergency plan for non-nuclear and our provincial counter-terrorism plan. The emphasis in this phase is on risk assessment and contingency plans. We anticipate this phase will be completed by the end of August 1999.

Phase three will consist of Y2K preparedness activities. This includes such things as special training, Y2K exercises and drills, and public education. As well, we will continually revise our risk assessment and modify our contingency plans based on progress made in mitigation and remediation. This phase will be completed by the end of November 1999.

• 1025

Phase four is the ready-to-respond phase that will take place from late 1999 to some time in 2000. At the provincial level, our provincial operations centre in Toronto will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as will designated ministry action groups. We will also encourage communities to be at some level of operational readiness to react quickly to any situations that require the implementation of contingency plans. Depending on the nature of the challenge, this phase may not be quickly completed. If all goes well, it should be concluded by the end of March 2000.

During phase five we will assess any Y2K effects, conduct recovery and business resumption activities, and draft the inevitable after action summaries and reports, all prior to returning to normal. It is anticipated this phase will be completed by the end of June, 2000.

Earlier I indicated that each of the eleven designated ministries with special emergency responsibilities were our partners in this process. In order to ensure the coordination of our programs we have formed a special Y2K working group. This working group will report to the assistant deputy minister for public safety, Dr. James Young, through our emergency preparedness coordinating committee. The working group includes representation from Emergency Measures Ontario program staff, each ministry, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Office of the Fire Marshall, Land Forces Central Area, which as you've heard earlier is the regional military headquarters for Ontario, and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

Although the province cannot absolutely guarantee that everyone will will be ready by the year 2000, we will leave no stone unturned in our drive to ensure systems are compliant and contingency plans in place.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to inform you of our approach and our programs.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison.

We will now hear from Mr. Noble and then we'll go to questions at the same time, because I have a feeling people are going to want to ask you identical questions.

Mr. David A. Noble (Director, Provincial Programs, Disaster Services Branch, Alberta Transportation and Utilities): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak before you on Alberta's situation. Thank you for paying for my airfare too, by the way.

What I'd like to bring before you are the procedures and mechanisms we've put in place in the province, or are putting in place as we speak, to hopefully bring us safely through January 1, 2000.

Although my organization, the disaster services branch, is in the Department of Transportation and Utilities, we don't do roads. We are a cross-government function and we happen to be housed there. Since December of last year the disaster services branch has been working closely with the chief information officer of the province, George Samoil, who will be a witness here next week, I believe. He is also the co-chair of the federal-provincial-territorial CIO committee on considering the emergency preparedness aspects that have become increasingly evident will be a problem.

Since April I have been giving presentations to a large number of groups of representatives of over 100 of our municipalities—we have about 350 in the province, health care authorities, industrial associations, and military groups—in fact in Land Force Western Area and military staff officers.

Starting this fall we've been gearing up the fixed process I want to describe to you now. In our brief on the page entitled “Alberta Y2K Planning Framework” are listed our themes. Not surprisingly, they are very similar to what my colleague from Ontario has described.

First of all, this has to be a national if not international contingency planning effort. The cities of Edmonton and Calgary and the province of Alberta are not islands that will be working independently on the eve of 2000. We are inextricably linked by a variety of systems we have identified, and perhaps some we haven't identified yet to other sectors in the country, the continent and around the world. So we must prepare for it on that basis.

Within the province we are very much into joint planning with all levels of government—municipal, provincial and federal—represented in Alberta, and all sectors. We don't have crown corporations that deliver key services because all utilities are privatized, but they are working closely with us, as are our telecommunications, Telus, and our industrial sectors, such as the petrochemical and oilfield and oil patch sector. The health care association is obviously critical to this.

• 1030

A key theme to this is we don't need to invent anything new in preparing for year 2000. All our existing practices and procedures that are in place—and this runs from emergency preparedness in the home and the family, what is in place at the municipal level right now, relationships between various levels of government and how those relationships are communicated and information is passed—will continue to be used for this process. The theme, which is getting a bit trite now but is very appropriate, is to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Finally, a very comprehensive public and media awareness program is essential to deliver this program in a rational manner that generates neither panic nor complacency.

