INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Ms Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): Order, please.

We'd like to welcome our witnesses here today. Mr. Garrard, perhaps you could introduce the people you have with you.

Mr. Timothy Garrard (Chief Information Officer, Department of Industry): Thank you very much.

Mr. Peter St. Germain is responsible for the management of our computing and desktop environment and the year 2000 issue in our department under my direction. Mr. Brian Dolan is the project manager for the year 2000 project in Industry Canada.

Good afternoon, mesdames et messieurs. My name is Tim Garrard and I am the chief information officer of Industry Canada. I am responsible to the deputy minister for co-ordinating the efforts being taken by our department to certify that its business systems will be year 2000-compliant.

These business systems include informatics technology components such as computer applications, desktop personal computers, third-party software, local area networks and a wide area network. Also included are embedded systems such as elevators, escalators, fire alarm systems, security systems, telephone systems, faxes and copiers.

By year 2000-compliant I mean the ability of our business systems to provide the following functions. First is to consistently handle date information before, during and after January 1, 2000, including accepting date input, providing date output and performing calculations on dates or portions of dates and to function accurately in accordance with these speculations and without interruption before, during and after January 1, 2000.

[Translation]

Before talking about our Year 2000 activities, allow me to reiterate for the committee Industry Canada's role. Our mission is to foster a growing, competitive, knowledge-based Canadian economy that provides more and better-paying jobs for Canadians, supports strong, sustainable business growth, and gives consumers, businesses and investors confidence that the market place is fair and efficient.

To carry out this mission, the Department creates microeconomic policy, provides rules and services for the market place and acts to develop Canada's industry sectors.

• 1540

[English]

Industry Canada is concerned about the potential impact of the year 2000 issue on the Canadian economy as a whole. The minister has established a group of business leaders, chaired by Mr. Jean Monty of BCE Inc. to provide an assessment of the nature and scope of the year 2000 challenge in key sectors of the Canadian economy and the state of industry preparedness to deal with year 2000 risks. It is asked to provide advice on how these risks could be reduced.

The task force began its work in September and will deliver a final report to the minister by May 1998. A secretariat, which is not part of my responsibilities, has been created to assist it in its work. I understand the staff of the standing committee has been in touch with the secretariat and has asked it to appear before the committee at a later date.

Industry Canada is comprised of approximately 4,500 employees with 3,000 in the national capital region and the other 1,500 across the country. Each employee has at least one computer that is connected to one of 100 local area networks. Our local area networks are connected together coast to coast by a high-speed wide area network.

Computer applications are decentralized in Industry Canada. As chief information officer, I am responsible for the central infrastructure such as our mainframe computer, the networks and the management of the desktop applications that our staff use, such as word processing, electronic mail, Internet access and other tools. My office is responsible for planning, strategy and standards for our department's information technology as a whole. I am also responsible for a number of our important information technology-based programs, such as our Internet presence on our large business information Internet site, Strategis, and our national network of Canada business service centres.

In addition, there exist more than 20 significant computer applications that serve our department's programs and market services activities. These include the software and in some cases the dedicated computers that support, for example, patents, copyrights, trademarks, incorporation and licensing of the radio frequency spectrum. These systems are under the direction of the managers who are responsible for the corresponding programs and services. The annual informatics technology budget in the department amounts to about $35 million.

Our overall business plan to address the year 2000 issue is straightforward: determine what we have that may be affected, identify the work required to fix or replace the affected components, test the components for year 2000 compliance, and then put the modified or new components back into production. Where there exist special conditions that may prevent this work from being done on time for critical systems, contingency plans must be created, tested, and put into place.

Our planning for the year 2000 issue began in 1996. Specific milestone dates for our department include completing our inventory for all business systems by June of this year; identifying affected business systems by August; identifying by the end of November the components that must be modified or replaced, along with the costs, time and technical resources required to carry out the modifications, testing and implementation; completing the required modifications, testing, certification and implementation by December 31, 1998; and using 1999 to put in place any required contingency plans.

We have begun by categorizing our business systems as high, medium and low priority, based upon the importance of the system to serve our department's mission. Our intention in this categorization was to enable us to concentrate our efforts on the high-priority business areas.

Examples of business lines that have a high priority are the issuance of patents and trademarks, the registration of federal corporations, the management of our radio frequency spectrum, loans for small businesses, and the dissemination of strategic commercial information to Canadian businesses. Of course our information technology infrastructure, which supports all the business systems, also has a high priority. Examples of lower-priority functions are corporate and management services activities dealing with inventory management, communications, and management consulting.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has undertaken a review of all federal information technology systems across all departments and agencies from the year 2000 perspective and has identified 30 systems as being critical for the delivery of services to Canadians. No Industry Canada systems are included on this list of the most critical systems.

[Translation]

Our executive sponsor for Year 2000 is our associate deputy minister, who is responsible for information technology issues across the Department.

• 1545

This summer, she re-emphasized the priority of the Year 2000 effort in Industry Canada and directed our assistant deputy ministers to report regularly, beginning in July, on the method, status and results of their system impact assessments, as well as on their plans, activities, resource allocations and timetable to achieve Year 2000 readiness. Our ADMs must certify their systems as being Year 2000 ready by December 31, 1998. To support this, I have forwarded a special Year 2000 communiqué to all senior managers outlining the problem, the required activity, and the time frame in which to get the work done.

Our information management committee, chaired by the associate deputy minister and made up of all our senior managers, is the Year 2000 steering committee and is prepared to make the necessary decisions to manage the Year 2000 compliance program.

[English]

A year 2000 project office is in place and consists of three full-time management staff. The office deals with a working group we have established of sector and branch co-ordinators, critical system managers, representatives from the regions, and special advisers. Terms of reference and role descriptions have been promulgated.

We completed our informatics technology systems inventory this summer and now have a repository listing the types of informatics technology hardware, types of third-party software and in-house developed applications. We also have a list of our building systems, such as elevators, security systems and telephone systems. Later this year, we will complete the inventory by completing other embedded systems components such as faxes and copiers.

We now know the majority of information technology components and computer systems components that will be impacted by year 2000. We have discussed year 2000 with vendors, or have liaised with Public Works and Government Services Canada in their effort to determine vendor compliance for third-party products.

