INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 10, 1999

• 1534

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.)): Today, Monday, May 10, 1999, our Order of the Day is as follows: pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on the Year 2000 problem—an update on emergency preparedness in Canada.

• 1535

I'd like to welcome General Henault, Mr. Paul Thibault and the Vice-Chief of the Defence staff, Vice-Admiral Garnett.

Will Mr. Henault or Mr. Thibault be making the initial presentation?

Mr. Paul Thibault (Federal Coordinator, Y2K National Contingency Planning, Department of National Defence): I'll be doing that, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Before you start, I'd like to mention the committee is quite proud of the Canadian Armed Forces and we congratulate you for all the good work you've been doing here in Canada as well as abroad.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

During my last appearance here last November, I believe, I promised I would be back to give you a progress report.

[English]

Since last November the national contingency planning group has been established. Through a questionnaire developed, delivered, and compiled through federal departments, we have now developed the first preliminary risk assessment.

I must stress here that the information we received was from both the private sector and the provinces and territories. In return, we have already shared the preliminary results with the provinces, in particular. We've also begun work on requesting contingency plans from federal departments and agencies, and we're in the process of developing scenarios for testing during the summer months.

If you'll permit, let me start by talking to you briefly about the national infrastructure risk assessment. This is a preliminary examination of Canada's critical infrastructure, assessing the probability of failure by progress against timelines. In essence we are doing two things. We are assessing operational sustainability or compliance on a June 30 deadline, and business continuity planning, or where agencies or sectors are with regard to contingency plans, based on a September 30 horizon.

Overall, even with the information gaps, our first preliminary assessment looks good. But I must stress that even at this stage, we can't afford any slippage. It is still relatively early because the information we're assessing is based on dates that have not yet passed, and the first date is June 30.

The second point I'd like to make is that the risk assessment is based on self-assessment data. In other words, the information is as good as the information we are provided. As we collect more data, a more accurate assessment will be possible, and undoubtedly we'll have the best possible picture in November. We will be updating this assessment regularly, and we'll be touching with you today on six major infrastructures. They are utilities, services, transportation, safety, communications, and territorial integrity.

I will now begin with utilities. All are on schedule, including electrical power systems, water purification, sewage treatment, the natural gas industry and the oil industry. The overall assessment, therefore, is that they are on schedule for both compliance and contingency planning for all sectors. As you will have seen, the North American electrical reliability council reports that Y2K transition is expected to have a minimal impact on the electric systems operations in North America.

The second area is services. Most are on schedule. In those we include emergency services, both RCMP and provincial police, fire, ambulance, 911, postal services—that's Canada Post—meteorological services and financial services. A few, however, are behind schedule: hospital health care, the food industry, courier services and municipal police. Let me touch on each one of those seriatim.

• 1540

First, on health care, there are no surprises here. There's been a fair amount of media attention, but again the results we have are preliminary. It does not mean that the industry cannot be ready for January 1. What it does mean, however, is that they may not meet either the June 30 or September 30 target dates, leaving little time to deal with problems that may arise in testing. I must tell you, however, that the majority of health care systems are on schedule for contingency planning purposes.

Health Canada's presently surveying, through the provinces, the hospitals in Canada and administering a provincial survey for other health care facilities. Those include nursing homes, long-term care and things of that nature.

The food industry is slightly behind schedule in compliance and contingency planning. In a sense this can be attributed to the complexity of the industry. As you know, the industry involves not just primary production but processing, transportation, distributing, warehousing and retailing in food services, as well as imports and exports.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have a program to work with stakeholders to address the year 2000 issues. However, when we talk about the food industry, I would like to just mention that the Gartner Group, which you've all heard of, says the severity of any potential failures, as experienced by consumers, is likely to be on the level of a disturbance rather than anything else.

On courier services other than Canada Post, larger companies are behind schedule. Smaller companies are waiting to react to an emergency if necessary. In essence, it supports the findings that smaller companies are more likely to be behind schedule.

On municipal police, we do not yet have the information available for the preliminary report, but we're hopeful we'll have it for the next update.

[Translation]

I will now go to the transportation sector. For most of the services, the schedule is being respected whether for air transportation, navigation, maritime navigation, maritime traffic, security, flood fighting, marine environment protection or search and rescue.

However, for some services, the work is a bit late or progress to date is unknown. That includes airport services, rail transportation, road transportation, ferries, marine transportation and port services. If you don't mind, I'll review each one of these sectors.

First, airport services which basically include runway maintenance, runway lights and passenger handling and everything going on inside the terminal such as luggage handling, ticketing and so forth are a bit behind schedule for Y2K, which is June 30, but their record is better on the emergency planning side.

Railway transportation is slightly behind schedule for conformity, but the schedule is being respected for emergency planning.

As for road transportation and road infrastructure, in other words roads, bridges, tunnels and signalling systems, they are on schedule.

For trucking, urban transportation and bus services, we don't have any information yet.

As for ferries, in some cases, they're on schedule and in others they are a bit behind for conformity as for emergency planning.

As for maritime transportation, they're on schedule in certain respects and they're behind in others.

The port services are behind schedule for conformity but ahead for emergency planning.

I'd now like to address security. Most services are on schedule. This includes nuclear security, hazardous products, customs and federal jails.

Concerning buildings, the major buildings are on schedule but the smaller the building, the more behind they are. This agrees with the general observation made concerning the state of affairs for small and medium businesses.

In the case of provincial jails, we don't yet have any preliminary information available, but future updates should provide some.

As for communications, telecommunications

[English]

are on schedule. The public radio and television broadcasting industries are on schedule and reach 99% of Canadians. Cable television systems range from ahead of schedule to slightly behind.

The last sector is territorial integrity, which includes the air defence identification zone and the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. There we will be able to face any Y2K challenges that may arise.

• 1545

In the next phase we'll be trying to fill the gaps where we do not yet have the information and updates on changes in progress. We'll be identifying interdependencies between the different sectors. We'll be proceeding with contingency planning for the federal departments and agencies, and we'll be developing a validation exercise to assess the ability of contingency plans to mitigate any potential risk to the national infrastructure.

In conclusion to what I've outlined, I don't think, from anything you've seen or heard before, it's a surprise to you that this is quite an unprecedented challenge and quite a complex task. The only thing that's certain is the fixed deadline.

We've established in our operation three conditions for success. The first is collaboration, which I'm happy to say we have received from both the private sector and the provinces and territories. The second is to sustain the momentum needed in this task, and the third is to focus on back-up planning or contingency planning, which is an essential component, given the uncertainties we may face.

Canada is ranked among the world leaders in Y2K readiness, as you know, but we must continue the pace to maintain our standing.

I will, of course, be pleased to return to you at a later stage, to answer any questions you have regarding what we have already. I can come back in September or whenever with a further update.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Thibault. Does General Henault have a presentation?

Lieutenant-General Raymond R. Henault (Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Op ABACUS, Department of National Defence): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a presentation and then Vice-Admiral Garnett, Mr. Thibault and I will be available to answer your questions.

[English]

In my statement to you last November 19, I provided a general overview of DND's year 2000 contingency plan, known as Operation ABACUS. You will recall that the aim of Op ABACUS is to be prepared to assist federal, provincial, and territorial authorities to mitigate the impact of year 2000 disruptions on essential services, as mentioned by Mr. Thibault, while continuing to fulfil essential national and international tasks.

[Translation]

My presentation described, in general terms, the Op ABACUS plan and its flexible response capability. You were also informed that the planning at the operational level had been assigned to the headquarters of the 1st Division, in Kingston, to the regional headquarters of the Land Forces and the North Sector of the Canadian Forces and that the training priority of the Canadian Forces in 1999 was focussed on Op ABACUS and training in preparation for Y2K.

[English]

Since our last appearance in November, Op ABACUS planning has progressed significantly. Today I'll provide you with a description of the Op ABACUS concept of operations and sustainment plan, as published in the advanced version of the operations plan on January 6. I'll then describe to you the CF Y2K training direction I issued on February 25, and then describe some of the principal Op ABACUS messages that we have been communicating to Canadians, as the final theme of my presentation.

As background material, you've also been provided with copies of the Op ABACUS plan backgrounder and the Canadian forces year 2000 and Op ABACUS training directives.

The main operational concerns of Op ABACUS, and therefore our priority of effort in the Canadian forces throughout this year leading up to the employment phase are as follows.

Our first concern is to establish situational awareness throughout the millennium transition period for the rapid collection and analysis of information and the development of a national perspective on the impact of year 2000 on Canada's national infrastructure. This will be done through a reliable command, control, communications and liaison structure, and will permit Canadian forces personnel to be employed where the need is the greatest, as determined by government.

Our second concern is to ensure the operations, maintenance and security of CF infrastructure, the administration and logistics support of deployed CF personnel, and general support to military personnel and their families.

Third is to assist law enforcement agencies with their tasks, not unlike the way we assisted during the ice storm of January 1998.

Fourth is to provide humanitarian assistance to civil authorities if and when requested, with the priority, from our point on view, of saving lives and preventing suffering.

• 1550

In support of the DND-CF priority of effort, the Op ABACUS concept of operations is based on the following broad elements.

For the operational command and control of Op ABACUS forces, approximately 1,500 headquarters personnel will support the joint task force headquarters, the five regional headquarters, and the liaison elements required at each of the provincial capitals. We estimate that approximately 15% of the personnel will come from our primary reserve force.