The next page talks about the mechanisms we have in place in the province. On October 6 a meeting was chaired jointly by the chief information officer of Alberta and the executive director of disaster services, to whom I report, in Government House. We had represented there all private sectors, including electricity generators; natural gas; telecommunications; emergency responders—police, fire and ambulance; six departments of the provincial government delivering critical services in the emergency preparedness perspective; three federal departments; and a number of other industrial associations. This was all at the deputy minister and presidential levels, so there was a huge commitment in terms of buy-in.

That group agreed, first of all, to become a Y2K emergency preparedness steering committee and meet as necessary, but also to designate representatives to report to a Y2K emergency preparedness working group which I will chair. Our first meeting is scheduled for the first week in December. Representatives have been named and continue to be named. These are typically the Y2K project managers for each company or department, not information technology people but the corporate managers responsible for contingency planning.

That has taken off extremely well, and we expect it to be an excellent vehicle to prepare ourselves. We have, in addition, been funded from my department to form a distinct Y2K project office. I've hired people for that purpose and they now report to me in Edmonton.

The deliverables we have forecast from this program are several. First, we are developing, on a consultant basis, two municipal guides. We had already prepared a municipal guide that was issued in July and put on the Internet to help municipalities at a corporate management level look at their systems and determine where they might have emergency preparedness consequences. That guide has been very well received across the country and throughout some states in the United States. If imitation is indeed flattery, it has been copied verbatim by at least one other province. I take some encouragement from that.

We are preparing two more guides. One is going to look at areas suggested to be focused upon in municipal utilities, principally water and sewage treatment. The other will be for building management systems, with a focus on the buildings that house emergency responders and corporate management. Those guides are being prepared as we speak on on consultant basis. We expect to issue them mid-January and make them available to be mailed out to all our municipalities, put on our home page on the Internet, and so on.

We also intend to take those guides and flip them into questionnaires that will subsequently, in the spring, be mailed to our municipalities with the hope that on a cooperative basis we can learn what their situations are and therefore what their problems might be.

The working group I mentioned and our ongoing debate with municipalities will help us to gain an ongoing picture of the overall readiness from our perspective of emergency preparedness. That picture, of course, will change over the next twelve months as systems continue to be mitigated and more is learned of our interconnectivity.

We will have a public awareness program, probably a very specific one, in May that will be directed at preparedness for Y2K aspects in the family, at home and on the farm. I can tell you that those horrific pictures from the ice storms of dump truck loads of cattle, dairy cattle and pigs being hauled away is vivid in our minds in Alberta. Of course, we very much rely on our agricultural sector. We'll have a guide that will be prepared.

The message in that guide will have to be constructed very carefully with our partners. We don't want to be accused of fear-mongering and we equally don't want to water down the message so much that nobody pays any attention to it. Finally, we don't want to create a situation where everybody who receives this message in whatever form we deliver it will feel it is necessary to contact their utility, city or town and generate a whole bunch of work and effort on the part of our municipal managers that could well be directed elsewhere.

When all of this is put together it will lead us to an Alberta Y2K consequence management plan. That title comes specifically out of our Auditor General's recommendation. I'm hoping to have it in its first draft in a publicly accessible form in the summer of next year. Of course it will remain as a draft until December 31, when reality bites.

• 1035

We'll be looking at activating our operation centre and testing the plan on September 9, which is, as you know, a date of some potential significance. It's also a date by which all operation centres, probably across the country, will be linked up for, if nothing else, a communication check.

I mentioned December 31. In fact our operation centre in the province will be active probably from about December 29 on to prepare and observe what will actually happen in Fiji, which is where this will start, I guess.

I should note in closing that Fiji is the first place that will experience the date change. I have selflessly volunteered to go there to be a liaison officer on the ground, but the offer has not been taken up.