For our own in-house developed systems, the managers have stated that by switching priorities from new development to year 2000 they will be able to use current resources to modify, test, certify and implement the required changes by December 31, 1998. Several of our systems, such as our financial management system, are currently being migrated from a mainframe platform to client-server architecture and will be implemented on April 1, 1998. These systems were developed using year 2000 specifications, but they will still have to be tested and certified.

Our initial estimate of the cost to certify our systems for year 2000 compliance is $3.3 million. This number will be refined, as detailed year 2000 business plans are implemented.

To assist the year 2000 co-ordinators, system managers and other interested staff, a compliance kit has been distributed to the working group. This kit, or charter, is a document outlining the problem, describing our year 2000 organization and accountability, detailing year 2000 specifications and describing the process to achieve year 2000 certification for our systems.

Included in our year 2000 plan is a risk management process to assess the reasonableness of the detailed plan submitted by area co-ordinators and system managers. A questionnaire has been prepared and is being sent to year 2000 co-ordinators, system managers and their directors general. The project office will follow up with visits to the co-ordinators and system managers, and will report their findings back to senior management and the year 2000 steering committee. This process will be ongoing until year 2000 certification has been achieved.

System managers and branch co-ordinators are following up on their original impact analysis with a detailed plan for their year 2000 activity. These plans must be submitted to the associate deputy minister and me by the end of November. My staff are also in touch with the regions to review the activities required, as our department is substantially decentralized.

My staff are building a test environment to certify our primary computing environment. This consists of corporate, standard, desktop equipment, office automation software, groupware, local area network hardware and operating systems, and portions of our wide area network. Once we certify this configuration plan for the end of 1997, we will invite system managers to install their year 2000-modified applications and test them in the certified environment.

• 1550

At this point code conversion is just beginning in our systems, other than those systems that are participating in the mainframe migration project where it is advanced. I anticipate that managers will be carrying out the required changes in earnest by the end of this year.

After the co-ordinators and managers begin their modification process, the next major step will be to monitor year 2000 or new system development activity for any slippage that would result in a system not being year 2000-ready in time. The final deadline date will be established early in 1998 and it would trigger putting into place contingency plans before it is too late.

When required, the project office, in cooperation with our audit and evaluation branch, will advise and assist business areas in developing, testing and putting into place appropriate contingency plans.

In conclusion, we believe that our plans in Industry Canada to manage the year 2000 issue are in keeping with the advice and direction recently announced by the Auditor General of Canada. We are confident that we will achieve readiness without interruption of our services to Canadians. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Garrard.

Mr. Lowther, if you like, you had a question to begin.

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

I would like to thank you for an excellent presentation. What you've provided us with seems very thorough to me and yet quite concise. And my condolences to you. Are you sure you're not about 29 years old? Anybody who manages all this stuff—in my experience, usually it's a pretty harrowing task, all this office automation stuff—seems to age prematurely. Yes, you are 29, right?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I am 29.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I thought so.

My first question relates to how it looks as if a lot of effort has been done regarding setting up management structure and putting people in place and reporting and all of that kind of good thing, but I'm wondering if you've actually come to the place where you actually understand what the solution is going to be? Is it a vendor solution that's going to take you out of some of these year 2000 problems? Is it rewriting your own code? Are you just identifying the problem or have you actually crossed to the point where you have solutions for certain parts of the puzzle within Industry Canada?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Thank you. I think we're probably somewhere between those two points. We've worked very hard to understand the problem and to identify it. We have worked very hard at doing a thorough inventory of every area in our department that may be impacted by the year 2000 issue, starting of course with a computer code that we have written ourselves, or have had written for us, and then going beyond this to systems that are common with other departments or with other users and, indeed, going beyond that to the hardware and operating systems and standard application software packages that we all use and are common in the economy at large, and going beyond that to embedded systems, which reside inside many of the things we take for granted, such as our building control systems or our elevators.

I think we understand how difficult the problem is. Certainly we try to stay in touch with best practice, and everything we've learned indicates that this problem is not a problem to be underestimated. It's more comprehensive than anyone had ever thought when this problem first became known some time ago and the only solution is a very comprehensive and diligent management process.

There is no technical fix. There isn't a piece of software you can buy that will search and find the problem for you and tell you what you have to do to fix it. There are tools, and we have the tools that help you look, but there is no silver bullet that can find all the problems for you. Solving the year 2000 problem is more about a diligent and thorough management process than it is about individual bits of technology, and we've concentrated hard on trying to set up a comprehensive management process that leads us all forward, guides those who aren't as technically proficient as others, and enables us all to have confidence that we know what we're doing. It's hard work, there's going to be more hard work ahead, and I think the only way we can expect good results is if we recognize that it's hard work and we assign accountability to ourselves to do the hard work required.

• 1555

Mr. Eric Lowther: I sure admire your gung-ho attitude here. I need a little bit of clarification, though.

At the bottom of page 8 of your handout, you say:

Final deadline dates will be established in early 1998 that would trigger putting into place contingency plans before it is too late.

Early 1998 is only a few months or weeks away, so what are those final deadline dates? What are we waiting for on those final deadline dates? That seems almost too optimistic, depending on what it is.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: What we plan to do as we move more fully into the detailed assessment and code rewriting process is to establish that for a particular application, say the adjustments needed to one of our programs, the adjustments would be made by a certain date. They would be tested for compliance by a certain date and certified. Those dates will therefore create for us the deadline dates that we will need to respond to.

If, for example, we planned by August 1, 1998, to have tested the patent system and certified that it was working, and if by August 1998 it wasn't, then we would have to make a contingency plan.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I see how that works. That's just an establishment of the deadline dates.

Within that, will you also have at that time a prioritization of which systems are critical and which are not as critical? There's some reference to that in here already, but I'm thinking it would be good to have both critical and deadline dates at the same time so you prioritize your flag waving if something is out of sync later.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Absolutely. We've already surveyed all of our applications and made a categorization as between high, medium and low, the high-priority items being those that impact on our programs and services, the lower ones being those that we use internally for management reasons. The way we would approach, in the hypothetical event that we have to implement a contingency plan approach, the design of that plan and mobilized resources would depend very much on how high the priority of that system is.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Thank you for your presentation. You have reassured the committee what the auditor general told us at our last meeting. He seemed to want to scare us by saying that we were in no way prepared to tackle the challenge.

