INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 12,1999

• 1530

[English]

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

I would like to welcome our witnesses from Fredericton, New Brunswick. I'm Susan Whelan, chair of the industry committee, and I'm very pleased to welcome you here today. We have several witnesses around the table. We have Mr. Gary Andrews from the Government of New Brunswick, the director of year 2000 program management office, corporate information management services. We have Karen Croll, the Y2K project authority and associate executive director from the HealthCare Association of New Brunswick. From New Brunswick Power we have Mr. Kevin Calhoun, the year 2000 program coordinator. From NBTel Inc., we have Mr. Graham Fraser, director of year 2000 program. From Emergency Measures Organization of New Brunswick, we have Mr. Andy Morton, deputy director.

That should be everyone. However, if I've missed anyone, you're welcome to introduce yourself when it's your turn.

I propose that we have everyone do their opening statement of not more than three to five minutes, beginning with Mr. Andrews from the Government of New Brunswick, unless you have another suggestion.

Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Gary Andrews (Director, Year 2000 Program Management Office, Corporate Information Management Services, Government of New Brunswick): Thank you very much.

My name is Gary Andrews. I'm responsible for the provincial government's year 2000 program. This is an update report to our November 26, 1998 submission when we appeared in person before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry.

I'll repeat our goal. The goal of the Government of New Brunswick's year 2000 program is to ensure there will be no interruption of essential services to the public. I will not be covering material that was covered in the November 26 appearance.

During 1999, the government has added business continuity planning to ensure essential services continue to be available to the public, and has added communications to ensure the public is informed and aware of year 2000 issues that may impact them.

As of this date, the government has identified and prioritized 97 mission-critical business processes. Departments are making good progress in addressing their essential services. Year 2000 repairs and remediation efforts are either completed or on schedule. Year 2000 contingency plans are in progress for the 97 mission-critical business processes.

A communication strategy is being implemented, and the New Brunswick infrastructure group, which is a broad group composed of many industries and many representatives from the federal and municipal governments, including all the people at this table, is progressing very well in minimizing year 2000 issues for people living in New Brunswick.

Thank you very much. We will answer any questions you have at the end of the session.

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

I would like to ask Ms. Karen Croll from the HealthCare Association if she has any opening comments.

Ms. Karon Croll (Year 2000 Project Authority and Associate Executive Director, HealthCare Association of New Brunswick): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do. Perhaps, as this is the first appearance by the HealthCare Association at this committee, five minutes might be in order rather than three.

The New Brunswick HealthCare Association represents the eight hospital corporations in the province. In New Brunswick the hospital system is organized by those eight corporations. They have jurisdiction for 31 acute care facilities in the province, which includes two psychiatric in-patient hospitals, one rehab centre, and 17 health service centres, along with the extramural program that provides a broad range of in-home care. So the New Brunswick HealthCare Association is the federation of the eight corporations. I might also point out that we're part of the federation of the Canadian Healthcare Association. I know the CHA has appeared before your committee.

• 1535

By way of a few words about how the hospital corporation in New Brunswick structured itself in order to address the Y2K problem, each corporation has a team headed by an individual. There's a person in each corporation who is responsible for each of the six areas of contingency planning, communications, biomedical and labs, supply chain, facilities and operations, and information systems.

At the provincial level there's almost a mirror image, if you like, of that structure. So at the provincial level, for example, there is a committee of contingency planners. The contingency planner in charge from each corporation sits at that provincial-level committee. So there is a provincial committee for each of those six areas of communication, biomedical, labs, supply chain and so on.

At the provincial level, those groups are primarily concerned with ensuring a co-ordinated and collaborative approach to minimizing the risks associated with the Y2K problem. Those folks are responsible to a provincial management committee, which is comprised of the chairs of the project management offices in each of the corporations. I chair that committee. Then I am responsible to a steering committee comprised of health and community services representatives and the chief executive officers of the corporations. So that's a little about how we've structured ourselves in New Brunswick to address the problem.

With respect to our status, at this stage of the project our key message is certainly to ensure that quality, safe patient care is our priority. The inventory of all our equipment and systems is close to 100% complete. Our data says it's 99% complete, but I think it's probably a rounding problem. Assessment of the risk of equipment and system failure is 83% complete, as we speak. The gap between that figure and 100% is partly explained by the fact that for certain equipment items, we're reliant on vendors for testing. Approximately 5% of all of the equipment we've tested to date has been found to be non-compliant.

The second key message for us focuses on the development of contingency plans and assuring the public we're using our expertise in managing emergency situations to develop contingency plans for any unforeseen problems that may arise. We have targeted August 31 for full year 2000 compliance of all equipment and systems. As of April 19, 59% of all equipment and systems identified as non-compliant has been remediated.

We have had an extensive and intensive campaign to contact suppliers, and our response rate to date for over 500 critical suppliers is 82% For contingency planning, we have a deadline of the end of this month for plans in each corporation to be written, reviewed and approved. For the most part we expect that testing will be done in September.

With respect to external collaboration, we very much have appreciated the efforts by groups, such as the Canadian Healthcare Association and the Ontario Hospital Association. That's been helpful to us. We are very supportive of the messages the CHA has delivered to your committee.

I think I'll stop there for now and be ready for questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Croll.

I'm now going to turn to New Brunswick Power, Mr. Kevin Calhoun.

Mr. Kevin Calhoun (Year 2000 Program Coordinator, New Brunswick Power): Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about the year 2000 issue on behalf of N.B. Power. From our perspective at N.B. Power, the good part about year 2000 is that it is not coming as a surprise. We've had plenty of time to review our systems, fix things where necessary, and prepare our systems and personnel for the transition into 2000.

We initiated a formal program in May 1997 to become thoroughly Y2K ready well before December 1999. Furthermore, our mission-critical systems are ready now. Let me be clear, we have taken the millennium bug seriously and have worked very hard to ensure that all the glitches were found and corrected. Here's what we have done.

• 1540

We began by organizing a comprehensive project team involving internal and external resources at every level and at every location. We formed a technical team and have instituted both a business risk assessment process and a business continuity planning program. These components all have strong oversight. We report bi-weekly to the executive on our progress and regularly to the board of directors.

We completed an inventory of our systems and equipment to determine which of our assets might or might not be affected by year 2000 problems. This was applied across the board at N.B. Power on how we make, transmit, and deliver electricity, and on our business systems.

We conducted a detailed analysis of each inventory item. Among other things, we tested various states necessary to evaluate how our systems and equipment would respond. Furthermore, we compared our findings with other electric utilities and industries with similar processes and equipment, and we set out to correct any problems.

We are in the process of investigating the year 2000 preparedness of our business partners so that we can take appropriate action in case there is a risk to supply of goods and services that we depend on. We are also taking action to ensure that we do not introduce year 2000 problems into systems that are currently year 2000 ready.

I'm happy to report that as a result of those measures, our testing and analysis is 99% complete. Of the assessed inventory, 91% is complete, with 9% remaining to be corrected, none of which are mission-critical. All of our mission-critical systems are complete. Even better, we are on schedule for total year 2000 readiness in September 1999.

I'm also pleased to report that our Point Lepreau nuclear generating station successfully met our October and November 1998 Atomic Energy Control Board deadlines for demonstrating that critical plant systems are year 2000 ready. We also on schedule to meet the final date of June 30, 1999, for the balance of plant systems.

Our investigation found nothing of any serious threat to our ability to generate, transmit and deliver electricity. We have set the power plant control systems ahead into the year 2000, proved that they will continue to work as they do today, and then set them back to real time again. The problems that were found were not difficult to correct, although the cost is substantial, approximately $6.5 million in direct year 2000 program costs and approximately $30 million in related replacement projects.

What if there's an unforeseen problem? The answer is that we are examining additional measures to ensure that we are ready to respond rapidly to the unexpected. Detailed contingency plans are drawn up for all areas of the corporation and will be refined over the next few months. We are also participating in the North American Electricity Reliability Council drills. The April 9, 1999, communication drill was successfully completed, and we are now preparing for the full scope coordinated drill on September 9, 1999.

In addition, we meet and share information regularly with the New Brunswick Year 2000 Infrastructure Symposium Group, the Canadian Electricity Association, the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, the North American Electricity Reliability Council, and with government, business partners, and customers. We have provided detailed information on our year 2000 program and status to several national and international surveys. We have also engaged in extensive communications activities to inform our employees, customers, and the public about our preparations.

To some rights, our mission-critical systems are ready. We are on track to be fully year 2000 ready in September 1999. In New Brunswick we have a very reliable and secure electric power system, and contingency plans are prepared for the unexpected. We are not only confident in the measures we have taken to avoid any disruptions caused by year 2000 problems, but we are also confident in the integrity of the contingency plans we have in place to cover the thoroughly unexpected. It certainly provides us with a high level of comfort, and after listening to me this afternoon, I hope you feel the same.

Thank you.

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

I'd now like to call on Mr. Graham Fraser, the director of the year 2000 program at NBTel Inc.

• 1545

Mr. Graham Fraser (Director, Program of Year 2000, NBTel Inc.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

At NBTel, we also take the year 2000 problem very seriously and have been addressing this problem since 1996. To date, we've spend approximately $10 million to remediate our systems and make sure that they are year 2000 ready.

I'll break down our progress to date into three areas, the first being our IT application. These are things like billing systems and customer service systems. Our work in those systems is complete and we have finished testing. At the present time we are testing with our other partners in the Stentor Alliance to make sure that we can exchange data properly across the country.

The next thing I'd like to talk about is our network elements. These are what make the telephone system work, what our customers use and what they rely on to provide them voice and data services, as well as video and other services that we offer. The upgrades in our network were completed in February of this year, and extensive testing took place not only within NBTel but across the entire Stentor Alliance and also with other telecommunication providers in Canada to make sure that year 2000 would come and be uneventful.

The national testing will continue until the end of May this year, and at that time we hope to make a statement nationally that we will be in very good shape for the year 2000.

The third item is on the contingency planning side. Obviously, as a utility, we have contingency plans in place for unforeseen circumstances. Those plans have all been reviewed with respect to a year 2000 focus. To date, we have plans complete for all of our national services. These are services of long distance, 800 service, and data services. Those plans are all in place, and we're finalizing plans for other areas of the business. Those will be complete by May of this year. We're also coordinating, as I said earlier, with the other members of the Stentor Alliance and other providers of service to make sure that things do continue to operate in the year 2000.

I want to mention also that we are represented on the Canadian Telecommunications Industry Forum. This is a forum put together of all telecommunications providers in Canada to ensure that telecommunications continue to work into the new century.

As you've already heard, in New Brunswick we do have what we call the New Brunswick Infrastructure Planning Group, made up of the key organizations in New Brunswick. We meet on a regular basis to discuss year 2000 issues and to make sure that there is good cooperation between all sectors in New Brunswick. This has been very beneficial in bringing areas like municipalities on board to make sure that they are aware of the problems they can face and to get them to address issues that maybe they would not have studied otherwise.

In summary, NBTel, as well as the telecommunications industry in Canada, is in very good shape at the present time for the year 2000. There has certainly been very good cooperation in New Brunswick, as well as nationally, with respect to all areas, making sure that we are addressing this issue. I'd like to say that contingency planning certainly is very important, because as I think we all realize about the year 2000 issue, there are no guarantees. We certainly have to have solid plans in place.

Thank you.

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

I'm now going to call on Andy Morton, the deputy director of the Emergency Measures Organization of New Brunswick.

Mr. Andy Morton (Deputy Director, Emergency Measures Organization of New Brunswick): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to the committee.

My presentation this afternoon is an initial presentation and will take the form of three parts: a little bit on background, preparations, and preparedness.

First off, I'd like to state that the goal of the New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization has been to develop year 2000 contingency plans intended to mitigate the effects of year 2000 emergencies or disasters, to provide for the safety, health and welfare of the population, and to protect property and the environment.

In terms of background, the New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization falls under the Emergency Measures Act, which is administered by the Minister for Municipalities and Housing and contains provisions for emergency measures and emergency measures powers under the act.

The basis for emergency preparedness and response in New Brunswick is based on the national accepted philosophy of emergency preparedness and response at a variety of levels. Those levels begin with the individual, typically the homeowner, and carry on to the community, which in New Brunswick is either a municipal or a local service district. We then have a district level of response, which includes all the local provincial resources in the area; the provincial level of response, which involves all the resources of the province; and last but certainly not least, the federal level, where we would call upon federal resources through Emergency Preparedness Canada, and that would include National Defence, Coast Guard, and so on.

• 1550

The NBEMO staff are providing presentations and workshops on all aspects of emergency management, assisting with exercises and training. In particular, we conduct basic emergency preparedness courses as well as the emergency operations course. We also coordinate the applications for attendance at the federal emergency preparedness college in Arnprior for the courses they sponsor.

In terms of preparation, given the level of preparedness of the two most significant utilities in the province, New Brunswick Power and NBTel, NBEMO considers that any events that are likely to arise from year 2000 failures will be localized and indeterminate in nature. With this in mind, New Brunswick EMO has been actively encouraging municipalities to prepare and update existing all-hazard emergencies plans. Guidelines for municipalities to assist them in the conduct of their own hazard analysis and resource allocation, specific to the year 2000, were prepared and issued, and indications are that the municipalities have demonstrated a strong desire to be full participants in all emergency planning related to the year 2000.

A survey of all first responders, excluding the RCMP at this point, is under way to ensure that first response capabilities will be year 2000 ready, with particular emphasis on communications within the 911 system. EMO has been a participant in a multitude of year 2000 meetings. Of particular note, as already has been mentioned, is the New Brunswick infrastructure group. This venue allows for frank and open exchange of information on best practices in the sharing of public communications messages. The inclusion of the private sector has been very successful and has facilitated a closer degree of cooperation in emergency planning.

The normal liaison between RCMP and Department of National Defence, which NBEMO regularly conducts, has been strengthened by the year 2000 planning process and cooperation has been excellent. Public communications for the year 2000 event are being handled by the project management office, represented here by Mr. Gary Andrews today. However, the New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization is prepared to provide public safety announcements through its existing emergency public communications plan should any emergency situations arise.

In terms of preparedness, NBEMO has been very active in ensuring that all aspects of its emergency response capabilities will be year 2000 ready and ensuring that alternate service delivery mechanisms are in place. All preparations are complete or on schedule at this time. We continue to seek information on year 2000 impacts from all sources and are particularly interested in receiving data that has already been gathered by the RCMP and the Department of National Defence.

During the rollover of the new year, the EMO operations centre will be open for interested government parties. From that area we will review real-time events as they occur in other parts of the world in the hope of gathering kernels of information that may be applicable to our own situations.

We will not be manning the operations centre to its full capacity. We will continue to have our staff on standby and available to respond to emergency situations as they develop.

Madam Chair, that concludes my report. Thank you very much.

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

We're now going to turn to questions. We begin with questions from Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

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

[English]

You said that the health care inventory was 99% complete and the assessment of risk 83% ready. On medical devices, have you discovered that certain medical devices will be difficult to access from suppliers?

Ms. Karon Croll: We are having difficulty with some vendors who are telling us not to test their equipment and that they don't want us to test the equipment. So that is a problem.

• 1555

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Why would it be that they don't want you to test?

Ms. Karon Croll: Part of the message we're getting is I think they're fearful that if we were to test it we would somehow harm the equipment, harm the medical device.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are they the ones who are testing? If they don't want you to test, are they testing?

Ms. Karon Croll: That's what we're trying to get them to do. Our preference is for their service representative either to come and do the testing themselves or to be on hand when we test. So we're in the process of communicating with those vendors in order to have that happen.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So you must have set some timelines. Are the timelines being met for testing?