That concludes the points I wanted to bring to you, Madam Chair and ladies and gentlemen. I'm happy to take any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Noble. I'm sure many of us would want to accompany you there to be part of an observation team. But I have a feeling we'd have difficulty, and we would definitely need a much larger budget for that.

With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Lowther to begin questions.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, where do I start on all that? Let me see.

I appreciate both presentations. Thank you.

Maybe I'll start with what I was going to finish with. I find something interesting, Mr. Noble. I didn't hear you mention it, Mr. Harrison, but I may have missed it. Mr. Noble, you are actually planning a public awareness thing for the family, home, and farm.

When I was in Calgary I talked to some of the utilities people. They shared with me that before they can actually get together to discuss some of the challenges they have with Y2K, there are non-disclosure agreements and also lawyers get involved with assessing liability before anybody talks. We've heard about this legislation in the States. We asked the previous witnesses about this.

I just wonder what your perspective is in drafting something like this public awareness piece. Certainly along the lines of what you said, you don't want to make it so watered down that it doesn't really mean much, but you don't want to make it too strong for fear of the liability a lot of these people have. They don't want to say it's actually this good in case something does go wrong and they're hung out to dry.

Do you think there's value in pursuing some sort of a legal mechanism whereby people can say the state of readiness without fear of getting themselves into some liability challenge?

Mr. David Noble: There's absolutely no question about that. No matter what angle we come at the situation from, there's a legal opinion. I've heard two general camps of opinion from our provincial department lawyers. One seems to be prevalent among some of the large manufacturers, for example. This is the one that urges you to say nothing so that nothing can be held against you.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

Mr. David Noble: The other one is the one I tend to use, and I encourage our municipalities to use it. I'm thankful to say that this one seems to be largely prevalent in government and utilities, by the way. It's that due diligence, in its simplest definition, means that you do everything you can with the information you have and then make that information public.

I work with utilities in Alberta. I'll refer specifically to TransAlta, Alberta Power, EPCOR—this means the City of Edmonton and the surrounding area—and ENMAX, which is the equivalent in Calgary. These are four generating capacities. I sense no reluctance on their part whatsoever to disclose the state they're at. That's partly because it's good news. I think you're aware of the Canadian Electricity Association's summary. Some people have critiqued it for being too general and evasive. I look on the rosy side of it, and I think it's positive.

The working group we're forming will have clearly the sub-task of developing that communications program so the message that goes is one that's comfortable to all members of the working group. We need their cooperation. We can't scare them off by suggesting we're going to hang them out to dry publicly. So the message that goes out will be a joint one from all those sectors working together.

The Chair: Mr. Harrison, did you have anything to add to that?

Mr. Doug Harrison: Yes. I certainly think there's room for statutes and regulations, but I would not propose putting any further statutes or laws in place. Where a statute or regulation authority exists, that will obviously already be used, or it will be used as a threat. For example, Ontario Hydro obviously has a regulatory regime with them, so we can make things happen.

• 1040

I would reinforce what Mr. Noble has said about due diligence. Everybody is aware of this problem. I think my experience in all sorts of emergency preparedness and response work says that due diligence gets you a lot further.

Arm-twisting is very important as well where people are reluctant. We know there will be consequences, if people don't take appropriate actions, from stakeholders and the public. That in itself is an energizer for many people and firms.

I would make a comment on a second thing, as your question seemed to be in two parts. Yes, we will have a communications plan. It will be changing as circumstances change. We have a central agency in our organization to look after this communications plan.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Doug Harrison: I have just one final comment. The name of the game for all of us is to make sure the public has confidence in what we're doing.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Along that line, there seems to be a coming together. There's some sort of a coordinated effort. I would appreciate some clarification.

We have DND, and they have this national contingency planning group, which I think is hosting meetings with various utilities across the country.