You're telling us that you are in a position to develop a plan to address the problem. You claim in your own words not to have a silver bullet or even a solution as of yet, but rather a plan of action. Have I understood you correctly?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you familiar with CGI and the INFORMISSION group? These two Montreal-based companies specialize in the field of information technology management. I was discussing potential problems with someone who plays the stock market. This person informed me that the solution to the problem had already been found and that the costs had already been pegged at approximately $700 billion.

• 1600

The Gartner company has advised us of the extent of this problem and INFORMISSION has developed a conversion software system called RECYC2000.

A report released by CGI notes that work is currently under way to convert the systems of some 20 institutions, government agencies and Canadian companies.

I'm a little confused. You don't have a silver bullet, you have a management system and you are not familiar with these two companies, or at least with one of the two. You did indicate that you were familiar with CGI. I'm not an expert, but I do have a nose for things and when I did some quick checking, I immediately discovered two companies who actually claim to have a solution. Aren't we trying to reinvent the wheel and spending substantial sums of money in the process?

Secondly, have you met with representatives of these companies to find out if their silver bullet could be the right match for our gun?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I disagree with those who claim to have a silver bullet. As the Auditor General told us, we are dealing with a management problem. Systems are highly complex. Surely there is a way to adapt software, but we are also dealing with equipment problems. The tools used by suppliers like CGI are valid and we employ some of them in our management process, but they are neither comprehensive nor perfect. In terms of best practice, we've learned that it's important to consider every option, that it's not enough to rely on one or even on several tools and that what we need is a comprehensive management process, as the Auditor General stated.

We are well-acquainted with CGI. CGI is responsible for the operation of our main computer in Montreal and supplies important services as well. We are working together with CGI on the Year 200 challenge. It would be impossible for us to complete our work without this company's input CGI and I do hope that they can help us. However, I'm convinced that we need a disciplined, sophisticated system, not merely tools.

The Chair: Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Garrard. I would like to make a brief comment to the steering committee, namely to remind it that we did say that we wanted to get the handouts prior to the actual meeting so that the witnesses would not have to read them. This being said, you did read the text of your presentation and it was quite clear.

• 1605

I have a question and a sub-question for you, along with a request for three documents. I will start with the documents.

The first is the study of 100 Canadian firms conducted by ITAC. Perhaps...

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I'm sorry, but which document are you referring to?

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I'm referring to a study cited in the briefing notes prepared by Mr. Brassard. The notes state that the federal government has launched another initiative in an effort to resolve the Year 2000 problem. According to ITAC's study of 100 Canadian firms, more than one third of the firms had yet to develop formal action plans.

Secondly, Industry Canada has apparently sent a business outreach mailing to all GST-registered businesses. Would it be possible to have a copy of this mailing?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Yes.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: The third document I'm interested in is the business guide for CEOs. Would it also be possible to get a copy of this guide?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Yes.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

Your presentation was very clear. Unlike Mr. Bellemare, I believe the Year 2000 problem is very serious. I know that no one has yet to find a silver bullet and that in reality, the closer we look at the problem, the more we realize that there can be no quick fix, considering that computer systems are different, operate on different software or have different applications for the same software.

An article that appeared this summer in La Recherche, a journal highly respected in scientific circles, discusses the serious nature of the problem by comparing computers to fossils. The article states that a computer system is like an archeological site and that if we dig down deep, we will uncover genuine fossils.

Therefore, given your accomplishments to date, your timetable and the answers that you are giving us, namely that you are preparing management to address the Year 2000 challenge, don't you think the minister's task force is somewhat behind schedule, given that it is expected to report back in May 1998?

According to your own timetable, by May of 1998, you should already be quite advanced, if you want to be in a position to manage systems, have choices, purchase new equipment or find alternative solutions.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I don't know if the minister's task force is behind schedule or not. I do know that the task force is a positive initiative and I am pleased to see the Auditor General and the minister give this problem some coverage. I am also very pleased to see the private sector involved in Jean Monty's task force.

I'm acquainted with several of the private sector managers on the task force and I'm very pleased to see that they are working hard to find a solution for small and medium-sized businesses. If the task force does come up with some recommendations for us, I will certainly pay close attention to them.

• 1610

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Since learning about the Year 2000 problem from Quebec's industry commission, I've been in touch with the Regroupement des PME, which represents 96% of all businesses in Quebec. It has not yet begun to address the Year 2000 issue.

Therefore, I'm quite aware of the need to do something and it seems to me that your handout will be of assistance to us. With the means and resources at your disposal, you have drawn up a time table and it seems to me that businesses have even more reason to... I'm not worried about large firms, but about small and medium-sized businesses which have to deal with credit and market place problems on a daily basis. I'm concerned for them because many of them rely on information technology. In some instances, their systems are fairly old and outdated.

While not surprising, your answers confirm that you are not at liberty to reveal additional facts. We can, however, read between the lines.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

[English]

Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Garrard.

I guess I have the same reaction that Mr. Bellemare had after listening to your presentation. Perhaps things weren't as bad as we thought they were after we met with the Auditor General. As you say, it seems it's a question of management and of sort of slogging through countless systems to try to identify where the problems are and then fix them. You're suggesting that we can replace or modify various components. On the other hand, we're talking about maybe needing contingency plans if this doesn't work out.

I'm just trying to understand whether the problem can be solved if we throw a lot of human resources at this. Do we have the people who can apply their energy to this problem for the next year or two to identify where changes are needed, or is it a problem such that we may run into roadblocks?

We're going to need a contingency plan. What kind of contingency plan can we be thinking of? Is it contracting out to somebody else, or at least giving portions to the private sector because we haven't been able to find a solution? Or is it that we don't have the resources to identify the problem and fix it? Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.

You do understand that I'm able to speak first-hand only about those systems I am personally responsible for, although I do have a general knowledge of what other people are doing. I do think we have the resources to scope the problem. I believe we now have an understanding of what we have to do, at least in Industry Canada. I'm not saying we won't have surprises. I won't say it isn't going to be hard. I'm not saying we won't need contingency plans. I'm saying only that we need to be prepared for those things.

Industry Canada will employ some of the strategies you described. We will rely upon contractors some of the time to assist us in code repair. Certainly we will need to rely on the private sector to guide us through the process of doing the things we need to do to our hardware, to our embedded systems, and to our standard shrink-wrap software, where the solutions we need are the solutions needed by others using the same standard products. We can't tell IBM or Digital how to repair a piece of hardware. We can only identify the problem and get them to fix it, or replace the component if they can't.