Ms. Karon Croll: I think June 30 is probably our cut-off date for continuing negotiations in order to ensure something happens with respect to testing.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That's scary, because if the testing turns out to be negative, what do you do then about accessing replacements for your medical devices? Where do you get the funding? Have you the funding for it? Who is going to be doing the exterior auditing? It doesn't give you much leeway.

Ms. Karon Croll: No, that's true, I agree. Time is getting short, and it is a concern of ours.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Who could be helpful to you in getting things done?

Ms. Karon Croll: At the present moment we're working with our legal counsel, of course, and still continuing to work with those vendors. I think come the end of June if we haven't made adequate progress we'll have to turn to other sources.

The other option, I suppose, is taking on faith that the equipment is compliant.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In your mind, do you believe that the federal Department of Health should be taking steps with these vendors to assure that they are being useful and helpful to groups like yourselves?

Ms. Karon Croll: My understanding is that the medical devices bureau has indeed been very helpful and is working in that direction.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I beg to differ. If you tell me you're waiting for June 30 for these companies to do anything about the testing, shouldn't the federal government in your mind... I know you want to be courteous and polite toward us, but we want to be of assistance and we want to be helpful. Do you believe that Health Canada should start intervening for these people who seem to be very delinquent in timing, in their scheduling?

Ms. Karon Croll: That would be very helpful to us. We would appreciate it, yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you very much.

Sorry, you wanted to add something?

Ms. Karon Croll: No.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Budget-wise, do you have the budget you require? Are you on-budget at the moment?

Ms. Karon Croll: I must say, in New Brunswick at the outset of this project we felt a certain level of assurance from the government that the cost with respect to year 2000, directing those issues in the hospital corporations, would be paid for by the government. Really, the hospital corporation's attitude at the outset has been to get the job done.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are there any hospitals in your province that are begging for assistance now? And if so, what kind of assistance?

Ms. Karon Croll: With respect to the Y2K issue?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, specifically Y2K.

• 1600

Ms. Karon Croll: I would say not. We're in constant communication with the Department of Health and Community Services. Given the structure I've described to you earlier, the project management committee, which meets every two weeks, has a representative there from the Department of Health and Community Services who is in constant contact with the corporations with respect to their equipment needs. And the purchase orders that had been placed by corporations for equipment replacement have been processed to our satisfaction, I would say.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Lastewka, please.

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

I'd like to put one more question to the hospital association. I realize that you had mentioned the percentage of 59%, that “As of April 19, 59% of all equipment and systems identified as non-compliant has been remediated.” Do you have any hospitals that are completed? Or are they all moving in tandem?

Ms. Karon Croll: Certainly there are some variations, one to the next, but I think they all will indeed meet the deadline.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I'd like to switch over now to New Brunswick Power. Have you been communicating to the public the status of N.B. Power?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: Yes, we have been communicating to the public. We in fact have some newsletters just going out this week to the public that are being delivered to every residence in New Brunswick basically.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: And for the Government of New Brunswick, on mission-critical items, what percentage are you at at the present time?

Mr. Gary Andrews: We do not report the percentage of mission-critical items fixed. We want to make sure they're all looked after and all ready in time, both from the repair stage and from the business contingency plan stage.

I'd like to also add something on the N.B. Power. The Government of New Brunswick has been at approximately eight public sessions so far, and we have many more scheduled, at which we present material from N.B. Power on their preparedness. So in getting the message out to the public, not only is N.B. Power getting the message out, but we are including their message in our presentations to the public.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I know we're all in the same boat. We want to keep the pressure on to make sure we meet our deadlines, but we don't want to have panic going on at the same time. Could you tell us the status of where you are as far as the people understanding where the Y2K process is within the government?

Mr. Gary Andrews: Yes. We report the progress on what's happening regularly. We report monthly to our board of management and we report monthly to the committee of deputy ministers that has been tasked by the board of management to oversee the progress of year 2000 repairs across government, as well as the progress of how we're dealing with the mission-critical business process.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So you have the data on the mission-critical items, but you can't share with us how many of those you've completed and how many are left to go. Was that my understanding?

Mr. Gary Andrews: Your understanding is 90% accurate, yes.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I'd ask New Brunswick Tel, in terms of the communication with the power and the government, is your communication with the government and N.B. Power, or is it separate?

Mr. Graham Fraser: It has been joint sessions as well as separate.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: On the emergency measures, you did mention the coordination with the federal scene and so forth. One of the things that was brought up at our national defence meetings earlier this past week was trying to really get a good handle on where are or could be problems on Y2K, since the Y2K date is not going to move, but we've had some slippage as far as implementation goes. I take it that you're working with the federal group on that and trying to identify where possible hot spots would be.

• 1605

Mr. Andy Morton: Yes, we're quite interested in any of the hot spots that may have been identified either by the national contingency planning group or the Department of National Defence or Treasury Board, as they impact on emergency or disaster-type potentials. Quite frankly, I haven't seen anything that has identified any particular areas as being of major concern at this point in time, other than sewage and water facilities, and those we're examining quite closely.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Gary Andrews: May I add something to Mr. Andy Morton's last comment?

Andy and I were both present at a public session where the military was also present, and at that public session they indicated that the risk in New Brunswick was—I believe this is a direct quote—“low to none”.

The Chair: I should have mentioned earlier that if anyone has anything to add, please jump in. I can't recognize you because I can't see you all when the camera's on one of you. Please do that; we encourage that.

I now return to Madam Jennings. Madam Jennings, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I have two questions and they are based on comments made by other witnesses who over the past few weeks or months have appeared before this committee.

My first question pertains to the difficulties experienced by the medical equipment supply network, where there appears to already be what we call stockpiling, so that other sectors, and perhaps even other territories or provinces, find it difficult to purchase medical equipment to replace obsolete equipment that cannot be made Y2K compliant.

A suggestion has already been made, namely, that the federal government play a leadership role at the health table that brings together the provincial, territorial and federal health ministers, to examine the possibility of establishing a mechanism or a policy to deal with this issue.

I would like to know whether or not you have come up against this problem.

My second question pertains to the Y2K bug issue. Many people, myself included, find it quite scandalous that there are some softwares that do not recognize four numbers for the year and that, despite the fact that the manufacturers were aware of the problem, continued to produce software and microprocessors recognizing only two numbers for the year, which has put the entire world and the governments of every nation in a situation where they have had to devote a great deal of energy and spend a lot of money in order to overcome this obstacle.

I would like to hear your comments on the role that the government should play in order to protect consumers. Should the government implement regulations for software and microprocessors in the future? Those are my questions. Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Karon Croll: I apologize that I didn't hear the beginning of the question, but I'm assuming the question is directed toward health care—although of course, with respect to stockpiling, it's not a concern only for the health care field. I am aware, yes. As a matter of fact, I attended a meeting in April of federal-provincial representatives as well as the health and communities services representative Byard Smith, who happens to be here in the room with me. We both attended that session, and that was one of the outcomes—that concern was expressed in order to come to some sort of agreement, communication, in particular with respect to stockpiling.

Yes, of course it is a concern here in our province. We're a small province, so we're affected obviously by what happens in the rest of the world, the United States. Even what happens in Toronto would very much affect us, if that is something that were to happen.

• 1610

I understand and I am aware since that federal-province initiative took place in April, that the CYNCH group, the national clearing house for information on health care, has indeed published a special bulletin on that subject, and essentially the message is business as usual, that stockpiling should not be done above normal operations.

With respect to your second question, I really don't feel qualified to answer that question. Computers are not my field of expertise.

Mr. Gary Andrews: I'll volunteer to answer it if you would like an answer.

It started in the fifties, and when it started it actually was the right thing to do, to put it down to two digits instead of four. It was the right thing to do because the cost of having four digits back then exceeded any value of having it. Probably up until somewhere around the early to mid-eighties it was cost-effective still to do two digits because of the high cost of storing information. Space was at a premium, and we weren't in the economics for hardware and software that exist today.

Also during that period of time, the life expectancy of a particular application system or of a piece of hardware was generally in the five-to-seven-year range, with no one ever expecting an application to last ten years. Ten years was almost the absolute upper limit.

We have in the government, and I suspect my colleagues around here have in their organizations, applications that will reach voting age. No one expected that. Even when these were put into production in first use in the late seventies and early eighties, no one was expecting these applications to go that long, because we were still at the end of the period, I'll call it, where the rule of thumb was five to seven years, because your business requirements would change so much they wouldn't do any more.

So the issue really is at what point in time was it realistic for manufacturers or for companies to recognize that their stuff might go into the year 2000? That's a difficult thing. I think habit caused everyone just to ignore the fact that this would happen.

I'm not sure there's an easy way of protecting that from happening again. Of course we won't be around when it happens for year 10000. So I'm not sure this gives you much idea or help for your issue. I myself also get very annoyed at the cost we're paying and the time and energy and focus that perhaps could give us a better payback in Canada if we didn't have the issue. We need it because we have the issue.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much for the historic explanation of the year 2000 bug; I really appreciated it. Do you wish to make any comments on the need to establish a national policy pertaining to the supply network for medical equipment or any other type of equipment?

Ms. Croll has already answered this question by talking about action that has been taken, but I do believe that there is a representative of the government of New Brunswick, Mr. Gary Andrews, who perhaps has some ideas on the subject since he works for Corporate Information Management Services, within the Department of Supply and Services.

[English]

Mr. Gary Andrews: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to put my foot in my mouth. With both the Department of Health and the hospital association here, I'm going to skate around any answers to do with health in any way, shape or form, because I realize they have the knowledge and expertise and background to better answer those questions. So if you'd like to direct it to the Department of Health or Karen, I think that's wonderful.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Great. Karon has already answered. Do we have another representative from the Department of Health here?

[English]

Ms. Karon Croll: I really don't think I can add any information to what I've already stated. It is a concern. Some people would say the only reason for stockpiling is because they fear others will do it. So it's not just a January 1 issue. It's something that if it's going to happen, it's pretty well imminent, if it hasn't already started.

• 1615

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: We have, in fact, just heard from witnesses who told us that this has already begun. Have you already experienced this problem? For instance, if you try to order medical equipment from your suppliers and are told that they can't fill your order because another province or territory has ordered the entire stock produced for a given year, when you know full well that the health network for this province or territory does not need all of this equipment, you have an indicator that some stockpiling may be going on. However, if you tell me that you have not seen anything, to date, which leads you to believe that stockpiling is occurring, there is no problem.

We have to know if there is reason for concern because we must submit a report. For example, if there is some consensus amongst the people in the health sector that stockpiling is going on, we may include, in our report, a recommendation to the federal government, and particularly to the Department of Health that it play a leadership role in this area. If you tell me that there is no problem, we will drop the idea of making such a recommendation. I would ask that you seek my advice on this issue.

[English]

Ms. Karon Croll: I think we may be talking about two different things. When we talk about stockpiling, it generally refers to consumable goods, not to medical devices and pieces of equipment. We're talking about things that are used on a daily basis, such as syringes, gloves, and food. That's the first point.

I can tell you that in New Brunswick our material management people have been talking to over 30 of the vendors who supply about 70% of our critical supplies in the province. Whatever is done will be above board. If there is any additional ordering in order to ensure what they call a safety stock, it will be done in conjunction with those vendors, and those orders will be separate from regular ordering.

So, yes, it's a concern. Certainly in my communications with other provinces, the message is not to stockpile more than it is to stockpile.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings.

Mr. Bellemare, you had another question.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

To the New Brunswick EMO, with regard to Operation ABACUS, are you plugged in with them at all?

Mr. Andy Morton: Yes. We have a liaison officer who sits on our provincial emergency action committee in our operations centre. That's a normal part of our business. We've been fully apprised on Operation ABACUS from the beginning, and we have been full participants with DND in their endeavours to plan for potential emergency situations.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do you have any concerns?

Mr. Andy Morton: We don't have any major concerns at this time. We understand that there will be a major exercise around the end of August, the first of September timeframe. At this time we're not sure what the level of our participation will be in that, but we're examining that. For sure, we'll want to ensure that we have communications interfaces in place so that should there be a requirement for Department of National Defence resources to be deployed in New Brunswick, we would be able to communicate back and forth in a reliable manner. So that would be our minimum level of participation.

• 1620

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You mentioned in your initial presentation that you could be calling on the coast guard. For an inlander like myself, what did you mean by that?

Mr. Andy Morton: I didn't really mean anything by that other than the fact that they are a line department of the federal government. Anytime we request support from the federal government, we normally do it through Emergency Preparedness Canada, and then they are the conduit to the other federal government agencies. I didn't want to just single out DND.

We have a well-established working relationship with the Canadian Coast Guard for things such as marine spills. So if there were a spill in the Bay of Fundy, as an example, we would be already tied in. We exercise regularly with the Canadian Coast Guard, primarily through exercise CANUSLANT, and one of those is coming up in June. So we have a connection with the Coast Guard. But for any other federal department, where we might be looking for assistance for a provincial-level emergency, we would funnel that through Emergency Preparedness Canada.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

To New Brunswick Power, you stated in your presentation that you were investigating your business partners. What did you mean by investigating your business partners?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: Basically, we're writing letters and contacting them by one means or another to determine their preparedness for year 2000. If we depend on them for the supply of any goods and services, we just want to find out if there will be any threat to the continuity of that supply.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you getting a good response?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: We're getting a reasonably good response, yes. We've sent out over 1,000 letters. I don't remember exactly what the number is, but we've received better than 50% back now.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What kinds of concerns would you have at this moment?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: At this point in time we don't have any particular concerns that have arisen as a result of this. Most of the suppliers, we have been finding, have made year 2000 preparations, and there doesn't appear at this time to be any threat to the supply of anything we depend on.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Have you put any on notice that if by a certain point in time they haven't given you a reasonable response, they're going to be delisted?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: We have not resorted to that at this point. That may come in the future. We don't know yet if we'll need to do that.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If you did need to do that, would you do it?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: Yes, I believe we would.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I think the question that would follow very quickly would be could you do it, or are you cornered?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: Yes, we could do it. I believe we could. It would depend on the nature of the particular item. If it was a proprietary thing that was made only by one company, we'd be in a tough spot, I suppose.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: My last question is with regard to another statement you made. You said that you are 99% complete as far as testing goes. Have you been audited?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: Yes, we have had one audit by an external company. We had that audit done in the fall of 1998. We are having a second audit done starting next week, actually.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Now, why would you have a second audit? Was there a concern with the first audit?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: There were some recommendations in the first audit that had to do with some of the activities in the program, and we want to ensure that those measures have been fully addressed.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Can you give me an example?

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: It primarily had to do with documentation, repeatability, traceability, that kind of thing, in terms of being able to produce evidence if we were ever challenged legally.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you very much.

Mr. Kevin Calhoun: You're welcome.

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

I just wonder if anyone else around the table has undertaken any external or internal audits. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Graham Fraser: Yes, we've had three internal audits at NBTel and one external audit. In fact, Stentor, of which NBTel is a member, has had their entire year 2000 program audited by the Gartner Group. We rated in the top 5% of all the firms they audited, and they have audited around 200 firms to date on year 2000. So we're very confident that we have the right processes in place.

• 1625

There are vendors out there now doing what we call independent validation and verification-type audits. We've had one of those done on our mainframe code, to find any errors that may have been missed in conversion testing, and that type of thing. That came back with no errors. So we're very confident we've done a thorough job.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

I want to thank you all for being with us this afternoon. We appreciate the update on the Y2K situation in New Brunswick. We also appreciate the discussion and questions and the frankness. We look forward to us all being able to meet January 1, 2000, without any complications.

We're going to sign off now. On behalf of the committee, I thank you all for joining us. Thank you.