Are you aware of some of the national efforts? Are you plugged into that with the utilities? They had a meeting, I think, back in October. There's another one planned for December 19. I think I remember that as being a date, but don't hold me to that. It was for some time in December. Are you working within the confines of this national contingency planning group? Are you aware of that?

Mr. Doug Harrison: In Ontario, we're aware of all of those efforts. The planning should be from the bottom up, not from the top down. The Department of National Defence also said they were ready to respond to provincial requests.

But yes, in answer to your question, we're aware of all these things. We have regional or local groups that work together. All of the stakeholders have the same aim.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, Mr. Noble, you made a comment about it being a national issue that has to be dealt with nationally. I see this national contingency planning group under DND on the contingency side as a lot of guys waving flags and saying to be aware and go out and fix your systems.

Now we have this other component to it, this emergency readiness, the contingency side of things, which is a separate national contingency planning group. Are they a body you're aware of?

Mr. David Noble: Absolutely. Before I answer your question specifically, I would make two points. The issue here is one that can be complicated greatly by standing on provincial or federal jurisdictions. You can put the fence up and say this is mine and that's yours. But that's not helpful.

The other side of that coin is that if we don't use single channels of information—this is a one-window source, so to speak—we will confuse and duplicate the messages and the information-gathering process.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

Mr. David Noble: We're very concerned in Alberta that there should be only one group, which is the working group I referred to and ourselves specifically at disaster services branch, consulting TransAlta and Alberta Power to get their opinions.

We don't wish to have—

Mr. Eric Lowther: You don't want five people going at them.

Mr. David Noble: —continuous queries coming from different sources. As I said, they may get different answers. It will certainly annoy the people receiving this, because they have legitimately asked who the hell is in charge out there. Also, I think it will extend the debate.

We are working very closely with Land Force Western Area. It's a coincidence that the commander and his staff are in Edmonton, where we are. We work closely with the regional director of Emergency Preparedness Canada, who is also in Edmonton. That network is well established. I should say that in Alberta, those people understand we have a single point of contact.

I hope it's not a telling commentary that the people who are doing the national plan have all left, and as a result couldn't hear the provincial commentaries today. I don't talk to these people; I talk to our contacts in Edmonton.

The Chair: Although they may have left, you should be aware that our meetings are carried on a radio station. So some of them may be listening from their offices. It also appears on the Intranet through the “blues” process. I'm sure they'll be watching to see what was said very closely.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Noble, could you give me an update on your health preparedness, your hospital preparedness for the year 2000?

Mr. David Noble: I can't speak in great detail about it. I have worked with the health care associations. We have now in the province, as you may know, seventeen regional health authorities, which replaced a multitude of hospital boards and two independent boards, the mental health and cancer boards. They're all working in our regional health authorities association, which struck a Y2K contingency planning committee.

• 1045

They were funded to $170 million by Alberta Health to investigate compliance, starting with biomedical systems. They've now done that. That result, and the contingency plan they developed, which is applicable to everything from a tertiary care treatment centre down to an old folks' home, and covers every function within a health care facility from the garbage room to the ICU, has been made available nationally. It has been given, actually, to the B.C. Ministry of Health, who have taken that product and are coordinating that nationally, I believe.

My understanding from the people I work with on the health care side is that for biomedical equipment, the stuff that's in the hospital—the ICUs, the infusion pumps, and so on—the situation is known. I'm not saying they're all fixed, but the situation is known and they are remediating that as we speak.

They are now turning their attention more and more to the infrastructure of their facilities, the building management systems, the heating and ventilation, the medical gases that are required, and of course the old standard topic that's thrown up—the elevator—because in our two acute treatment hospitals in Edmonton, emergency cases are taken from a helicopter pad on the roof by elevator down. So there are some obvious direct linkages.

I believe they're in good shape, but it's not by any means a done deal yet.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: But they have access to the $170 million?

Mr. David Noble: That's right.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So that's now being implemented.