• 1615

In my organization, about half the people who work for me are already contractors. Many of those are already involved in the process of code repair or otherwise working on the problem. So we are already relying on contractors and we will continue to do so.

Certainly one of the issues we are all sensitive to, one that both the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Auditor General have identified, is the shortage of people. It's of concern to all of us. There have been people in our organization who have left. The turnover is high in information technology skills. We have to work hard to replace those people. We believe we can do that, but this is clearly a risk item for us and needs to be part of our risk management process.

Mr. Ian Murray: May I ask you about the level of expertise that's required to address the tough slogging part of this problem? In other words, would there be students in university, say, who would be able to do a lot of this legwork that's required?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: It's possible. I guess everything is possible. Normally speaking, it has not been easy for anybody, either in my department or in the government or anywhere else, to get students interested in the year 2000 problem, because the code involved was written in what's by now nearly obsolete computer language. Spending two years becoming an expert in some sixties or seventies generation COBOL code is not going to be an exciting career opportunity for kids.

I guess if we pay them enough, we can teach them COBOL and get them to help us, but there are lots of people in the labour force now who understand COBOL. We would like to look first to them. It may be necessary to find people who, at earlier points in their careers, worked on COBOL, and to bring their skills back up to date. Given the time dimensions involved, we ought not to look first to solutions that require us to train people, especially in skills they really don't need.

Mr. Ian Murray: What about retired public servants? Could you find and bring back some who would be quite happy to work on that kind of problem?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I suppose.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Lowther, do you have another question?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

I regrettably didn't hear all the answer that was given regarding the products on the market that might help you along, but maybe you can work that into some of the other questions I have here.

On the matter of contingency plans, gee, this seems to me to be so critical. I mean, we're 24 months away from 2000. This seems like a huge system project in the sense of touching all these systems. I can't think of even any small systems that got put together and delivered in two years, in my experience, very well. Have any contingency plans been developed already if it doesn't work, or are we waiting to miss a deadline and then begin developing a contingency plan?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: We have outlines of a contingency plan. Let me illustrate with an example.

In our department we, like every organization, have a financial management system. Our financial management system, like that of many organizations, was constructed many years ago, and has been modified many times. It's grown complicated. It's also grown old. Basically, most of these systems use obsolete technology in that they rely upon a mainframe computer and a small cadre of skilled technicians who are familiar with the intricacies of the software and speak its special language.

Modern technology, which is called client-server technology, would put the tools on the desktops of the manager so that I myself could directly have a look at what my budget is. If I wish to make a management decision, I could input that decision in my package using protection that ensures that I only do things I'm authorized to do, and I don't change somebody else's budget.

So we have decided to replace our legacy system with a modern system called SAP, which many organizations are adopting. Some committee members may be familiar with it. It's a very serious financial management package and it's being adapted to our department's needs. We call it IFMS, and your committee may well hear us speak again about IFMS as we work through the process of putting IFMS into place.

• 1620

It's a big job. We're working hard on it. We're well advanced now. As I mentioned in my remarks, we plan to have the conversion of our financial system take place by March 31, 1998, which is the end of the government's fiscal year.

If for some reason that's not possible, then that financial management system, which will be completely year 2000 compliant, will have to be backed up using the old software. So we have the outline of a plan that would require us to repair the existing financial management software.

We don't have a detailed plan for that yet. On March 31, 1998, if we are not functional with SAP in our department at that time, we would dramatically accelerate work to determine whether we would need to fall back on the old management system, which we call RAMS.

The trouble we all face is that there are limited resources. The question of when to time the work on the contingency plan is a decision we have to make strategically, because if we devote resources to that now, we will draw resources away from the more urgent job of fixing the problem and getting it right the first time.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Not to take too much more time, but there are so many areas here a person could ask questions about. This might be an unfair question, but I think for the sake of time and to give everybody else a chance, I'm going to ask it anyway.

The Department of Industry is plugged into government services and other things. Say this doesn't work. Say we don't get the contingency plans in place and the 2000 thing rolls over on the critical systems and all the rest. In your estimation, what's the worst thing that could happen?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I'm not comfortable about speculating about the worst thing that can happen.

Mr. Eric Lowther: If I can live with the worst thing, then everything else is downhill from there.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: In our department, the worst thing that can happen to us is that some of our most important business service products we provide to Canadians won't work on January 1, 2000.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Isn't there an opportunity to do something simple? If we're not ready, could we just go to a thirteenth month and carry on or something?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: No, because the computers will still think it's 2000. I don't think we'll be able to fool them. A number of people have tried to come up with solutions that are patches. Some people say they'll just reset the clock back a few decades to buy a lot of time. Some people are trying to find other ways of fooling the clock in the computer into thinking it's not 2000.

The trouble is that these systems are all interrelated. They talk to each other. They pass information back and forth. It's extremely risky to put a band-aid on one area when that area is interdependent with lots of other areas.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So is it fair to say we don't really know the worst thing that would happen? Basically we can envision a shutdown, and that's kind of it.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Across society as a whole, the worst thing that can happen is that the essential public services, which everything sits on top of, become dysfunctional. Public utilities wouldn't supply us with electricity. The transportation system wouldn't work. The communication system wouldn't work. Under those apocalyptic scenarios, it doesn't really matter whether Industry Canada has made the deadline because the lights won't go on.

That's why it's important for all the big organizations to take this seriously. If I may say, that's why it's so important for this committee to keep shining a light on the problem. We have to make sure that all the managers realize there is nowhere to hide.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Lowther. Mr. Shepherd.

• 1625

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): It certainly sounds like a great New Year's Eve party, doesn't it?

I was a little mystified, as you went through your dissertation, as to who has the ball. I had the same problem when I talked to the Auditor General. I understand your mandate is basically Industry Canada. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: It's my mandate personally.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: How does that fit in with the Treasury Board Secretariat? Is there a general sort of plan you're reporting on, your progress and so forth, and deadlines? Is that happening?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Yes, there is. The Treasury Board Secretariat has established its own central project office. One of the things it does is require that we make periodic reports on our progress. The Treasury Board ministers, I believe, are keeping track of progress as reported to them by the Treasury Board Secretariat officials so that they can see across the whole problem at the cabinet level and understand the dimensions of where we're at and, in the limit, make decisions. The Treasury Board Secretariat is also charged with finding common solutions so that we aren't wasting energy all doing the same things.

