Chair:	* Rick Thorpe (Okanagan-Penticton L)
Deputy Chair:	* Evelyn Gillespie (Comox Valley NDP)
Members:	* Pietro Calendino (Burnaby North NDP) * Rick Kasper (Malahat-Juan de Fuca NDP) Joy MacPhail (Vancouver-Hastings NDP) * Steve Orcherton (Victoria-Hillside NDP) Glenn Robertson (North Island NDP) * Erda Walsh (Kootenay NDP) * Murray Coell (Saanich North and the Islands L) Gary Farrell-Collins (Vancouver-Little Mountain L) * John Weisbeck (Okanagan East L) * Jack Weisgerber (Peace River South Ind)
Clerk:	Craig James
* denotes member present

[ Page 1177 ]

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

R. Thorpe (Chair): First we are just going to do a quick follow-up here from the Ministry of Agriculture and welcome back Dave Davies and Gord Macatee, and they'll go through their presentation.

Just before we do that, though, we do have a special guest in the public gallery today. His name is Michael Macatee, and we welcome him here today. It's my understanding that he's a student and is part of a project -- I think it's going across Canada, quite frankly -- where parents and children are attaching themselves in understanding what mom or dad does all day. Michael, I wouldn't want to help you conclude your decision here, but one of the questions that you may ask at the dinner table tonight is: "Dad, is that all you do?" Anyway, Michael, welcome.

We'll turn it over to Gord and Dave.

G. Macatee: Thank you very much, and thank you for the welcome to Michael. I don't want him to get the impression that this is what I do every day either.

I am Gord Macatee, assistant deputy minister of the agriculture division, and Dave Davies, who's with me, is director of corporate services and our executive financial officer. This is a follow-up to the presentation Dave made last week. We have provided a written submission from our deputy, which I think you just received, that will summarize some of the things that I'm just about to go through. I have a very brief presentation on what we've been doing in terms of training in the last two and a half to three years and what we're doing in terms of the auditor general's recommendations.

I'd like to begin by putting a little perspective on what the ministry has been faced with over the last several years and how that is impacted by our training and development actions. The timing of the audit came at quite a challenging time for the ministry, because in November 1996 we implemented an 18 percent budget reduction and laid off about 80 of our staff. So when the audit was underway, it wasn't surprising that we were hearing that a number of our employees were unclear about their role and unclear about the future direction of the ministry.

At the time of the downsizing in 1996 and through 1997, our executive had identified two critical needs for our employees and for the ministry to cope with the transition. The first was to establish the direction for the future and to do that with a strategic plan that would give our employees and our clients a sense of how the ministry would conduct its business in the future; and, secondly, to make a significant commitment to training and development to help our staff cope with the changes and prepare themselves to deal with new roles and responsibilities.

The first step in the process was the development of a strategic plan in 1997-98. I would just like to quote to you from the introduction to that plan, which reads as follows: "This document is intended. . .as a short-term planning document guiding the ministry through a transitional period as it changes from a maintenance and survival structure to one more conducive to growth and sustainability." That strategic plan set out two strategic priorities for the ministry, which we have carried through to this day as our primary roles -- namely, industry development and resource management.

[1310]

Some examples of the things we implemented at that time were streamlining into one unit our various regulatory functions that were spread throughout the ministry, and we were able to reduce the number of staff involved from something in the order of 30 to fewer than ten. We divested ourselves of the brand inspection activities that had been part of the ministry for many, many years, and then we helped the private sector create a new-brand service, which is operating today and very successful. So we stopped doing some things.

We relocated our crop insurance program to the Okanagan to be closer to our main client groups and to provide a more efficient service. We wound up a number of branches and shifted to a kind of matrix approach, delivering our industry development services through something we call commodity teams. As you can see, we stopped doing some things, and we changed the way we did other things. The result was staff with new roles -- broader roles, in many cases -- using new tools and requiring new skills.

This leads us to the third part of our approach, which was a renewed commitment to training and development. We approach training through three components at present. There's a training budget allocated to branch directors, primarily to support transferable skills. This is the component of the budget that Dave was referring to when he spoke to your committee last week. When we reduced our staff, we also made a decision to put more emphasis on computers as a tool to increase the output and efficiency of what our staff could achieve. Accordingly, over the last two and a half years we've put significant dollars into computer system upgrades and associated training.

The third element of our approach is focused on our technical and professional staff. We employ a very high proportion of professional employees: agrologists, engineers, veterinarians, financial experts, lab technicians, insurance experts and so on. We are investing relatively small amounts in primary research and development in B.C. Our strategy to acquire the skills and the leading-edge technology we need to be successful has come from looking to other parts of Canada, North America and the world for the authorities and the information available to allow us to focus our efforts on the gaps and the very unique requirements of British Columbia. One of the best sources of that kind of information is the technical and professional conferences, seminars and meetings where professional staff hear from leading authorities and meet with their colleagues in various fields.

[ Page 1178 ]

I think it's very important to underline that in this technical and professional area, in the last two fiscal years -- this one and the last fiscal year -- industry has contributed over $50,000 in additional resources to help get professional employees to these kinds of events. That underlines the value that the industry places on the skills our staff possess and their understanding that we need to keep those skills current and effective.

[1315]

The changes that started in 1996 have continued. In 1997-98 we moved the fisheries division out of Agriculture to create a new ministry, which transferred quite a number of staff and changed the roles of many who remained. Last year we transferred the accounts payable, personnel and information technology functions to two other ministries, who are now providing those services to us under special service agreements.

The reason I make that point is that our need to be committed to ongoing training at the highest levels we can afford continues to be a very high priority. We recognize that we need to continue to address the unique needs of our staff through direct control, by this ministry, over their primary training needs, particularly in the technical and professional areas. We have taken the auditor general's recommendations very seriously. We have, I believe, addressed all of the recommendations to varying degrees. We still have work to do in some areas, particularly in succession planning.

I'd just like to close by saying that we really believe we've made the necessary commitment to training to cope with the changes that all government departments are dealing with and to allow us to deliver a high level of service to B.C.'s agriculture and food industry.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you very much, Gord. Who has questions?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): We had some discussion at our last meeting where we talked about maintaining human capital and about the way in which training is actually measured, there being some difficulty around measuring that. How do you measure a conference? How do you measure the transfer of knowledge from one ministry employee to another? How are you handling that within your own ministry, and does it coordinate with the centralized activities?

G. Macatee: In various ways. Starting with the professional and technical part of it, when an employee goes to one of these events, one of the first and most important measures is when the industry is stepping forward and helping contribute to some of the costs. It's one of the best measures we have that what we're doing is relevant and valued by the industry.

When they get back, they produce a report which is circulated up through our executive but also within the professional group that has an interest in the kinds of activities they've been involved in. They are usually required to take the information they've developed and implement it as part of the delivery of our program to clients. We're getting feedback in terms of the value of these activities from a number of sources. We keep these reports on file, and we summarize them so that we can keep track of what we're doing and how we're doing, hopefully avoid unnecessary duplication or overlap and, as well, try to focus what we do in the future from what we've learned in that way.

In terms of the transferable skills programs, we always try to have evaluation at the end of a seminar to give feedback on the value of these kinds of training initiatives both to the people that put on the course and to us.

[1320]

G. Macatee: A great deal of the technical and professional cost is related to travel. A fairly small proportion of it is tuition and those types of costs. We don't budget it as a travel line in our budget; it's part of the branch budgets. One of the objectives is to encourage our branch directors and our staff to use travel budgets as efficiently and effectively as they can. To some extent, the ability to participate in these activities is a reward, and it is proving to be a very effective way to maximize and get good value for the investment we make in travel.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I'm still not. . . . Oh, I see. You've got: tuition and travel total. Okay, fine.

J. Weisgerber: I guess my question is along the same line as the last question that Ms. Gillespie asked. When I look at the figures you have on page 5 indicating projected expenditures of $264,000 for training and look on page 2 and see that you have $160,000 in your budget for training. . . . How do those two figures jibe?

G. Macatee: The $160,000 number is showing up in our budget as a line item called training. It's used for the transferable skills and the computer training, which are linked to the traditional type of training where there's

[ Page 1179 ]

J. Weisgerber: So the $160,000 shows up as part of the $201,000?

G. Macatee: That's correct.

J. Weisgerber: And the balance of that is travel?

G. Macatee: Well, it's a combination of travel and fees associated with participating in these various conferences, meetings and so on.

J. Weisgerber: But the fees would come out of the $160,000 training budget.

G. Macatee: No, this part of the fee would actually come out of the travel budget.

J. Weisgerber: Really?

G. Macatee: Yes.

J. Weisgerber: Okay. I was also curious -- if I might, Mr. Chairman -- and I'm not sure that this is directly relevant to the issue we have in front of us, but. . . . The statement in the materials supplied -- I'm just trying to find it here. . . . There's a reference which suggests that the decision by the ministry to change the way it operates puts the ministry. . . . I see -- here it is on page 3 in the fourth paragraph. The statement struck me as rather strange -- to note that it puts the ministry "at a distinct disadvantage."

Why would the ministry take a set of decisions that would put it at a distinct disadvantage?