Mr. David Noble: That's from Alberta Health. The Alberta government identified about a year ago that the first priority was the health care side in terms of the time left and the work that had to be done.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Harrison, on the Ontario scene we heard from the Ontario Hospital Association that moneys have not been released to them—I think it was $300 million—and they're forecasting a bill of around $400 million. But even that $300 million has not been released to the hospitals yet. Could you advise us on that?

Mr. Doug Harrison: I can't comment on the figure; I'm not privy to that information. But I can tell you the Ministry of Health has a very large Y2K project office looking at not only the hospital side, but the public health side and emergency health services—a very large office. Although I can't comment on the budgetary allocations, they are well under way—they've been under way for a year—and the problems are known and are being dealt with.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I understand the first phases of collecting, identifying, and designing what has to be bought and so forth, has been completed amongst the hospitals and they are ready for that. But maybe you could get back to us, because it was very clear to us the Ontario hospitals had not received any money to date. Either our previous witnesses are incorrect, or that's the reality of things.

I wonder if you could get back to us on when that money will be released to the Ontario hospitals, similar to what Mr. Noble said, which I understand was that the overall scheme was $170 million. They had their coordinating offices, and each of the areas were doing— I think he mentioned 17 areas.

Mr. David Noble: There are 17 regional health authorities, and not surprisingly, the two with the largest installations are in Edmonton and Calgary. The money has been sliced out on an agreed priority basis as to what equipment and systems will be fixed.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My concern is that there is a delay, and that was the expression of the witnesses, that they don't have the money to implement things and it's being held back. I would appreciate it if you could bring us up to date like Mr. Noble has. I think that's what I was looking for.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Madam Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presentations, and I have to say they provide some assurance. My only question comes back to the interconnectedness of our country. It appears from the presentation you've given us and from your responses to some of the questions, Mr. Noble, that Alberta appears to be doing some kind of outreach with other provinces, in terms of either providing information you have or plans of action you've developed for the benefit of other provinces that may not be as far along.

I'd like to know from you, Mr. Harrison, if Ontario has been doing the same thing on an active basis, trying to find out how the other provinces are dealing with the Y2K preparedness issue, and whether it has been beneficial if you have. Have you learned anything? Or have you been able to provide information to another province that is of benefit to them in their own actions?

• 1050

Mr. Doug Harrison: I'd be happy to answer the question. As you're aware, or you may not be aware, there is already a conference of senior officials who deal with emergency preparedness and response matters on a regular basis, and Y2K is a topic among those people.

At the working level, anybody who is running a Y2K office now is seeking all sorts of information. We get information from each other at the provincial level. We get a great deal of information from the United States. It's available on the Internet. It's easily accessible, and we're constantly searching, comparing and so on. I would say that the amount of information is unprecedented. It's a matter of synthesizing it for your own purpose.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: If you're getting all of that information you must both be able to have a reasonable assessment of where your province's preparedness stands with regard to all of the other provinces in Canada and then Canada overall in terms of other countries. Can you give me that assessment?

Mr. David Noble: The short answer is no, I can't. First of all, our own house is not in order yet. We don't know what the risks are. We know where they might occur and we have a process in place that will continuously define what those risks are. Information is exchanged regularly, as Mr. Harrison has mentioned, and we are all in fact members of that group he spoke of.

I should say just as an aside that in emergency preparedness plagiarism is considered research. So take anything you can find and use it.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Excellent.

Mr. David Noble: I'd be very loath to speculate on the state of other provinces. I can't say with any certainty. Occasionally we see encouraging signs from the conduit we have into the information. I occasionally I see some worrying signs, but I think the awareness level grows ever higher.

My problem is that when we get to next summer and I produce this Y2K consequence management plan, I can say with relative certainty that if we had drawn a line around Alberta this is what would happen inside that box, but it gets increasingly difficult to understand what's going to happen from outside. We would really be taking some leaps of faith there, I believe, in estimating what the outcome of exterior influences might be.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: But isn't that one of the reasons it would be important as part of your emergency preparedness plan to have that assessment?