For example, we need to be satisfied that the versions of word processing software that we use in our department are year 2000 compliant. In the limit, I could write a letter to Corel Corporation, which happens to be the supplier of WordPerfect, which is the package we use, and try to get them to certificate to us that all of the versions we may have in our department are compliant, but it's much better if someone does that centrally for all of government. Not only would that save us energy and a lot of work, but it would mean that if there is an issue with a vendor, then a lot more leverage can be applied to get the vendor to do something about it.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: On the issue of small and medium-sized businesses—and I know maybe it's not quite your mandate—one of the concerns small business people often have is about tax policy, that is, they buy new equipment and they have to amortize it over a fixed period of time. Here's a situation where they're forced into upgrading simply because the year has changed. Has there been some consideration of maybe recommending to the finance department to allow small businesses a rapid write-off so they can catch up with this problem and they could modernize their plant and facilities so they'll be ready to accept that?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I don't know of any such plan. This is the sort of thing that might come from the task force that Minister Manley has created on steps that could be taken at the strategy level.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: On the issue of budgetary constraints, I know we sort of talked around that issue. Obviously if we had tonnes of money the idea would be to upgrade completely all of our technology, and away we go. We have the newest and best equipment, and we can amortize that over a number of years, and so forth. Is there a point at which you're going to be prevented from achieving success here because of budgetary constraints?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I guess things would get pretty bad for us if we discovered that the problem was exceptionally more complex than we now believe. We have estimated that about $3 million will be required to manage the solutions in Industry Canada. Should we discover that in fact this is a $30-million problem, or a $300-million problem, then clearly this would be a severe problem for the department. I certainly hope that's not the case.

There are certainly organizations out there that are investing heavily in the year 2000 activities. We've already seen some of our groups postpone their development activities, their other activities, in order to find the resources needed for year 2000, both financial and human. I believe some organizations in the private sector are having to postpone even more aggressively and to look even more deeply for the money.

As a nation, it's going to cost us a lot. Some of the numbers we've heard...I've never heard a number as big as $700 billion, but I'm not saying it isn't right. Certainly numbers in the hundreds of billions across the western world as a whole are not ridiculous. That's going to be a major issue for political leaders.

• 1630

Mr. Alex Shepherd: To what extent is that a cascading problem? We're saying we hope it's $3 million, but boy, if we start implementing this today, using today's technologies, it's going to be a lot more, so what we're going to do is wait a little bit longer and hopefully somebody will bring in a little bit cheaper technology. To what extent are we backing ourselves up against a wall with that kind of philosophy?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Well, you're really asking a question about the economy as a whole. We're not at all expecting that some miracle technology will arrive in the next two years that will fix Industry Canada's problems. We have many things to do. All of them are hard, none of them are impossible, and no single solution will work for all of them. I believe strongly that there is not a single solution for all of the things we have to do. Any organization that is waiting for such a single solution to arrive and solve their problems for them is crazy, in my mind.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): I have two or three brief questions. You note the following in the second paragraph on page 5 of your handout:

The Treasury Board Secretariat has undertaken a review of federal information technology systems across all departments and agencies from the Year 2000 perspective and has identified 30 systems as being critical for the delivery of services to Canadians. No Industry Canada systems are included on the list of critical systems.

This is probably a mistake, but are you telling me that there are no critical systems at Industry Canada or are you saying something else... If so, what is it?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Treasury Board is trying to determine which systems are the most critical. The analysis will focus not only on these systems, but also on technological problems. Is technological information necessary to run the systems or should we have some other kind of system in place?

The 30 systems identified as being the most critical by Treasury Board are those which are used to collect fees or taxes. We're talking about very extensive systems. Industry Canada's systems for patents are also important. I would imagine that Treasury Board compared the system for patents with that used to collect taxes.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mrs. Lalonde referred to the department's business guide. Is it available in French?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I'm sorry, but I don't know.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: As you can see, I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the English language and I would imagine that francophone companies would appreciate having a copy of the guide in French. Could you get back to us on this? Even though we are spoken to in French, we're always given the title in English. That concerns me a little.

I have another concern. I came to the realization today, and it was the same the other day, that basically, no solution or solutions have been developed. It's all well and good to alert businesses to the fact that they could soon encounter some problems and to tell them to deal with the problem. The Internet offers a host of potential solutions, but in some ways I find this a little risky because a small business which conducts research in various areas must devote a great deal of time to this problem.

In my view, it's critical that information be organized so that companies can find their way through the maze. Information is like any other thing. Too much of it can be worse than too little. At times, it's not very useful.

• 1635

Mr. Timothy Garrard: As I stated in my presentation, Industry Canada has an Internet site called Strategis. This site contains information on the Year 2000 challenge geared to small and medium- sized businesses. We are currently working to compile valid information for the private sector.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Not all businesses are plugged in to the Internet. There are many regions in Quebec and in Canada where it is impossible to access the Internet without going through long distance connections.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Industry Canada also has a program...

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Yes, but from now until the Year 2000...

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Under the Community Access Program, access to the Internet is available at 3,000 sites across Canada. If the problem encountered is major, a private sector manager can find solutions or advice on strategic solutions.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I see. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: If there is a federal government publication available in English, it's also available in French. The researchers may be able to help you find it.

Mr. Lastewka.

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

I wasn't sure whether you defined the program that.... Treasury Board has said 30 systems are critical. Can you give us a short definition of what “critical” is?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Yes. From memory, the two criteria that the Treasury Board used to identify criticality of systems are, first of all, that the system is vital for the delivery of important government services, and secondly, that there is reason to believe the system will be heavily affected by the year 2000 issue.

I have the criteria here now. I can read them to you if you like.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My concern on that is the real definition of “critical”, because we've defined systems as critical and then we're doing a priority on systems. I was a little bit concerned that if we don't call them critical....

I look at it from the SME point of view. Many of the systems that Industry Canada has to serve small and medium-sized businesses are very important to them on an ongoing basis, whether it be in trade, patents, getting information, or what have you. Those are very important, maybe critical, to business, and maybe not as critical from the Treasury Board's standpoint.

As a committee we have to make sure that the people who have the critical systems in other committees are doing the same thing as we're doing here, even if it's overexposed, to make sure we don't have contingency plans all over the place. I don't know if I've made myself clear on that. I'm concerned about contingency.