G. Macatee: I think the reason that statement is there is to help you understand why, when we look at the chart on table 5, for example, in 1999 -- the current year -- the amount of money in that line is lower than in 1998.

We have depended on travel to get staff to these kinds of conferences. We occasionally are faced with cross-government freezes and restraints. In some cases, that has not allowed us to support this component of our training to the extent that we would have perhaps hoped to be able to do.

However, over the last two and a half years we have been, I think, very successful in getting staff to these kinds of activities. I think our staff are feeling very comfortable that we're providing a level of support that's appropriate.

J. Weisgerber: Could you tell me who makes the decisions on which conferences are attended and who attends them? Is there an attempt to achieve some balance between the various sectors -- dairy, tree fruits, grain crops, etc.? How's that handled within your ministry?

[1325]

J. Weisgerber: Thank you.

M. Coell: A couple of questions. If I could take you back to 1997-98, when your total budget was approximately $261,000. . . . You had IT training contracts at $138,768 and the IT branch at $10,654. So more than half of your budget for training is in those two areas. Could you outline what exactly that money was spent on?

G. Macatee: The IT component, you mean?

M. Coell: Yeah. The branch as well as the contracts.

G. Macatee: When we did the downsizing, we felt that our ability to deliver a high level of service was going to require a significant shift toward information technology as a delivery mechanism. We invested significantly in equipment at that point, and we put in a number of servers -- platforms -- to be able to deliver information to clients, to gather data, to make the regulatory functions more streamlined. This all involved new types of software and new skills for our employees. So the investment. . . . What would appear to be an imbalance is because during this period of time, we felt this was our absolute top priority -- investment in these computer information technology skills. I hope I've answered your question; I'm not sure I was completely clear on it.

M. Coell: I don't have any disagreement with the need to do that.

If we now look at the year '99-2000, you have approximately $88,000 in information technology training and $33,000 for contribution to PSERC. I just wondered what the difference in those two is. Are you still in the process of buying computer systems? I guess what I'm getting at is that when we say professional training dollars, to me that needs to be over and above your technical skills and delivering the programs. That seems to still be a fairly high percentage of IT dollars.

G. Macatee: Okay. Well, by good luck and coincidence, we started this process at a time which has put us in a very good situation as we move into the Y2K issue. So we've also now been investing in equipment for the rest of the ministry. The need for these information skills applies equally to our receptionists and secretaries. So we still feel we need to maintain this level of commitment. We expect that with next year's budget and the year after that, we'll be able to start ramping that down and putting more emphasis on other skill areas.

The $33,000 contribution to PSERC is for cross-government training initiatives in which our staff participate.

M. Coell: Thank you. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Morfitt if he could comment. Possibly I'm on the wrong

[ Page 1180 ]

[1330]

G. Macatee: Well, I agree with that, and that is the balance we're trying to find between the transferable skills and the technical professional skills.

M. Coell: The reason I bring it up is that I think in the next few years there's going to be a tendency to find funds for training for computer and IT skills out of professional training budgets. I think that it's something we really have to watch, that we don't just find all those skills to upgrade people's day-to-day knowledge and skills, with the fact that we wanted to increase the professional output. I think that's something we're going to have to watch.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any other questions? I just have one. On the training sphere, what type of cooperation is there between the provincial government in the area of Ministry of Agriculture and the federal government? In particular, I look towards the Summerland Research Station.

G. Macatee: Your question, of course, is specific to training?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes.

G. Macatee: To use this as a good example, the Summerland Research Station is one of Canada's leading facilities in the area of horticulture. The staff that we have, who are specialists in the horticultural field, work very closely with that station and participate in training initiatives that are being provided, including presentations being made by the scientists on the findings that they have made in their research work. The role our staff then plays is to take the information from what the scientists have done and translate it to the field level, so our farmers and agribusinesses can implement that and support their businesses accordingly. We see it as a very important part of our training.

There are other federal facilities in British Columbia where similar types of activities take place, and we are able to send staff, from time to time, to federal facilities in other provinces. To the extent that we can, we are using that as a source of important information.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I don't think I see any other questions. Thank you for coming and bringing this update and more detailed approach. It's appreciated. Since you're not on the agenda for the next issue, year 2000, is the Ministry of Agriculture year 2000-ready?

D. Davies: Yes.

G. Macatee: Yes.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Good thing he was with you, eh?

G. Macatee: He's responsible.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, thank you. Michael, enjoy the rest of your day.

We'll start with the office of the auditor general, and then we'll go into your area, Stuart -- just because there's a shortage of seats here. Then we'll move into the other areas. Whenever you're ready, please begin.

[1335]

I'd like to take this occasion to express my appreciation to the committee for taking up this report so expeditiously. It has just come out. It's very time-sensitive, and it was most important that this committee deal with it right away. You're doing that, which we appreciate.

With me at the table is Mr. Keyvan Ahmadi, senior principal within the office in charge of this area, and also Faye Fletcher, the manager within our office who did much of the detailed work in connection with this report. I'll turn matters over to Keyvan.

K. Ahmadi: Good afternoon. We have reported on the year 2000 remediation activities of the government over the last few years. In each report we have progressively looked at the activities that were part of the progress evolving from an initial assessment of the problem to developing solutions and the testing and verification of systems. The last stage of this would be the development of the business evaluation plans and final verification, which is the subject of most of this report. In this review, we assessed the progress made by the government since February 1999. This report sums up the state of the government's preparedness to deal with the year 2000 problem as at the end of August 1999. Government's activities at this stage of remediation result in daily changes to the status of its preparedness for the year 2000. Some shortcomings we

[ Page 1181 ]

This is a very large project, and we estimate that the direct cost of this project was in the vicinity of a quarter of a billion dollars for the government and agencies and public bodies. It's a project that doesn't particularly have very clear orders, because every year the government continually develops and improves on its information technology. In this report, we have not looked at that aspect of the project, and we are reporting mostly on the progress which is done to get the government ready and prepared to deal with the year 2000.

Faye Fletcher, who managed this review, is now going to make a presentation of the content of this report.

[1340]

Our past reviews of the year 2000 projects have focused mainly on the first seven phases of year 2000 project management. In this review, we focused on business continuation planning and the verification of systems as year 2000-ready, which will bring year 2000 remediation to a close. During August 1999 we conducted a review of mission-critical systems in ministries, Crown corporations and public bodies, including health care authorities, colleges and universities.

A system is considered mission-critical if failure of that system could result in a potential life-threatening situation, economic hardship for British Columbians, serious damage to the environment or a significant loss or liability to the province. We surveyed ministries and 75 government organizations. We then selected a sample of mission-critical systems for assessment of their progress in business continuation planning and the verification of their systems as year 2000-ready.

The Information, Science and Technology Agency was responsible for recommending a framework that ensures that service to the public is not disrupted and an unwarranted expense to the government is not incurred. In June of 1998, ISTA created the Action 2000 project office to monitor mission-critical applications and to promote public and private communications of year 2000 information. The Action 2000 project office has partnered with various other government bodies. The Year 2000 Implementation Task Force established by ISTA in 1996 was instrumental in setting a year 2000 compliance definition, a year 2000 readiness definition and a uniform date standard for all government ministries. The deputy ministers are responsible for year 2000 activities in their ministries. The ministries must report monthly to ISTA on their year 2000 progress. The chief information officer reports monthly to the deputy ministers' council.

To minimize the government's legal exposure, the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General provides legal advice and assistance to the ministries, the Action 2000 office and the task force. The legal services branch's involvement includes identifying the potential risk or liability to the provincial government in the event of a year 2000-related disruption; identifying steps that may be taken to reduce the risk of potential liability; reviewing year 2000-related correspondence and documents, both internal and external; drafting and reviewing contracts; and monitoring year 2000 legislation and litigation in other jurisdictions. We noted that two of the 11 ministries we surveyed had not determined the extent of their potential liability.

From an accountability point of view, sufficient information, including testing records and user acceptance, should be available to demonstrate that the government has applied due diligence in addressing the problem. In assessing the state of the government's preparedness, we gave particular attention to documentation.

Risk management involves determining the importance of the services offered, the risk of disruption and the potential impact to the services. The risk management branch is preparing a list of all ministry mission-critical and business priority program areas to be used to determine the overall government priorities. The goals are to prevent any disruption to vital public service and any loss of accountability for public resources.

To build confidence in year 2000 preparedness, the government is promoting public awareness of how these risks are managed through extensive community visits. These visits involve presentations by service sectors, such as banking, insurance and supermarkets, telling local residents how prepared their community is. More visits are planned for this fall. It's anticipated that B.C. Hydro, Telus, B.C. Gas and Centra Gas will participate along with representatives from the local health authority and municipality.

[1345]

Also, the Ministry of Attorney General is leading the provincial emergency program with guidance from the Action 2000 office, ministries, essential service providers, regional and community emergency coordinators, and federal agencies such as the RCMP and the Department of National Defence. This high-level coordination is essential to make the transition to the year 2000 as smooth as possible.