Mr. David Noble: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Because, as you said, if the walls are up on the borders of your province then you know what's a reasonable assessment of what will happen in your province, but given the interconnectedness—

Mr. David Noble: The next formal meeting of the group Doug referred to, of the senior officials, is in February of next year. We'll be well down our path in Alberta. I can't presume what my executive director will say, but I think we would be prepared to push the issue there, as we did at the last meeting, that now we have to have a much more formal exchange of information, rather than assume that it's happening properly.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Harrison.

Mr. Doug Harrison: I don't, as well, have an assessment of the readiness of other provinces. I would submit that all of the provinces are so different and have many different aspects to them that I'm not sure how useful it would be. For example, my colleague from Alberta has already mentioned the energy sector is very important, and that's not quite as important in Ontario from a producer point of view. Nonetheless, we will have an opportunity to exchange information.

I would like to talk about another organization that we have in the central region, and it's called the Central Region Emergency Management Advisory Committee. It consists of the EMO directors for the six contiguous states: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. We meet a couple of times a year, and Y2K is on our agenda, so we have the ability to share with the other states that are contiguous to us. As my colleague has said, we are in contact with other provinces through the senior officials' meeting. So I think that is going to be very beneficial for us.

I would add one other comment. People often think of the ice storm, which I know most of us here have been through, as a weather emergency. I maintain that the weather caused it, but it was a power emergency. I think for Y2K the assurance of power is really the problem. You should be aware that—I'll just toss this out—Ontario Hydro, for example, have 600 people now working on Y2K, and they've had this for some time. The aspect of interconnectivity between the United States and Canada, the North American grid, is being very closely studied and followed up on.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, did you have another question?

• 1055

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes. Thank you.

I just want to follow up on something we kind of touched on a minute ago during my previous question. I'm a little bit concerned. What I'm hearing here is different from what we heard from the previous witness and some other witnesses. We're hearing that there's a national coordination plan under way, and national meetings are being hosted. Yet from you I hear that you're aware of what's going on in your own province, but as far as any kind of national state of readiness or sharing of information coordinated by a national body is concerned, you don't seem to be aware of it. In fact you could say with some confidence how your own province is going to make it, but you have these outside-the-border links that put even that plan at risk. This is new to me. I thought we were getting some sort of national coordination here.

Am I misreading you? Is there a vacuum there? It seems to me there's a bit of a vacuum. We have meetings of senior officials over here and some other utility groups over here, but I was building an impression we had a national coordinator here. We just talked to him. Are you even aware of him?

The Chair: Mr. Harrison would like to respond to that, and then Mr. Noble.

Mr. Doug Harrison: I'd like to respond to that. It depends on whether your term “national” means national or federal. There is a national overview of this whole problem. There are groups working at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels. We have interconnectivity with all of those groups. We share information. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the Department of National Defence is the federal organization that's responsible for the Y2K challenge.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Correct.

Mr. Doug Harrison: In my office, for example, I have a military liaison officer right now working with us who provides that direct interconnectivity with our area, and the military areas obviously connect on a national basis. So I think it's there. There's a national perspective, and it's made up of federal, provincial, and municipal plans and all of the sectors in the private sector that might influence this challenge. So I don't see a great national plan coming out and telling us what we'd have to do.

Mr. Eric Lowther: But if you want to know—

Mr. Doug Harrison: It's a partnership.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, sorry. But if you want to know where your neighbours are at, can you get feedback from that loop?

Mr. Doug Harrison: I have access to the systems that will give me that.

The Chair: Mr. Noble.

Mr. David Noble: I apologize if you read me as saying that we're not part of the national plan. We absolutely are. But one can only talk to so many people at one time. If we brought every Y2K coordinator in the country together, we'd need the SkyDome two times over, and we wouldn't achieve anything. So I'm working with our regional director of EPC. I work with the Land Force Western Area contact, and that is my contact, as with Mr. Harrison, back through.