Madame Lalonde talked a little bit about it. If some other department doesn't do certain things and isn't ready, it could affect us. If the industry department is not in total sync, it could affect other departments. If you remember, when we asked the Auditor General if he was ready, he said, “No, I can't be ready until other people are ready”. I'm really concerned about that whiplashing back and forth.

• 1640

I would hope that when you're meeting and talking with Treasury Board, you're having those discussions on those areas. Maybe you could help me on that.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: One of the things we're learning is that everything is connected to everything. The information highway has created a degree of interdependence in our systems that makes it necessary for us to look beyond the individual package that we might be investigating to see the other systems it relies upon. We're extremely conscious of the fact that while we need to look at our own applications, we also need to look at the applications they rely on. So with Treasury Board Secretariat, we are very cognizant of the need to understand all of the relationships between our systems and the larger systems.

Earlier you mentioned the criteria, and when I answered I didn't have before me the criteria; I do now. One of the criteria refers to the importance of the system, and the criterion reads: “which directly impacts the health, safety, security, or economic well-being of Canadians or their environment”. Economic well-being is very much what concerns small business and it very much concerns Industry Canada. That's what we do. That's our mission.

I mentioned in my remarks that the Treasury Board doesn't regard our systems as critical. That doesn't mean we don't regard our systems as critical. It's everything we do. If we don't solve the year 2000 problem, we're out of business. I can only say that our own definitions of criticality put our business systems at the top and our own departmental management systems at the bottom. If we have to decide, in the expenditure of resources, we'll expend them first on the systems that citizens or businesses rely on, and the systems that I as a public servant rely on will get fixed last.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I know the task force is not directly reporting to you, but people have mentioned over and over that they're concerned about the final report date of the task force. I would hope that somewhere along the line there would be an interim report so we would know what things are getting close to having that contingency item. Maybe you could take that back to the department.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I'll carry that comment back.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I personally would like to see an interim report, if not before Christmas, then the first week we're back in February, so we would know where we're going down this road.

A voice: Good point.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I wanted to request that.

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

Mr. Eric Lowther: I don't know how much longer we need to go on this, Madam Chairman, but I do have a few points to address here.

When your presentation was first done, Mr. Garrard, I felt pretty upbeat that we're going to get past this. As we press in, I feel the weight of this issue coming back again, not so much because of your presentation, but just because of the weightiness of the issue. Particularly when we see $3.3 million and then we hear it could be $30 million or $300 million, that concerns me. Also, the report talks about the development of other systems being put on hold. What's being sacrificed there I don't know, but those are concerns.

When I look at all this, I'd just like a couple of impressions from you, as somebody who's close to it, on two things. One, how confident are you that we're actually going to solve this problem? And two, what would you advise this committee to do? How can we best function to assist in the solution of this problem?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Preambularly, I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that $30 million or $300 million is an actual estimate we're making. I was using it hypothetically in response to another question about what would be a big number. Those numbers would certainly be big.

• 1645

Within our own activities, we already have to reallocate the resources needed to undertake $3.3 million worth of activity. That will mean some other applications will be postponed, and that will mean some effect on our other operations. We believe we can do that without interruption of service to Canadians. We have operated in the last year in an environment in which the total quantity of resources available to us has already been reduced considerably. So these numbers are small in relation to the total budget changes in the department.

I have confidence in Industry Canada and with respect to the systems under our direct control. I am confident, but not completely confident. I don't want to be completely confident. I think the issue is too important for complacency. As a nation, we have probably become aware of this issue over an extended period of time. Many people now wish we had perhaps become aware of it a little bit sooner. I do not want to be comfortable. I want to be nervous for the next 27 months because—

Mr. Eric Lowther: Maybe we can help you there.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I think the committee can help by holding officials like me accountable for having detailed plans and for reporting on them periodically in order to show you that we are trying hard and are taking it seriously.

At lunch today, I was talking with a colleague from a provincial government. He remarked that the release of the Auditor General's report, and the attention paid to this paid in this committee and elsewhere, has meant that a whole lot of people back in his province are now starting to really pay attention. He was pleased and grateful that this was happening. So I think the committee can continue to shine a light on the issue, and can help not only government but small and medium-sized business and everybody else to understand that this issue is important.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lowther. Mr. Peric.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Chair, I just have a short comment and a question.

We are aware that in Ontario, when a school board plans to build a school, they build it and then put in portables before it is opened. That's a sign of poor planning.

I'm pretty confident that this committee will keep you accountable. There are so many guesses on what might happen or what could happen. In your opinion, was planning started early enough?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: In my opinion, we will solve the problem on time and our plans are adequate to the schedule. For the country as a whole, I imagine today that we would be more comfortable if everybody had started planning earlier.

Certainly some of the resource constraints that we are feeling are awkward. I read in the paper about shortages of skilled people. If we had more time to deal with the issue, those shortages could have been managed better. But in my department, as I said before, I am confident that we'll finish on time.

Mr. Janko Peric: There might be a shortage of qualified people, but Bill Gates is pulling them down to Silicon Valley. I am just wondering if your department consulted with the education institutions in order to prepare those people to be ready and available.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: My department is in touch with the skills issue. We are not a primary interface with the education system. We are the department of business, the Department of Industry. What I hear business clients tell us about is the difficulty they have in attracting the skills they need to be in business. In some parts of the country—Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa—businesses keep telling me how much trouble they have in attracting people and keeping them. Sometimes they attract them by hiring them away from me, and that hurts a little bit.

• 1650

I think we all need to do a better job in preparing young people for careers in the knowledge-based economy. We're very short of people in this area, and those are the best jobs there are in the economy. It's a pity that we aren't matching skills and opportunities better. I think it goes beyond Industry Canada a long way, and it goes beyond the federal government a long way as well. I can only assure you that Industry Canada is very aware of the issue in general terms, and we would like to help where we can.

Mr. Janko Peric: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Peric.

[Translation]

Mrs. Alarie.

Mrs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Garrard, I don't want to take up too much time, but many things have been said. In light of the two meetings we've had, the first one with the Auditor General and the second one here today with you, I sense that a certain mood has taken hold.

On the one hand, there is the feeling that we should be somewhat alarmed by the situation. On the other hand, in its response to the Auditor General, Treasury Board appears to be saying that everything is fine and that we shouldn't be worried. Personally, I am worried, all the more so given that in the Year 2000 project model that has been developed, little provision has been made for interim or progress reports. According to the Auditor General's report, three departments are following the model phase by phase, whereas the others are all at different stages. At least that was my understanding of the situation.