Mobile personnel, with a capability to operate away from their garrisons—that is, away from their primary bases—will be drawn primarily from our three regular army formations in Valcartier, Petawawa and Edmonton. Canadian Forces personnel in the tactical helicopter squadrons, ships at sea, air transport squadrons, and other CF specialist units will also form part of our mobile forces. The total number of mobile personnel will be approximately 13,000, which can be augmented by reserve force personnel, as I've described previously. Mobile personnel can perform both assistance to law enforcement agencies and humanitarian tasks.

And finally, static forces or those units that maintain the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces infrastructure, including support to the command, control, and communications infrastructure itself, will have a capability to generate personnel to respond to requests for assistance in their local communities. We see a large number of primary reserve personnel, as well as remaining CF personnel, those who are not employed on the mobile forces, in this category of force.

[Translation]

It is important to add that a great number of civilian employees with essential abilities will be employed as support for Op ABACUS during the transition.

During the transition to the new millennium, the members of the Canadian Forces will continue to be assigned to essential tasks such as search and rescue, support of the continental defence of our aerospace and our shores as well as strategic air transport. At the same time, some 2,800 members of the Canadian Forces will be deployed for missions abroad including the one in Kosovo. We have an equivalent number of Canadian Forces members in Canada who will prepare to deploy overseas for a total of 5,800 members of the Canadian Forces deployed outside the country or preparing for it. The number of soldiers deployed, especially abroad, always has a direct impact on the total number of mobile teams.

The planning hypotheses for Op ABACUS have led us to the elaboration of an action plan to support what we call the “most probable scenario”. This scenario is defined, as Mr. Thibault mentioned, as being “the potential of disturbance to those services essential for Canadians as opposed to a total shutdown of those services”.

[English]

That is, the “most likely scenario” represents a disruption to essential services, not a complete collapse of those services.

[Translation]

In this regard, the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence support plan is based on the setting up of necessary resources over a set period of time. It is supposed that during the first three months of the year 2000, the Canadian Forces might be involved for some 30 days. If the national estimate of risk predicts the need for a higher rate of activity for the Canadian Forces, an increased support capacity of up to 60 days will be planned.

For example, during the January and February 1998 ice storm, that we still all remember, Canadian Forces personnel was deployed over a period of some 30 days and approximately 16,000 members of the Canadian Forces were engaged at the crux of the operation. This included some 800 members of the First Reserves of the Canadian Forces.

[English]

In addition, we've estimated the incremental costs of Op ABACUS. The CF will be able to absorb some of the Op ABACUS incremental costs by eliminating non-essential tasks and dedicating most of the training for the Canadian Forces in 1999 to year 2000 and Op ABACUS readiness. Based on current planning assumptions, we estimate the incremental cost of Op ABACUS to be about $386 million. Approximately 20% of this estimate relates to costs associated with the preparation phase, which we are currently in, while 80% of the estimate relates to the actual employment of forces based on the enhanced activity rate of 60 days—that is, the longer-term employment requirement.

• 1555

Now turning to the training directive and the validation exercises, the major challenge facing the Canadian Forces during our year 2000 training program is of course to keep the Canadian public informed of our intentions and to provide the context of Op ABACUS training.

The CF's year 2000 training directive issued last February, as I mentioned earlier, provides commanders with guidance and the national perspective required to maintain the balance between CF training activities and the Op ABACUS planning assumptions.

As an example, here are a few of the year 2000 training objectives as outlined in that directive: to certify the readiness of our mission critical systems; to maintain effective communications in a year 2000 degraded environment; to validate CF contingency plans; to practice the approval process for requests of for assistance to provincial or territorial authorities and to other federal departments; to exercise the decision-making process; to exercise the decision-making process required to set priorities for assigning CF resources at both the regional and national levels of command; to practice the development of CF communication strategies to inform civil authorities of our CF intentions; and to exercise the procedures required to generate forces for deployment outside the country on or after January 1 in support of our deployed missions.

[Translation]

The commanders of the Canadian Forces are aware that the planning is done in partnership with the federal and provincial authorities and agencies and that, together, they will provide the most appropriate response to emergencies due to the year 2000. Training is of a routine nature; it is based on the ongoing training, abilities and knowledge of the Canadian Forces. During the exercise cycle, the next exercise will be happening here in Ottawa, from 31 May to 4 June, 1999. The main training audience will be regional headquarters of Op ABACUS. The Op ABACUS national validation exercise, which will be the next one, will be undertaken from 13 to 17 September, 1999.

[English]

Finally, in terms of communications, with the release of the advance version of the Op ABACUS plan and the start of Op ABACUS training, we met with the media on both occasions to explain the state of our planning and our training intentions. We explained that the Canadian Forces are preparing for any year 2000 eventuality and will deploy if called upon to do so. This could mean deploying very limited resources catering to very specific technical or specialized tasks, or, indeed, deploying in large numbers to respond to more demanding requirements.

We explained also that CF personnel are not the first line of response to civil emergencies. CF personnel in fact do not fix essential services; rather, they support those who do. That certainly was the case during the ice storm, as an example. Therefore, the Op ABACUS plan complements other federal, provincial, and municipal contingency plans.

As CF resources are limited, it's essential that expectations be managed, from our point of view, to ensure that provincial and municipal authorities fully understand the Op ABACUS concept of operations. Our close working relationship with civil emergency planning and the personnel associated with that planning is ensuring that they are able to consider CF capabilities in their own planning and their own development of contingency plans.

In particular, we will have mobile forces that will be held in reserve to ensure that they are employed where the need in the country is the greatest as determined by government. These mobile forces may also be required to redeploy rapidly to other affected areas of the country once civil authorities have been able to stabilize the situation. You will note that the majority of forces will be employed in the static role and will ensure the continuity of CF operations and the security of CF installations so that we can provide the best possible support as required.

[Translation]

In conclusion, the Y2K bug is an unprecedented occurrence which could potentially affect all areas of the world. Its impact could be worsened by other situations, natural or otherwise, that will happen during the transition to the year 2000. The Canadian Forces will be ready to respond to demand with the most appropriate measures.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my preliminary remarks.

• 1600

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you very much, General.

We have 30 minutes left for this part of the meeting. Each member of the committee has five minutes. The members will have to be as brief as possible so that you can answer their questions but you will also have to be as brief as possible to give them an opportunity to put a second, third or even fourth question.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Rahim Jaffer of the Reform Party.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of the witnesses for their presentations. I think it is important to hear the progress that's being made in the various departments when it comes to the Y2K problem.

My question is a simple one, I think. Being relatively new to the industry committee for the last year and catching up with some of the progress reports that have been made from various departments, it's great to be able to hear as a committee what's being done, the progress that's being made in various departments, but I think what I'm looking for is maybe recommendations from you as to what this committee can do to help you maybe do your job faster. Because it's all well and good to hear your reports, but ultimately if we're not doing anything about it here or if we can't help you, I don't see why we couldn't just read these in our offices and simply save you the time from being here so you can prepare even more.

What I would like to hear is the recommendations from you as to what this committee might be able to do from now on to either help you do your job or where we should be looking at.

Mr. Paul Thibault: If I could answer that question, sir, I think what you can do to help is most evident in your recent report. I'm not a parliamentary expert in procedure, but we are accountable to you. You calling us in keeps us honest, but also allows us a a broader forum than we would normally get to put out the information we have.

Certainly I personally found the reports you produced useful. They certainly gave us an idea where the elected feel we should be going and what directions are important to them, and I think that kind of dialogue is very important to us.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Would you suggest or have you thought about the potential of the government introducing any sort of legislation on Y2K? Has that come across through your preparedness plans or anything like that? Because obviously the government hasn't looked at that option as it stands in any area of Y2K business.

Mr. Paul Thibault: I think that issue would be better addressed to the Department of Justice, so you might want to call them in. But let me say that on the whole issue of legislation such as good Samaritan legislation—I presume that's what you're referring to—I don't think there has been the groundswell of requests for that sort of legislation from the provinces or from the private sector. Essentially, if I'm correct in my assumption, I believe that this area of legislation lies mostly within the provincial jurisdiction. I haven't seen or heard of any kind of groundswell of a need in that regard, but you may want to check that with the Department of Justice.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: My next last question is to the general, and it's simply with regard to an issue that was brought to my attention today within question period.

I'm curious with regard to our dealings with our Canadian Forces in Kosovo and obviously the limited budgets that I think the Department of National Defence has in looking at this problem with the Y2K. Given the nature of our involvement in Kosovo, if additional money is required, as it may well be, to be able to deploy troops and what not, is that going to affect in any way the budgets you currently have when it comes to Y2K contingency plans or anything in the future? What's your opinion on what could happen?

LGen Raymond Henault: I'm going to refer that to Vice-Admiral Garnett, who is the resource manager for the department. I know he's considered all of those factors already.

Vice-Admiral Gary L. Garnett (Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff): We have a variety of sources for funding within the department that are allocated for contingency operations for supporting the training, as General Henault mentioned, for Y2K. But more specifically with relation to Y2K, we've already taken out a loan from the Treasury Board to help us with the compliancy testing and servicing. In relation to Operation ABACUS, any additional funds that are beyond those we can resource will be covered by the Treasury Board. I think the Treasury Board follows here, so there is not a competition for funding. There may well be a shortfall, but we would go to the Treasury Board for support if that's the case. Arrangements have been made, particularly for Y2K.

• 1605

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Jaffer. I'll now pass to Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was struck by the incremental costs of $386 million. That's a lot of money. You can probably buy a lot of equipment with $386 million, and 80% of that is associated with actual deployment. So if on January 1 and the days following we essentially have the forces sitting around like the Maytag repair man and nothing is happening, do we save that 80%, essentially, or are there going to be costs associated during that period, whether there are emergencies or not?

VAdm Gary Garnett: There will be some costs. Already we've sent a bill, so to speak, to the Treasury Board for about $110 million, which is to build up reserves in terms of stocks to do it, and to particularly reserve special satellite communications and pay in advance so that we have priority use of those.

The whole of the forces is going to be ready and turn out on December 31, if you like, and a considerable portion of the additional “if it doesn't happen” money has been put aside to pay for the reserves, or indeed our civilian members' overtime. So if it doesn't happen, certainly all those planned expenditures will be saved. It won't be quite 80% in the end, I'm sure, but it will be some significant portion.

Mr. Ian Murray: Could you just sketch out for us what it will be like, particularly for the reserves, I suppose, as January 1 approaches? Are you going to have reserve units across the country essentially on stand-by, with pagers? How do they call it out? What are the plans for the reserves?

LGen Raymond Henault: The reserves, as we estimate it, will be available to us in a ratio of about 50% of the reserves who are currently registered with the Canadian Forces in the primary reserve. They will nonetheless go through similar training programs this year. They are included in our Op ABACUS training profiles, so they'll be ready to support us when the call comes for support to Op ABACUS itself.

I might add that in terms of Op ABACUS and in terms of our initial deployment, we will have a certain amount of cost implication there, in that we will establish the communications structure. Our weight of effort will go to maintaining situational awareness as we go into the transition period and to establishing a robust and a redundant command and control and communication structure across the country, across all of the regions we've talked to you about, and including the northern areas. So all of that will come to bring about a certain amount of requirement in terms of people, and that requirement will also be complemented by the reserves themselves.

Again, the numbers we're estimating will be about 15% of those, but about 50% could very well be available to us in the longer term.

Mr. Ian Murray: You have quite a technical capacity already resident in the Canadian Forces. If there are problems, there will be technical problems—by its nature that's what the Y2K problem is—and one would expect utilities or companies to be prepared to correct any malfunctions. But is there a team of technical experts you've also set aside who can be a technical commando group that can go in and help with say a large utility, if there was a problem? Or would you essentially leave it up to that company or utility to solve the problem?

LGen Raymond Henault: No, I would say that primarily our function and our objective will be to assist those who actually are experts in that respect, and not necessarily to fix essential services. We do have some capability, obviously, with our engineers and other specialists of that nature, but by and large—and we experienced this during the ice storm—what we can provide to industry out there is support. In fact, what we do is multiply their capability by providing personnel in their actual teams who go out and repair lines, for example, or repair transmission lines, who go out and establish centres to house people who have lost electricity, for example, and things of that nature. So we have no plans to establish any specific teams, although we will have mobile forces who will be able to go out there and provide the level of basic support and basic assistance we think may be required during that transition.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Good afternoon and thank you for coming here once more. I'll continue on the topic I raised last time.

• 1610

In this analysis of yours, I have no doubt that the supply depots are strategic. I know the one at Longue-Pointe, in the east of Montreal, very well. Now, broadly speaking, the employees of these depots are not military personnel but civilians who recently were submitted to some strain. There was that labour conflict which, I'm sure of it, ended in a way neither of the parties had desired at the outset. We have to be able to count on those employees. Did this conflict affect employee morale?

I know that expenditures have increased. Have any major purchases been made for these supply depots? Has the work already been shared out with public security? During the Quebec ice storm, the first levels of intervention were the municipalities. In Quebec, at least, this event was sort of a general rehearsal and we now have a better idea of who should be doing what.

LGen Raymond Henault: I'll start with the last question and then leave it to Admiral Garnett who's the manager of our resources in the Canadian Forces and who'll be able to answer your first question.

We have not yet shared out the work because we know that the needs are going to manifest themselves during the event itself. We take it for granted that the first response will come from the local, municipal and provincial levels and that in case of need, to face clear situations, we'll be asked for our help. We haven't necessarily shared out the tasks yet, but we're ready to help wherever the major needs are identified by the federal government and, of course, by the provincial authorities.

I'll now pass it over to Admiral Garnett.

[English]

VAdm Gary Garnett: As I said, we have expended about $110 million on what we would generally call goods and services. So within this there would be a forecast of the kinds of supplies or spare parts we would anticipate being used over a 30- to 60-day period when the army was called out. So into places like Long Point there will be additional spare parts for trucks, generators, additional winter clothing, for example.

The management committee meets every six months with all the union presidents. When we met with them in December, a discussion by General Henault about ABACUS and the response led us to putting additional money aside to pay for overtime for our civilian employees.

So forecasted in our response is not just money for calling out the reserves, but also overtime money for all our civilian employees who would respond, like the employees at Long Point, or for the dockyards in the navy, or the 202 Workshop, etc. That forms very much a part of our plan, and it has been discussed with the unions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Have you finished your work on the Y2K bug yet in the supply depots? The modern depot at Longue-Pointe is six stories high. If your crane breaks down and the nuts and bolts are up on the fifth floor, we're going to have a problem.

[English]

VAdm Gary Garnett: On all the bases across the country, in the dockyards and in the warehouses, each individual item that you mention is on the list to be tested for Y2K compliance. Overall, we have made very good progress.

I'll give you one example. At 202 Workshop the master recording and documentation computer system is indeed not Y2K compliant and it is under special remediation. Every base, every dockyard, every supply depot has that kind of testing program.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

Mr. Lastewka.

[English]

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

First of all, I'd like to thank the witnesses for again coming forward to give us, I suppose, the state of the nation as we get ready.

• 1615

One of my concerns has been and still is that you must depend on so many other people for accurate input of their status in order to plan for your readiness. Could you help me to understand how the accuracy of that input is being either audited or cross-checked to make sure we have a good input for your planning purposes?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Let me try to answer that, sir.

First of all, what we're trying to do is gather information vis-à-vis the two dates that I mentioned: June 30 for compliance, and September 30. We're doing updates every two months, whether it's to the province or whether it's to the industry to see whether things have changed in regard to their forecasting.

Clearly, after we pass those dates people will have met, for example, either the June 30 date or the September 30 date. So in a sense that's the best audit we can provide. I forget exactly how many infrastructure elements there are, but I think there are 37. When you break that down into how many industries and provincial authorities you have to go to to get the information, it's virtually impossible to audit in a formal sense.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So you will be taking their plans, which they have said they'll do by June 30 and September 30—September 9 is the critical date—and you'll be able to sort out who was accurate and who wasn't accurate and who met and who didn't meet.... Is that it?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Let me just repeat myself with perhaps a little more detail. June 30 is the date we are using for when people are going to meet the compliancy of their informatic systems and the interfaces they're linked to. So people are telling us that they will be ready by June 30 or they will not be ready until July 30, or whatever. So for those who have said they will be ready by June 30, after June 30 we will go back and say “Are you ready? Are all your systems compliant, including your interfaces?” And then it's a simple yes or no.

It is the same for the other aspect, which is the business continuity planning. That is, when systems fail, what do you do about it? What's your minimum level of service? How are you going to maintain that? How are you going to then get back up once the system gets back to normal?

We've established a September 30 date for organizations in the critical infrastructure area to have completed their planning. Again, when we cross that date we say “You said you were going to have your plans completed. Are they complete and tested, yes or no?” So after that date we'll know where people stand vis-à-vis those two critical components.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: On page 4 of the report from the deputy chief of the defence staff, one of the training objectives you talked about was to practice the approval process for requests for assistance to provincial or territorial authorities and other federal departments. I take it that is there to make sure there's no confusion about whether it's the mayor, the regional chair, or whoever asks for the assistance to click in. I take it this is a lesson learned from the past.

LGen Raymond Henault: What that really refers to is the fact that we do have a limited amount of resources to be applied to the response to year 2000 problems as they crop up across the country. As an example, during the ice storm we had the largest domestic deployment in recent history, which was a total of about 1,600 plus reservists deployed in support of that operation. That was in one region of Canada.

As you can see, with a total of approximately 1,300 plus reservists to support across Canada, based on the priorities that are going to be set by government, we have to have a very distinct and very definitive approval process to ensure we put the priority and the effort where it's the greatest. So we are going to be testing that approval process from the Canadian Forces perspective upwards.

• 1620

I can let Mr. Thibault talk about the national contingency planning group. It is putting in place the mechanism through the national support plan and so on to have an appropriate government-level mechanism to establish those priorities and to task various departments for support to the year 2000 events. And that's the kind of process we expect to exercise, not only our own internal process, but also ultimately that process as we go through the summer and fall periods.

In fact, I do know that NCPG is planning to follow up our own ABACUS 2000 exercise in September with their own strategic-level exercise. So all of that is designed to ensure that we put the right emphasis in the right place during the event itself.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

We'll now come back to the member for the Bloc Québécois, Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Thibault, something in your conclusion surprised me. You stated:

In my opinion, the most disconcerting problem is the risk that Canadians might be complacent and count on the Canadian Forces to take care of everything.

It seems to me that's not the kind of lesson we should have learned after what went on during the ice storm which was a crisis of quite unexpected proportions. It would be surprising that the scenario you've just described could happen because that's not the reaction to the generalized blackouts that affected the heart of home and business organization. As we saw, people preferred to help one another and find shelter with friends or members of their family rather than going to the centres that took a while to set up and that did cost us a certain amount of money. I'm not ready to believe that only Quebeckers would act that way. I think that people tend to organize themselves. However, we had to count on rescue teams to do some jobs like de-icing the lines. I don't understand your statement. Is the army perhaps a little paranoid?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Far from it, madam. You're referring to one of my interventions from last November. My first analysis of the situation led me to say, as the information is rather favourable concerning the general situation in Canada, that the collective effort had to be maintained because our military forces would not suffice to settle all the problems. I was actually trying to encourage all levels of government as well as industry to pursue prudent planification as well as their efforts.

Since last November, like everyone else, actually, I've seen that a lot of progress has been accomplished. However, I would be the first one to tell you here today that we can't let up just yet, and that, in my opinion, is the real danger we have to watch for. It would not be prudent to say that everything has been done, that everything is complete as long as we haven't met the deadlines and we're not sure that everything has been tested and completed. In any case, taking into account the interdependencies you have on a worldwide scale, outside of our own borders, that we control even less than the situation here in the country, it's not time to relax yet. That's the message I tried to deliver. Thank you.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

Mr. Lastewka.

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My question goes to the area of hospital health care and long-term care, which has been recognized by this committee as a critical area because of the lateness of many provinces to get into their hospitals to fix the problems. And you did mention that your assistance will be to help the people who are responsible there out of that situation. Do you have any indication of what areas of the country are more prepared than others and what areas of the country need additional work?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I would say at this stage that the picture is fairly much the same across the country: there are no highs and lows. In addition, however, as I mentioned in my presentation, we have a fair number of gaps in information. The more you go down, the more disaggregated the information becomes, the more unreliable it becomes.

• 1625

Certainly the health care area at large is probably the one area that is let's say slightly behind the others. That doesn't mean that the problem can't be fixed, but it certainly is an area for attention. And when I briefed my provincial colleagues last week, there certainly wasn't any reaction in a negative sense to what I was saying. So I think every level of government is cognizant of that.

I know my colleagues from the Department of Health are here today and can probably talk to you in greater detail in the next hour.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Peric.

[English]

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one short question.

According to your statements here, you are doing a very good job. To your knowledge, how are new members of NATO doing, and especially the defence departments in those particular countries?

LGen Raymond Henault: I think I can say to you that several of our NATO partners are as advanced, if not more advanced than we are. In particular, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia have very good Y2K mitigation and consequence management programs already in place. They have very solid emergency preparedness organizations, as we do here in Canada, so they seem to be doing very well.

As well, NATO and NATO headquarters has also established a year 2000 coordination office. They are planning not only for their own headquarters, but also for deployed missions that come under NATO leadership and NATO command.

There are some nations, some of our partner nations, for example, that are not as far advanced as we are and perhaps may have some problems. Certainly we'll give them any assistance we can in that respect.

One of the ways we are trying to help other nations with this problem, especially those that perhaps are a little further behind in their planning and their preparations for year 2000, is through a year 2000 coordination committee, which Canada co-chairs with the U.S. and the U.K. They have had several meetings. My recollection is that they had somewhere between four and six meetings last year in the various countries of NATO nations involved, and they've had two meetings so far this year.

That forum has done a tremendous amount to share information between the NATO partners, as well as the partner nations. We think what we've provided them in terms of recommendations and documentation, support in how to develop government-wide mission-critical system lists, and so on, will also help them to mitigate the problem, which of course will be to the advantage of all the nations that are involved.

So I think progress is being made, but some areas will have more problems than others.

Mr. Janko Peric: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Peric.

I'd like to ask you if you have a liaison agent in every province.

Mr. Paul Thibault: As you know, Civil Protection Canada has liaison agents in each province. When we have to communicate with the provinces, we go through them. Civil Protection Canada falls under me for matters concerning the year 2000. Moreover, we have established a network of contacts and I communicate regularly with my vis-à-vis. I was talking to them Friday and we intend to meet at the end of May.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Have you had any exterior audits to date?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Exterior audits on us?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Yes.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes. The Auditor General is conducting an audit right now on our operations.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): On Op ABACUS?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I think it's his intention to look at Op ABACUS, but you'd have to check with him. Right now he's looking at the national contingency planing group, which I head.

LGen Raymond Henault: I would also add, sir, that our own chief of review services is doing continuous audits on Op ABACUS and other elements of the year 2000 preparations within the Canadian Forces and the department as well. As Mr. Thibault has mentioned, the Auditor General will be looking at the emergency preparedness portion of that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Do you have any commitments to the United States at this point, and vice versa?

Mr. Paul Thibault: We have a commitment to exchange information and a commitment to meet regularly with them. Clearly, once we have a better handle on how our critical infrastructure is doing on the interdependencies with the United States on some of those elements of critical infrastructure, we'll have discussions with them and with their EPC counterpart, FEMA, on how best we can deal with these things together.

• 1630

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): This will have no stress on the manpower you have now.

LGen Raymond Henault: Yes, it's all part and parcel of the requirement we have to do a tremendous amount of coordination. To what Mr. Thibault has said, I would only add that we do have military-to-military cooperation and coordination going on as well.

In particular, we have a coordination process with our NORAD or North American Aerospace Defence partners. That is a binational agreement I know you're very familiar with and in which we have done a tremendous amount of testing between the two nations. There have been two NORAD exercises testing the system end to end for year 2000 problems already, as relates to the defence of North American aerospace, and that includes also links with the naval side of the house. So there is good cooperation going on in that respect between ourselves and the Pentagon and the other military partners in the U.S.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Mr. Thibault, Vice-Admiral Garnett and Lieutenant-General Henault, I'd like to thank you in the name of the committee for your frank and relevant answers. You have encouraged us and we're confident that we're in good hands.

[English]

We're going to have a 60-second break while Health Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Treasury Board Secretariat take their seats.

• 1632

• 1637

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): It is now 4:37 p.m. and we will go to the second part of this afternoon's meeting. We will be hearing several witnesses from Health Canada including Dann Nichols, Director General, Health Protection Branch, Therapeutic Products Program.

[English]

We have Marie Williams, Director General, Health Canada Y2K Project Directorate.

[Translation]

We are also welcoming Ms. Fruji Bull, Director General, Information Management Services. Is she here?

[English]

Ms. Marie Williams (Director General, Health Canada Y2K Project Directorate, Corporate Services Branch, Health Canada): Mrs. Bull is in the room, but she isn't at the table.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): From the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade we have Mr. William De Laat, Director, Policy and International Coordination; Annick Goulet, Analyst and François Rivest, Coordinator.

From Treasury Board Secretariat we welcome Linda Lizotte-MacPherson;

[English]

Guy McKenzie, Assistant Secretary, Year 2000 Project Office; Jim Bimson, Director General, Departmental Readiness, Year 2000 Project Office.

[Translation]

We will now hear presentations from our witnesses. I would like to remind the members that I will give them each five minutes. They will more than likely need four minutes for the questions so there'll only be one minute left for the witnesses' answer. We're not too strict, but if we want to adjourn this meeting before supper time, we'll have to go by this rule.

Ms. Marie Williams.

[English]

Ms. Marie Williams: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Marie Williams, and I have recently been appointed Director General for Health Canada's Year 2000 Project Directorate.

• 1640

Six months ago my colleague Fruji Bull appeared before this committee to provide a status report on Health Canada's preparedness for the year 2000 and to demonstrate that potential impacts of the year 2000 were being addressed by all levels of management. As you know, the issue of year 2000 continues to evolve, and with the formation of the national contingency planning office under the Prime Minister, Health Canada's health and safety contingency coordination role has increased dramatically. For this reason, the department greatly expanded the year 2000 project office, and I have assumed director general responsibility. Fruji Bull, as the Director General of Health Canada's Information Management Services Branch, will continue to support the year 2000 project office.

I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce my colleague Dann Michols, Director General, Therapeutic Products Program, Health Canada. Dann's program is responsible for the regulation of all drugs and medical devices in Canada.

Provinces, territories, and the federal government all share the same objective with regard to health care, and that is to ensure that the health care system Canadians depend on is ready and safe well into the next century. Much work has been successfully completed at all levels of government to ensure this objective is achieved.

Today I would like to share with you the ways in which Health Canada is contributing to the health care sector's efforts to achieve its Y2K preparedness and the progress we are making in our own department.

One of the primary year 2000 health information sharing mechanisms in which Health Canada is a key contributor is the Canadian year 2000 national clearing house on health, or CYNCH. Since May 1998 this collaborative initiative has brought together federal, provincial, and territorial ministries of health to share year 2000 related information. As a matter of good public policy and to further year 2000 preparedness within the health sector, Health Canada has contributed $750,000 to establish and support the efforts of CYNCH. This financial backing, enhanced with the provision of critical information on the compliancy of thousands of products the department regulates, provides the health care sector with a powerful vehicle on the road to full and total compliancy.

How has this initiative helped? For example, a CYNCH national task force recently reported on an area of great concern, the health care supply chain. Views have been shared with all governments and the health products industry. All are giving this their utmost attention.

Since coordination, cooperation, and communication among all partners in the health system are critical to success, Health Canada on April 22 convened representatives from all areas of the health care sector to discuss supply chain and communication issues. Participants included provincial health and federal Y2K representatives, chain drug store and drug associations, and Canadian health care and Ontario hospital associations. As a result of this meeting, the provinces, territories, industry, and Health Canada are working to improve communication in order to provide Canadians with information about the state of readiness of the health care sector.

Another key area of assistance Health Canada is involved in is the collection of data on the Y2K readiness of hospitals and other health care centres on behalf of the national contingency planning group. The data collection is a result of a collaborative relationship with the provinces and territories and enables the identification of potential areas of concern, which will eventually assist in the development of national contingency plans where necessary.

Health Canada is also playing a key role in addressing the year 2000 issue through our regulation of medical devices, drugs, and the Canadian blood system. As you may be aware, all medical devices approved for sale in Canada after June 1997 had to be year 2000 compliant. I am also pleased to report that all manufacturers of the highest risk medical devices, old or new, such as implanted pacemakers and defibrillators, have reported that these devices will be safe in the hands of Canadians following January 1, 2000. Health Canada continues to contact manufacturers of lower risk medical devices who have not responded and will post their names on Health Canada's website.

• 1645

Collecting and sharing this critical information with provinces and territories, hospitals, and health care facilities is one way Health Canada is assisting the health care sector to become ready. We also are addressing other areas of concern to Canadians, such as pesticides and radiation-emitting devices.

While information sharing with the health care sector is a primary concern, we are also focusing on timely and effective communications to Canadians. Consistent with Treasury Board's strategic communications plan, Health Canada has been proactive in getting the message out to Canadians. For example, it has been noted by the health care sector that since information was made public on the 100% compliancy of pacemakers and defribrillators, public concern has decreased substantially. We will continue to provide similar information on other areas of interest, including other aspects of medical devices, drugs, and radiation-emitting devices.

Finally, I would like to report to the committee that Health Canada is well on its way to addressing our own departmental system requirements. To date our departmental mission critical systems are 88% complete, and we are confident that we will report to Treasury Board a 100% compliancy by the end of June 1999. Inventory and analysis of embedded systems within Health Canada's laboratories and health facilities have all been completed, as well as contingency plans. We are now focused on business resumption plans.

I would also like to remind the committee that even though responsibility for the provision of health care services to Canadians rests primarily with the provincial and territorial governments, our current 88% completion index also includes the operation of 535 health care facilities that Health Canada provides for first nations and Inuit peoples.

In conclusion, the year 2000 issue has been a top priority for Health Canada since 1997. We will continue our efforts until the work is fully done.

Thank you for your interest in our collaborative progress. Dann Michols and I would be pleased to respond to any questions or issues you may wish to raise.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Ms. Williams.

[English]

For the benefit of the members of Parliament, I have been notified that a vote has been deferred until 6.30.

[Translation]

Our next witnesses represent the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Mr. De Laat, I give you the floor.

Mr. William De Laat (Director, Policy and International Coordination, DFAIT-Y2000 Coordination Secretariat, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Vice-Chairman.

[English]

In our efforts to ensure that Canadian citizens and interests are protected from and prepared for potential Y2K failures abroad, DFAIT is focusing its efforts in three broad areas: First is contingency planning at the level of the department as a whole and, more specifically, for each of Canada's 146 missions abroad. Second, we're placing particular emphasis, as our director general, Ms. Stiles, mentioned last fall, on the continuity of key business lines in the areas of international trade, consular support to Canadians travelling and living abroad, and international security issues. Third, we're engaged in important international awareness-raising and cooperation activities related to Y2K preparedness.

[Translation]

Our departmental contingency plan has been completed and has been submitted to the National Contingency Planning Group.

Further, all of our missions abroad have been instructed to prepare risk assessments and contingency plans to ensure they have the capacity to continue to deliver essential services to Canadians and the government. Each mission faces a unique mix of risks and potential consequences as a result of potential Y2K failures. Two thirds of our 146 missions abroad have completed their risk assessments. The balance are well underway and should be completed soon. Missions have been instructed to complete their detailed contingency plans by July 1.

Another component of our contingency planning is to ensure that we have the appropriate staff, both at headquarters and at missions, in place to provide essential services during the critical transition period. All heads of mission have been instructed to be on duty and to identify essential staff to be in place during the period from December 15, 1999 to January 31, 2000.

We are also according the highest priority to addressing the potential threats to Canadians living and travelling abroad. We are working closely with the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand in this regard. We are sharing information on specific year 2000 risks in other countries, and our respective diplomatic missions are collaborating on local risk assessments and contingency planning.

• 1650

The department has published on its Web site a generic travel information report and in each of the 217 country travel information reports there is a paragraph outlining the potential range of Y2K risks. Further, we have developed quite an extensive plan for disseminating information about Y2K risks to Canadian travellers and the Canadian travel industry using a variety of communications tools. These activities will be accelerating over the coming months.

[English]

Last fall we outlined our plans for dealing with the risks of potential year 2000 failures abroad to Canada's trade and economic interests. We're continuing our economic risk assessment, which is now in the third of four phases. The focus is on foreign infrastructure that's needed to support trade in the global economy—for example, sectors such as transportation, energy, border services, etc.

Phase one of our economic risk assessment was a definition of the scope and methodology. Phase two involved the initial identification of the most significant potential risks. It was completed at the end of February and involved three main areas of research.

In order to obtain the views and concerns of Canadian businesses, 52 industry associations and 55 representative private firms were interviewed. Second, we had extensive consultations with other government departments responsible for key sectors of Canada's economy to obtain their assessment of the principal international Y2K risks in their sectors. And third, we examined the Y2K preparedness of 30 countries that together account for approximately 97% of our exports and about 95% of imports. Here are some of the preliminary conclusions we reached.

In terms of country preparedness, the good news is that some of our important trading partners, including the United States, the U.K., Australia, the Netherlands, and so on, are doing well and have achieved roughly the same level of preparedness as we have here in Canada. Unfortunately, many other countries are further behind. Countries in the developing world, in particular, are behind considerably because they lack the necessary financial, technical, or managerial skills. Even some major industrialized countries are lagging, more often than not because their governments started late or they were too slow in dealing with Y2K.

During our interviews with the private sector we found the majority of Canadian firms—and this was back in December of 1998 and January 1999—had still not looked at their interdependencies with foreign countries. They had looked at their North American operations, but they hadn't yet considered the impact on their business of their foreign supply chains or export markets. These findings were verified by Statistics Canada in its most recent Y2K survey, which was released last month.

As a result, we have now developed a number of initiatives to encourage Canadian exporters to be more proactive in identifying their own risks from Y2K failures abroad. I can expand on this later if you'd like.

In terms of sector readiness, we identified a number of concerns. The first was the question of ports and shipping. There are a number of issues related to ports and shipping that have been identified related primarily to port services, container handling and storage, and ship traffic management in narrow channels. This is largely in developing countries.

With regard to telecommunications, North America and Europe of course are progressing well in this area. Many carriers are already scheduling testing between May and October. But there are many countries concentrated in Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe where we have little evidence of any effort to address the problem.

Banking is considered one of the most advanced sectors worldwide, but we have little information on the readiness of banks in the developing world. Thus, we're not assured that they will be ready. Again, this is an information gap we have to address.

The transportation and storage of chilled and frozen food products is particularly susceptible to disruption resulting from border delays, container storage and handling, and truck fleet dispatching.

The current phase of our work, phase three, involves much more detailed work on the Y2K preparedness of the 30 trade-priority countries and the sectors identified a moment ago. We expect to complete this phase later this summer.

Another important element of phase three is an analysis of critical imports and exports. This analysis is well under way and involves an identification of products, materials, and services that are critical to the economic well-being and safety of Canadians. We're focusing on products that originate in or are destined for a concentrated, small number of countries.

In addition to the detailed work on the economic risk assessment, of course, we're attaching a particular priority to our interdependencies with our most important trading partner, the United States. Here we're cooperating in eleven key sectors: defence, finance, electricity, customs, immigration, international trade, oil and gas, telecommunications, transportation, water, and emergency and contingency planning.

• 1655

Also, given the trade interdependencies within NAFTA, we've established a similar trilateral process with the U.S. and Mexico and have agreed to collaboration in four key sectors. This joint and tripartite work with the Americans and tripartite work with the Mexicans is proceeding well and will gather momentum over the coming months as we enter the contingency planning phase of our work.

[Translation]

Now I would like to turn to another important business line. We are assessing the implications for international security of potential Y2K failures abroad, including the potential for humanitarian disaster, nuclear problems and civil unrest.

The likelihood of any Y2K failure directly causing a serious international incident is negligible. For example, an inadvertent launch of nuclear missiles is virtually ruled out. In this context the USA and Russia are holding bilateral talks aimed at excluding any possible computer-related difficulties.

[English]

There are, nevertheless, concerns regarding Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in eastern Europe. While any accident scenario is extremely unlikely, there is the potential that Y2K-related disruptions to off-site power could force these plants to shut down. A shutdown could exacerbate the loss of electricity generation throughout the power grid.

We're closely monitoring the possible need for humanitarian assistance to countries that might be seriously affected by Y2K problems—for example, the disruption of power supply to major population centres that I've mentioned before. We don't anticipate that civil unrest would occur as a direct result of any particular Y2K failure, although as with any other non-Y2K problem, unrest is conceivable in some countries where Y2K problems could occur and official assurances of preparedness were not being matched by effective contingency planning.

It will be essential to maintain support through international agencies such as the UN, the World Bank, and the International Atomic Energy Agency for nations that have limited resources and time to complete their preparations for the year 2000.

Within the G-8, Canada is participating in an east European Y2K seminar hosted by the United States this week in Berlin on the Y2K preparedness in eastern Europe, and the whole question of nuclear safety is on the agenda of that meeting. We're ensuring that this kind of information is being channelled to the national contingency planning group, the Department of National Defence, and key allies and factored into our contingency plans.

Finally, Mr. Vice-Chair and members of the committee, I wanted to talk about some of our international awareness-raising and cooperation activities. All of our ambassadors were instructed last fall to make representations to their host governments to emphasize to them the priority the Canadian government places on domestic Y2K preparedness, and to encourage them to take whatever action is necessary to be ready themselves.

In addition to our close cooperation with the U.S., which I mentioned earlier, we're working closely with other governments, particularly those who are leaders in year 2000 readiness—the G-8 and the European Union, for example—to promote Y2K awareness and action. For example, we're actively working with the G-8 to encourage key sectoral international organizations to do everything possible within their mandates to promote global preparedness. We're also actively involved in the United Nations year 2000 national coordinators group and are working closely with APEC. In April, for example, Canada, Japan, and Singapore hosted a Y2K expert symposium in Singapore that focused on key sectors and interdependencies among APEC economies.

Although not directly the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I wanted to touch just briefly on the year 2000 activities that CIDA has been engaged in since last fall, when John Robinson, the vice-president of policy, appeared before this committee.

CIDA is working with its Canadian partners encouraging them to undertake Y2K preparedness activities. It's also undertaking several initiatives to assist developing countries in their Y2K preparations. CIDA directs the majority of the requests it receives from developing countries for Y2K-related assistance to the INFODEV program, that is, the information for development program of the World Bank. To date, CIDA has contributed $1 million for contingency planning to the INFODEV program, and has indicated that if more funding is needed it is prepared to consider providing greater assistance.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation. I would welcome any questions.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. De Laat.

We will now go to the representatives from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

[English]

Who is representing Treasury Board?

Ms. Linda Lizotte-MacPherson (Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat): I am.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Linda Lizotte-MacPherson, please.

[English]

Ms. Linda Lizotte-MacPherson: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here again to provide you with an update of the federal government's progress on year 2000 preparedness.

• 1700

When Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Bimson, and I appeared before this committee last November, we spoke to you about how the federal government is organized to deal with year 2000 and about our efforts and how they fit into the stepped-up work plan. Our progress is very encouraging. We continue to follow through on this plan. We are still targeting June 30 for completion of testing of our government-wide mission-critical functions.

Last November, you may recall, the completion index for government-wide mission-critical functions was at 64%. As of April, that figure had risen to 93%.

As you know from reading our monthly public report, many key functions are now complete, including old age security, Canada Pension Plan, employment insurance, the Canadian Passport Office, consular affairs, seismic monitoring, geomagnetic monitoring, and the tax court appeal system. Our next report will show one more function as complete; that is, the Department of Public Works and Government Services processing of government financial transactions.

However, we cannot afford to relax. There will be glitches, and we are committed to minimizing potential disruption in the provision of essential government services to Canadians.

[Translation]

Since we appeared here last fall, we have also made considerable progress on interfaces. The electronic connections we have within the federal government and with provincial and territorial and other external partners are being fully addressed by our remediation efforts. Work is proceeding as planned.

[English]

In addition, while we are encouraged by the overall progress of departments and agencies, we are still planning prudently for potential disruption. Contingency planning is prudent management. It is also a continuous process.

We reported to you last fall on the risk assessment work then under way. This work has been completed, and Treasury Board Secretariat has since coordinated the development of business contingency plans among departments and agencies with government-wide mission-critical functions, based on the risks that they identified over the past year.

During my last appearance I told you that national contingency planning was on the horizon, and you heard earlier from the national contingency planning group. The government is now deep into that process.

[Translation]

We have ensured that our financial commitment is commensurate with the scope of the challenge. To date, we have invested approximately $2 billion to address the various aspects of the year 2000 challenge (i.e. GWMC and DWMC systems remediation, contingency measures).

Tackling the year 2000 is a collective effort. We have engaged in co-operation at every level. We share information and best practices with our colleagues in the provinces and territories through regular federal/provincial/territorial meetings, regional visits and teleconferences.

[English]

We have also established mechanisms for international cooperation, such as trilateral work between American, Mexican, and Canadian officials. My colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have just told you more about our cooperation at the international level.

In order to keep up to date on progress on infrastructure services, we've also established information channels with key industry associations, such as the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Electricity Association, telecommunication companies, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Canadians want factual information on the year 2000 challenge as they prepare for the new millennium. We are committed to providing them with this information. Our guiding principles have been and will continue to be transparency and proactiveness.

I'd like to give you a flavour of some of the things we've done to date. We've established inquiry services for Canadians through the Internet, telephone, and the mail. We have participated in two prime-time television programs through the Discovery Channel, involving six departments. We've provided more than 50 interviews. We've participated in some 100-plus speaking engagements, including a keynote speech on year 2000 by Minister Massé to the Canadian Certified General Accountants Association.

• 1705

We also continue to maintain the federal website on year 2000, which provides up-to-date information on the state of readiness of the federal government and provides, as well, the links to other countries and organizations around the world.

[Translation]

Politicians have a role to play informing Canadians. Last December we provided you and 600 other MPs and senators with an information kit. We are developing a second one that we will forward to you very shortly and we encourage you to make extensive use of it in your riding over the course of the summer.

[English]

Last, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to thank the committee for its ongoing and probing study of Canada's state of year 2000 readiness. We have analysed with great interest your second interim report, which was very thorough.

While the government will respond formally to your recommendations, I am pleased to say, in line with one of your recommendations, since January we have been publishing monthly progress reports on key federal services. We are pleased to send copies every month to you, as well as to the offices of the Auditor General and the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. In addition, these reports are available to all Canadians, who can access them through the Internet website or by inquiring through the Canada 1-800 service.

To conclude, over the next few months the federal government's focus will continue to go beyond remediation of our own systems. We will continue to concentrate on interfaces among departments and with our key partners and to monitor interdependencies. Departments and agencies will continue to work with the Treasury Board secretariat and the Department of National Defence to further refine their business contingency plans. They will support the national contingency planning group in coordination of contingency plans at the national level. This is simply prudent management.

[Translation]

The federal government will also pursue its co-operation with the provinces, the territories, the private sector, international organizations and foreign governments in order to coordinate all efforts to prepare Y2K.

[English]

Such commitment and collaboration of all levels of government, infrastructure industries, and businesses in Canada is key to our collective success. Together we will meet the challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Madam.

We'll now go to members' questions. The first in line is Mr. Jaffer.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to follow a bit of the same line of questioning that I had with the last witnesses.

Particularly when it comes to what I heard from the Health Canada portion, as well as from Foreign Affairs, one of the concerns I've had brought from various people I've talked to is whether it is necessary for the government to look at legislation to help it maybe ensure that people who have obligations with certain products or services are going to be able to follow through in helping out in case there's a problem with Y2K.

One thing that strikes me that could be a problem within the medical field is obviously issues in regard to medical devices that are no longer being supported by manufacturers in the industry. But also, with the Department of Foreign Affairs, one of the things that comes to mind is that there are some other countries that have introduced a good Samaritan law, like the U.S., I believe, and there are some other ones as well.

I'd like a comment from at least Health Canada to see if that's something that might help them in the work they're looking at toward preparedness, if the government introduced some sort of good Samaritan legislation, and with Foreign Affairs, if there has been any discussion, specifically with some of the work you're doing with other countries, as to maybe why Canada hasn't done something like that.

Mr. Dann Michols (Director General, Health Protection Branch, Therapeutic Products Program, Health Canada): Let me make an initial response from the point of view of regulating drugs and medical devices.

I'm not sure at this point—and I'd be delighted to follow it in more detail—if legislation would be useful. We've made considerable progress using the pieces of legislation that we now have available to us and I guess to some extent the implied threat of the fact that manufacturers have to continually come to us for the approval of their devices and drugs.

• 1710

The response so far has been very good, and I'm not sure if legislation would get us a better response at this point. If the devices are no longer being supported by the industry, I'm not sure that legislation would necessarily enhance that activity. There are probably companies that are no longer in business, no longer selling in Canada, or whatever. So off the top of my head, on the regulatory side, I'm not sure that legislation would be of use, but I'd be prepared to follow it in more detail.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I would like a comment as well from Mr. De Laat.

Mr. William De Laat: I'd have to defer really to the Department of Justice, and they're not here. We've had some discussions with foreign governments, just in terms of sharing information with them, but really the responsibility for this would lie with the province. We'd have to take our lead from the Department of Justice on this question.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I guess that's fair enough. I'm just curious, because in some of the things you touched on, when it comes to trade issues or issues of collaboration with foreign governments, wouldn't it make sense to look at that and have similar public policy when it comes to that? I just wonder if you think that's the right direction to take.

Mr. William De Laat: I really don't have a personal opinion on that. I would have to defer to the Department of Justice, which would be responsible for that. Sorry.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Fair enough.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Murray.

[English]

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have one question for the health department and one for the foreign affairs department.

Ms. Williams, in your statement you mentioned that the CYNCH national task force recently reported on an area of great concern, and that is the health care supply chain. Then you mentioned that there was a meeting on April 22 with representatives from all areas of the health care sector to discuss the supply chain and communications issues. Then you said that they're all working now to improve communications in order to provide Canadians with information about the state of readiness of the health care sector.

So is it good news or bad news? You start by saying it's an area of great concern, but I don't have any sense of whether it remains an area of great concern and these people have gone back to work on it. As I say, is it good news or bad news?

Ms. Marie Williams: The meeting on April 22 was hosted by Health Canada and co-chaired by the CYNCH chairperson. The objective of that meeting was to provide a forum to share information on some of these concerns, including the supply chain.

The concern was expressed that knowledge is now available that some health care institutions may be using stockpiling as a form of contingency planning. All the stakeholders in the health care sector realize that if that occurs, we may indeed have a Y2K problem as a result. So the objective is to work together to share information and try to discourage that, because all indications are at this time that the pharmaceutical companies, the drug store companies, etc., the medical device providers are compliant and there's no strong evidence to believe there's going to be a shortage. The objective therefore is to try to develop a communication strategy to the health care field, as well as the public, to avoid that happening.

Mr. Ian Murray: So the concern is really about a shortage of pharmaceuticals or medical devices.

Ms. Marie Williams: That's right. As a result, people would do the natural thing and want to stockpile.

Mr. Ian Murray: Okay. Thanks.

My other question is for Mr. De Laat. You mentioned, under the heading of international security, you're monitoring the possible need for humanitarian assistance in some countries. Are you suggesting that Canada would be expected to respond? We just met with National Defence a short time ago, and they have a responsibility, through their Operation ABACUS, to look after Canadian interests if there are some emergencies. So if we were expected to respond, who would respond? The Canadian Forces would be stretched pretty thin, I would think.

Mr. William De Laat: This is an area where we're working cooperatively with our colleagues in the G-8, the European Union, and so on. We're trying to come up with some collective sense of where there might be problems. How we address those problems will have to be looked at by the G-8 and those four.

• 1715

We haven't had those discussions yet. We're still at the point where we're trying to collect basic information to try to determine whether some of these things might actually come to pass.

If there were massive power outages in the middle of winter in the Ukraine or Russia, for instance, that could be a problem. It could exacerbate the problems that exist there already. So it would build on existing programming that I assume we have, but we'd have to determine with our allies how we'd proceed and how we'd address that.

Mr. Ian Murray: Okay, thanks. That's all for now.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Ms. Marie Williams, in the second paragraph on page 4 of your presentation, you indicate:

I'm also pleased to report that all manufacturers of the highest-risk medical devices—old or new—such as implant pacemakers and defibrillators have reported that these devices will be safe in the hands of Canadians following January 1, 2000.

I'd like you to be more specific as to which of those medical devices represent the highest risk. Have these devices been monitored by an external third party or do you simply go by what the manufacturer says?

Mr. De Laat, on page 4 of your text, it says:

The transportation and storage of chilled and frozen food products is particularly susceptible to disruption resulting from border delays, container storage and handling, and truck fleet dispatching.

What's your solution?

A bit further on it also states:

Another important element of phase III is an analysis of critical imports and exports. This analysis is well underway...

Once again, what are you seeking to do?

[English]

Ms. Marie Williams: The question on medical devices will be answered by Dann Michols.

Mr. Dann Michols: Within Health Canada we have a large number of scientists who do the assessment of the applications when they first come in, to determine whether or not the data that's supplied by a manufacturer is accurate and of use.

So in answer to your question, we have first of all contacted the manufacturers and received their information or their attestations that these products will be compliant, but we also have the backup science to further investigate any responses we feel are questionable or less than complete.

We have also developed excellent communication channels with our fellow regulators around the world, and we're constantly sharing information with the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency. So triangulating across all of these various processes, I think we have a fairly good idea which manufacturers might be less than forthcoming, if that were the case.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: And of course you transmit this communication to them.

[English]

Mr. Dann Michols: Exactly. Everything we have learned throughout this process is going onto our Web site and being communicated to the associations and institutions that need that information.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. William De Laat: Concerning your question about frozen and fresh foods, we included that as a concern only because they rely on supporting infrastructure, and Y2K failures could result in significant delays at the borders.

In terms of looking at critical imports, this is an important phase of our work and we're just entering into it now. We'll be looking at situations where our imports come from a very small number of countries that are particularly at risk because perhaps they are developing countries or whatever.

Where we are exporting to a very small number of countries, we want to make sure we have a good idea of what those critical imports and exports are so we can take appropriate measures to deal with them in a remediation way, or in terms on contingency planning.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: In the text submitted by Treasury Board Secretariat, at the bottom of the first page it says: “In addition, while we are encouraged by the overall progress of departments and agencies...” Which departments are you not encouraged by?

• 1720

Then, you say that $2 billion were invested to repair essential systems. On the other hand, have some systems that were considered totally inadequate been replaced?

Third, last December, the Auditor General was rather concerned about some systems, especially those of the RCMP, income security and food inspection, while you seem to be saying there are no problems. What happened? Will we have to wait to hear the Auditor General again?

Mr. Guy McKenzie (Assistant Secretary, Year 2000 Project Office, Treasury Board Secretariat): As to your first question, Mrs. Lalonde, following a recommendation of this committee and another similar one from the Public Accounts Committee, we have been setting up information on each one of the departments on our Web site since January. A second recommendation also suggested we go beyond global figures and indicate those systems sustaining departmental figures which we did as of last March.

In your second question, you addressed departmental-critical systems, not necessarily government-critical systems. We also made honourable amends in this case and we're also putting that information on the Web site.

Thus, every month, we put the information available on 24 departments on our Web site. Twelve of those are already beyond the 95% mark, which means that they're in the last phase of implementation for the year 2000 preparations, well into the testing period, while eight other departments have reached 90% and more. There are only two departments under the 90% threshold and they are Health, at 88%, as its representatives said in their presentation, but which has committed itself, in its action plan, to deliver the goods for the month of June, and Heritage Canada, more particularly the Parks section, which is up to 86%. We have also reason to believe that this department will have carried through its conversion by the end of June.

In response to the question about the $2 billion, as Ms. Lizotte-MacPherson was saying in her statement, that amount has three components: government-wide mission-critical functions, certain department-wide mission-critical functions and certain amounts for the preparation of departmental contingency plans. So as you can see, this amount is not just for mission-critical functions, but also for all activities relating to these functions that departments carry out as well as their contingency plans.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Have any amounts been allocated to purchase new equipment?

Mr. Guy McKenzie: Not yet. I can't give you any specific answer for each department because each and every department has its own contingency plan. We are monitoring this on an ongoing basis. I am not familiar with all the details, but in the vast majority of cases, most of the spending is for contingency planning, since no amount has yet been approved by Treasury Board for implementation of these plans. Have the departments spent a few dollars to acquire equipment, or none at all? The amount should be minimal since we have mainly been carrying out planning.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

Mr. Lastewka.

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question for each of the departments to clarify. The first one is for the Treasury Board.

You talked about the mission-critical figures being moved from 64% to 93%, which is commendable, in the number of the departments you've outlined as on target. My concern is where we have federal and provincial tie-ins. Could you comment on the progress in the areas where there are federal and provincial tie-ins?

Ms. Linda Lizotte-MacPherson: There are instances where there are linkages between the systems through interfaces. We actually did a survey late in the fall to identify all of those interfaces. There was a total of 1,500, of which 13% were with the provinces. We continue to monitor those on a regular basis. Approximately half of them at this point have been tested and there are no problems. Work is continuing on the other interfaces.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Could you tell when the rest will be at least tested?

• 1725

Mr. Jim Bimson (Director General, Departmental Readiness, Year 2000 Project Office, Treasury Board Secretariat): We're hoping that the majority of them will be tested by the end of June. In the past week we had three teleconferences with the east, central, and western provinces and not only the Treasury Board but also a number of federal departments that have those interfaces. They have now agreed on the list of interfaces and testing plans. We have a further meeting scheduled for May 25 and 26 here in Ottawa to finalize the plans, where all the provinces and territories and the key federal departments will be represented. So we expect that by the end of June we'll have them all tested.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Isn't this the area that becomes very critical? The Treasury Board could be doing their thing, but the feeder linkage areas not being ready will cause problems for the whole system.

Mr. Jim Bimson: That's true, sir, and this is why we are making a point of dealing not only from the Treasury Board level with the individual departments and the provinces, but also each one of the federal departments that has a linkage does it. They're going to the extent of reviewing all the memoranda of understanding they have on those and ensuring that the detailed specifications still agree. In fact, we have begun to build an automated repository of interfaces so that we can track at each department level and at the centre, ultimately, where each one stands. So there has been a tremendous amount of work done, particularly in the last few months.

The thing with interfaces is that they are the last thing you can test because they have to wait until all the other systems are ready. In fact, it is probably the highest priority item we have left on the list for remediation assistance.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: For the Department of Foreign Affairs representatives, you said that two-thirds of the 146 missions have completed their assessments, and the rest will be done by July 1, with detailed contingency plans. Is it the intention of the Department of Foreign Affairs to publicize those areas that are not up to par in order to protect Canadians who do business and travel abroad?

Mr. William De Laat: Our contingency plans are really meant for our internal preparation to make sure that we are prepared to deal with any Y2K failures abroad. At this point they're internal documents, and we're using them to do our assessments of country preparedness and to make sure that we can provide essential services to travelling Canadians, business people, and so on and that we continue to have that capacity. This is an internal contingency planning exercise, and that's the way we view it.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: But if there were problems with a country where one of our missions is located, how would our travellers know that's a problem area?

Mr. William De Laat: We're going to be completing our risk assessments. We're going to be, where necessary, advising travellers. We have specific activities in mind, for example, with the travelling public. We would be informing all Canadians who are resident abroad of potential Y2K failures and so on. On the business side we're communicating through our Web site and through relations we have with the Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada. We're making our trade commissioners available to provide information on country readiness to individual businesses and so on. So there are a whole host of communications activities associated with that.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Okay. Thank you.

To the representatives from Health Canada, my concern in the past has been about the hospitals. Last December we found out that the Ontario hospitals had not received money because it hadn't been approved to be passed down. In December that item was done, and Ontario hospitals were to start receiving money in January. At that time no hospital was Y2K ready. Could you tell me the status of hospitals not only in Ontario but also across the country as far as being Y2K ready is concerned?

Ms. Marie Williams: While the hospital preparedness is the responsibility of the provinces, Health Canada is making significant progress in working with the provincial contacts responsible for Y2K readiness in the health care sector through its work with the national contingency planning group. We are the department responsible for collecting information on the readiness of hospitals and long-term care facilities and providing that information to NCPG for their preparation of risk assessment.

• 1730

That information, as you heard from the presentation earlier, has been analysed, and the initial infrastructure risk assessment has been developed. Health Canada will continue to work with our contacts at the provincial and territorial level to enhance that information, to improve the quality and detail of it, and so on.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It was very clear to us last fall that there were two things missing: one was the money, and one was the information from Health Canada about various devices. My understanding is that you have made great progress with regard to the devices, and you mentioned that you'll be posting their names and so forth. Is that being done now?

Ms. Marie Williams: Yes, the names of non-respondent manufacturers are being posted now.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: When it comes to the questioning from the provinces on understanding which devices are Y2K compliant and so forth and issues such as the embedded chips problem, which has been continually brought up in the past, is that information available for them to do the work?

Ms. Marie Williams: Dann, would you like to provide more detail?

Mr. Dann Michols: Yes.

All of the information we have developed is available to the hospital associations and is being given to the individual hospitals. When we talked about a year ago, the hospitals were very concerned about the medical devices. My understanding is that the priority of concern within the hospitals has now moved to their information systems and that their concern about medical devices is now a much lower level of concern. So I do believe the information is getting to them and that they are making the requisite decisions.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My concern was that information be available for the hospitals in order to avoid a complaint in January saying, the reason we didn't make it and the reason we're late is because we didn't get information on devices from Health Canada. Has that problem been removed?

Mr. Dann Michols: I hope so. The response rate we've had from manufacturers to our various inquiries has been 100% for what we call class four devices, which pose the most risk, and it is approaching 90% on the class three devices, which are the second level of risk. That in large measure would be the equipment the hospitals were concerned about. That information has been made available to them. So I would hope at this point that the hospitals are in full knowledge of the risk their medical devices may present.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Mrs. Lalonde, I believe you had one final question.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Yes, the most important one.

Mr. McKenzie was smiling. I asked him why the Auditor General was very concerned in December, and yet shortly thereafter you were talking about the plans being 90% completed. What happened? Are we going to have to expect another report from the Auditor General?

Mr. Guy McKenzie: No, I don't think so. We had already responded publicly to these questions in a press release. When he prepares his report, the Auditor General has to stop his reading at one time or another, and unfortunately, because of the time required for printing and other things, he publishes much later. In November and December, he produced figures that dated back to June, whereas compliance increased rapidly, as you can see on the Web site.

For example, we were worried about the Department of Human Resources Development's major programs, such as Employment Insurance, Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan. We have already stated, a fair while ago, that these programs were Y2K compliant.

Furthermore, we regularly send this information to both committees, and we send it to the Auditor General each month. You'll see on our Web site that the Department of Human Resources Development is 99% compliant.

The Auditor General's second concern had to do with the RCMP.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: The RCMP.

Mr. Guy McKenzie: The RCMP is 97% Y2K compliant. It is one of the leading departments that are in the last stage of testing.

• 1735

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is another example. At present, it is 93% compliant. As you may know, thanks to Treasury Board, the Agency has opened up an expertise centre to study integrated laboratory systems, which has enabled the Agency to help other departments and entities such as the Department of Health, which runs laboratories and is facing the same challenges.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: When you talk about compliance, you aren't referring to the contingency plans, but rather to the computers that will be able to make the transition to the year 2000 without any problems, including the computers at Human Resources Development, which have been having problems for at least four years.

Mr. Guy McKenzie: Yes. I'll never say "without any problems" because problems are inevitable. When it comes to computers, there are always problems, Y2K or no Y2K.

We are saying that the Y2K conversion has been done. We have to distinguish between the work plan approved by Treasury Board, which Ms. Lizotte-MacPherson refereed to in her opening remarks, which covered systems compliance, risk assessment and the tabling of a departmental contingency plan, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the national plan.

When we talk about being in a state of readiness, we are referring to systems in general and to integrated systems. You have to make that distinction and know that the percentage may vary from one department to another. The emergency plans have been submitted; they are being analyzed and will be fine-tuned over the year.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: This means that people can be sure they will receive their unemployment insurance, income security and income supplement cheques.

Mr. Guy McKenzie: We are often asked to guarantee that fact. But there are no guarantees in this area. However, we can guarantee that all the conversion work has been done to reduce the chances of a breakdown in the system.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Is there a contingency plan forthcoming?

Mr. Guy McKenzie: Yes, absolutely, especially in operational departments like that one, where contingency plans are part of the department's day-to-day business. Those departments have access to other systems to see that their work is done. During the ice storm and the Saguenay river flood, the Human Resources Development Department in particular and Canada Post were able to reach the people affected, despite the fact that they were staying in shelters or on military bases. There's an example of contingency plans available to operational departments. Please rest assured that they have the necessary back-up plans.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I'd like to ask Mr. De Laat another question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): A final question.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

When I read through your papers, I thought that Quebeckers and Canadians should know what's going on before choosing to holiday in the south in 2000.

[English]

Mr. William De Laat: Certainly it's the primary responsibility of individual Canadians to be informed, to find out from their travel agents and from the countries they're visiting what the potential Y2K problems would be. So you're right, it is Canadians' responsibility first and foremost. As you know, we're doing an assessment of country preparedness, and we'll have to see what kind of information we collect and if it's important to provide to Canadians. We're in the process of doing that, going through these assessments right now.

For example, on the question of travel and the safety of airlines and so on, certainly we have Transport Canada and NAV CANADA looking at the readiness of Canadian airlines. They're working cooperatively with international organizations such ICAO and IATA, who are doing surveys of countries, of airports and air traffic systems around the world. We'll be getting that in due course and taking appropriate action then.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Will you tell people that, for instance, it might be risky to travel to Mexico in January 2000?

[English]

Mr. William De Laat: At this point, we don't have that kind of information. And if there are clear risks to Canadians, we will inform Canadians, yes. We have an extensive system of country advisory reports, travel reports. They're posted on the web. Right now they have fairly generic information. As we get more information, we'll provide that. If there are instances when Canadians are at risk, we'll let them know.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

[English]

I have three questions for Health Canada. The first one is that in your introductory statement, Madame Williams, you said that devices other than implants had to be Y2K ready in order for them to be allowed for sale. They had to be ready by July 1998. Have you been monitoring that?

• 1740

Mr. Dann Michols: Yes, we have. Since the summer of 1997 we have been ensuring that the devices that come to us for pre-market clearance will be Y2K compliant, and we continue to monitor those devices subsequently.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): You say that data collection will eventually assist in the development of a national contingency plan, where necessary. What did you mean by that?

Ms. Marie Williams: That relates to the information I mentioned we're collecting on behalf of the national contingency planning group. It's to assist the NCPG to develop a national contingency plan cross-sectorally. Within the health sector, hopefully, there isn't going to be a need to provide that kind of assistance. Essentially, what we're attempting to do is provide, from the contacts we're working with, the most accurate data we receive from the provinces and territories so that any weaknesses or any gaps might be planned for by NCPG.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Do you have a target date for that?

Ms. Marie Williams: Those plans will be looked at and tested, and by September 1999 that should be in place. They should have a very good idea of what the national contingency plan will look like.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): And you'll have ample time to put in place a contingency plan that will be effective January 1?

Ms. Marie Williams: The contingency planning for individual institutions is the responsibility of the institutions. The contingency planning I was referring to there is directly related to the national contingency planning group's efforts for contingency planning.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): How many manufacturers that have yet to respond regarding their compliance information have had their product removed?

Ms. Marie Williams: I'll defer that question to Mr. Michols.

Mr. Dann Michols: To my knowledge, there have as yet been no withdrawals or recalls on the products. We're still in the process of working through, with the manufacturers, which products may not be in compliance. Once it has been determined that a product might not be Y2K compliant, we then need to determine that this non-compliance is in fact a risk to the user or the patient. It may be that other measures can be taken by the physicians or the hospital administrators or whoever to overcome the problem created by non-compliance. It isn't a safety threat to the patient per se.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Last spring we were informed in committee that there were very few companies or manufacturers that had responded to your questionnaire. Has this improved?

Mr. Dann Michols: These response rates have increased immeasurably since one of my directors appeared before you. We have been tracking something in the order of 1,800 company responses. We have a 100% response on class fours, as I mentioned. We have close to a 90% response on class threes. Class two and class one are less complicated devices, probably not impacted by Y2K, but we're proceeding to follow up with those. When we get a company that does not respond, we list it on the website for our various partners to know about and then to take appropriate action.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): If you don't delist manufacturers that have non-compliant medical devices, or if you don't do something to remove them from sales, are we not putting Canadians at risk?

Mr. Dann Michols: First of all, all the products that have been approved since the summer of 1997 are Y2K compliant. So the apparatus we have to review products before they enter the market since the summer of 1997 are compliant. And there's a fairly heavy turnover in the medical device industry, so that represents a substantial number of products.

• 1745

Once the product has been sold and it is being used by a hospital then it is the institution's responsibility to deal with the manufacturer. Our role has been to try to obtain the maximum amount of information such that the institution can deal with the manufacturer. We're in a process now where something in the order of perhaps only 11% of the devices have been deemed to be non-compliant. And even that 11% may not represent a risk to the patient because of the fact that they can't deal with the year 2000 turnover. It may be possible for another system to override that or for the technicians and the doctors to be able to deal with that.

At this point in time we have not determined a medical device that will present a risk to a patient because of Y2K compliance. We still have some responses to investigate and we still have some companies to track down, but at this point in time we have not determined a risk to Canadians.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Have any hospitals or groups of hospitals in Canada written to you with concerns regarding that up to this point?

Mr. Dann Michols: I don't have that information at my disposal, but I could look into that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Would you send us some information in writing?

Mr. Dann Michols: Certainly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you.

Are there any more questions?

This will be the end of this part of the meeting. The chair has returned and he will continue with another one or two items. In the meantime,

[Translation]

I would like to thank the witnesses for their submissions and for reassuring Canadians and members of this committee. Thank you very much.

[English]

[Proceedings continue in camera]