[ Page 1182 ]

Although government management has given thoughtful consideration to all aspects of the year 2000 problem, there still remains a degree of uncertainty as to whether their initiatives have been completely successful. The government knows this and has recognized the need to develop a fallback plan of action to ensure business continuation. The government's approach to business continuation planning requires that plans be practical, well documented, action-oriented and based on an all-hazards approach. Plans should include the recognition of and the response to the year 2000 threat, but not be limited to it. The business continuation plans prepared by the ministries are being evaluated by the risk management branch.

Our review of business continuation plans was directed towards evaluating the management controls surrounding their development, particularly the review and approval of plans by senior authorized persons. We chose a sample of mission-critical, high-profile systems for our evaluation, examined documentary evidence that such review and approval had occurred and reviewed the external evaluation of the plan by the risk management branch. We also looked at the process the government was using to ensure that the plans were appropriately planned and completed.

There are two basic methods of demonstrating the effectiveness of the plans. The first is through the thorough exercising of the plan to show that it is practical, action-oriented and understood by the affected personnel. The second method is a plan by the Action 2000 office and the risk management branch to contract a group to prepare to test disaster scenarios. The group would declare a test disaster scenario and have the ministry exercise the business continuation plan.

Very few of the early drafts submitted to the risk management branch were evaluated as being effective plans. Comments made by the branch were "format poor"; "tasks do not contain sufficient detail"; "plan focused on year 2000, rather than on all potential risks"; "plan is directed to recovery of the computer systems instead of to program delivery." We found that though the government had an adequate process in place to ensure that the ministries develop and complete their plans, in some ministries we were unable to obtain formal documentary evidence of authorized management review and approval.

[1350]

While there are practical limitations and difficulties to satisfying oneself that the efforts made have successfully dealt with the issue, there remains a pressing need for a verification process of year 2000 readiness. This process should include setting a standard for year 2000 -- compliance or readiness that the organization can be measured against and performing an organized evaluation of compliance based on hard evidence. Appropriate verification procedures should ensure that user acceptance tests were developed, comprehensive testing was carried out, all applications that interface with the year 2000-ready system are also ready, the ready system has been successfully implemented into a year 2000-ready production environment, management processes are in place to ensure continuing readiness after the verification and year 2000-contingency plans have been developed to ensure business continuation.

We reviewed a sample of mission-critical systems. In some cases, although a proper project management process may have been followed, we found that there was not a formal sign-off of the system as year 2000-ready. Sign-off would evidence the review and approval of the process by management and verify the system as year 2000-ready. Therefore we recommended the review and authorization of year 2000 activities and supporting documentation by management. The evidence was a formal sign-off as verification that the system is year 2000-ready.

Each year since 1997 we have reported on the progress made in identifying and correcting year 2000-problems associated with six major financial systems used by government, including two corporate systems. These systems are extensively automated and reliant on information technology. They are the corporate accounting system, the corporate human resource information and payroll system, the social service tax system, the harvest database system, the Medical Services Plan claims system, and the B.C. Benefits program system.

The corporate accounting system is the government's main accounting, reporting and financial management system. A business continuation plan was developed in May 1999 and reviewed by senior management. The risk management branch considered it to be a good plan. The design and development of an all-hazard business continuation plan forecast will be finalized and tested in the fall of 1999. Senior management of the CAS office signed off the system as year 2000-ready in February of 1999.

[1355]

[ Page 1183 ]

The Social Service Tax Act imposes a tax on all tangible personal property and specified services purchased. The social service tax system processes approximately 65,000 tax returns per month, with a dollar value of approximately $3.2 billion annually. The business continuation plan was expected to be completed and approved by senior management by October 1999. At the time of our review, a draft plan had not yet been submitted to the risk management branch. The testing of modules in February 1999 revealed some minor coding problems. We understand that the required changes have been made and that the programs were reimplemented in August of 1999.

The harvest database system calculates stumpage billing and royalties earned from timber sales -- about $1.2 billion last year. A business continuation plan has been completed. However, we found no evidence of a formal approval of the plan. The risk management branch evaluated the plan as good but not in the proper format. At the time of our review, this system was scheduled to be year 2000-ready by September 30, 1999.

The Medical Services Plan claims system processes the majority of claims from health care providers for medical services provided to the residents of British Columbia -- about $1.8 billion annually. This system was classed as a business priority system, not mission-critical. A business continuation plan has been developed and reviewed by the emergency planning branch of the Ministry of Health. Based on this review, the plan has been updated. The draft plan submitted to the risk management branch was evaluated as follows: "Lacks detail and focused on information technology systems and year 2000 rather than all hazards." The system is scheduled to be year 2000-ready by September 30, 1999.

The B.C. Benefits program system processes in the order of 200,000 payments per month, under the B.C. Benefits Act, for income assistance, disability benefits and payments to child care providers. Remediation of the B.C. benefits system was completed in June of 1998. Although the system is in production, it is impossible to be 100 percent confident that all parts will function as designed once the year 2000 hits. An initial business continuation plan was approved by executive. The risk management branch evaluated the plan, stating that much good work had been done but that it was not yet completed. A final comprehensive plan -- which will include plans for individual communities, regions and departments of the ministry -- was scheduled to be completed and approved by September 30, 1999.

The government delivers its services through ministries and various government entities, such as Crown corporations, health care organizations, and universities and colleges. Earlier we looked at the status of ministries regarding their year 2000 preparedness. Here we look at the same for government organizations. Although it may not be directly involved in the daily operations of these entities, the government is expected to ensure that the organizations will be year 2000-ready.

The Action 2000 office has expanded the scope of review to include surveying Crown corporations, municipalities, universities and colleges, and school districts. We did not review its survey responses; however, we believe that the Crown corporations secretariat and the Action 2000 office have assessed management processes regarding year 2000 issues and progress on mission-critical projects in Crown corporations. Information received from the Crown corporations on mission-critical projects is regularly posted to the Action 2000 web site.

[1400]

Responsibility for the delivery of certain health care programs and the management of the province's health programs and hospitals was decentralized in 1997. Through this decentralization, responsibility was delegated to 52 health authorities. These health authorities faced the difficult task of identifying and remediating the numerous state-sensitive embedded systems in medical equipment. Initially, the health authorities operated their year 2000 projects with little help from the Ministry of Health. A review performed by a consulting firm in late 1998 concluded that the bulk of remediation and testing had yet to be done and that there was a significant risk that some health authorities would not be year 2000-ready in time. This prompted the ministry to expand its role and become more proactive. It implemented a risk-based reporting procedure for health authorities.

The health authorities submit monthly status reports detailing their progress against phases of three fundamental aspects of year 2000 readiness: namely, compliance of systems, contingency planning and supply chain issues. Using this data, the ministry established its risk ratings. A rating of high risk indicates that the year 2000 activities of the health authority appear to be significantly off track and that there is a high probability that the year 2000 initiative will not be completed in time. An underlying limitation to this risk model is that the risk ratings were generated from data that has not been validated.

To gauge the validity of the health authorities' risk assessments, the ministry contracted a consulting firm to

[ Page 1184 ]

We surveyed all the health authorities and received responses of varied quality. The following is a summary of our findings. For 35 percent of the health authorities, remediation of all mission-critical systems was completed. For 49 percent, remediation of all critical embedded systems was completed. For 58 percent, business continuation planning had been completed, and 51 percent of the health authorities have assessed their liability in the event of substantial failure of a mission-critical system.

Many of the low- and medium-risk health authorities appear to be well on their way to successfully completing their year 2000 plans before the end of the year. However, there are several high-risk health authorities for which there is a high probability that the year 2000 initiative will not be completed as planned. With only a few months remaining, the ministry has a limited opportunity to assist high-risk health authorities with their implementation plans. For this reason, urgent attention is required.

We recommend that the Ministry of Health immediately appoint year 2000 managers and provide adequate resources to assist the several remaining high-risk health authorities with becoming year 2000-ready, developing business continuation plans and ensuring that their supply chains will be year 2000-ready. A few of these health authorities provide health care services to major communities.

[1405]

These institutions included two colleges. The two colleges confirmed that all the systems that they regarded as mission-critical were year 2000-ready. However, the evidence of management approval of year 2000 readiness at one college was inadequate, and neither college had documented its year-end rollover procedures. One college had not yet carried out business continuation planning, and the other could not provide documentation of its plans.

Five out of the six universities responded to our survey. One small university did not formally respond because it did not have any systems of its own. Of those that did respond, only one small university provided detailed information about its systems. Others were unwilling to furnish us with the detail we had requested or to allow us to undertake the necessary verification work for public reporting purposes. As a result of the limitation placed on the scope of our work, we were unable to properly evaluate the state of readiness at the universities.

Universities reported in a summary manner. They said their major mission-critical systems are year 2000-ready. None of the universities regarded research systems as mission-critical. Considering the extent of scientific research that some universities do, it is not clear to us whether failure of any of these computer-controlled research environments could result in a health hazard or a life-threatening event. None of the universities stated that their business continuation plans were complete.

Our survey of 15 Crown corporations and other government organizations included some key questions regarding the status of their mission-critical systems. We requested details about documented evidence supporting senior management's review and approval of the systems' year 2000 readiness and business continuation planning.

The summary of our survey responses highlighted the following areas of concern: only 43 percent of the organizations have made all of their mission-critical systems year 2000-ready; 50 percent have made all their critical embedded systems year 2000-ready; 50 percent of the organizations have completed their business continuation plans; and 43 percent of the organizations indicated that they had determined the extent of their potential liability in the case of a substantial failure of a mission-critical system.