Another point has not been mentioned at all and it puzzles me. The government's fiscal year begins on April 1, 1999. Perhaps this will have an impact on whatever we do, since we are not dealing with December 31. The fiscal years overlaps two different years. That's an additional problem.

You have an interim and a planning report and you say that you will be able to determine the cost of the work that needs to be done as well as the time and the technical resources required. Will you be able to deliver all of this in November 1997, that is in a month's time?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: As I told you, we have tried to complete a preliminary review or what we call an impact assessment. We are in the process of completing a detailed plan. We began our work in the summer and in November, Industry Canada's management committee will hold meetings to discuss these detailed plans. That won't be the end of this and no doubt some adjustments will have to be made. I expect that we will hold a number of meetings and that our plans will be fine-tuned.

We are in the process of solving these problems. I'm not an alarmist, but...

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: You're simply giving us the facts.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I'm totally convinced that we have to work hard.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I have a final question for you. Earlier on, you said that you had in front of you the criteria used to identify those systems deemed critical.

• 1655

You also spoke of the importance of systems in terms of their direct impact on the physical and economic well-being of individuals. Isn't there another criterion, namely the state of these systems? You failed to mention this.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: With your permission, I will read from my handout:

[English]

the loss or interruption of which, even for a short period, is deemed to be an unacceptable risk, recognizing that a year 2000 failure is likely to take weeks or months to repair.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Chair, I find the presentation by Mr. Garrard and his answering all the questions very comforting in some way. He appears to be extremely knowledgeable and extremely hard at work.

He speaks for his department, but what about the other departments? What are they doing? Should we not have had here today the chief systems officers for all different departments?

The Chair: We had asked the chief systems officer from the Treasury Board to be here today, but there is a government technology workshop in place over three days and he was unavailable for today. The original plan was to have both of them here today, but he can come at a later date.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Otherwise we'll never know if the world is round.

The Chair: We also have to look at the fact that the public accounts committee has called the Auditor General before it to discuss the report. We have to determine the role of the industry committee. At one of the previous meetings we talked briefly about our desire to notify all of the other committees of what their roles should be with their own departments and what our role is. I believe we discussed very briefly that we felt our role in industry was with small and medium-sized businesses, particularly the task force that's been set up, and perhaps we would want the chief information officer from Treasury Board to speak to that. We did try to have him here today, but because that's going on we were unable to.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Trying is fine, but I think he should come here. I don't care when. It needs to be done.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The second point, Madam Chair, is about resources. Through the years I have been very concerned about the downsizing of government. I want to know, in particular for this department, whether you have the resources you need. By resources I mean access to outsourcing and experts on staff. These are two separate questions.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I believe we do.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: On both?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I believe we do. As we currently understand the scope of the problem, we believe we will need $3 million or so worth of effort. That's the labour cost of skills. That might be 50 or 60 person-years. We have a fairly large staff of information technology specialists in the department, and we can find those skills within those resources over the next two years.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Have you had any brain drain from your department in that field?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I'm not aware of any specific brain drain associated with year 2000. We've certainly had brain drain in my department.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In the computer systems, have you had any brain drain?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: We have had a loss of people to the private sector or to other places in the information technology area. It's a hot skills area.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The private sector is having difficulty finding people.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: They're finding some of them in my department.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: How can you resolve the problem?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: In the long run we can do that by training more people. It's not a problem, it's a good thing that people are finding work. The situation is created by the fact that the information technology industry is booming and companies are growing and hiring. This hasn't always been true. There have been periods in the past when the industry has—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Excuse me for interrupting, but I just want specific answers.

• 1700

Are you short of something that you're not telling us now in your department or section? If you were in the private sector and I was a major shareholder and I was asking you what's missing because I wanted you to fix it...? Is there something missing right now?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: I think I can say that of the skills we have in my department, even in the information technology area, our greatest need is not for programmers knowledgeable about COBOL; our greatest need at the moment is for people who know about the Internet. My department has made a very significant investment in developing its Internet site, and next year we have plans to add electronic commerce to our Internet site. This requires skilled people who are knowledgeable about—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do you mean to say that Internet is the solution?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: No, it's not the solution to the year 2000 problem. It's my greatest skill need at the moment.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What is lacking to get you that skill need?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: For the Internet?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: It's people at a price I can afford to pay.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Then you're lacking staff?

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Yes, I need more good skills.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I think that should be noted by the committee.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: A committee should be struck to look into this matter.

[English]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have another question, Madam Chair. I wonder if we could not get an expert witness from the private sector, at least one, to come in and discuss this.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, one of the things the committee has tried to do is to have the task force come before us. We've had some brief discussions with the chair. They're in the process of working as a group. We may want to consider inviting them to become before us with our experts in the field and have a round table discussion with the task force, if they would be interested in doing that. I think the committee may be interested in doing that.

I know Mr. Lastewka has a motion. Mr. Lastewka, are you ready?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I can be. With permission of the members of the committee, hearing what we have heard today, and again reinforcing the importance of getting more people to understand that we have a problem at hand and it needs a lot of work in advance and that we need to highlight it, I would like—if the members okay it—to move, seconded by my colleague Mr. Lowther, that the chair of the industry committee write a letter to the chairs of the other standing committees concerning the urgency and importance of the year 2000 system requirements and the need for their committees to review the respective departments' progress.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on that motion?

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Could you read that back in French, please?

[English]

The Chair: Oh, the translation...could you read that again, please, Mr. Lastewka?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Sure. I have two pieces of paper here, and I'm just trying to finish it.

I move, seconded by Mr. Lowther, that the chair of the industry committee write a letter to the chairs of the other standing committees concerning the urgency and importance of the year 2000 system requirements and the need for their committee to review their respective departments.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: With all the respect I have for Mr. Lastewka, the type of answer he could be getting could be pretty glib. The Auditor General has already given the government notice. People have read the newspapers. They know about his concern, which will become our concern in the form of a motion, but what we need to do is ask these people who we're making aware of the urgency to come here and tell us what they're doing.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, we have to determine—and I've had some brief discussions with other committee chairs—what the role of industry is and what our parameters are. We felt at our earlier meeting that individual departments would be responsible to their own committees with the plan based on this type of letter. We would have them come before their own committees. As well, public accounts is also studying this, as well as government operations. So we'd have to do some co-ordination with other committees if the idea is to bring nine different departments before the industry committee, which I'm not sure is the proper place for those departments.

• 1705

I believe our role is to ensure that industry is ready for the year 2000—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The Department of Industry.

The Chair: Not just the Department of Industry but industry as in small and medium-sized businesses, large businesses, industry in general. I believe we have quite a large role just in identifying that and in trying to get the message out. Our role is ensuring they're ready. It's getting the message out that you'd better get ready and that you'd better use what resources you have to get ready.

That's why we know that the Minister of Industry has set up the small and medium-sized task force made up of different leaders in the business community to look at that issue. My suggestion was to have him before us. I understand you think we should have experts before us. That's another possibility.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Again, on the motion, I think there's a phrase missing at the end that says, come over here, we want to know what you're doing. We've sounded the alarm but I don't hear the sirens.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I would be prepared to support Mr. Lastewka's motion, but I suggest that it be amended slightly to say that we have examined this issue and that further to the Auditor General's recommendation, we feel that it is of such import that we should continue our work and that we call upon other committees, even if they are attending to urgent business, to also look into this matter. We are sounding a kind of alarm.

I'm even more inclined to support it considering that even Mr. Manley's committee was struck only in September. The Minister announced the creation of this committee on September 2. This means that even the Industry Minister was not as aware as all that of the issue. I think it's better to sound two warning bells in this case. We could work on the text of the motion so that it reads more like an invitation than anything else. This shouldn't pose a problem, Madam Chair. It's a matter of saying that we are taking this action and that we call upon other committees to do the same thing.

[English]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It's just like writing someone, somewhere, a letter and not expecting an answer. We need an answer to our concern.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: No. That's another matter.

[English]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The question is where I have some difficulty. We need to formulate a question where there's a reaction, where we'll get from them, yes, we're doing something and here's a date where we could send you a report or report directly to you. We shouldn't just mail out a note and then expect we've done our work.

The Chair: I'm not sure if the committee wants to have written reports from the other departments, but we could.

As Madame Lalonde said, we will be continuing to study this issue. That could be part of the motion.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My main point was—and I know people around this committee have become much more learned as the result of our having the Auditor General here, as a result of some people doing homework in Montreal or me doing it somewhere else, and my intention was.... The committees are getting very busy and they're going to pick priorities. They might do the same thing with the year 2000, put it down at the bottom.

I wanted to alert them that they should be doing it now, it's an urgency. As we go through and listen to the minister, and hopefully we can get the chairman of the committee here soon.... If we have to take further action because we are the industry committee, I think we will take it then.

But I didn't want to wait until we hear the next two presentations to issue the alarm. I think there's an alarm out there for people to understand that this is big problem and it can't be done overnight.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Could we add a small question to the end of the note we're sending that we would like to know what are their deadlines that we could rely on for information.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I would like some clarification on this, either from the chair or from the other members, and it pertains to this question of having a question on this motion.

• 1710

Do we see ourselves on this committee as the champions of the year 2000 issue across all departments? Are we going to ride herd on this thing until it's solved, or is our scope that we're aware of it and our scope is the industry segment and the industry community at large? If it is the latter of those two, then I would think the motion should stand as it is, and each committee would decide whether to call somebody in or what they are going to do with this issue in their own purview. If it is the former and we are the champions of the year 2000 issue, then I would endorse your question being on there. I need some clarification on that.

Mr. Janko Peric: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Peric.

Mr. Janko Peric: Yes. I feel very comfortable supporting the motion as is, and time is running out. I have to leave. You have my support on the motion as it is.

The Chair: We need you to stay for the vote, if you could just wait.

Mr. Janko Peric: I can stay another minute.

The Chair: In response to Mr. Lowther's question, Mr. Bellemare, we can have departments before us, but as the industry committee we can't force different things upon other departments. I believe we have identified our role as the industry committee, which is, as Mr. Garrard has said, to keep shining the light on the issue. We're going to have the CIO from Treasury Board in front of us. Hopefully we can convince the task force to meet with us in a round table discussion and we will continue to bring this issue forward. I believe Mr. Lastewka's motion does that to every other committee and then spreads it out so that every committee has a responsibility to go to their respective department and find out what their plans are and bring them before their committee and discuss it. I think that is one way of getting the communication out on a much wider scale.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm starting to feel much more comfortable. Will a copy of this motion go to all of our standing committees?

The Chair: I'm going to draw up the letter on behalf of the committee to all standing committees, yes. Are we ready to vote on the motion?

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: We don't have the text of the motion in front of us. Are we inviting other committees to adopt a similar course of action?

The Chair: No.

[English]

Perhaps you could read the motion again.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The motion basically says that we would like to see each of the other committees review their departments just as we have.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: I want to thank you, Mr. Garrard, for your patience and I want to thank you for your presentation today. I believe, and this committee believes, as you can tell, that it's a large issue and it's a large problem, and I'm pleased to see that Industry Canada is moving ahead and has recognized that December 31, 1998, is really the deadline. I know other businesses, and maybe even some departments, use the number 99 for other things and will find themselves in tremendous difficulty on January 1, 1999, let alone January 1, 2000. I know some businesses haven't looked at that, so I'm glad to see you recognized that December 31, 1998, is the real deadline. We will make that known to other committees.

I know there are reports on the Internet every day talking about the difficulties and what could happen. Health care and hospitals are a very serious issue, and I believe that's a study we should ask the health committee to look at. They have life support systems and many other things that are on technical computers and we don't know the background—I don't have the background—for that.

Again, we appreciate your report today. Your comments have been very helpful. We will probably be asking you to come back and join us again in the near future.

Mr. Timothy Garrard: Thank you very much.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Chair, I have a housekeeping question. I received two invitations to come to this meeting, one inviting me to go to 237-C Centre Block, which I did, and a second one to 209 West Block.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm not omnipresent. I don't have that quality and don't like to be running around different buildings because I'm getting misinformation.

The Chair: I apologize for that, Mr. Bellemare. It's not the clerk's fault. I had agreed that we would change committee rooms because the subcommittee meeting for Quebec schools did not have a committee room in which they could use television and they had agreed that all their meetings would be televised, so I agreed to the change.

• 1715

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have no problem with the changing of your mind at all, but should we not be alerted at least that same morning?

The Chair: Yes. I apologize if that did not happen.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It's not your job.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: But you had an excellent guide.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned until Thursday.