So take comfort. I believe the system is there. But before the national planning can make sense, it has to have the state of the nation. As I said before, we would like to be the source. We will be the source of that information for Alberta. So it is not a duplicated acquisition process.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay. That's good. Thank you.

Mr. Doug Harrison: Could I add one other thing to that?

The Chair: Sure, Mr. Harrison.

Mr. Doug Harrison: What is the absolutely worst thing to have happen is that the federal authorities go down to the municipalities. That in fact has happened in the early stages of this process. I know that in Ontario and in Alberta, as I understand from my colleague from Alberta, we have this under control now. We have good liaison set up; we're sharing information. And to use the buzzword, it's seamless.

The Chair: I will indulge myself by asking a question here, and I would have liked to ask the previous group a similar question.

You mentioned briefly, Mr. Harrison, the work you have done with some of the states in the United States. I raise it because you both represent provinces, and all of our provinces have borders. The Department of National Defence raised the point earlier about the support systems being critical to the well-being and security of Canadians. I look at our border crossings. I don't want to raise fear or create problems, but we do know that we are on grids when it comes to power, and we're connected. If there's a grid failure, the potential is there for us to experience simultaneously power outages in both Canada and the United States. I don't want to create fear, and I don't want to suggest that this will happen. But I throw it out there as one of those remote possibilities.

I look at the Windsor and Detroit area, which has the largest international border crossing and which is the area I'm from, where there were power outages in the 1960s. Although we say that happened a long time ago and it can't happen again, we know what happened in Los Angeles not too long ago. I hope we're looking at that. I look at my local municipalities, and they're not, and I'm concerned. I know that my local municipalities have gone through amalgamation, so this hasn't been a priority for them, unfortunately.

• 1100

Although in general there are some emergency preparedness plans in place, I look at this and I think we need to be prepared. We need to know that Ontario has a number of significant international crossings. Alberta has a very interesting situation with a completely open border. We're a little bit different because we have a lot of water boundaries, which will be frozen or something like that.

I know you mentioned briefly that you are working with the States, but have we looked at how we ensure that there are plans in place?

Mr. Doug Harrison: I'd be pleased to comment on that. Within North America there is an energy regulating agency called NERC, and for the life of me, I can't think what one of the words is this morning.

Mr. David Noble: North American Electricity Reliability Council.

Mr. Doug Harrison: That's it. Thank you.

Anyway, I know that from Ontario Hydro's perspective, this organization puts out standards, and they have Y2K standards. From Ontario Hydro's perspective, they have adopted those standards, and they're ensuring that they comply with them.

The power issue is interesting, because we have two kinds of people: transmission people and distributors. Municipal electrical associations and municipal electrical utilities are distributors. So Ontario Hydro is not only working on the transmission side, but also a lesson from the ice storm is that they have to pay a great deal of attention to municipal electrical utilities, the distributors. In fact we've already made joint presentations from Ontario Hydro and from Emergency Measures Ontario on Y2K and our contingency planning as a result of the ice storm. I'm confident that the work is being done to ensure that whole ball of wax from the North American end of it right down to the local municipal electrical utility is coordinated.

As you know, we're going through some interesting times in Ontario on the electrical utility side as it's being broken up and privatized, and we're being especially attentive to that sector because of that process.

The Chair: Mr. Noble, do you have any comments?

Mr. David Noble: Very quickly, because much of what Ontario said is actually applicable to us.

We've already had very open discussions with the electrical sector, the four main distributors and generators in the province, and they're part of the association, NERC, that was referred to, and the Canadian Electricity Association, which is a Canadian subset of that. I take to heart that it is a cautiously optimistic message they are putting out. Their concern, and the gentleman from TransAlta has expressed it to us a number of times, is not that they will have insufficient power.

This old story the doomsayers have where a moth flies into a transformer in Florida and our lights flicker in Edmonton is becoming a bit of a bogeyman, in my view, and I don't think it's relevant.

There is a grid. The grid has strengths and it has weaknesses, which is the converse. Their problem in Alberta as expressed by TransAlta is not that they will have insufficient power to manage. Because 50% of the electricity generated in Alberta goes to the industrial sector, if one of those major users takes a plant off-line for either unseen reasons or preventive reasons, they end up with a surplus of power in the system that they must then shed and manage, and that's a bigger problem to them than adjusting to shortages. So it's an interesting flip on the situation when you think about it.

The Chair: I have one final question. Again, I don't want to be a doomsayer here. In the area I come from, I look across and see a nuclear power plant at Detroit Edison. I know that when we had Ontario Hydro and the Atomic Energy Control Board before us, there seemed to be a bit of separation there in saying they're not responsible for Ontario's nuclear plants, that because Ontario has adapted them, it's up to them to fix their Y2K problems. That was the message I picked up from the hearing we had.

So I know it for myself now, coming from a community where I see a foreign nuclear plant that has potential fall-out and that controls the power, and I hear the concerns now. I come from an industrial area that will probably have their plant shut down anyhow for Christmas, which will result in this oversupply of power they have to deal with, not counting the Y2K problems. I just wonder if we're really going to start to look at some of the real potential problems when we talk about contingency plans and look at the areas that could have a double kind of effect.

Mr. Doug Harrison: First of all, the North American reliability standards apply to nuclear generators as well, and of course there are all sorts of standards in the U.S. and Canada for the operation of those plants. In Canada it's the Atomic Energy Control Board that has primary responsibility for on-site regulation. We're working closely with them and with Ontario Hydro to make sure that things are copacetic.

• 1105

The province is directly responsible for off-site public safety, and that's why we have custody of the provincial nuclear emergency plan. We work with municipalities and facility operators to make sure arrangements are in place in case of an accident.

I can only say that all of this is going on and we're paying very rigorous attention to it. Hopefully everything will be in order.

The nuclear industry is perhaps the last one to worry about. It's a highly sophisticated and regulated industry. We have a place in it, from a public safety perspective, as do the regulators, and we're used to dealing with the utilities in that fashion.

The Chair: Mr. Noble, do you have any comment?

Mr. David Noble: Certainly not on the nuclear side. We don't have any nuclear generating plants.

I'd just reiterate that the message I get from the electrical utilities is they're concerned that people will behave abnormally. They can prepare for a surge of power at 5 o'clock at night; they can prepare for a surge of demand over Christmas. They want to ensure that people continue to behave in the way they have tracked them so far. That's their biggest concern. They don't want to end up having to, as I said, shed load at some point.

The Chair: Yes, and we don't want people just to turn off their power and turn on the candles, because that will cause another problem. Again, you'll have too much power and not know what to do with it, because people are being overly cautious.

A voice: And all those generators kick in.

Mr. David Noble: Yes, we'll be able to hear a hum around December 31.

The Chair: That's what I'm trying to decide: do I buy the generator or don't I buy the generator? That's a big debate out there.

Mr. David Noble: I will tell you honestly that six months ago I was considering putting a generator in my house. As we've mentioned, it's a great leap of faith to expect all your emergency response people to be at work if their families are in some form of risk.

I don't consider that necessary now. I'm putting my two-year-old baby on the line here. I trust that our house will be habitable and I can go to work in full confidence that my family is secure.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'll sell you mine at a discount.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We do appreciate your coming and sharing where the provinces are at, and we apologize for the delay in the start of our hearing. We look forward to the plans working and we appreciate the faith both you and the provinces have put into your planning and into your system. We are optimistic that the rest of the provinces have similar plans.

We wrote to the Premier of Saskatchewan with regard to putting this on the premiers meeting in August, and we were told there was already a group working on it and that at the time they didn't see it as a necessity. They've put a lot of faith in you as well, so we'll put our faith in you. Thank you very much for being with us.

The meeting is adjourned.