With only a few months to the century rollover, little time remains to address potential legal issues, develop and test business continuation plans and make mission-critical systems and devices year 2000-ready. However, our surveys did indicate that much of the remaining work should be completed by the end of October 1999.

Based on the responses to our survey, we selected a sample of mission-critical systems and reviewed documentation of the verification of year 2000 readiness by senior management and the management approval of business continuation plans. Mission-critical systems were selected from the following organizations: the B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, the B.C. liquor distribution branch, the Superannuation Commission and the Workers Compensation Board. Our findings with regard to the selected systems are summarized in this chart. The results indicate that more attention needs to be given towards the completion of business continuation planning.

[1410]

Stuart, I guess you'd like to make your presentation now. Is it year 2000-ready?

S. Culbertson: I understand that for this presentation I'm not relying on technology. So I'm going to circulate it by paper.

R. Thorpe (Chair): We shouldn't take that as a signal, should we?

S. Culbertson: No, not at all.

P. Calendino: We would be all ready if we didn't have the technology -- right?

[ Page 1185 ]

S. Culbertson: There are two items that are being circulated. One is a copy of the outline of the presentation. The second is a news release and a readiness report that my office issued last week on the status of the government's mission-critical systems and its action plan for Y2K-readiness. I'd like to focus my comments on a couple of points -- first of all, to respond to some of the issues and conclusions and recommendations that have been raised by the auditor general in the report, to give members an update on readiness and to talk a bit about transition planning and communications planning.

I'd like to also make a point that we've had an immense amount of teamwork within the provincial government involved in the Y2K activity. In addition to Deborah George, on my right, who's the assistant deputy ministry in charge of the Action 2000 office, I have here with me today -- to provide some assistance and some comments -- some senior representatives from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Attorney General, the Crown corporations secretariat and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, if there are any particular detailed questions that members may have about some of the issues that have been raised on this in either my presentation or the auditor general's.

I'd also say that we have chosen very strategically in the government not to kind of reinvent the wheel on Y2K. Unlike other jurisdictions which have created new organizations, the only organization that we've really created is a fairly temporary one, which is the Action 2000 office within my agency's responsibility. But we have used the existing business continuation planning structure in the responsibility of the risk management branch in the Ministry of Finance -- who are also present today, I should have mentioned. We are also using the provincial emergency program to handle any other consequences here. So we haven't created our own special systems to deal with this.

Also, the teamwork that's been evidenced by ministries not only working directly with us in compiling information and compiling communications information but working directly with the extended public sector that ministries or ministers may be responsible for -- working with the sectors that a ministry may work in -- has been very exemplary.

I just want to make that point, to say that. Mr. Chair, you asked earlier about the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I think they have been very exemplary in the work that they have done with the agriculture industry and the food industry directly in talking about Y2K. In fact, they have a brochure -- I think I'm correct in saying it is called "Y2K Bug on the Farm" -- which is quite a good survey of what individual farmers can do to check the preparedness of their farming operations for Y2K. We see it at Agriculture and Food, and we've also seen it in places like the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture that are dealing directly with the small business sector in B.C. about Y2K-preparedness.

Going to my presentation, just to refresh, the government's goals on Y2K are basically three. One is to minimize the impact of Y2K on the citizens of British Columbia, with the primary goal of fixing the problems and to do that in partnership with other governments and other essential service providers. The second is to ensure that we have the public of British Columbia as informed as we can or as informed as they want to be about Y2K -- informed for maximum preparedness and minimum anxiety -- and the third is to minimize the cost to taxpayers.

As I think Keyvan was saying, cost containment is a challenge in this area, but we are trying our best to do it and are achieving it in part through a coordinated effort across government and other stakeholder organizations to do the job. We don't really have a blueprint for Y2K that we've actually all been through before and can test against, so we're trying our best to contain the costs.

[1415]

I believe the auditor general got it right when he said that there is really no doubt that Y2K has challenged the ingenuity and the resources of the B.C. government, and this has resulted in the most widespread coordinated strategic effort in recent history. I think we all know we're in that. We've seen it, and we've seen the cooperation that we've had. I'd also like to commend the auditor general and his staff for the work on the report and certainly for the openness that the office has had in dealing with the managers of government who are managing the Y2K issue, in being open with the discussion back and forth about what we were doing and how we are proceeding. I think that has really helped our work along.

There were seven specific recommendations that we have detailed responses for, but I want to flag for members what we are doing. I think, as was pointed out, that the auditor general's report is a snapshot of the state of the world at the end of August. We have moved, in the two months since then, quite far along on all the fronts that were addressed. On my slide here, I'd like to deal with the first and the third recommendations together. I think they both deal with the question of final business continuation plans being signed off by authorized management and the review and authorization of Y2K activities and supporting documents being evidenced by a formal sign-off. This is something that we have taken very seriously, and I think this is quite a strong linkage directly to the accountabilities that deputy ministers and senior executives have in managing the Y2K project.

As we've been saying to our colleagues in government all along, Y2K is not a technical issue. It's a business program issue, and the responsibilities for addressing Y2K should not and cannot just simply reside with the IT professionals within the ministries. The business managers,

[ Page 1186 ]

In our office, we also prepared a fairly detailed Y2K preparedness checklist that we circulated to all of our colleagues -- executive management in government -- working on this. It was simply a checklist that a deputy minister or a senior executive would go through and evidence for themselves whether all the appropriate steps had been taken to ensure that the Y2K work was actually done as said and could be signed off. Finally, we do concur strongly with recommendation 3. We have been encouraging ministries to actually go through this checklist and sign off their plans at a high level.

The second point I address here as a recommendation is that a key priority of government should be to promote the completion and testing of business continuation plans within their set deadlines. As I reported last time at the committee, we had set a whole series of deadlines, in terms of both the technical fixes for Y2K and the business continuation plans. I can report that all of the business continuation plans that we've requested have been submitted. At this time, meetings have been held with all ministries to review their submitted business continuation plans and promote their completion and testing according to deadlines. We also, as was indicated, have an independent contractor who is now actively engaged in government in conducting exercises of the business continuation plans. Our deadline for completion of these exercises and testing is November 15.

[1420]

This has been a very valuable process, I think, not just for Y2K but for business continuation planning in government in total. One of the things that I'm starting to reflect on and talk about is that at the end of all of this, we will have left a legacy in the government in terms of business continuation planning and emergency planning. I think we're going to be a lot better off than we had been before, because we put it through some rigour of these tests.

There are a couple of other ones I want to deal with by way of the specific recommendations. The fourth recommendation related to the so-called CHIPS system -- that PSERC would seek legal advice to determine the recourse should CHIPS not operate as anticipated at the turn of the century. I can report that that legal review was conducted in September of 1999. So they have done that.

Two recommendations relate to the harvest database system in the Ministry of Forests. The first says that the final business continuation plan should be signed off by authorized management and the plan coordinator. The second relates to the library management system. With respect to the first, my understanding is that the ministry will implement the approval process for the harvest database system business continuation plan as per that recommendation. On the second one, our understanding is that the library management system is not actually part of the harvest database system, so it's not required for that system to successfully meet the Y2K challenge. It's really a tool used by systems staff here. The library management system is capable of running through the millennium change with no change to its code. That's the report that I can give.

The seventh item specifically raised here, which I want to comment on, is with respect to the Ministry of Health. I mentioned earlier that in our view, the Ministry of Health has taken a very well-structured, rigorous escalation approach to the status of Y2K in health authorities. They have worked actively for the last two years with health authorities. They've been demanding monthly reports from the 59 health authorities. They've had several independent reviews underway in the health authorities reporting back to the Ministry of Health -- not to the health authority -- around the status of preparedness in these areas. They also have actually done precisely what the auditor general has recommended in a couple of instances where there was some discomfort -- put Y2K liaison officers directly into three health authorities. These officers are now in place at the Vancouver Hospital, the Nelson and area health council and the Cranbrook community health council. As I mentioned, at this time there are eight on-site reviews going on in the health authorities which are being assessed for further action. These will inform what might have to happen in the next couple of weeks to get them on track. It's quite a detailed escalation plan, and I'm sure the ministry will probably want to comment on that, if there are questions on that.

With respect to our readiness, I am very happy to report that. . . . We did set quite a target for ourselves in the government in February, when we went down the mission-critical path and said that we would have all 68 of our mission-critical systems Y2K-ready by the end of this September. We met that target. The material I've circulated around shows and, again, refreshes you on what the mission-critical systems are and shows a very commendable but boring list of "Ready, ready, ready, ready," down the list of 68.

[1425]

With respect to Crown corporations, as of October 15, our data is showing that 86 percent of the mission-critical

[ Page 1187 ]

I mentioned that the majority of health authorities are on target and that escalation of plans is underway for the rest of them. These are fairly well documented, and there's a lot of liaison. I should also say that in terms of our own public communications -- I believe we discussed this the last time I was at this committee -- we did go live on our web site two months ago -- the first jurisdiction in Canada to do this -- with a status of health authorities Y2K readiness. It's a very easy-to-use web site that's been designed at the Ministry of Health. You can type in "Penticton," for example, and it will pop up the appropriate health board and allow you to see a report filed by the health board on the state of preparedness for Y2K. It also -- importantly, I think -- puts you in direct contact with an official within the health board who's responsible for this work. I think it's been good evidence of sort of the openness of communication that we've had on this -- that our web site now talks about the state of preparedness not only of the ministries and the Crown corporations but also of all the health authorities in British Columbia.

With respect to public schools, surveys by the Ministry of Education have continued in June and October, indicating that the schools are well prepared and expect to have all the remaining work done by the end of the year. As I reported last time, there are actually, by our definition, no mission-critical systems in schools. One of the concerns that is being addressed is the actual plant of a school -- as to whether heating and lighting systems will work. There's certainly a lot of attention being paid to that. Beyond that, if members were worried about the status of students' marks or records, those are all held centrally in the Ministry of Education. That is where the backup and indeed the data are stored.

With respect to post-secondary institutions, the auditor general's report did comment a bit on this. Our survey of post-secondary institutions indicates to us that roughly 75 percent of the mission-critical systems and programs that were identified in post-secondary institutions are ready. We've done a lot of work with post-secondary institutions, particularly on things like the outreach program, where we are spending some time with universities and colleges, giving them examples of best practices that are there in Y2K remediation work. Based on those contacts and the work we've done, we've seen nothing to indicate to us that the universities and colleges will not be ready for Y2K.

With respect to municipalities. . . . I should note -- I think as was noted in the auditor general's presentation that Faye made -- that we were reviewing municipalities. We're not reviewing the status of Y2K preparedness in municipalities to the same extent that we are in health authorities and Crown corporations, for example. It's quite clear that the liability for operations within a municipal government rests squarely with the municipal government to deal with. We are, however, very active through the PEP program. PEP has now received an 80 percent response from municipalities -- including police and RCMP -- to their survey, which was really looking at: are municipalities ready, from an emergency preparedness point of view, for Y2K? There's some comfort there that that's the case.

PEP has also been actively involved in sponsoring preparedness workshops directly with municipalities throughout the province. Ten of these workshops have been conducted to date, with some 640 people participating in them. We also have municipalities and local governments directly involved with us in our activities around the province, where we hold workshops and open public sessions on Y2K. Normally, the local government is there to talk about the state of health and preparedness in local government.

With respect to communications, I've circulated the readiness report. This is actually similar to several readiness reports that you're going to see coming out of the public sector of Canada. The federal government released a report around the same time we did, and some of the other provinces are doing that now.

We're spending a fair amount of time now with other essential service providers. On September 21 we brought together a forum which included 40 representatives from 22 organizations. These weren't all public organizations. Although public organizations like PEP, B.C. Hydro and ICBC were present, we also had representatives from Telus, B.C. Gas, the Vancouver Airport, the Port of Vancouver, the police authorities and the food, banking, financial and insurance industries. We basically cast our net around to determine who are the essential service providers to British Columbians, in both the public and private sectors.

[1430]

We are circulating thousands of copies of a poster, which is called "B Y2K-OK, BC!" These are being sent to all the public schools, libraries and public-access sites we can get them to. In fact, when we sent them to the schools, we sent them with a letter to principals suggesting that there were some topics around Y2K that maybe could be discussed in a classroom. We kind of put a couple of modules together about how you might engage that kind of discussion in the school. These posters are essentially checklists to help individuals get prepared, to know where to ask questions if they are concerned about the government's or the bank's preparedness and to even talk about what British Columbians should be thinking about in terms of emergency supplies for their household.

As you know, and as I said, we're not reinventing the provincial emergency preparedness program here. We're also not reinventing the key message that British Colum-

[ Page 1188 ]

With respect to the regional meetings, the Action 2000 office has now visited 33 communities and has made more than 80 public presentations. These presentations are usually done in concert with B.C. Hydro, B.C. Gas, Telus, local utilities, local governments, local health boards -- whoever wants to come and make a presentation. The last one that we did was actually here; it was at the Empress Hotel on October 21. It was broadcast live on the radio. Almost 300 people turned out for a discussion on Y2K readiness with a number of panellists representing the various essential service providers I talked about.

We are also spending some time internally in the government, first of all, not only to get our own employees ready for Y2K and to tell them where they can get access to information, but recognizing that we do have a large number of employees in the provincial government who we can get the message out to about not only our preparations but also what people should be doing in their own families and communities. We have a newsletter which we call "Countdown," which we are now circulating on a regular basis to all provincial employees so they know where to get the information. Then our web site and 1-800 number are quite active and in operation. We continue to post on the web site things like our readiness report and our response to the auditor general's report, etc. So it's all there.

[1435]

This has been a very interesting exercise within the government, because we are sorting this out. We're actually prioritizing for a Y2K point of view what program areas and what supporting systems we would have to get up and running in order if we faced a major meltdown. I would suggest that this is the first time that we've actually done this in the government -- figure out how to turn the lights back on in priority order if the lights all went off at the same time.

It's been a very interesting exercise among ministries. Some want to make sure that their programs are all at the top of the list. Other ministries wanted to make sure that their programs weren't on the list at all. We've had to sort through that in an interministry committee to come up with what I think is the first time we've actually done this priority ranking of the programs. The first program that comes up, incidentally, is the provincial emergency preparedness program. So that would be where our attention would be -- to get that running.

I mentioned, and I won't elaborate further. . . . But we have this independent contractor now going through and helping us test the exercise of the business continuation programs. That contractor will provide an interim report to the risk management branch of the Ministry of Finance. He has provided that report last week, and that's now being reviewed.

There are 30 independent exercises underway on 30 of those 89 mission-critical program areas. We're not intending to do the independent testing of all of the 89. All the 89 are filed. What we'll learn from the 30 is probably going to inform the rest of the 89, if we need to go any further. As I mentioned, they are surprise scenarios. We only find out about them less than 24 hours before the test is launched.

With respect to our transition plan, we are now finalizing a transition plan for the government. The transition plan is basically what we call the rollover plan -- how we're actually going to function in the government in the December 30 to January 2 period. This program does focus on the management of government services throughout the transition period -- how we're going to monitor and disseminate information related to consequences that might occur during the transition. How do we coordinate government decision-making in responses from cabinet all the way to individual ministry emergency operation centres that will be set up and in operation at the end of December to handle the rollover -- also, to carefully watch this and document it so we can provide yet another legacy for any future emergencies that we might get into? So we are learning a lot from this exercise, and we want to make sure that when we're successfully through it, the benefits are not lost on the rest of the public sector for our emergency planning.

The plan is going to be a living document and is actually, in its draft form, very detailed down to the second -- up to 11:59. It actually starts, interestingly enough, with a fairly comprehensive international network 16 hours before, when New Zealand goes through Y2K as the first major place in the world that will enter into the millennium. There's quite an elaborate international network of people and governments sort of watching what happens through Australia and New Zealand as it goes across, to give us an indication of what we can look forward to.

[1440]

My own worry is that so many people will be phoning in to New Zealand that it will crash their system, and that will be attributed to Y2K. So that's something we have to manage.

[ Page 1189 ]

S. Culbertson: So our priorities for rollover. . . . We have about 58 days and eight hours left to go before December 31 at midnight. We will be completing a transition plan shortly. We have taken a draft version of that to deputy ministers -- the emergency preparedness committee in government -- and we're just fine-tuning.

We're escalating readiness and monitoring independent review activity where warranted. That's certainly the case in the Ministry of Health vis-à-vis health authorities. We will be escalating on the business continuation plans once we see the results of the testing of the business continuation plans. We're continuing to monitor public trends and to communicate. . . . Our assessment, incidentally, of public trends that we're monitoring is that there is quite a clear, emerging tracking of comfort going on, particularly in British Columbia, around what people are thinking about Y2K and how we're prepared for it. We're enhancing our partnerships, extending the outreach to other essential service providers, as I mentioned -- activities that we'll be engaged in over the next couple of weeks.

One of the things that we're also attending to in the last laps here is enhancing the security measures that we'll be taking, particularly in the information systems. There are a number of people looking at the prospects, aspects and potential of virus attacks -- computer virus attacks launched under the veil of a Y2K turnover. And we're spending some time not only ensuring that we have awareness training and the establishment of a very coordinated virus emergency response team structure within the government but upgrading our own anti-virus software and encouraging ministries to do the same, to ensure that we are as covered as we possibly can be on that particular front.

So that is the summary that I'd like to present. I'd obviously be happy to address any questions, as would my colleagues who are here with me.

R. Thorpe (Chair): The first question I have. . . . I just wonder, George, Keyvan or Faye, given that your report was concluded at the end of August and here we are at November 3, do you. . . ? Some of the concerns that you identified in here. . . . Does your office feel better about some of your concerns? What concerns would still be predominant in your mind at this point in time?

K. Ahmadi: We finished our fieldwork at the end of August, which means that the information that we have examined for authenticity, correctness and all that is to that date. However, we have discussed our findings with the ISTA office. It took some time to get the responses. So it is updated to that time. Obviously we haven't been able to review or audit any part of that. From what we hear and with the comfort zone, in looking at the examination and documentation we have, we believe there shouldn't be any reason why the statement made by the government cannot give the comfort which is necessary at this point. But obviously we haven't audited those.

[1445]

S. Culbertson: Well, our information was that the colleges and universities identified about 825 systems. The 75 percent number is kind of their reporting to us of where they're at. They are working through these systems during the school year now. We have spent some time with them in advancing the costs here. Some of the universities, particularly the big three, are self-insuring. So the legal liability that the government has around the University of B.C., UVic and SFU are, if you will, more kind of analogous to our relationship to a municipality or an independent authority. But I'm just simply reporting on the information that we've got -- that we're compiling through the scans and surveys that we're doing.

R. Thorpe (Chair): One of the areas I'd just like some comment on, Stuart, is where you are, where your office is, where government is -- including Crowns -- with respect to the management of the legal issues in doing the necessary due diligence.

S. Culbertson: I'll comment first on the government. We, in our response to the auditor general's report, indicate that the ministries that had been identified as not having had checked their legal liability have done that and are doing that both with the Ministry of Attorney General and extending out to agencies that are delivering programs for them in the private. . . . I believe that last time, at this committee, that question was raised by one of the members: "What about a ministry that is actually delivering a public service through an independent contractor? And have you checked their legal liabilities?" One good case in point there is the Ministry for Children and Families, which has done that -- and done that fairly aggressively -- with their service providers.

Certainly, when we were doing our own risk assessments of ministries' sort of business management around this earlier this year, this flag was raised fairly continually -- that we weren't comforted, say, in the spring this year that ministries had contacted their solicitors in the Ministry of Attorney General to deal with the legal liability issue. So there was quite a bit of pressure put on to have that done, and that's borne out successfully.

I'm wondering if I can ask one of my colleagues, around the question about Crown corporations and checking the legal liability.

B. Edwards: I'm Brenda Edwards, assistant deputy minister in the Crown corporations secretariat.

We recently surveyed all of the Crowns. Eight of the 14 Crowns reported that they have now completed their legal liability assessments; the remaining six all have them actively underway.

R. Thorpe (Chair): When will they be completed?

B. Edwards: I'm sorry, I don't have dates for the various Crowns. I can check back on that.

[ Page 1190 ]

B. Edwards: I will do that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you.

J. Weisbeck: There was a concern in the auditor general's report about the independent reviews. I noticed that Mr. Culbertson said that of the 89 programs, there were approximately 30 independent reviews. I didn't know how those were selected, whether they were selected randomly, and if they are selected randomly, if that is a proper sample. I wanted the auditor general's comments on that, whether he felt that was appropriate considering his concern for these independent reviews.

[1450]

So there is the necessity for a third party or an independent party to look at this to make sure that the self-assessments are based on proper and accurate information; that is why we are concerned. We do not disbelieve what we hear and what we see on these self-assessments, but we don't have a very sound basis for attesting to that.

G. Morfitt: It's asking if there is enough.

K. Ahmadi: Well, the numbers. . . . We have taken samples. We looked at some of the samples, as we have explained, for instance, in some of the systems. Like, we have been following six systems. If these samples show any indication of big problems, obviously it has to be expanded. There should be a more detailed review done. But I think I should just leave it to Mr. Culbertson to respond on that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Deborah is going to respond.

D. George: Yes. I just want to clarify. The number 30 that you used is actually the 30 exercises of business continuation plans, not independent reviews. Is that what you were referring to?

J. Weisbeck: I thought they were independent reviews -- the 30. No?

D. George: The 30 are the independent contractors' exercising business continuation plans.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): This committee and the auditor general have taken a great deal of interest in the Y2K issue around government, and we've had a number of meetings back and forth about this. So my question is: what effect has this auditing process had on the activities of government in preparing for Y2K?

S. Culbertson: I think it's been very effective. Just the ability to have the auditor general look at it and obviously look at it in the broader public sector and make recommendations -- and I believe we have responded appropriately to all the recommendations that have been made in the reports -- has made the operation of our activities better than I think could have otherwise been. I also think the span and scope of the auditor general's looking at it, analyzing the situations and looking at maybe what was happening in other jurisdictions, have been very good for us, to work through it.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Actually, that leads into my next question, which is about other jurisdictions. Obviously you're not doing this work in isolation. Every other province, Canada, the United States. . . . I mean, in all jurisdictions this kind of work is going on. My question is around. . . . What kind of connections do you have? What kind of assurance do you have that the work of government in British Columbia as it's connected to the work of other jurisdictions will be able to continue on?

S. Culbertson: Well, there's been -- I speak, maybe, by example -- quite a lot of work done through our office vis-à-vis the federal government and other provinces and also vis-à-vis the provincial government and local governments. So where do our services connect, whether they're financial transfers or emergency preparedness?

In addition to that, there have been at sort of the public sector level. . . . For example, the Health ministries across Canada have worked together very actively over the last two years, sharing best practices, common databases, information, etc. As for us and the federal government, just this morning there was quite an extensive meeting here in Victoria with representatives from the federal government, surveying the state of preparedness of the central infrastructure in Canada -- whether those be roads or highways or hydro systems -- from a national point of view.

It's been a very strong network with good information sharing back and forth on that. Where we have seen an idea or a best practice in another jurisdiction that we think would fit -- like having an independent contractor come in and test business plans -- we take that. When other jurisdictions have seen what we've been doing. . . . I think I was able to report last time that Alberta copied our web site right to the font, in terms of how it was going to portray the state of readiness in Alberta. So it's been pretty efficient in that way across the public sector in Canada.

[1455]

[ Page 1191 ]

S. Culbertson: I'm going to ask John Mullin, who's the chief information officer in the Ministry of Health, to respond to this. John has been quite actively involved in both the national effort and the provincial effort on this front.

J. Mullin: I think it was around January that we sent a call out to all of the health authorities, asking them to submit to us specific requests for the kinds of equipment they would have to upgrade, or buy new equipment and replace, especially for biomedical equipment. We secured $100 million from Treasury Board for the distribution of new capital to the health authorities. We didn't give them just, if you will, global budgets; they actually submitted to us line item requests. We reviewed those with an expert panel. In other words, we included not just government people but biomedical engineers to tell us whether or not there was reason to believe that this equipment did need to be changed. We also had databases from other parts of Canada, where a lot of testing had been done on different kinds of equipment. This is where the national organization that Stuart made reference to came in very handy.

We were able to use data that came from other jurisdictions. We had Treasury Board staff on this group as well as ministry people and external experts, and we essentially approved very close to the $100 million for the health authorities. We held a little bit back in reserve. They were then given approval to go ahead and order and replace that equipment, and the ministry would then compensate them for the equipment. It was essentially pre-approved, but it was done very specifically, item by item.

M. Coell: Thank you very much for that. That's comforting. A great number of dollars were spent in that. It was something that we hadn't discussed priorly in any detail, so I really appreciate your comments.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Don't go away, Mr. Mullin.

In that $100 million, the global budget, did the Ministry of Health pay both hard and soft costs or just hard costs?

J. Mullin: We were able to cover capital costs, so if by that you mean hard costs, yes. There were restrictions on the funds that were provided, and it was to be used for capital only. This meant that virtually every health authority had somewhat of a shortfall in terms of what they had requested versus what we were able to provide. It meant that they were going to have to provide for installation, training and that type of thing, where there might be some labour involved. In the vast majority of cases, if not all cases, the health authorities have indicated to us that they will be able to manage that within their existing budgets.

[1500]

J. Mullin: Well, I recall that we had requests for about -- going by recollection now -- $135 million. I think, as I recall, something in the order of $10 million of that was discounted for a variety of reasons. So I would say it's probably in the order of 20 to 25 percent.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I'm just wondering, while we have you here. . . . I have a few questions on the health aspect of it, if I could just run through those. Could you give us an update on where we stand with the embedded systems with respect to mission-critical?

J. Mullin: I can give you an update on where we are with respect to mission-critical, but I wouldn't say that that was necessarily embedded systems. As Stuart mentioned earlier, we have been collecting information from the health authorities in the area of mission-critical and are happy to do that. As of the end of October. . . . I'm going to use a slightly different number. There are 52 health authorities, and at the risk of creating another seven, we have expanded the number to 59. That's because Vancouver-Richmond is technically one health authority, but as you can appreciate, what's going on at the Vancouver General Hospital versus St. Paul's Hospital or the B.C. Cancer Agency is very, very different. So for the purposes of Y2K, we're using the number of 59.

Forty-nine of the 59, or 83 percent, have their mission-critical systems in place now, as of the end of October. There are seven that are planning to be compliant by the end of November and the remaining three in the month of December. I should also point out that in a more comprehensive fashion -- that is, not just in the area of mission-critical but in the area of contingency planning and supply chain management -- of the 59 health authorities, we rate 42 of those as low-risk.

Of the other 17, we've done a variety of things. As I mentioned the last time that I was here. . . . At that time we said that if it was deemed necessary, we would put a Y2K manager into the health authorities. We've done that on three occasions, as Stuart mentioned: the Vancouver General Hospital, the Nelson and Cranbrook health councils. I would like to point out that in all three areas, the circumstances have been brought around. They're now back on line, if you will, and we think they are going to be ready. We're in the process now of extracting those three consultants. It's been very effective. It took a month or so in most of these cases to do that, but it was well worthwhile.

We're doing eight on-site reviews. The reason for that is because the reports we're getting are putting these health authorities into high risk. We have gone in and, so far, of those eight on-site reviews where we sent staff in to spend a day or two there and take a look at what they have, we've been finding that they have been under-reporting their progress. They've been overly conservative in the way they've been reporting. So far, we are moving a number of those eight -- three or four of them to date -- back onto low. We have every reason to believe that actually all eight of those will probably end up being considered low-risk.

That leaves two where we've actually requested documentation so we can review it and an additional four where we're actually taking a look at their operations with our regional teams. So we do have some level of activity with a few of these health authorities, but in fact, it's looking quite good.

[ Page 1192 ]

J. Mullin: Certainly the ministry can't guarantee a smooth transition to the extent that you would like. I'm very confident that the B.C. health system is going to be well positioned for Y2K, given the status of where we are, the progress we've made even in this last couple of months and what we've seen we're able to do by inserting managers where that was required. I should also point out, to the extent that you might get some additional comfort, that like most of the ministries we too will have a millennium transition process. We will have in the ministry an emergency operations centre, manned 24 hours a day from December 30 through to January 4 -- and longer if necessary -- staffed with ministry executive as well as other technical staff to monitor and report on what's going on internationally, as Stuart had mentioned. We do have the advantage of something like a 19-hour head start, should there be issues.

[1505]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Is it safe for me to conclude, then, from your business continuation plans. . . ? Have you identified dates within your plans that would identify areas at a certain date that you have a problem? Can I take away from what you said that you have teams ready to go -- I don't want to pick on Cranbrook -- to fly into Cranbrook or Nelson or wherever? Do you have all that as part of the plan?

J. Mullin: Yes.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, thank you.

P. Calendino: This is for Stuart, perhaps. Obviously the health issues are the priority concern for everyone, but with that there are other critical areas, such as provision of heating, electricity and water. Water is not as critical because people can go and purchase water, but certainly heat and electricity are extremely important. Last spring we were told that B.C. Hydro was pretty well Y2K-ready, except that while we were sitting here and they were doing their testing in one of the stations up Island, that testing didn't work that well. I'm wondering whether you can update and, as well, whether you've had any discussions with B.C. Gas, for example, about the upgrading of their system for delivery of gas, etc.

S. Culbertson: To give a status on B.C. Hydro -- and I reported this at the last meeting -- all the mission-critical systems they identified have been fixed since May 31, 1999. B.C. Hydro cannot or will not ever guarantee uninterrupted supply of power, and so on. On a good winter day, there could typically be some 80 power outages in of the hydro system at any given time. But they have, I think, probably the most elaborate backup plans and business contingency plans that we've seen. I think the auditor general reported that there were 400 contingency plans in the hydro system that are being tested, and they've tested them all four or five times now in full tabletop testing.

The issue that I believe you're referring to on the north part of the Island was not actually a Y2K failure. It was unfortunately, as I understand it, a human error under the glare of television cameras, where an operator actually sat down at the wrong computer terminal to run the system. The computer terminal just to the right of the operator was actually running the hydro system. What they had done was sort of roll the clock forward, so they were operating the whole north part of the Island in the year 2000. What I understand happened was that while that was happening at computer terminal 1, the operator sat down at computer terminal 2 and turned it on, and there was nothing there to operate the system. So it certainly was not a Y2K failure; in fact, that test was quite successful for them.

[1510]

With respect to B.C. Gas, it is one of the companies that we're dealing with quite actively in our work with essential service providers. I think it's also a good example of a company that's being very open with its customers about the availability and the readiness of gas. They too have declared themselves to be ready on the test. They have quite a good model to show people what actually happens to gas from the wellhead right into a consumer's house, with all the checkpoints it has had to go through. If I recall, they are also a company that found no Y2K bugs in a lot of the systems that they were dealing with; they just weren't there at all. You know, Y2K should be triggered by a calendar date. They weren't in the process equipment, so it wasn't an issue. My understanding is that they're ready. They're out there in public with us, talking about their readiness at these community forums.

J. Weisgerber: I hope you haven't covered this while I was away. I have raised some concerns with respect to the Attorney General ministry, which I think have probably mostly been answered by your material. What I want to question you about or seek your opinion on is this. I read an interesting thought the other day that should Canadians or British Columbians or people around the world become focused on the issue of banking and immediately start to

[ Page 1193 ]

S. Culbertson: The answer to the question is yes. We do intend to continue to do public education work on Y2K. The next thing you can expect to see from us of that nature, I think, is quite germane to your question: the status report from the essential service providers of British Columbia about their readiness. That will include a statement from the banks and credit unions of British Columbia. It will also include a statement from B.C. Gas, to answer Pietro's question.

My understanding is that the banks are actually guaranteeing that people's deposits and financial records will be secure from Y2K. I believe they can do this because they are doing backups of all of that stuff before the rollover. They've also spent quite a lot of time looking at the customer transaction interfaces that are done electronically: automatic teller machines, mortgage calculations, credit cards. They're also reminding British Columbians that January 1 should be treated like a long weekend, so if people are worried about having cash out, you should have as much cash as you would normally take out on a long weekend. They're encouraging people to do that.

As I suggested earlier in my remarks, I hope we do not see this -- banks less prepared than ours in other parts of the world going down or sideways, or whatever, as the day progresses. It could cause a bit of a human behaviour reaction in banks across Canada. I know the Bank of Canada is provisioning billions more dollars of cash to banks just in case that run happens. Also, when you look at automatic teller machines. . . . I mean, just think how many times you've been into a bank, and they haven't worked, for whatever reason. It would just need somebody to say, "Ah, that must be a Y2K bug somewhere," and the same sort of human behaviour response might be occasioned.

We are working quite closely with them, and they will be partners with us in this public education. They're running their own ads and, through the Canadian Bankers Association, have their own web sites, etc., with information.

[1515]

S. Culbertson: Those areas that you might think about are alive to this. The food industry and the pharmaceutical industry, for example, are two areas that come up -- when people talk about stockpiling food or pharmaceuticals. Both of those sectors. . . . Our information shows that the food companies have their eye on this one and have a lot more supplies on hand than a January 1 turnover would normally warrant. They're doing what they can to encourage people to start thinking about getting food supplies maybe a little earlier so that people aren't all in the store on December 31. I think a food store would be an awful place to be on December 31 in any event.

Some of the messages that you'll see coming out are going to be those types of things. "If you're worried about pharmaceuticals and your prescriptions, why don't you get them in early December?"

J. Weisgerber: Your champagne, too. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): Of course, Jack, only people that have money, like you, have that problem to worry about.

With respect to the Attorney General ministry, on page 30 of the auditor's report there are a number of areas that suggest that the business continuation plan has not been completed and approved by user management -- for example, the electronic monitoring system, the family maintenance enforcement program, the Canadian Police Information Centre interface and the risk needs assessments. Where do we stand on the business continuation of those items and the approval by user management?

S. Culbertson: Could I ask Thea Vakil, who is an assistant deputy minister in the Attorney General ministry, to. . . ?

T. Vakil: As was indicated earlier, there are two stages in terms of approvals. One has to do with the applications, the systems, and the other has to do with the business continuation planning. What this particular column refers to is the business continuation planning. So the systems are all signed off. The business continuation planning has not been signed off by management, because management decided that it wished to wait for all the testing to be completed before they put their signature on the plan. That doesn't mean that they do not approve of the plan as a plan. They just want to be doubly sure that it works. So the testing is ongoing in the ministry right now.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I would assume that you have a very active role in that area. Do you feel comfortable that your ministry is going to get through these and have these types of systems, plus all the other very important systems in your ministry, under control? Could you just share your level of confidence with us?

T. Vakil: Yes, I'd be glad to. I'm responsible for business continuation in the ministry. We were one of the 30 agencies exercised by the outsiders. We felt that that was a positive result. I am comfortable with the business continuation planning in the ministry. I am confident that all our testing, while not perfect, will confirm that confidence.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Is the emergency preparedness program ready to go?

T. Vakil: Yes, it is. The emergency preparedness role, in this case, is not any different from any other emergencies or disasters. It's just that we can see this one coming.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So you're anticipating problems?

T. Vakil: It's better to be prepared.

[ Page 1194 ]

T. Vakil: Yes, we are.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, thank you.

J. Weisgerber: Thea, could you tell me why your ministry's senior management has decided to withhold that approval? Just from the other material in the auditor general's report, most other ministries appear to have gone ahead and approved their plans. Could you tell me why they're different?

[1520]

J. Weisgerber: Obviously 50-odd days to go. . . . How long are they going to wait until they're ready to sign off?

T. Vakil: Two weeks.

J. Weisgerber: Two weeks from now?

T. Vakil: Yes. All testing is ongoing in the ministry right now.

J. Weisgerber: Would you advise us if, for some reason, in your ministry some key elements were not signed off on?

T. Vakil: Absolutely.

R. Kasper: I've got a question. Can I do a follow-up on that? As far as the family maintenance program. . . . Now, that's a private company. Is it not a private company that provides that service?

T. Vakil: It does provide the service, yes.

R. Kasper: Right. So how come the Attorney General ministry doesn't dictate to a private company what it shall or shall not do, instead of having it the other way around?

T. Vakil: It has. What this refers to is the system. The system is ready. What the questions were referring to was the business continuation plan of the unit that contains this particular application, which is an overall plan that says: "When something happens, come back to normal." So the family maintenance firm -- the firm that provides the service -- has in fact done the work that would allow it to be ready. The particular application. . . . The system is ready.

R. Kasper: Okay, but what about the business plan component?

T. Vakil: It is the ministry's particular department, the section in the Attorney General that's responsible for that particular application, that has a business continuation plan for all its services. That particular department hasn't signed off on its business continuation plan just yet as a plan. However, the system is Y2K-ready because it's a critical system.

R. Kasper: In short, what you've just said is that the company -- the private company that provides a service -- has a business plan that they've developed. Correct?

T. Vakil: I'm sorry -- I must have misled you. They have run a system on the government's behalf to provide the service. Our demand is that that particular system be Y2K-compliant, and the company has assured us that it is Y2K-compliant.

R. Kasper: Right. But then it says "Business Continuation Plan Completed and Approved by User Management." So under "Family Maintenance Enforcement Program," it says no. Is it that the ministry has not signed off on the private company's business continuation plan that they've developed?

T. Vakil: No. The ministry does not sign off on the business continuation plan of the private company. What this particular column refers to is the community justice branch in the ministry that is responsible for this program. It has, in its plan, a number of items that explain how they would get back to normal after a breakdown. It is that plan that hasn't been signed. It is ready, but it hasn't been signed.

R. Kasper: Okay. Now, was the plan developed by the private company?

T. Vakil: No.

R. Kasper: They're the people carrying out the service, so if they're responsible for all the equipment and if they're Y2K-ready, in the event that there was a glitch, wouldn't they have developed a business plan -- and they would have felt some comfort?

T. Vakil: That's right.

R. Kasper: So the holdup is the community justice branch signing off what the private company has been asked to develop?

T. Vakil: No. In fact, I do not. . . .

[1525]

[ Page 1195 ]

T. Vakil: Okay, I must be unclear.

R. Kasper: Or maybe I'm unclear; I don't know. I'll be the first to admit that.

T. Vakil: There are two agencies that we are talking about. One is the ministry, and the other is the private sector agency. If you're asking me if the private sector agency has a business continuation plan, I do not have that answer, but I would suspect it does. When you are looking at the column, you are looking at the ministry's business continuation plan, and I do have answers for those. I can get back to you on this particular company in terms of its business continuation plan, because I don't know the answer.

R. Kasper: Maybe George's office could give me the answer, because they're the ones who did the report, and it says no. I assumed, when we started going through these lists, that when you did your review, you would have gone to the source -- and that would have been a private company established ten years ago to implement the family maintenance program -- not to a little tiny branch of government that monitors this private company.

K. Ahmadi: Yes, except that if they said that there was no continuation plan approved, we did not look to see why it wasn't approved. We looked at the ones that they said were approved, to make sure that they had gone through the right process. So I can't add anything to it, because these were classified as not being approved.

R. Kasper: Or signed off by the ministry.

K. Ahmadi: They were not signed off by the ministry.

R. Kasper: But it doesn't necessarily mean that the private company did not have a business continuation plan -- right?

K. Ahmadi: Yes. Even if they had and the ministry wasn't happy with it, they didn't sign off on it, so we didn't look at it.

R. Kasper: Yeah, but we really don't know what the story is, do we?

R. Thorpe (Chair): All the testing will be done within two weeks, and I'm sure that you'd be pleased to report back to the committee that everything under your jurisdiction worked out.

T. Vakil: Thank you -- I will.

R. Thorpe (Chair): On page 34 there was one issue with respect to Children and Families. Stuart, I hope you can answer it, because I know we don't have anyone here from Children and Families. It had to do with medical devices. What is the status of that? As I read this report, it was a mission-critical item, and failure of these devices could cause death. Do we know the status of that mission-critical with respect to Children and Families?

S. Culbertson: There were two mission-critical projects identified by Children and Families in the auditor general's report, and both of these have been addressed, to my understanding. The suppliers, particularly, have been contacted by the ministry for these two medical devices, and we have received confirmation that they are Y2K-ready. The ministry's also advising that all contractors in this area contact the national health group that I was talking about earlier, which is sort of the clearinghouse for information about health systems equipment, to ensure that other provinces know that these devices used in their facilities are Y2K-ready.

R. Thorpe (Chair): But I want some comfort -- and if you can't give it to me today, then in the next week -- from Children and Families that they've addressed it, because these are children in British Columbia. I don't want something to be fluffed off to somebody in Ottawa or Timbuktu. Could this committee get written clarification that this outstanding issue from Children and Families has been addressed and that the children of British Columbia are being safeguarded?

[1530]

R. Thorpe (Chair): I appreciate that. This committee has a responsibility to British Columbians, and I certainly want to feel very comfortable about that.

With respect to a few things on Crown corporations, I'm just wondering. . . . Kelly, our staff, sent some e-mails on follow-up with respect to B.C. Ferry Corp. They conducted their tests in late September. Is everything 100 percent? B.C. Ferries didn't get back to us, like they had undertaken to.

B. Edwards: I understand from B.C. Ferries that they did have an independent review conducted by Deloitte and

[ Page 1196 ]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you. On July 26 the former deputy minister for Crown corporations secretariat provided us with some documentation with respect to the estimated costs to June 30. B.C. Assessment Authority says: "N/A, N/A." Does that mean not available or not applicable? Or have they just chosen to do whatever they feel like doing?

B. Edwards: It's none of those, hopefully. B.C. Assessment Authority has, as I understand it, determined that they have no mission-critical systems.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So that's what that is. Is it the same, then, with the Provincial Capital Commission?

B. Edwards: That's correct. I believe they've both been removed from the list of Action 2000 as not having anything relevant. As far as the costing that was provided to you at that time, we have checked the costing of rolling out the Y2K, which was provided to you by Don Avison as $60 million, and that is still a current figure.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Do you know what our original estimate of that cost was going to be within the Crowns?

B. Edwards: The cost that we were given, as of June 30. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): I assume that was the actual cost at June 30. I'm just wondering if you had budgets within Crowns -- if we could just have something to compare. I don't expect you to have that information here; if you do have it, maybe you could just provide it to us.

B. Edwards: I will check into that. But I'm told that the cost that's budgeted is the cost as it has occurred. But I will ask. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): But I'm just wondering what your original budget was and what your actual expenditures are -- okay?

B. Edwards: I will get back to you on that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you. With respect to business continuation plans, CCS feels fairly comfortable about that at this point in time.

B. Edwards: Yes, I would say that we feel fairly comfortable. Of the 14 Crowns that CCS oversees, ten of them have business continuation plans and transition plans in place and signed off. Of the remaining four, three are going to be completed in the next very near while. The fourth one I was just checking on as we came here, and it's going to their executive. It will be the latest. It's going to the executive on December 6.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Who is that?

B. Edwards: That's Rapid Transit Project 2000.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you. With respect to risk management and the Ministry of Finance status and contributions on these business continuation plans, Arn, is there anything that you would like to share with the committee?

[1535]

With respect to CAS's plan, it's been tested three times, first by ourselves, secondly with ISTA -- the staff from the office -- and most recently, as of Monday, with an outside contractor, St. John and Associates, who ran us through their test. This is happening with a number of mission-critical systems. We were the second in the Ministry of Finance, and I believe there are more to come. I haven't seen the final report from Monday, but what I am told unofficially is that we passed. Hopefully, it was better than just a pass. We continue to make sure that we've done everything within our control, making sure that we're ready.

The other thing that we're doing is looking at all the payments that are scheduled for December and January, making sure that we know what are the most critical in government in order of importance as to what has to be made. We're making sure that we accelerate some to make sure that we don't have a bottleneck in terms of trying to make payments on December 31 or delaying payments into January where we can. We've been working with the ministries and the provincial treasury in the sense that, for whatever reason the system is down, there is a backup arrangement for crediting various key individuals' accounts with funds.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Then you'll blame the Post Office. "The cheque's in the mail" -- right?

A. van Iersel: We don't do much in terms of the Post Office.

R. Thorpe (Chair): With respect to the business continuation planning, Stuart, and to the various tests that are

[ Page 1197 ]

S. Culbertson: I'm happy to do that. I'm sure we'll find problems when we test the business continuation plans, which is precisely why we're testing them with a month and a half left to go. It's to find what bits have to be tuned up, etc. So if anything jumps out that's glaring, beyond problems in the planning that are remediable, I'll do that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I'm talking about what you think are serious problems. I mean, obviously there are going to be glitches and that. You've seen some of them, and you're going to fix those; that's why you're doing the tests. I mean, we'll leave it up to you and your group. But this committee has shown quite an interest in this subject, and we would ask to be kept informed if there are serious issues out there.

My last question is with respect to Health. I just want to make sure. . . . Sorry, John. I didn't ask this question. