---

DISSENTING OPINION BY THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS (BQ)
ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM IN CANADA

On May 14, 1998, the Standing Committee on Industry tabled its first report on the Year 2000 problem. That report, which contained 26 recommendations, was adopted unanimously by Committee members.

The quality of the present, second report, entitled The Year 2000 Problem - Canada's State of Readiness is much lower than that of the first. While the first report was characterized by rigour and objectivity, the present report often lacks those qualities. In a spirit of goodwill and in order to improve the report, therefore, the BQ proposed 16 amendments. The Year 2000 problem is serious, and partisanship is inappropriate to its solution. Some of the BQ's amendments were accepted, and others turned down. Some of those that were turned down form the basis for this dissenting opinion.

Health care

The Committee's report expresses concern about the health care system's Year 2000 readiness, particularly because of scarcity of funds. The BQ proposed a recommendation that the federal government address the costs of Year 2000 remediation through transfer payments to the provinces. This amendment was turned down, but Committee members insisted on retaining a recommendation that the federal government monitor the costs of Year 2000 remediation by the provinces. Thus, while ignoring the fact that Year 2000 remediation puts additional financial pressure on the health care system, the Committee wants the federal government to retain the right to monitor - fearing no doubt that the provinces cannot provide high quality health care without federal monitoring.

The BQ could not let such a recommendation pass unchallenged. Health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction. It is therefore not the responsibility of the Industry Committee, in a report on the Year 2000 problem, to revive old constitutional quarrels, particularly at a time when the provinces are faced with ever-shrinking budgets. Essentially, this disagreement arose from the fact that, unlike most Committee members, the BQ does not consider the federal government a higher level of government. Nor was it demonstrated to the Committee that the federal government's Year 2000 readiness is any greater than that of the provinces.

Responsibility and liability

The BQ acknowledges from the outset that both individual and corporate citizens must take steps in order to forestall possible Year 2000 problems. However, the BQ deplores the fact that the Committee bypassed any consideration of computer manufacturers' liability. The BQ considers that individual and corporate citizens grappling with non-Year 2000 compliant computers are as much victims as they are liable, and need more help than blame. The report notes "an urgent need ... for businesses to realize they are fully accountable for failure to act." The BQ considers it indispensable to remind all businesses that they may be held liable if they are not Year 2000 ready; businesses should be informed that they are responsible for trying to solve the problem, and they should be helped to solve it. The BQ would have liked the Committee to consider the issue of liability of large manufacturers of non-Year 2000 compliant computers or, at least, to have noted this issue in the report.

Objectivity

The BQ also deplores the fact that the present, second report is not as objective as the first report. A number of omissions mean that certain conclusions must be placed in context. No mention is made of the December 1998 report by the Auditor General expressing doubt about certain federal departments' Year 2000 readiness. By leaving out such information, the Committee has felt justified in expressing unconditional praise for federal government action, particularly its leadership in the field of emergency preparedness, at a time when the Department of National Defence, for example, has some catching up to do where its own Year 2000 readiness is concerned.

A portion of the report is helpful information that accurately reflects much of the testimony heard by the Committee. The BQ attended the Committee regularly. It would have liked the Committee's report to reflect its work. As a result, the BQ proposed a series of amendments. Unfortunately, the spirit of co-operation that motivated the Industry Committee last spring is long gone.