• 1630

I'm very pleased to welcome our next group of witnesses. This afternoon we have several witnesses from the province of Ontario to discuss issues in Ontario. From the Government of Ontario we have Mr. Paul Scott, the assistant deputy minister, year 2000 corporate project, management board secretariat. From Ontario Power Generation Inc. we have Mr. Bill Imms, director, external liaison, year 2000 project. From Independent Electricity Market Operator we have Mr. Stuart Brindley, manager, emergency preparedness. From Bell Canada we're pleased to welcome back Mr. Denis Lalonde, assistant vice-president, year 2000. From the Ontario Hospital Association we have Ms. Sharon Baker, project leader, year 2000.

I know some of you have been here before. Mr. Lalonde was here as recently as yesterday. So we're very pleased to welcome you all here. I propose we begin with opening statements in the order identified, unless there's a different preference, and then we'll go to questions.

I'd like to start with Mr. Scott.

Mr. Paul Scott (Assistant Deputy Minister, Year 2000 Corporate Project, Management Board Secretariat, Government of Ontario): Thank you very much. I have not been here before, and it's a pleasure to be here. I will speak from the remarks we tabled about the Ontario government's project. I also bring regrets from Emergency Measures Ontario and have tabled a document from them. I would be happy to speak briefly or attempt to answer questions about them as well.

The Ontario government began preparing for the year 2000 in 1996. We are treating it primarily as a business issue, but it's also the top government information technology priority. In fact in our current information technology strategy, it continues to be identified as the number one priority for the balance of this year.

In 1997 we set up a corporate year 2000 project management office within the management board secretariat to provide leadership to the rest of the government ministries to coordinate, facilitate, and support the ministries' efforts. We do a number of things, including the defining and sharing of best practices, to address common needs such as technical and financial resources and procurement.

Among the things we've done is establish a list of vendors of record available to all ministries for assessment and conversion services. That has made the procurement of information technology resources a relatively simple task, and that has not been an issue or a problem for us. In addition to that we established a corporate policy on compensation for year 2000 technical staff, so we could retain the necessary resources required to complete our projects.

We monitor the progress of each of the ministries toward year 2000, and we report to the management board of cabinet on a monthly basis, if not on a biweekly basis, on the year 2000 efforts across government. Those reports go directly to cabinet.

Deputy ministers within each ministry are accountable for their year 2000 readiness in their ministry. In every ministry an assistant deputy minister leads the year 2000 work, and I meet with them every other week. Each ministry has a project office with a co-ordinator, and we've set up teams across ministries to deal with legal issues, communications issues, business continuity issues, supply chain issues and procurement issues. I think it's safe to say it is one of the most comprehensive management structures that exists today within government, in terms of both across functions and up through ministries.

The estimated cost for the year 2000 project work in Ontario is between $350 million and $400 million. We've now passed the $200 million mark in terms of expenditure. That refers strictly to our internal remediation—how much it's costing to remediate our own projects.

We of course identified mission-critical projects through priority setting, and we defined within the province 63 OPS, or Ontario Public Service, priority or mission-critical projects. They were identified using standard criteria because they could cause harm to the health of citizens, endanger the lives or safety of citizens, halt key government payments, or reduce revenue-generating capacity with the province.

• 1635

Some of the examples of mission-critical projects include health insurance payments, flood management and vital events registrations, such as births and deaths. There are 63 of those.

All mission-critical projects report they've completed conversion work and their first-level testing. The target for that was the end of December. What was left after the end of December was second- and third-level testing and reimplementation. The target date for the balance of testing and the reimplementation of projects is June 30.

As of the end of April, 30% of the projects reported they had already met the June 30 target. That's a different kind of percentage from the Gartner percentages you would have heard reported by other provinces. As I say, we have completed 100% of the first level testing and the conversion, and 30% have reached the final level well in advance of their target.

In addition to those mission-critical projects, we have upward of 200 business systems within the ministries. They manage things like internal financial management projects, infrastructure management, desktops, specific case management systems and so on. The target for those, depending upon priority, is June or later in the summer. We report on those monthly as well to the management board.

We've initiated an independent review process at both the corporate and ministry levels to measure progress toward readiness and to enable us to take remedial action where necessary. We made a single call for proposals and have vendors of record on hand to do those independent reviews. We've commenced them and have five going right now.

Every ministry will have its ministry project office reviewed through a process review before mid-summer. In addition to that we have two independent validation and verification reviewers doing code review to try to determine the level of error per million lines of code. They have begun as well.

With this activity underway, we still have to be prepared for disruptions in our most important services. So every ministry is responsible for its own business continuity plans. The completion date for those is June 30 of this year. The June 30 target means the projects will have to have documented procedures for business continuance in place by the end of June. We'll be testing those over the summer and will have them verified by the end of September.

We are, of course, also working with our suppliers, and each ministry has identified its critical suppliers and made contact with them.

We are promoting readiness among our key stakeholders, including transfer payment agencies, the broader public and private sector providers of our service, and our regulated industries and clients. One of the most significant ways in which we've supported the broader public sector is through the health sector year 2000 project of the Ministry of Health, where we are working with all sectors of the health system to help them address the problem. The government has to date provided $355 million in funding for medical equipment renewal and mission-critical systems in the health care system.

We are also building awareness of year 2000 issues through regular reports on our activities and through a Web site, the address of which is in our submission.

I will just briefly speak to Emergency Measures Ontario. I've tabled a submission. The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Corrections has the lead on emergency measures because the Emergency Measures Ontario office resides within that ministry. That ministry is responsible for a number of pieces of legislation, including emergency activity and nuclear plants. They have also already designated, for emergency purposes, 11 ministries that are responsible for having plans in place at all times for emergency preparation.

For year 2000 they have accelerated or enhanced the emergency preparation process. They've held community information sessions in a number of communities across the province.

We have a coordinating committee that includes all of the eleven ministries, as well as our partners, such as those from National Defence, Industry Canada, the National Contingency Planning Group, the police, fire departments, and hydro. We have a coordinating group for year 2000.

We have done an assessment very similar to the kind done by the National Contingency Planning Group when they did the inventory and risk assessment of readiness within each of our communities. We are developing a full plan of year 2000 readiness. I can attempt to speak more to that in the question and answer period.

Thank you.

• 1640

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

I'm now going to turn to Mr. Bill Imms from Ontario Power Generation Inc. Mr. Imms.

Mr. W.K. (Bill) Imms (Director, External Liaison, Year 2000 Project, Ontario Power Generation Inc.): Good afternoon. I'm a director of Ontario Power Generation's year 2000 program and I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear here today.

Ontario Power Generation provides about 85% of the power used by the people of Ontario, so there's considerable interest in how Y2K might affect our operations. Ontario Hydro itself ceased to exist on March 31, 1999, being replaced by a number of new companies formed as a result of the Ontario government's Bill-35 initiative, which spawned two acts, the Electricity Act and the Energy Competition Act of 1998. Ontario Power Generation is the company that will operate on a competitive basis the 80 generating plants previously owned by Ontario Hydro. The Ontario Hydro Services Company will own and maintain the province's publicly owned transmission network and it also provides a variety of retail services.

My colleague, Mr. Brindley, will explain the role of the independent electricity market operator.

I'm going to speak this afternoon about the readiness of the generation, transmission, and distribution assets that deliver power to the people of Ontario. In terms of individual systems, which we call digital assets, 100%—all critical digital assets in the former Ontario Hydro's initial inventory—have been certified as Y2K ready. Over 80%—in fact it's almost 90%—of those assets are already in production, and the remainder are scheduled to be in production by the end of June.

Some of these assets had to wait for the spring shoulder season when we do maintenance, when the demand for energy is at an annual low. We have many generating plants that are out of service right now for such maintenance. This will all be completed by June 30.

We've also strengthened internal business processes, particularly procurement and change management, to ensure that the state of readiness we have achieved isn't compromised by subsequent changes or additions to our inventory.

In terms of large-scale testing, beginning in November of last year we began conducting at a plant level integrated testing. We have now done testing at hydro-electric, fossil-fuelled, and nuclear generating units. None of these tests exhibited a Y2K problem that would compromise the normal output of the plant.

In the city of Toronto on March 6 we began a 90-day live-condition test of our capability to delivery high voltage to the city. That test has transited both the simulated year 2000 transition, and in the past week a simulated leap year as well, successfully with absolutely no flaws.

We will be evaluating the results from these and other large-scale integration testings and if we consider it necessary we will conduct more. We do have additional tests scheduled for our Darlington and nuclear plants, as well as for additional hydro and thermal plants in the coming months.

In terms of the assessment of external resources and their readiness for Y2K, we are in the process of conducting detailed risk assessments of the readiness of every key external resource on which our businesses rely. We expect to complete these by June 30, and at the end of that date we will have a list of companies that will be monitored very carefully and we will develop and execute contingency plans when necessary to protect our normal operations.

We have established a target of June 30 to reach a state we call operational readiness. The definition of “operational readiness” is that a Y2K-ready solution is in place for every single system in our inventory, whether critical or not critical; that all large-scale integration testing and inter-operability tests with our interconnected neighbours—the other utilities such as Manitoba and Quebec, Michigan and New York—have all been completed to our satisfaction; and that the contingency plans are in place to deal with any possible external threat that might be remaining after June 30.

Ontario Power Generation and Ontario Hydro's services have carried out an effective and thorough program to address potential Y2K challenges to our generation, transmission, and distribution operations. While we do feel it's inappropriate to offer a blanket assurance that Y2K will have no impact whatever on Ontario's electricity supply, we are confident that we are doing everything reasonable and appropriate to mitigate and hopefully eliminate any negative impact of Y2K on service to the people who rely on us.

• 1645

The positive results to date of our Y2K programs have increased our confidence but they haven't made us complacent. We expect our Y2K efforts, which currently still have over 300 full-time employees engaged, will continue to be a top priority for both the generation and delivery companies until we can stand down from Y2K, early in the year 2000, and revert to normal operations.

My colleague Mr. Brindley will conclude our statement now.

Mr. Stuart J. Brindley (Manager, Emergency Preparedness, Independent Electricity Market Operator): Good afternoon. I'm Stuart Brindley, manager of emergency preparedness with Ontario's Independent Electricity Market Operator, or IEMO.

The IEMO is one of the new entities formed following the breakup of Ontario Hydro and is accountable for the reliable integration and operation of the bulk electricity system in Ontario, also for the preparation and operation of an open competitive marketplace for wholesale electricity.

Given the advanced state of our Y2K readiness achieved by Ontario Power Generation, Ontario Hydro Services, and the IEMO, I'll outline how our precautionary operating plan will improve our ability to withstand and manage any unforeseeable events that may affect the power system through Y2K critical systems. My remarks will focus on four key areas—contingency planning, interconnected operation, emergency preparedness, and load forecasting.

I'll begin with contingency planning. As part of the everyday operation of Ontario's power system, contingency plans are in place to deal with a wide range of weather- and equipment-related disturbances. Y2K presents the additional challenge to accommodate instances that could occur simultaneously at different points in the network. Therefore, we are developing a precautionary operating plan that will increase our margin of reliability beyond that required for today's normal operation. This will make the system more robust and flexible and will increase our ability to respond to the unexpected.

Some examples of how we will accomplish this include the following—creating computer models of the power system and analysing the impact of various scenarios; staffing critical transmission and generating stations that are normally operated remotely and unmanned; increasing the level of generation reserves; deferring scheduled equipment maintenance outside the Y2K critical periods; and using back-up satellite telephones in the event that our normal telecommunications capability is disrupted.

During March we completed our first draft of these plans and we're on track to refine these plans through 1999.

Let me now turn to interconnected operations. The IEMO is an active participant in the Y2K initiatives of the North American Electricity Reliability Councils, NERCs, and is working closely with our neighbours outside Ontario to develop and share Y2K operating plans. The interconnected electricity systems across North America are designed and operated to support each other as and when required to manage electricity emergencies. We fully expect this mode of operation to continue through the Y2K critical periods.

As follow-up to the April 9 NERC drill, a North America-wide dress rehearsal is planned for September 8 and 9 through midnight to exercise the operating plans in a precautionary mode while simulating the expected New Year's Eve conditions as closely as possible.

Next let me touch on emergency preparedness. In collaboration with the provincial government and key industry stakeholders, the IEMO is leading the development of an Ontario electricity emergency plan to assure the rapid recovery and restoration of the electricity system in the unlikely event of a widespread disruption. There is a long-term need for this plan, well beyond the needs of Y2K, and we expect to have this plan in place before December.

Finally, load forecasting. It's also important to understand how customers may change their normal power consumption patterns through the Y2K critical periods. Therefore, we are working closely with major power consumers to determine how they plan to operate and, as appropriate, we will modify and are prepared to modify our own plans.

A survey process with these large power consumers is being initiated during May that will require follow-up through 1999 as these customers' plans are better established.

As a result of our efforts we have not seen any evidence of credible scenarios that would result in a widespread disruption to the bulk electricity system. However, the power system is complex and the possibility of local disruptions cannot be discounted. Our precautionary operating plan will meet the Y2K challenge by providing additional assurance above and beyond what is normally required for the reliable minute-to-minute operation of the Ontario power system.

Thank you.

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

I'm now going to turn to Mr. Denis Lalonde.

Mr. G. Denis Lalonde (Assistant Vice-President, Year 2000 Project, Bell Canada (Ontario)): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mesdames, gentlemen, it's a pleasure once again to be here today to provide the standing committee on industry with a status update on Bell Canada's year 2000 program as part today of the Ontario contingent invited to address the committee.

Bell Canada is pleased to report that it continues to make very good progress on its year 2000 program and fully expects to be ready well before January 1, 2000. In fact, as of April 30, 1999, Bell Canada had completed 99.8% of the effort required to convert or upgrade, test, and deploy the network elements to be year 2000 compliant. Also, the network elements comprising the public switched telephone network, including 911 service, have been converted or upgraded, tested, and deployed.

• 1650

Bell anticipates that it will substantially complete the deployment of remaining network elements by approximately the end of June, 1999. Bell Canada has completed the renovation, upgrade, and code conversion of 96.9% of its information systems and information technology. Its mission-critical systems are 99.5% renovated and over 98% deployed. Bell Canada anticipates the renovation and deployment of the remaining applications will be substantially complete by approximately the end of June.

Approximately 94% of the products and services Bell Canada offers its customers, including those national products and services it offers in collaboration with its business partners, are now service ready. That is, all network components and operating systems are year 2000 ready and perform normally for the customer. Bell Canada expects that substantially all products will be year 2000 ready by approximately June 30, 1999.

While Bell Canada's year 2000 program is targeted to be largely complete by the end of June, we are nevertheless actively engaged in business continuity planning, that is, contingency planning. Bell Canada would invoke its year 2000 business continuity plans in the event of any unexpected delay or failure that may arise, either internally or externally, that may be deemed to significantly jeopardize Bell Canada's operations.

The objectives of Bell Canada's business continuity plans are safeguarding public health and safety; minimizing impact on customer service; minimizing financial impact to Bell Canada; and meeting regulatory requirements.

Bell Canada is also continuing to work closely with its national and international business partners and members of the Canadian telecommunications industry forum on matters of inter-carrier testing and business continuity planning related to year 2000 preparedness.

Bell Canada was also instrumental in establishing the Ontario essential services forum, a forum where a number of essential-service providers share information and provide a mechanism for communication on the year 2000 challenge.

Mr. Mike Feldstein, vice-president of year 2000 at Bell Canada, was recently commended by the Honourable Chris Hodgson, chair of the management board of cabinet for the Government of Ontario, for organizing this forum. I quote:

Your leadership in bringing together this group of private, municipal, provincial, federal, and association officials is a significant achievement. I congratulate you on forging this effective partnership and helping to address the year 2000 challenge on behalf of the people of Ontario.

In addition, Bell Canada has put in place an elaborate communications program that has allowed us to share the details of our year 2000 program with our customers and with our employees. The program included sending letters and brochures to our business customers enticing them to take action; launching a year 2000 Web site; establishing a bilingual year 2000 information centre; sending a bill insert to over 7 million customers; and meeting with many of our major customers. We also distributed a year 2000 guide for Bell Canada employees and we have established a year 2000 Intranet site to keep all employees informed and aware of our progress.

We trust this update has provided the Standing Committee on Industry with sufficient additional information on the status of Bell Canada's year 2000 program. It would now be our pleasure to respond to questions from members of the committee. I again want to thank the committee for the invitation to speak before you.

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

I'm very pleased now to turn to Sharon Baker from the Ontario Hospital Association. Ms. Baker.

Ms. Sharon Baker (Project Leader, Year 2000 Project, President and Chief Executive Officer, Healthlink Clinical Data Network, Ontario Hospital Association): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Ontario Hospital Association, OHA, appreciates the opportunity to appear before you for the third time to provide an update on the impact of the year 2000 computer problem in the hospital industry in Ontario.

Ontario's hospitals have indeed made progress since we last appeared before you. I'll touch on the highlights of that progress through statistics gathered by the Ontario Ministry of Health later in my comments. Before I do, I would like to also update you on the activities of the OHA.

The OHA represents approximately 180 hospitals in the province of Ontario. Each hospital is an independent organization governed by its own board of directors. Each organization participates in the OHA year 2000 project voluntarily. While OHA has done much to encourage progress in our hospitals, through tools and training, we have no regulatory authority over hospitals in our province.

Since I last appeared before you, in October 1998, we've continued to provide leadership to the health sector in the province. We have provided monthly education session to our members. On average, each of our sessions reaches about 150 people representing hospitals and other health care organizations. In November 1998 we held a three-and-a-half-day conference on contingency planning for the year 2000, the first in Canada in health care, and one of the first in North America. Our attendance for that session reached almost 300 people.

• 1655

With resources provided by the Ministry of Health, we have hired a team of seven people who are working full time to provide an information resource for hospitals and other health care providers. This team conducts informal information exchanges around the province. As well, they respond to e-mail and telephone inquiries, assisting the year 2000 coordinators to find answers to their questions. These activities are intended to accelerate the progress of individual year 2000 compliance projects in the province.

In addition, we have hired resources to assist us in assessing the continuity of the supply chain in health care. At the end of March we sent a survey to approximately 2,700 suppliers. As of April 26, 284 were returned due to incorrect addresses, and thus far we have received 268 completed surveys and 315 responses made by letter. We will continue over the next months to track down responses to assist our hospitals. This is proving to be a challenge, and we are working closely with MEDEC, the association that represents the medical and surgical supplier industry, to increase our response rate. Their support has been very helpful to date.

We have developed a guideline on the issue of inventory increases as a contingency plan for supply chain continuity. This document has been widely circulated in Ontario and beyond. Its purpose is to recommend that health care organizations and suppliers communicate while contingency plans are being developed. This will ensure that interruptions to the supply chain do not happen as a direct result of these contingency plans.

Finally, we have formed a working group to develop a communications tool kit for hospitals. Recent polling conducted by the OHA as to the public perception of the year 2000 problem indicates that 60% of respondents are very or somewhat concerned over possible medical device failures and 65% are very or somewhat concerned over access to emergency hospital services. We want to be sure that the public is receiving the best information.

We continue to participate in forums that encourage information sharing between health care providers, provinces, and industries, such as the Ontario Essential Services Forum, previously mentioned, CYNCH, which I believe you've heard of in your other presentations, and those arranged by the Canadian Healthcare Association among the various provincial associations. We believe informed decision-making and planning is key to success in tackling the year 2000 issue.

I'd like now to highlight the results of the second survey conducted in January and early February by the Ministry of Health in Ontario. I'm sure I do not have to remind you that survey data is a snapshot of a single period in time. While this survey data is no longer indicative of where hospitals are currently, it is the best available at this point. All responses received up to April 15, 1999, were included, for a response rate of approximately 63% or 113 hospitals. The respondents breakdown by type of hospital is as follows: acute community hospitals, 91 responses; complex continuing care and rehabilitation hospitals, 10 responses; and acute teaching hospitals, 12 responses.

The questions related to organization awareness and risk assessment indicate that 89% of hospitals, compared to 63% in October, the last survey, have a Y2K readiness strategy in place or are better than 50% complete, while 11% are less than 50% complete.

Inventory and assessment of critical assets have been undertaken or are better than 50% complete in 98% of hospitals, compared to 82% in October. A remediation plan is in place or better than 50% complete in 77% of hospitals, which is a significant improvement over the 38% reported in October.

The responses also reveal that progress needs to be made in the area of contingency planning, with less than 21% of hospitals better than 50% complete in their plans. This is still significant improvement over the 4% reported in October. We also know that contingency planning is currently an area of prime focus.

Approximately 90% of hospitals responding indicate that they will have all critical systems ready by September 1999, with the remaining targeting December 1999.

Of the hospitals responding, 100% indicate that they are confident or very confident in achieving year 2000 readiness in critical systems, with the exception of supply chain continuity. Responses indicate that 12% of hospitals are not confident about reaching readiness for supply chain continuity, reflecting the fact that supply chain readiness is not a black and white issue.

When asked to indicate issues or concerns facing their organizations, the prime concern indicated was the availability of public infrastructure services, followed closely by the difficulty in obtaining vendor assurances, the need for skilled staff, and funding.

• 1700

The Ministry of Health is currently surveying again, and the progress that we can measure when those statistics are released in June will be very significant. Until then, these statistics indicate a significant degree of progress in many areas, and I have included the complete survey results for your researchers.

Survey results cannot indicate to you the commitment of the people dealing with this issue in the health care sector in Ontario. These projects have been going on a long time now, and keeping the people involved in them optimistic and energetic is perhaps our greatest challenge.

We face other challenges as well. The restructuring going on in the province currently creates many issues for projects. In some cases, restructuring is simply a competing priority. In others, two or more organizations must combine year 2000 compliance projects, adding to the already long list of things that must be done.

While we now have significant funding for this issue in Ontario, our funding did arrive relatively late and, until recently, was fairly restricted. We are pleased that the Ministry of Health heard our requests for a broader definition of use, and some restrictions have recently been lifted, while others, such as funding for contingency planning, still exist.

As mentioned previously, the low response rate to our survey on supply chain is a concern. Just as when we appeared before you last year with concern about the lack of responses from medical devices manufacturers, we are now facing a similar challenge with the providers of supplies. We urge the federal, territorial, and provincial governments to encourage all companies in Canada to share their status on year 2000 readiness, and to assess the readiness of external countries on whom we rely.

Finally, as we approach the final chapters of year 2000 preparedness, our concerns will turn more and more to the issues of potential legal liability and insurance. We urge the federal, territorial, and provincial governments to work together to put measures in place to ensure that frivolous lawsuits do not accomplish what the millennium bug will not—disruption in the delivery of health care services to the people of Ontario.

I thank you for your time today.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Baker.

I'm now going to turn to questions. Mr. Murray, please.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thanks, Madam Chairman.

It's funny. We've been working on this for so long, Ms. Baker, and we've seen you so often, it seems. It's nice to have you back. I think back to when we first started many months ago looking at the Y2K problem. We were sitting around the table as a committee and we were rather incredulous as some of the witnesses came before us describing the potential problems. As we approach the critical date or are much closer to it and we're meeting with people such as yourselves who have been directly involved in addressing this problem for some time now, I'd be interested in knowing how you feel about the Y2K problem generally as you've gone through the process of auditing all kinds of equipment and processes and here we are now this close to January 1.

Can you confirm that, yes, we were right to be as concerned as we were in our first report, or do you feel that this has perhaps been overblown?

Anybody who wants to comment may feel free to do so.

The Chair: Ms. Baker.

Ms. Sharon Baker: I think we were absolutely right to be as concerned as we were at the beginning. A great deal of work has been done over the past five years in some industries' cases, two years in ours.

Looking forward, I'm still optimistic. I've always felt that perhaps the biggest challenge we'd face was that we would get it done so well that it would not be an issue and hindsight would criticize us. There's a lot of that playing in the press right now.

I know from the work that's being done in hospitals, it was absolutely right that we came to you with the issues we had, with the concerns we had, and looked for help from other industries to help us get through it. I have no doubt about that.

Mr. Ian Murray: Would anybody else like to comment?

The Chair: Mr. Lalonde?

Mr. Denis Lalonde: Yes, certainly.

The problem is real. There was a lot of media hype at one point that suggested that the problem was not a true problem, that it was a farce and people were really trying to make money at this, consultants especially. But certainly in the telecommunications area we uncovered very early that this was a very real problem that had to be addressed, which is why the industry is spending a huge amount of money to fix the problem. Bell Canada alone will have invested about $350 million to resolve our year 2000 issues, and we're very happy to say that we've resolved, as I said earlier, 99.8% of them in the network.

• 1705

So it was a real problem. I'm personally very happy that we started very early in the game, back in 1996, because if we had started anywhere in the last 12 months, we would not be ready today. We had to start in 1996 and 1997 in order to be where we are today.

Mr. Bill Imms: I think in the power sector we'd concur with Mr. Lalonde's and Ms. Baker's statements.

One of the things we did notice was that the incidence of Y2K vulnerability in our infrastructural systems was not as great as we had budgeted for, and we were gratified to find that there were fewer significant problems. But I think one of the key points is that these significant problems did exist, and we did have to look at every system in order to determine the number of systems that were at risk. So the problem was real.

I think Canada is very fortunate, and it does feed some of the current media positioning that Y2K is not as significant as it could have been. That is merely a factor of Canada's state of preparedness, which is among the leading nations of the world. I think Y2K will be very significant in other nations.

Mr. Ian Murray: I thank you for those comments. Maybe I'll get a little more specific.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Scott, did you have anything to add to that on behalf of the government?

Mr. Paul Scott: It's simply to say that undoubtedly the technical problems really did exist, but I think what your report probably did was point to the management complexity of the problem. I am a career change manager, and this is certainly the most complex and head-hurting project I have encountered because of the degree to which information technology is embedded in every aspect of business. Yet to some degree it tends to be a specialization within organizations. The cross-and-up aspect of this, the business continuity planning, and the management of conversions at the technical level within an organization, let alone an industry or communities, are very complex problems to manage. So I think what your organization did in bringing this to people's attention was very important from that point of view.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks.

Mr. Scott, I wanted to ask you about your comment on working with suppliers. You said that you work with your suppliers to determine whether they are taking the necessary steps to become year 2000 ready. How involved do you get? Does working with your suppliers mean almost an audit, or does it mean that you call them up once in awhile and ask them how things are going? What does working with them mean?

Mr. Paul Scott: It means different things. For the purchase of new technology services or any new service or the renewal of contracts, we in fact have standard representation and warranty clauses that ask for some level of assurance about year 2000 readiness. Those are time-consuming to complete, because all organizations are leery about their statements when it comes to readiness or assurances. The words become more nuanced over time.

“Working with” specifically means sending letters requesting information about year 2000 preparation to every one of our critical vendors. We have tens of thousands of suppliers in all of our different ministries. I don't have the same statistics in terms of where we're getting non-responses and where we're getting other kinds of responses, but we get some response to our surveys, and we get some organizations that have prepared readiness letters. Within each ministry, depending on the degree of risk, supply is very closely tied in with business continuity planning, so if we've identified that the product does present a large risk and we don't have an immediate alternative, then we follow up with non-respondents or respondents who don't give us satisfactory responses. If we're unable to get a satisfactory response, then we have to develop an alternative plan in the event of failure.

Mr. Ian Murray: Would you like me to continue, or am I out of time?

The Chair: I have a couple of other people on the list.

Mr. Ian Murray: I can come back, then, if there is time.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Madam Baker, I feel I know you very well now and that we've developed a professional business relationship.

Ms. Sharon Baker: Absolutely.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What did you really mean by “frivolous lawsuits”?

• 1710

Ms. Sharon Baker: Some pieces in the press lately have indicated that health care is a prime target for year 2000 lawsuits. I am very optimistic that the Canadian experience will be different from what's already happening in the U.S. But I think it is quite possible that if we aren't as careful in looking ahead on this issue as we were on the year 2000 issue, the legal or litigious fallout into the next millennium could have significant impact on the resources of hospitals.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Your funding was received late from the province. According to your statement, some hospitals are still doing an inventory and an assessment and only 20% of your respondents have contingency plans that are more than 50% complete.

Ms. Sharon Baker: That's correct.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I agree that you should have concerns about litigation, because some people are concerned about their relatives not getting proper care because of improper funding. Let's leave that aside, though, for a minute.

We had New Brunswick on a little earlier in the day, and a question came up that I'll put to you. Are vendors telling you not to test equipment—not you personally, but the hospitals? Are they saying to the hospitals, don't test, we'll test?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Perhaps to first respond to your statement about our statistics, I think it's also important to remember that when we talk about a hospital in Ontario, we are talking about organizations that vary a great deal in size, from some that are as large as a large corporation to ones that are more the size of a corner grocery store, a much smaller organization. We don't have too many moms and pops running hospitals, but you get my meaning.

It is true that some of our smaller hospitals are starting later. I believe very strongly there is still great potential for them to make a great deal of progress because of the work that has gone before. If you remember, we spent a great part of six months of last year determining on our own the compliance status of medical devices. We now have a fairly comprehensive database through Health Canada with which to do that, so projects can move much faster than the ones that started last year.

Regarding your second comment, yes, in some cases vendors are telling us not to test. Some of the medical device systems used in hospitals are extremely complex, sensitive, and fragile pieces of equipment, the diagnostic imaging systems in particular. GE is a manufacturer that comes to mind. They are indicating to hospitals that if they don't know what they're doing, there is a very great risk they will do more damage by testing than the year 2000 will ever cause. They are also willing in many cases to let hospitals come to their facilities to audit their test procedures and see what they have already done. I know that in some of our larger hospitals that activity has satisfied their needs.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: They told New Brunswick hospitals that they would come to test their machines around June 30. Have you heard the same thing in Ontario?

Ms. Sharon Baker: No, I have not, not specifically.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If June 30 is a target date for all the provinces for these suppliers, we could have a catastrophe on our hands if there is a problem.

Ms. Sharon Baker: There are two important issues to remember. In health care we are subject to the fact that in many cases there are few suppliers of the equipment we use, and we are at the mercy of their resources and their timeframe. Also, most of them are American based, so we're competing with American hospitals as well. The second point, though, as Mr. Imms mentioned, is that we have not found very many problems of a significant nature in medical devices. So I am not as concerned with that statement as I would have been 12 months ago.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If 10% of your respondents don't expect to be ready until December 1999, what safety margin is there?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Obviously there's very little. The other aspect of that, though, is that in many cases our hospitals are not significantly automated, so the systems they are talking about, while critical to patient care, also do have work-arounds. Back-up and contingency plans are being developed, and they will be relied upon.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In your survey results—

The Chair: This will be your last question, Mr. Bellemare.

• 1715

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have 30 more. I'll be in the second round?

The Chair: We only have until 5.30.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If 98% of the hospitals' inventory and assessment is better than 50% complete, shouldn't it be 100% by now? This is only an assessment. It's not even looking at fixing things.

Ms. Sharon Baker: Right. Again, I would remind you that in health care, quite often, the inventory and assessment stage is much longer than the fix stage. We have independent single devices for which, in many cases, as we're finding, the actual fix is simply resetting the device on January 1 and making sure that people who use it know to do that. Or it may be a software upgrade that can be downloaded from the Internet. Our fix period is much shorter than what you would hear from organizations who are doing code remediation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare. Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today and being so straightforward. I think it's very important that we discuss this item right up front.

From the various testimonies we heard from across the country, there was some great concern about the hydro areas and power utilities and mission-critical areas in government, but those areas seem to be getting more on target and getting behind us. Ms. Baker, I'm going to concentrate on your area too, because the slippages across the country are in the health care area. Whether it be hospital regions in Alberta or other hospital regions, the dates that were set to complete and to test in the hospital region areas have been the most moved out and missing their target dates.

I wonder if we could discuss why that is. What is so different from the utilities, about whom we found when we talked to them that they've moved up and are now doing communication to settle down the people, or the governments, who are getting down to fewer mission-critical areas, and the ones wherein they have a problem are the ones for which government has decided that rather than trying to meddle and fix it they're going to replace the whole system and it's the delivery dates that are causing this type of problem?

Yet in the health care area we've talked about 3%, 5%, and 7%, under 10% of all the devices. When you get down to it, those dates for the hospital regions are the ones that are slipping. Could you maybe add something to why it is slipping?

Ms. Sharon Baker: I think there are a couple of points I'd like to raise. I can't tell you for certain that the dates in Ontario are slipping. These are the first surveys where we've asked for target dates. Whether or not these are dates that have slipped from earlier dates, or whether they were always the target dates, I'm afraid I can't tell you. I would say that there are a couple of key reasons why this issue is so challenging for health care in Ontario and in the rest of Canada.

In Ontario, in particular, it is because we are dealing with 180 independent organizations. When I come to you with survey statistics, they are not survey statistics from a single organization that has fairly authoritative control over what will be done and how it will done and how it will be reported. So I think there's that element to our survey statistics that needs to be kept in mind.

I've said it before, and I reiterate, the year 2000 issue for health care in one sense is one large supply chain management issue. We have very little information technology that we have built ourselves and that we can therefore control ourselves. In the case of information systems that hospitals implement and have chosen as a replacement for a legacy of systems with year 2000 problems, there are not very many vendors of those systems. We are dependent on their resource allocations and which hospital gets dealt with first as to making those implementations go smoothly.

Also, hospitals and health care organizations, hospitals in particular, are 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week organizations. There is no down time. It's difficult to create testing environments and to take equipment out of service long enough to test it. We have to, in reality, work around our existing operation, and that slows things down.

As I've said to the committee before, when it comes to our reliance on vendors and just getting information from vendors, that has been a long battle for health care organizations, to get not simply prepared letters but to get the real information we need about the state of equipment and what we should do for fixes.

• 1720

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The last time you appeared here I took your report very seriously. I went back to Niagara and started checking myself. I found out that first of all there could have been more coordination among the group in terms of who was managing what. Although they complained about how there was no money, shortly after, when they got the money, I said “Are you off and running now? That excuse has now been eliminated.” Then all of a sudden it went back to going back and doing more inventory.

I think the fear was there would be a lot of health care areas putting in for software and hardware and so forth, and changes in delivery dates now is going to be a problem. This was back in the January and February timeframe. We saw and heard yesterday that's exactly what has happened in a number of the other provinces. Delivery dates are two months out, three months out. Now it puts it into the crunch time. The question to you will be, do you feel confident that this is going to get behind us, or are we going to be grasping right until the end now in the hospital health care area?

Ms. Sharon Baker: Your first comment that I'd like to respond to about coordination I think is accurate. As I mentioned, the OHA is an organization that hospitals belong to voluntarily. I think we've been recognized across the country, and in some cases internationally, for the amount of work we've done to push progress forward. However, up until January of this year that work was being done solely by me on a part-time basis. It was well received, but I could only be so many places at once.

Since the ministry's year 2000 project was formed and provided resources to the OHA, we now have seven individuals, as I mentioned. Information exchanges around the province are happening on a regular basis, where in every region people come together and talk about their issues and share success stories and share solutions. We're looking at this very much as a way to move progress forward and to have more resources available to those projects.

When it comes to slippage dates, I think you're absolutely right. I don't know of specific cases in Ontario that have come forward to me. But it is not unusual, as I'm sure you've heard before, for IT projects to have slippage dates. Again, many of these systems are large implementations. We're dealing with, in some cases, hospitals that exist over four and five different sites and have only been that for a couple of years, if not months. I think we will be grappling with this right up until the end. But as hospitals prepare their contingency plans in some cases, and I believe those decisions are probably being made today, they are planning to delay projects, to go to a back-up plan, to look for manual work-arounds to some of things they were hoping to have accomplished but recognize they will not.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Madam Jennings, one question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I have a question for Ms. Baker and for Mr. Scott. Ms. Baker raised the issue of civil litigation. Depending on the position the federal, provincial, and territorial governments take to the issue of litigation on the basis of the year 2000 bug, that could in fact wreak havoc the bug itself hasn't done. I'm sure you're aware that civil litigation comes under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec we have our civil code. In the other provinces it comes under common law or torts.

So what I would like to know from Mr. Scott is whether the provincial government in Ontario—and are you aware of any other governments, including the federal—is looking at the issue of coming out with possibly some specific legislation that would determine what is due diligence, etc., in order to limit litigation so there wouldn't be frivolous litigation? Is there a test case before the courts? Is anything being done on that issue? If there is, what is it? If there isn't, do you think that's something the federal government should be discussing with its provincial and territorial counterparts?

• 1725

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Paul Scott: I do understand that such legislation, which limits liability, has been implemented in the United States. I'm under no instruction at the present time to work on the development of legislation. Our province, along with the federal government, convened a meeting of legal counsel from all provinces in December and invited each province to send one or two legal representatives. Certainly it was a subject of discussion among the lawyers, but I'm not aware that in any province the government has instructed either their justice or attorney general or other ministry to commence the drafting of such legislation.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Are you prepared to give a personal opinion as to whether or not you think that's something the government should be looking at? If you're not, I understand.

Mr. Paul Scott: I think I won't, actually.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

We are quickly running out of time. We have a video conference for our next meeting scheduled. I know Mr. Murray, Mr. Bellemare, and Mr. Lastewka all have more questions. Mr. Murray, you're going to pass?

Mr. Ian Murray: Sure.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, you have one more question?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: No, I'll pass.

The Chair: You'll pass too?

Mr. Bellemare, you have a very important question you want to ask?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Lalonde, has the strike changed your timeline or time schedules?

Mr. Denis Lalonde: No, the strike has had virtually no impact on the year 2000 project. We were so far along with the project that it really didn't matter. There have been a few areas where there has been a delay of a couple of weeks here and there, but nothing to substantially impact the program.

In fact we're quite pleased to say that we think we have an agreement with the unionized employees and we'll know by Saturday if they're coming back to work on Sunday. So there has been virtually no impact at this point. There hasn't been anything to jeopardize the program.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do the telephones we use at home require electricity?

Mr. Denis Lalonde: Some do require electricity, but in terms of basic dial tone should the power ever fail—and I don't believe that will be the case, having been at several conferences with Mr. Imms and others from Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Québec—some telephones do require power for some of their functionality. Some of the display sets do require power. So if there were a power failure, just as if there was a power failure today, some of the functionality of these sets would not work for the time that it takes the power to get back on. What will continue to work, though, is dial tone. Dial tone is not powered by the electrical supply per se.

Power is generated from our central offices. You will continue to receive a dial tone as long as we can generate power at the central office. We have back-up generators in our largest offices that kick in immediately in the event of a power failure. These are essentially powered by diesel fuel. So you could invent a worst-case scenario in the year 2000 where there's no power and there won't be fuel for very long because you need power to pump the fuel. But essentially those are really far-fetched scenarios, in our opinion.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.

Just to provide some consistency between the difference provinces, I have two very quick questions as well.

The first one is addressed to Mr. Brindley and Mr. Imms. In your presentation you said that Ontario Hydro's initial inventory has been certified as Y2K ready. Is that an external audit or an internal audit? Has there been anything like that done?

Mr. Bill Imms: Our certification process included an external sign-off by a quality assurance firm. We did have an independent audit of our program conducted in January, with results presented to the board in February. So the answer is yes to both questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Brindley, does that apply as well for your operation?

Mr. Stuart Brindley: Yes, it applies to all three successor companies of Ontario Hydro.

The Chair: Okay, great.

Mr. Scott, I don't know if you can answer this question or not, but some of the provinces have told us that their emergency preparedness operation—I know you're speaking on their behalf as well today—have met with all the municipalities. They have taken it out on the road to the municipalities to try to encourage them and explain to them the importance of Y2K and what their responsibilities are. Some of our water systems and sewage systems are municipally owned. Some are managed otherwise.

I'm wondering whether the Province of Ontario has taken any initiative directly down to their municipalities.

• 1730

Mr. Paul Scott: Yes. We have contacted every municipality in writing to remind them of their responsibility in this area. We conducted year 2000 community workshops in 10 locations throughout Ontario. Those weren't just 10 municipalities; they were 10 regional areas where all the municipalities in the region were invited. We had over 1,000 emergency measures staff attending those sessions.

In addition to that, we have done surveys of emergency measures readiness, as well as of power supply and sewage readiness and working with associations of electrical and other power readiness through each of the lead ministries in question. In some cases, I'm not at liberty to share the results of that, but what I can say is that they corresponded very closely, reassuringly closely, to the results of the national inventory on risk assessment, very much the same kind of data. So those are some of the steps we're taking in terms of emergency preparedness.

The Chair: Lastly, I almost forgot, but there was a question earlier about slippage, and I know one of the questions we heard from one of our witnesses early on in the process, in 1998, was the fact that governments, and the federal government in particular, have a tendency to not meet their timelines for having their systems ready and the percentages.

I wonder how the Ontario government is doing with its timeline. Has there been any slippage, or are we on track or ahead of schedule?

Mr. Paul Scott: For the mission-critical projects, there were a couple of extenuating circumstances at the end of December, but shortly afterwards, all the December timelines were met.

In terms of the June timelines, with ministries that sent us notices that they might slip, I was given the instructions and the mandate by the Secretary of Cabinet to go back and discuss with them the circumstances under which they could not slip. So yes, I'm confident, very confident.

You're absolutely right; it's not in the culture of these kinds of projects to be on time. That's partly why I think we started hearing, well, it will be late for these reasons. The answer that this is not a choosing time is helpful. I can say that's very much the understanding of both the present chair of the management board who is the elected official responsible for this, as well as the senior civil servant in the province.

The Chair: It's interesting as a committee to note that one of our earlier witnesses was letting us know that the federal government had this tendency not to meet its timelines, and Stats Canada, when we met with them just recently, at the end of April, reminded us that there has been some slippage and this is an area for some concern. So it brought back to light what we had heard at that meeting a year and a half ago, which we all kind of glossed over at the time thinking that was not going to happen. However, I do appreciate your frankness.

I've been told that Mr. Bellemare has 30 more questions. Unfortunately, we do have another meeting scheduled via satellite that was suppose to start about five minutes ago. As chair, I have a lot of questions too, but I must stop this meeting and thank you all for your participation and your update and your frankness. It's helping us in understanding where Canada is at on a province-by-province basis, and an industry sector basis as well. We do appreciate your participation, and as the majority of members who are here today are from Ontario, we appreciate your assurances that we will have power on January 1 and everything else will work, including our phones and our hospitals and our government. Thank you very much.

We're going to suspend for about five minutes while they set up, so if you want to grab something to eat...

• 1734

• 1740

The Chair: We're going to call the meeting back to order, and we're going to welcome our witnesses from Regina, Saskatchewan.

I'm Susan Whelan, the chair of the industry committee, and I'm very pleased to welcome you to our Y2K session.

If my list is correct, we should have Garner Mitchell, the general manager of SaskPower, and Rick Tabin from SaskTel, the year 2000 project manager. From the Department of Health in Saskatchewan, we should have Suzanne Deck, director of materiel management, and from the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations, Mr. Jack Wilkie, project director.

I see one other person there. I'm not sure who the additional person is.

Ms. Susan Antosh (Director of Finance and Administrative Services, Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations): I'm Susan Antosh, from SAHO.

Mr. Tim Kydd (Public Affairs and Media Relations, SaskTel): I'm Tim Kydd from SaskTel, with Rick.

The Chair: All right. Great.

I didn't hear that first name.

Ms. Susan Antosh: I'm Susan Antosh from SAHO.

There has also been an error. Jack Wilkie works for Saskatchewan Health, and Suzanne Deck works for SAHO.

The Chair: SAHO is the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations. Okay, I see. So we'll switch that around.

I would propose that all our witnesses begin with their opening statements of not more than five minutes. I'd like to start with SaskPower, Mr. Garner Mitchell.

Mr. Garner Mitchell (General Manager, Year 2000 Program Management Organization, SaskPower): Thank you very much. I'll speak briefly on SaskPower.

SaskPower is the supplier of electricity to Saskatchewan. We generate our power, we run our transmission and distribution systems, and we deliver the electricity to the customers in Saskatchewan.

Year 2000 is a number one business issue in SaskPower, and it's driven by the executive and by the board of directors. We have a formal organization and a project established to deal with the year 2000 issues. The status of SaskPower is that we're in the final stages of our work. We will be prepared for year 2000 operation by June 30, 1999, and we will have secure generation and delivery systems to move the power all the way through to our customers.

We are working on contingency plans, “what if” plans. We will have a working copy of a fairly detailed contingency plan by June 30, 1999. We're putting extensive work into communications with the public, our customers, our suppliers, and the governments.

Basically due to the volume of work we've done and the results we have achieved, we expect year 2000 to be a non-event when it comes to electricity within Saskatchewan. We have been interacting across Canada with other utilities, and across North America with other electric utilities.

We did participate in a first-time-ever electric-industry-wide drill on April 9, 1999. Really what we did is practise using our back-up communications systems so in a sense we could run our system in manual with people at our key locations. That turned out to be a very good drill.

SaskPower will also participate in a second electric-industry-wide drill on September 8 and September 9. That will be quite a detailed practice for the transition dates of December 31, 1999, rolling over to year 2000.

• 1745

In conclusion, the good news is the work is coming together very well, and by June 30 we are prepared for this year 2000 issue for electricity in Saskatchewan.

That's my five minutes.

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

I'd like to turn to SaskTel and Mr. Rick Tabin.

Mr. Rick Tabin (Year 2000 Project Manager, SaskTel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about SaskTel's readiness for the year 2000.

Like SaskPower, SaskTel's year 2000 program is one of the most important projects that SaskTel has ever undertaken. And like our national Stentor partners, SaskTel is diligently working to provide uninterrupted communications services for our customers both before and after January 1, 2000, by actively participating in the conversion of our national and regional telecommunications networks and services. Through Stentor, SaskTel is an active participant in the year 2000 telecommunications industry forum. And again we want to address our supplier management interoperability testing and our contingency planning. This forum is also linked with the U.S. TELCO 2000 Forum.

SaskTel has been very proactive in its approach. We have committed approximately $25 million and thousands of person-hours to our year 2000 program. And like our Stentor partners, our motivations behind the year 2000 readiness plans are obvious: we provide a necessary service to our customers and to the public at large, and it's our commitment that they continue to receive reliable service every day.

SaskTel's network links 12 cities, 670 smaller communities, and approximately 60,000 farms here in Saskatchewan to each other and to the rest of the globe. Nearly 30% of Saskatchewan residents live in the rural communities of fewer than 1,000 people. Coupled with the large farm population and a large land area, telecommunications is considered an essential service for most people, both in their normal day-to-day lives and in emergency situations.

Although servicing this widely dispersed population is a major financial, technological, and service challenge for us, we continue to improve our network each year. Over the last 10 years SaskTel has invested over $1 billion in expanding and enhancing our Saskatchewan telecom network. So it just makes sound business sense for SaskTel to protect this investment in its infrastructure through a very comprehensive year 2000 plan.

Since we began implementing our year 2000 program in 1995 we have made tremendous progress in achieving our goals. Today I'm very pleased to tell you that the majority of SaskTel's public telecommunications services are year 2000 ready.

We've developed a year 2000 remediation program, which identifies SaskTel products, services, and systems that have potential year 2000 issues. We then use a variety of means to upgrade and test the various components and systems and to certify that our products and systems are year 2000 compliant and interoperable.

We're also identifying and managing critical external dependencies, which customers' telephone services may rely on, such as customer-owned telecom equipment. As part of this initiative we have met with over 8,000 business customers to help them understand if their own telecom equipment is year 2000 compliant and then assist them as desired to install the necessary upgrades.

SaskTel is involved in a comprehensive year 2000 business continuity planning. Our program evaluates possible year 2000 impacts on services, customers, our external partners, and suppliers. Then we develop an appropriate plan to both prevent these impacts or to respond to year 2000 issues if they occur. As well, it considers the impact to SaskTel if any of these third parties experience year 2000 business interruptions.

As part of our business continuity planning, we strengthened our existing SaskTel emergency operations plan. It includes strategies for managing any problems arising from the rollover of the year 2000 or on any other significant dates within the program.

In December SaskTel completed extensive year 2000 upgrades on our core network, which provides basic local and long-distance service in Saskatchewan. Our core network is now service-ready for year 2000. We've upgraded our service provisioning and our building systems with year 2000 software, as we have with a number of our other systems.

SaskTel and the provincial government are implementing an enhanced province-wide 911 system using equipment that is year 2000 ready. We are also working with various E-911 service agencies to ensure that all 911 telecommunications services are year 2000 ready.

We plan to finish our year 2000 upgrades on other business systems, such as our toll-free, our wireless, our data, and our operator service networks, by the end of next month. Beyond our network upgrades, we've implemented a communication plan to help us work closely with our partners, suppliers, and customers so they understand the importance of year 2000 and what they must do to prevent any disruptions.

• 1750

SaskTel has generated positive year 2000 awareness through proactive communication with our customers and with the media. This is very important, as one of the largest risks associated with year 2000 may be an unnecessary overreaction or a year 2000 panic scenario created by the general public having incorrect information, coupled with a fear of year 2000 disaster scenarios.

In conclusion, SaskTel has a vested interest in ensuring the continued delivery of sound, reliable communications services to our customers. Addressing the potential risks posed by the year 2000 and avoiding any negative impacts to public telecommunications service is well worth the major commitments we are making in terms of human resources, dollars, and management focus. We're confident our year 2000 program will be successful and SaskTel will be prepared for the next millennium.

Thank you.

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

I'm now going to turn to the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations, Ms. Suzanne Deck.

Ms. Suzanne Deck (Spokesperson, Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations): Hello. I'm here representing the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations, also known as SAHO. SAHO is a member organization comprised of health districts and other health agencies in the province of Saskatchewan. With me are Susan Antosh from SAHO and Jack Wilkie from Saskatchewan Health. We are happy to be here making a joint presentation with Saskatchewan Health.

SAHO considers Y2K issues to be extremely important. Saskatchewan Health has taken the lead role in coordinating Y2K initiatives with respect to health care in the province. SAHO has and will continue to provide our members and Saskatchewan Health with assistance in this area.

To this point SAHO's primary efforts have been in educating our members about the issue and stressing their need to address it in a manner that demonstrates due diligence. It is the health district's responsibility to ensure they are ready for year 2000, but both SAHO and Saskatchewan Health are attempting to provide assistance as we are able. We are working together in an effort to eliminate duplication and increase efficiency.

Saskatchewan Health has set up a year 2000 project management office dedicated to dealing with Y2K issues in the health care area. I will now turn the presentation over to Jack Wilkie, project director for year 2000, Saskatchewan Health, to explain the status of the year 2000 projects in Saskatchewan health care.

Mr. Jack Wilkie (Project Director, Year 2000 Program Management Office, Department of Saskatchewan Health): Thank you, Suzanne.

The primary role of the project management office is to act as a coordinating body for year 2000 projects by providing guidance, information, and assistance. Within the year 2000 project management office, Saskatchewan Health has identified several areas that are currently being addressed—biomedicine, information technology, facilities, supply chain, and business continuity. The year 2000 project management office has conducted a province-wide inventory of all biomedical devices, information technology systems, as well as facility and premise-control systems. This inventory information will form the basis for individual health district year 2000 readiness plans.

In the biomedical area, the two largest health districts, Regina and Saskatoon, are providing clinical engineering services to the rest of the province. Saskatchewan Health is instrumental in coordinating this process. This includes the analysis of all biomedical equipment, as well as the testing of critical components.

With respect to facilities, the project management office has contracted the services of a consulting engineering firm to examine facility and premise-control issues in over 400 facilities associated with the delivery of health care in Saskatchewan.

In the area of information technology, the Saskatchewan Health Information Network, also known as SHIN, is providing resources to review issues surrounding information technology in Saskatchewan health care. SHIN is also providing expertise to assure business continuity in the health care sector, and working with districts to establish their contingency plans.

In the critical area of supply chain management, Saskatchewan Health has contracted with supply chain management consultants to work with districts in identifying areas of concern and recommending possible solutions.

In a recent provincial budget $50 billion were set aside in the millennium fund for medical equipment and technology. These funds will be allocated directly to districts and other identified health agencies, such as the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, to deal with year 2000 issues.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the committee with a summary of the year 2000 readiness preparations taking place in Saskatchewan.

Thank you.

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

• 1755

We're now going to turn to questions and we're going to start with Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Thanks.

My first question is for Mr. Mitchell with SaskPower, and it's regarding the drill. I believe you said it took place on April 30.

Mr. Garner Mitchell: April 9.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay. What problems were identified in that drill?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: Actually, it turned out to be a very positive exercise. The reason the industry chose April 9 is that it's the 99th day of 1999, and they thought that would be as good a day as any. It was really a test in which we would use our backup communication systems and put people in our key locations and show that we could actually run our electric system. That's basically what we did.

What we learned from it was how to run a drill, how to practice, and a lot of other good things. But it raised awareness and instilled confidence. This was facilitated by NERC, the North American Electric Reliability Council, so it was done in all the major and smaller utilities across Canada and the United States. We shared our information with NERC and some of the other electric reliability councils, for example, the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool out of Minneapolis, who we're associated with. Consequently, we were able to see some of their results as well.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: What is your back-up communications system?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: We have a very elaborate computer system that's called a supervisory control and data acquisition, a SCADA system, in a central location in Regina, where basically we dispatch a matched load—we match the generation to the load—across the total province. We run the switching stations across the province out of one central location by this very sophisticated computer.

We practised using our voice systems and actually sent information back and forth over voice systems so that a person at the far end could start up a unit or read information at a switching station and then communicate that information back to the main control centre. So we could actually generate, do switching, or do any of the activities needed to run the system without using the elaborate computer system. That's basically what it proved.

The good news is that SaskPower owns a very extensive communications system. We have our own fibre optics and we use the power lines in some areas like power line carrier systems, per voice, so we do have these back-up communication systems. Most of the time we run on the SCADA system.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Is there a particular reason you've chosen the dates September 8 and 9 for the next practice?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: That was really facilitated across North America, which includes Canada, by NERC. Those were lower-priority risk dates, the 99th day of 1999 being April 9, and the ninth day of the ninth month of 1999 was again a lower-risk date. So it was as good to use those dates as any other dates.

SaskPower has studied 20 to 30 different potential dates. The two that would cause us problems are December 31, 1999 and the rollover to 2000, and then the leap year date in 2000. They are the only two significant dates to us. The rest were pretty low risk. So we're falling along with the industry across North America. We're part of that, supporting that electric business across North America.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: And will September 8 and 9 be the last test then?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: They'll be the last significant test. It's really a dry run or a practice of the December 31 date. We are going to use extra people. We'll station extra people in our generating stations. Normally, our switching stations are not staffed at nights or weekends. A lot of our hydro generation is not staffed at nights and weekends. We will have extra staff on site, just as a precaution, and we have the organization to support all that. So we will give extra attention, even though we believe this will be a non-event and there won't be much activity. It's prudent to be prepared.

• 1800

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Do you mean you will have extra staff on December 31?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: Yes, and we will practise that, so the people will know where to go and what's expected of them. We will have that practice on September 9 as well.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I have a question for Mr. Tabin. You referred to an emergency operation plan. I assume that's the plan SaskTel implements when there is a power outage.

Mr. Rick Tabin: That plan can be implemented at any time for any kind of disaster, whether it's related to power, a flood, a tornado, a forest fire—as we had last year—snowstorms, or any kind of outage we have with a disruption in service. The emergency operating centre we have is in place as we speak today. All we have done is enhance it to include anything related to year 2000 activities.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: So exactly what does the emergency operation plan entail?

Mr. Rick Tabin: Basically, it just takes a look at what the outage is, where we need resources, and what we need for supplies. We put a plan of action in there that's looked after by senior management staff to control the issue and make sure it's cleaned up from start to finish.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: You have a sort of contingency plan for all these different potential events.

Mr. Rick Tabin: That's correct.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay. I have another question. Someone there referred to an inventory that had been done of all medical equipment.

Mr. Jack Wilkie: Yes, that was me.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Exactly how was that carried out?

Mr. Jack Wilkie: It was carried out really in two phases, if you will. Many districts had the capability to conduct their own comprehensive inventories and submited them to the department. We reviewed them for reasonableness, if you will. But many other districts did not have the resources, the capability or the expertise to conduct detailed inventories.

We contracted with Industry Canada's student connection program. A half dozen or so departmental staff on the project and student business advisers from Industry Canada toured the province through the months of January and February inventorying all of the devices and facilities in the province. They, in fact, duplicated many of the inventories districts had completed on their own because in the intervening six or seven months, they wanted a more timely inventory.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: The result of that inventory is that as far as you're aware, all the medical equipment is Y2K compliant.

Mr. Rick Tabin: No. The inventory did not give us that information. The inventory really just gave us a count and the location of all the devices and a fair degree of detail, including serial numbers, model numbers and things of that nature.

The work that is currently ongoing, primarily through the clinical engineering departments of Regina and Saskatoon, is now to analyse the biomedical devices on that inventory, travel to the districts, conduct the testing that's deemed to be appropriate to determine compliance, and then make recommendations for bringing any non-compliant items into compliance, either through upgrades or replacements. That portion is ongoing. So the inventory was strictly the data collection phase.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Do you have a date by which you plan to have that process completed?

Mr. Rick Tabin: The project plans that Regina and Saskatoon are currently working against would see the initial evaluation and the testing phases completed in late June. There is some potential for some slippage into July, but we feel that late June at this point looks like it's the targeted completion date.

• 1805

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lastewka, please.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I want to start off with Saskatchewan hydro. Am I to understand that by June 30 you will be ready and your contingency plans will be in place?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: Yes, that's basically right. By June 30 we will be prepared for operation in the year 2000 time mode. In addition to that, we will have a fairly detailed contingency plan to handle situations that may be beyond our control, so we can react to them. We'll also have “what if” situations, as parallel items. We'll have a working copy by June 30.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: What has been communicated to the people, as far as hydro being available?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: We've done a very extensive communication effort with SaskPower, in conjunction with the other crown corporations in Saskatchewan and the government people. On April 17, we did a printout that ran in all the daily papers, all the weekly papers and two of the major farm publications in Saskatchewan. It was a half-page ad and we had quite a bit of detail in there.

We said we would be prepared by June 30 and gave them Web sites and phone numbers if anybody wanted to seek any additional information. We also talked about our interconnections to adjoining utilities. We talked a little bit about where the North American electric industry was at. So we shared that. We've just completed a round of bill stuffers giving our status. We're ready to go out with another round of bill stuffers so we can communicate with our customers.

We've done an awful lot of face-to-face communications and presentations. We used our computers and stuff. We've met with our major customers and told them where we're at and established a dialogue, so they will work along with us. We've done a lot of public presentations with seminars and things like that, so we could share information. We have a website and we keep it active and running.

Those are just some of the methods. We've done a very extensive job in trying to get the message out, so people can make their own decisions for what they need to do for their businesses or their personal lives and get away from any panic or any wrong decisions they may make.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I'd like to switch over to SaskTel. I wasn't sure, Mr. Tabin, when SaskTel will be telling its people that they are Y2K ready and not to worry about communication.

Mr. Rick Tabin: It's very much as SaskPower has indicated. The date we have set is June 30, 1999 to have the majority of our critical systems completed. Again, as Garner talked about, we are monitoring any of the systems right now that we feel have a potential to escape the June 30 date. But we feel very confident we will make the June 30 business-service-ready date.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

Understanding that maybe the power and the communications will be there, I'd like to switch over to health. In our reviews going across the country, we're finding out that the greatest slippage is within the health system. The first thing is to make sure they have all the devices and the manufacturers' information on devices. Are you having problems getting information on devices from the manufacturers or from Health Canada?

Mr. Jack Wilkie: There is no problem with Health Canada. If Health Canada has the information they give it to us if we ask, and quite often if we don't ask. The manufacturers are a difficulty. There continues to be some reluctance on the part of manufacturers and distributors to provide information. There are a number of reasons for that, and I'm sure you've heard them all. But the fact is that even at this late date it is sometimes difficult to get factual information from manufacturers.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Have you highlighted those items to Health Canada?

• 1810

Mr. Jack Wilkie: Yes. I can't say we've specifically made a formal presentation to Health Canada, but in all sorts of informal discussions and through CYNCH, the Canadian Year 2000 National Clearinghouse on Health, we've certainly indicated those concerns as well.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Are manufacturers telling you not to test their equipment, that they'll come in and test it, and then are you having problems with them coming in to test it?

Mr. Jack Wilkie: I can't speak to that directly. The clinical engineering people would be better positioned to answer that. I have heard anecdotally that has occurred in some other jurisdictions.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Can you share with us the request for funds, and whether you received funds for the Y2K program? Could you tell us a little bit more about when you expect to be able to say, just like your utilities and your communications people, the hospitals in Saskatchewan are Y2K ready? What is the date?

Mr. Jack Wilkie: We have not established a date at this point. Our projects are underway. We have not publicly committed to a date where we would be in a position to say categorically that's the case. That doesn't mean it's an issue; it's just that our project planning is at such a state that we haven't identified the end point at this juncture.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The reason I ask so many questions is, as I said earlier, the biggest area that's had the most slippage is the health area. We're trying to find out the reasons why, and it hasn't been that easy. I wonder if you could share anything on that.

Mr. Jack Wilkie: I'm not sure if I would have any huge insights. You're correct that the health sector as a whole, not only in Saskatchewan but across Canada and in North America, has been lagging in many areas. I think that might be a symptom of just the pressures that are on the health system, and there are any number of pressures. Everyone is very busy just carrying on doing their regular jobs. Perhaps the importance of some of the year 2000 issues wasn't as apparent as early as it should have been.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So basically you're saying maybe we didn't get into it fast enough in the health system and didn't understand the real complexities we were going to face. Is that basically what you're saying?

Mr. Jack Wilkie: Yes, I think that's a fair statement.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks, Madam Chair.

Have there been any positive outcomes, beyond becoming Y2K ready? A lot of organizations—government departments, large corporations and small corporations—have spent an awful lot of time and money going through all their systems and trying to make sure they're prepared for 2000. So have there been any silver linings to these clouds? Have you learned anything about your operations that have been useful, as a result of preparing for 2000?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: Your point is well taken. It's a good point. We talk about that quite frequently, believe it or not. We believe this to be a very positive experience. While it started off to serve a purpose and we all had the fears and concerns about year 2000, there's been an awful lot of positive spin-off from this.

Other people talked about inventory. We've done a very extensive inventory. As in most companies, we have newer people—a younger generation of people. It was a good training experience for them to really understand and learn the details of what we have. Even more importantly, it created the focus on what our core business is. Why do we do it? What's important about it?

So I think we reaffirmed within our own organization that electricity, providing electricity and creating electricity is extremely important. All of society is dependent upon that.

• 1815

There are many other things. We have system restoration plans, black-start plans, and all sorts of emergency-type plans. It was a good opportunity to go back and review those plans, dust them off, add to them and build them. We'll be better prepared for emergencies. This will carry over for the next five to ten years.

Along that line, there's a real desire by our people to keep the process alive somehow, so we will have very focused, clear and well prepared emergency-type plans for the future as well. So there's been a lot of good spin-off from this.

Mr. Ian Murray: Does anybody else want to comment on that?

Mr. Rick Tabin: Sure, I'll take a turn at this. As Garner said, one of the big issues we've seen is just the overall role with our contingency plans and making sure they're enhanced, dusted off, and cover everything from end to end. So that was positive.

We've had some of our processes around, but they weren't instituted in all of our business units. Some examples are our clean management process; our change management process; the quality assurance program we're doing to ensure that everything is clean and will be kept that way; some of our control periods we typically use during the year to ensure there are no service disruptions; and the communication aspect.

Also, through the rollover plan we had from 1998 into 1999, we had our emergency operating centre in place and did some preliminary testing. Through the testing, the inventory and the reworking of all of our systems, we've actually made minor corrections in some of our software and our network that weren't previously identified. So it was a good opportunity for us to just go back in and learn more about our systems and how they worked, and find out where we could do some further testing on a normal basis as well.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks.

While I have you here I want to ask you something, as a telecommunications expert. A couple of witnesses yesterday and today mentioned that part of their contingency planning included the use of satellite telephones. Are satellite telephones more susceptible to Y2K problems than perhaps regular wireless or line-based telephones?

Mr. Rick Tabin: I'm not the satellite expert, but from my knowledge and where our operation is within SaskTel and Saskatchewan, I don't think they're any more susceptible to any Y2K activity. We're worried about August 22 and 23, when the GPS satellite timeframe rolls over and may affect our switching components as well. We'll be monitoring those. But as far as having any more activity or being any greater challenge, I don't see that.

Mr. Ian Murray: Okay. I have one final question. I don't mean to be entirely frivolous, but was there an awful lot of junk to dispose as a result of this exercise? Was there much equipment you had to just toss out? If so, how did you dispose of it? Is it in some landfill somewhere or could some of it be salvaged and used for something else?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: I can speak to that a little from the electric utility point of view, because it's a good question.

We found that less than 5% of all the massive inventory we went through would have actually caused us any problems. But the main point is you have to go through the 100% to determine that 5%. Even when we looked at the 5%, it was really only about 20% of that. So in our electric utility in Saskatchewan, we found that about 1% of the inventory was of concern.

We've just received the latest report from the North American Electric Reliability Council, and the figure they use is 3%. All the utilities across North America found that about 3% would have caused them some problems.

That's kind of the good news. We didn't really have to throw much away. We went back and reprogrammed, reworked, and certainly studied all of our equipment.

• 1820

Mr. Rick Tabin: From SaskTel's perspective, there wasn't any removal of the equipment we looked at, as Garner said. We had done some enhancements to our existing software packages and our desktop applications, but in terms of the physical equipment, as I said in my briefing, we have been upgrading our system. SaskTel takes great pride in being a telecommunications leader, not only within Saskatchewan, but within Canada, North America, and the world. Any equipment we've been removing over the last number of years we've actually taken to our SaskTel international division, and we've sold it to other countries and put it back in service again. So we've obtained some revenue from that as well as taken the opportunity to have our own people install it and pass on the technology. So in terms of anything involving the year 2000 and our equipment here, it's been fairly minimal.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks very much.

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

I have a quick question to everyone here. It has to do with external and internal auditing to ensure that your Y2K readiness has had an independent review. Have all of you undertaken internal and external audits?

Mr. Garner Mitchell: I'm Garner Mitchell of SaskPower and I can speak to the electric utility. That's a very good question.

When SaskPower set up the program management organization, this PMO, we actually brought a person on part-time from our internal audit section of the major corporation of SaskPower to be part of the team. So we included audit right from the beginning. Internally, there have been two or three audits that I found to be quite helpful.

We did contract and bring in an external third-party auditor. We called it a review, and we did a first review in the fall of 1998. We've just completed a second review over the past couple of weeks. We found that to be a very worthwhile exercise. We chose a company that actually had some experience, certainly across Canada, but also some worldwide experience. They had experience with the electric utilities across the world and in eastern Canada. They also had experience in health organizations, government organizations, and we found that cross-pollination of ideas to be most beneficial and useful.

We've just completed the second review. They were quite happy, quite excited about the development and the change they saw even over the six-month period, and said they would take some of the knowledge and information they gained from what we did back east to help out organizations there. We found it to be a very useful, positive experience.

In addition, because we are owned by the provincial government, there is a provincial auditor. We've spent time with the provincial auditor. They came in and reviewed what we were doing. And again, that seemed to be quite a positive experience.

In addition to that, for financial and other purposes, we do have an additional third-party audit and we did spend some time with them.

So we found it to be very useful and it helped us out.

Mr. Rick Tabin: Again if I may, from SaskTel's perspective, we have also audited on both an internal and external basis. Phase one for our external audit was in May 1998, phase two was October 1998, phase three has just been completed in the March 1999 timeframe, and phase four will begin in September 1999. Our external auditor has gone through our whole system from start to finish and has actually aided us in getting through some of the road blocks and moving our program along at probably a quicker pace than we normally would have.

So again, as Garner indicated, it's been a positive experience for us as well.

The Chair: What about from the health side? Has there been anything like that?

Mr. Jack Wilkie: I think in Saskatchewan it's important to recognize that it is the health districts' responsibility to ensure the district attains year 2000 compliance. The districts are each conducting their own projects. However, having said that, we are encouraging—I stop short of requiring at this point—each district to conduct a project review. I hate the word “audit”, as it has connotations that some districts don't like. The project reviews would be designed primarily to make recommendations on how we would perhaps fill any gaps that are found. The emphasis would be on being as proactive as possible, and we are encouraging districts to do that.

• 1825

Districts do in fact have a reason to conduct the project reviews, because as part of the insurance coverage with Saskatchewan Government Insurance—SGI Canada—SGI Canada have committed to removing year 2000 exclusions from the policies they hold with the districts if Saskatchewan Health will sign off, if you will, on their year 2000 projects. The project reviews, as they are submitted to the department, are one vehicle that would allow us to determine whether or not we can sign off on each district's projects.

So we anticipate project reviews will be conducted in every district, and it's our hope they will be completed late summer or perhaps in September.

The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank each of you for joining us today and for your presentations and your frankness during question period. We do appreciate it.

I know that in Saskatchewan you're obviously working diligently toward being Y2K ready. We regret that the CIO and other officials were unable to join us; however, hopefully we'll get a written response from them.

We thank you again for being with us. We're going to sign off now and wish you the very best as you reach Y2K compliance. Thank you for being with us.

We're going to suspend for about five minutes while we hook up to British Columbia.

• 1826

• 1833

The Chair: The meeting will reconvene. I'm Susan Whelan, the chair of the committee, and I'm very pleased to welcome our witnesses from Victoria, British Columbia.

We should have around the table, from the Health Association of British Columbia, Larry Odegard, the chief executive officer, and Gail Peterson, the year 2000 coordinator; from B.C. Hydro, Bob Steele, the chief information officer; and from B.C. Tel, Michael Williams, the year 2000 program manager, B.C. Telecom.

I'm very pleased to welcome you all. What I would ask is that each of you provide your opening statements first for about five minutes, and then we'll move to questions in a roundtable format. I would propose that we begin with the Health Association of British Columbia.

Mr. Larry Odegard (Chief Executive Officer, Health Association of British Columbia): Good afternoon. I'm Larry Odegard, with the health association. I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today and for asking us to appear before the committee.

I know you have our written submission, but I'd like to begin with very brief comments about who we are and what we do for that context.

We are a non-profit, non-government association that represents the health authorities in the province and also the other health providers. So we have a very broad perspective of health service providers, including hospitals, long long-term-care facilities, and others.

• 1835

Our main focus is to foster the effective and efficient integration of the health system within B.C. and to assist our members in influencing policies that are developed throughout the province. We also have the opportunity to help them develop their skills, whether it's in governance, administration, or other aspects. We provide support services, leadership, and advocacy to assist them.

We also work in partnership with a number of other associations and organizations. These include the teaching hospitals, and the Health Care Leaders Association of B.C., which is the professional body representing the administrative people in the system. We are working on new projects such as a health centre group, which is an alternative approach to primary care delivery. The Heart and Stroke Foundation and other associations and branches, including volunteers, are represented by the auxiliaries in the province.

Our role in the year 2000 readiness is really to be raising awareness throughout the health system of both the implications and the liabilities of year 2000 non-compliance, to ensure that all of our members are aware of the issues and challenges around year 2000 compliance. We've been doing this a number of ways: first of all, providing timely and relevant information to those members; guiding them in the development of their strategic plans to prepare for both contingency and compliance planning; and also functioning as members on the provincial health sector year 2000 advisory committee, as well as the year 2000 Canadian infrastructure business continuity planning symposium. So we've been involved within the health system and beyond.

In addition, we work very closely with the Canadian Healthcare Association. They are a federation of provincial organizations such as our own. I know you've heard from them and received submissions from them. We have developed very key messages in cooperation with them.

First of all, patient safety and service continuity are the primary focus and priorities in our health sector. We're also developing and implementing the strategic plans, identifying the problems that need to be remedied over the next few months. We're also looking at contingency and continuity plans in the event of supplier failures that are beyond our health system control, with our partners, some of whom are represented at the table today. We work with the health care community, industrial sector, the ministry, and other stakeholders to ensure that we are ready for the challenges that are before us.

So those are the key issues. We very strongly support the CHA positions that have been put forward relating to communications and the supply chain continuity and other related issues. I expect during the question period we'll have an opportunity to elaborate on those.

Thank you.

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

I'm now going to turn to B.C. Hydro, Mr. Steele.

Mr. Bob Steele (Chief Information Officer, B.C. Hydro): Good afternoon. Overall, Hydro has been working on the year 2000 problem since about 1994-95. We're in good shape, and we do not expect any power outages due to the year 2000 issues. We'll be ready with all our critical functions by the May 31 of this year.

We divided our project into four major areas: the inventory, testing and remediation of our business systems; the inventory, testing and remediation of our operational control devices; the business partner reviews; and the preparation of contingency plans. My comments today are restricted to the operational control devices and the contingency plans that have been prepared that relate to the operation of the electric system, as well as our suppliers and grid partners that impact the operation of the electric system.

Hydro has undertaken two inventories of the operational control devices and our generation, transmission, distribution and communication systems. These devices include the relays, the circuit breakers, metering devices, the sensors, and so on, that monitor and control the electric system. The additional inventory was taken to identify devices that were likely to require testing or could likely have a Y2K problem, so that we could commence our remediation as quickly as possible.

• 1840

The second inventory was a much more detailed inventory. It involved identifying, labelling, and adding to the inventory database every piece of equipment in our system that could possibly have a year 2000 problem.

Inventories were taken using a combination of both local and central specialized resources. They were signed off by the responsible local manager after the inventory was taken.

The inventory and the process for collecting inventory was audited by an external firm, an international engineering firm. The audit included sample checks from a number of our generating and substation sites. And we have a change control process in place to ensure that any new equipment, replacement equipment, etc., is updated in the inventory and tested if necessary. The audit reviews were generally positive, and Hydro's taken steps to address any issues that were raised by the audits.

The inventory as of this month contains just over 8,000 devices that could potentially have a Y2K consequence. These devices were then assessed as having a high, medium, or low impact should they fail. Potential high-impact devices were classified as such if they could threaten public safety, employee safety, the environment, or our ability to generate and deliver electricity to our customers. And of the 8,000 and some devices, 3,307 were categorized as potentially having a high impact.

Those 3,307 devices were evaluated again to determine if the Y2K dates affected their operation. In that evaluation and testing, 221 of the devices were determined to be affected by the Y2K problem. However, none of them, if they failed, would fail in such a way as to cause an interruption to electricity. So even though they potentially had a high impact, the nature of the failure during the testing would be such that they would be benign to causing an interruption of electrical distribution.

Each evaluation or test was supported in document and signed off by a engineer of record. Each document was also reviewed by an additional level of senior technical staff with the responsibility for the Y2K efforts in their specialized area.

Remediation work and retesting has been completed for 201 of the 221 devices that were impacted, and the balance will be completed by the end of this month. To date the above processes have been reviewed by external engineers on three occasions and by internal auditors on two occasions. Plans are in place for two additional external reviews, as well as two more internal reviews by our internal audit department. These reviews are in addition to the Y2K teams' biweekly quarterly review board that reviews the quality of the work that's being done.

B.C. Hydro has also been very active with a number of the utility organizations—NERC, which is the North American Electricity Reliability Council, EPRI, which is the Electric Power Research Institute, and CEA, which is the Canadian Electrical Association—as well as with other utilities to compare the test results and to share information on equipment that could cause Y2K problems.

Additional systems integration and tests will be carried out over the next few months. Plans include testing protection equipment on both ends of a major transmission line by advancing the clocks and at the same time allowing the clocks to roll through the critical dates. That test was completed last month. We intend to advance the clocks on all 13 major generating facilities and allow the clocks to roll through the critical dates. That will be completed by the end of July.

We're practising a black start at one of our most critical generating facilities. We will be doing that in the June timeframe.

We'll be advancing the clocks at our supervisory control and data acquisition systems and allowing the clocks to roll through the critical dates. We'll be doing that for the supervisory control systems in May and June.

We'll be taking all of the equipment in a geographic area—and that would include generation, substation, and supervisory control—and advancing the clocks simultaneously and allowing the clocks to roll over through the critical dates.

The integrated contingency plans we've developed are at three levels at our system control centre. We have four area control centres and 340 generation substations and communication stations, and we have completed the contingency plans for each of those stations.

• 1845

Contingency staffing for low-risk dates—and there are a number of those, including last December 31 to January 1, April 9, August 22 and 23 for us, and September 9, as well as the February 28 to 29 period in the year 2000—are all in place and we've been operating with additional staff over those periods of time. And we have plans in place to have the contingency staffing ready within the next month or two for the extra staffing we'll have on in the December 31 to January 1 timeframe.

We have a number of exercises and drills to practise, evaluate, and improve our contingency plans. We took part in the April 9 NERC drill, which is the North American Electricity Reliability Council. That was to test our back-up communications systems, and was undertaken successfully. We have two additional drills that are planned to exercise our contingency plans. These drills will include simulating various Y2K scenarios and testing the responses of both the regular and the Y2K contingency staff and their reaction to these various scenarios.

We're participating on May 19 with other utilities within B.C. for one of the exercises and in September we're participating with the North American Electricity Reliability Council and all the other electric utilities for a second drill.

At the same time, Hydro is working with our grid partners, both directly and through the Western Systems Coordinating Council, and with our major customers, the independent power producers, and our suppliers to ensure all risks are minimized with respect to Y2K issues.

In summary, B.C. Hydro recognizes the criticality of ensuring a continued supply of electricity. We've been working on the Y2K issue for many years, and while the nature of our service never allows us to provide a 100% guarantee of service, we are confident that the risks of disruption to the normal operation of the electric system from year 2000 issues is very low.

Additionally, should we suffer unforeseen outages, we will have additional staff and equipment in place to mitigate any impact and restore services as promptly as possible.

Thank you.

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

I'm now going to turn to B.C. Tel, Mr. Michael Williams, please.

Mr. Michael Williams (Year 2000 Program Manager, B.C. Telecom, B.C. Tel): Thank you for the opportunity to communicate the year 2000 readiness of B.C. Tel today. My name is Michael Williams and I'm the Y2K senior manager reporting to William Lin, our Y2K director. I'm also managing our year 2000 enterprise testing effort.

We are confident that our dial tone and most local and long-distance services are year 2000 service ready today. Customers want to know if they will be able to place a call on January 1, 2000. We are pleased to answer yes.

Our Y2K program was established enterprise-wide in 1996 with the key objective of ensuring that our telecommunication network and services our customers depend on are Y2K ready. Our confidence is based on successful future date testing that we describe later.

“Service ready” means that to the best of our knowledge our network will accurately process date data into and past the year 2000. “Service ready” also means the interconnection to other networks and the interfaces to our customers are both Y2K ready. The service readiness of over 130 services using our public switch data and wireless networks are listed on our website at www.bctel.com/year2000.

Now I'd like to provide an overview of our program and progress to date. B.C. Tel's road to readiness started three and a half years ago. A corporate year 2000 program was established, defining the overall budget and plan. After conducting awareness sessions, each business unit assigned a Y2K prime and began an inventory of all their used products and defined business priorities.

In 1997, after completing a conversion pilot, we converted our core facility fulfilment and billing applications to year 2000 readiness. This 10-million-line-of-code conversion was completed on schedule and won Project Management Institute of B.C.'s project of the year. We are proud of this award and are in good company, as the previous winner was the Vancouver airport expansion project.

• 1850

B.C. Tel's product inventory was consolidated, and managing our several hundred suppliers to obtain Y2K-ready product information and upgrades was a key activity in 1997.

In 1998 B.C. Tel obtained readiness information from 100% of our critical suppliers, allowing testing and upgrade installations to be started. After receiving supplier information, subject matter experts analyse and test the products based on the business priority and Y2K risks. Our major network switches were upgraded for local number portability regulations and to solve year 2000 problems. The core applications converted in 1997 were future-date-tested to ensure Y2K readiness, and, yes, billing a minute call starting December 31, 1999, at 23.55 p.m. will result in a one-minute charge and not in a 100-year one-minute charge.

In 1999 testing of the individual products was extended to include internal and external interfaces, as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Over 700 interfaces were identified and analysed to ensure that the critical interfaces will be Y2K ready. This testing is well under way. A quality review program was established to independently audit the completeness of the testing documentation and to resolve any discrepancies. A rigorous change management program has also been implemented to ensure subsequent upgrades sustain our year 2000 readiness. While we are confident about Y2K readiness, we need to plan for the worst case to ensure continued business operations by updating our existing business continuity plans to include year 2000 scenarios.

Since BCT.TELUS is interconnected with the networks of other carriers, we have been looking beyond company boundaries. Testing responsibilities for common products were shared between the Canadian Stentor Alliances and the international GTE principal shareholder companies to reduce costs and to leverage in-house testing capabilities.

We were founding members of the Canadian telecommunications industry forum. We took our competitive gloves off to share best practices and collaborate on common supplier product issues and test network interoperability. Suppliers were very forthcoming with providing their readiness information when addressing all their Canadian telecommunication customers in these forum sessions.

Interoperability testing of Canada's networks was successfully completed using test labs located across North America. The test results of over 100 test cases have been very encouraging, with no year 2000 related failures being observed. Similar tests have occurred in the U.S. telecommunications forum with the same positive results. Only half a dozen problems, none of which affected call processing, were identified from testing over 2,000 call test cases. These tests have provided great confidence that basic call processing will work in North America through the year 2000. B.C. Tel is also an active member of the B.C. utilities year 2000 forum, sharing best practices and conducting joint contingency exercises.

Communications continue to be a key priority of our program. We are making an increasing number of presentations of this nature to help increase the understanding of our readiness efforts. In helping our business customers prepare for year 2000, we have distributed over 220,000 Industry Canada brochures. We have sent further letters to customers in 1999 to remind them of their responsibility to inventory, analyse, test, and upgrade their own telecommunications equipment. We updated our Internet site to include service readiness, links to supplier information, and our year 2000 program. We have also launched a customer year 2000 1-800 number.

We will complete our enterprise testing on Y2K contingency planning by September.

In conclusion, we are confident that our essential processes, systems, and business functions are Y2K ready, and we look forward to continuing to serve our customers today, through the year 2000 transitions, and beyond. Thank you very much.

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

We're now going to turn to questions, and we're going to begin with Mr. Lastewka, please.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to do it in reverse order. B.C. Tel, I take it that you are now year 2000 ready.

Mr. Michael Williams: Yes, the majority of our local and long distance services are service ready today, and we are going to be completing our enterprise testing, which includes external interfaces, by September of this year. So we will continue to do testing, and we will also then be doing our contingency planning. But as I mentioned in my remarks, we are confident that the local and long distance voice and data services our customers depend on are ready today.

• 1855

Mr. Walt Lastewka: B.C. Hydro, is it the same for you, that you are ready now?

Mr. Bob Steele: Our plans are to have all our high impact in terms of supplying electricity ready by the end of this month. We have about 20 devices on which to complete the remediation and testing, and those are all on schedule. By the end of May we will have that completely in place and tested.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: When will you have all your contingency plans completed?

Mr. Bob Steele: For B.C. Hydro, our contingency plans are all in place today. We will be exercising those over the next few months and right into September, and we'll be making improvements as we go. But, essentially , the basic plans are in place today.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I want to now concentrate on the health area. As we've held more and more discussions across the country and heard various reports, we're finding that the health area has had the biggest slippage. Could you tell us where you are as far as getting ready for Y2K is concerned?

Mr. Larry Odegard: Unlike the other two corporations represented today, we are representing a number of independent organizations, which are in various stages of readiness. We have 52 health authorities. In addition there are a series of other independent organizations, such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, etc., that function within them.

The Ministry of Health has a committee that is coordinating the review of this. We are confident that there's a high degree of awareness amongst all of the health facilities. They are developing their plans and have submitted requests for funding to replace or upgrade equipment where necessary. A great deal of effort has gone into planning for the contingency issues in their respective communities. But there is quite a wide variety of stages of readiness throughout the province. There is confidence that they will be ready pending the funding of this equipment, and we expect that funding to flow within the next week or so.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: You shock me a bit when you say “pending the funding”. Are you telling me that hospitals or health care areas have done their inventory and have their plans ready but they don't have funding? Is that what you're telling me?

Mr. Larry Odegard: In the recent provincial budget there was an allocation of $100 million to support equipment upgrading or replacement, and that money has yet to flow directly to the providers. However, they have identified their needs very specifically and have submitted this to the ministry, and this has been analysed. We expect that to proceed very quickly, taking advantage of group purchasing and other sorts of things.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The reason I'm asking the question is because those provinces that received money late—and when I say late I mean January and February of this past year—are now having difficulty buying in bulk or whatever and getting proper deliveries. I wonder if that's going to be the same situation in B.C.

Mr. Larry Odegard: Of course this is a concern, and we are discussing the alternatives. I understand that the committee that is coordinating this is aware of that risk and is in discussion with other provinces and with both the consultants that are assisting the process and some of the potential suppliers.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Could you tell me if your health areas have had any difficulty getting manufacturers to identify their pieces of equipment and whether you've had a problem with manufacturers not submitting information?

Mr. Larry Odegard: This has been an ongoing concern for us, not unlike all the provinces across the country. Obviously, for legal and other reasons, many of the suppliers are reluctant to commit to or to really state the degree of compliance of their equipment and supplies. We continue to pursue this. We are coordinating this with the Canadian Healthcare Association and the Ontario Health Association as well. But this continues to be an issue, and we need assistance in bringing this about. We would appreciate your committee's assistance here, as well.

• 1900

Mr. Walt Lastewka: While I'm on the subject, have you had manufacturers tell you not to test, that they would come in and test, and now you're waiting for them and they haven't come in?

Mr. Larry Odegard: Not to my knowledge. That hasn't been brought to our attention by our members, and I don't think it has been discussed at this committee. I think it's more a matter of them leaving it to current owners. They're reluctant to make a statement on the equipment that they have sold in the past.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: We've heard a number of times during these deliberations about manufacturers asking health areas not to test, that they would come in to test their own equipment because of the high tech and concerns. So I want to share that with you.

Have you had discussions concerning supply, about people wanting to bank extra supplies, and so forth? Is that a similar problem in B.C.?

Mr. Larry Odegard: Yes. Our concern there is about the stockpiling and people being concerned about the supply chain and whether it will be able to satisfy their needs.

We are discouraging that, and also, nationally, we are trying to establish some policies in conjunction with CHA, as well as the Department of National Defence, whether they can assist in that capacity, to ensure that we don't artificially inflate prices or create shortage because of stockpiling tendencies. So we are attempting to address that nationally.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I appreciate that. That's a concern in many areas of the country.

My last item goes back to the funding and hitting target dates. We've been asking the various health areas all day today, why is it that the health area has been slipping, and what is it that's needed to help the health area meet their targets? We notice that some of the provinces that were very strong in our last report have slipped quite considerably, and it will be interesting to watch whether your health areas hit their target dates.

Mr. Larry Odegard: This is of some concern to us, but we must put it in the context of very complex high-tech organizations, with many interrelated information systems and the challenge here of categorizing those technological needs. Those that are directly affecting patient safety and quality of care are obviously the primary ones; however, many of those systems are also tied to relatively obsolete payroll systems. So we want to make sure that the patient care side of it is addressed very directly and immediately. The other issues need to be resolved at some time in the future but are obviously of less concern. But they're related and integrated systems.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you for your comments. We would agree with you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

The Chair: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to address Mr. Steele from B.C. Hydro.

I found reassuring your comment about the potential high-impact equipment, the fact that you found 221 were affected by the Y2K problem but were essentially benign. In other words, they had no real potential impact on the generation or transmission of electricity. That's reassuring, but at the same time it leads to the question of how susceptible various hydro operations across the country really are to this problem.

You mentioned that you ran through the clocks. I assume the clocks are important in the hydro business because of peaks and valleys in terms of demand during the day, as well as during different times of the year. I'm not really sure what my question is, but I'm trying to figure out whether there's any potential problem at all. You haven't run through this exercise with the clock and what difference it would make if the clocks showed that it was the year 1900 rather than the year 2000. Is this not a problem?

• 1905

Mr. Bob Steele: There are clocks in all sorts of devices. There are lots of devices used in the protective relays for protecting the electric system, and they contain clocks. There is a possibility that if those clocks malfunction—in other words, if they malfunction when they roll over from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000—that device could malfunction and it could actually trigger a circuit breaker to open or something of that nature and disrupt the flow of electricity. So that's the nature of the clock. What we have done is test all that equipment by rolling the clocks ahead to December 31, allowing the clocks to roll over that period, and assuring that each device operates normally, as we would expect it to operate.

When I classified the devices as having a high impact, if a device of that nature, protected relay, for example, was year 2000 susceptible and we knew there was a problem, it could fail in a number of ways. It could fail by opening a circuit breaker, which would impact the flow of electricity. It could also fail by just stopping to work, not open a circuit breaker but with the protection it provides in case of overfrequency or something along those lines, the network wouldn't be protected. But it wouldn't immediately impact the flow of electricity.

So I hope that explains a little bit more.

Mr. Ian Murray: That's very helpful.

I would like to ask my silver-lining question. Actually, it's addressed to all of you. You've all gone through a massive organization-wide exercise, perhaps the association less than large companies and government departments. I would like to know if you've learned any lessons along the way about how to manage your business, changed your practices, and found some good in all of this very expensive and very time-consuming and labour-intensive exercise.

Mr. Bob Steele: We certainly have a better handle on our inventories. We have never had as good a control over all the equipment we have in our system on the electric system side. So that has certainly helped us. We can monitor and check that and do maintenance on that much better now than we ever have been able to before. It has helped in getting us an up-to-date inventory of all of our equipment.

Mr. Ian Murray: Would anybody else like to answer?

Mr. Michael Williams: Yes. At B.C. Tel, similarly, the updated inventory has probably been the main benefit. I guess we've always been looking at the Y2K risk and cost, and where there were opportunities where we could have perhaps done more we curtailed that because we wanted to keep the cost as low as possible. As B.C. Hydro mentioned, it's the lasting inventory and having it up-to-date and knowing what the readiness is. We have a much better sense, too, of the interconnections that we have, so that's probably another advantage.

Mr. Larry Odegard: If I could comment from the health perspective, I think there's a real advantage here. You have to reach deeply for the silver lining, but the contingency planning has been very valuable in each of the communities because the health system has to deal with the contingency of system failure within the structure that they own, operate, and control, or the implication in the greater community if one of the other systems fail and has an impact on the health system. So I think that has been a silver lining, the preparedness for some malfunction or minor disasters in those areas.

Mr. Ian Murray: But I imagine you're still quite happy to go through it only once every thousand years.

Mr. Larry Odegard: That would be accurate.

Mr. Ian Murray: Okay, thanks very much.

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

I have just one question for all three of you. It has to do with your reviews or audits, whatever you prefer to call them, whether or when and what the results have been if you've undertaken them. We had several other groups tell us that they had external and internal audits and external and internal reviews that can basically identify where their problems are, or tell us that they are on target and haven't slipped, or that they're ahead of target. I wonder what you may have done or not done so far.

Maybe I'll start with B.C. Tel.

Mr. Michael Williams: We have three aspects of quality review. As one of them, GTE, which is our principal shareholder, does a review every three months, and they were recognized through the American information technology as being a year 2000 leader. We've also had reviews with our internal audit group. But the other thing we did is establish within our own year 2000 program an independent review group that would go through the test augmentation and essentially verify the thoroughness and diligence of each of our most important products. That review has identified where there were some deficiencies, and going back to the subject matter experts we have resolved those from a thoroughness perspective.

• 1910

So really, we've had the three: we've got our ongoing product-testing quality review, we have GTE coming in every three months, and we have our internal audit people helping us as well.

The Chair: Okay, what about B.C. Hydro, Mr. Steele?

Mr. Bob Steele: Basically, there have been three types of quality reviews. The project has a quality review board with team members on it, and we meet biweekly with them. We have internal audits. They have completed two reviews of the process, and two more are planned during this current fiscal year. We also have external international engineering firms coming in and doing audits. They've completed three, and we have two more planned.

We're pleased with the results of all of the audits that we have completed. Things they did recommend were things like improving our documentation. They wanted us to add our spare parts and whatnot to our inventory. So they were things around the edges that they recommended, and we were quite pleased with the results.

They confirmed that we are on schedule and on target to meet our May 31 target date.

The Chair: What about the Health Association, Mr. Odegard?

Mr. Larry Odegard: It would be to varying degrees around the province, depending generally on the size of the organization. The larger hospitals, obviously, have internal capacity. There are biomedical engineering and systems people who have been able to conduct their own internal tests. In some situations, consultants have been brought in. Generally the focus has been on developing the inventory of needs and the internal testing. To my knowledge, there isn't extensive external auditing of this.

The Chair: Thank you.

On behalf of the committee members, I want to thank you for joining us. We hope we'll receive some other information in writing from the government offices that were unable to be with us to discuss their Y2K readiness in British Columbia.

We do appreciate your taking the time to join us, your presentations, and your frank discussion around our questions. We look forward to your being Y2K ready, as we do with all of Canada, and we know you're working toward that and that's what's important.

We thank you for joining us. We're going to sign off now.

We're going to suspend for about 60 seconds.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]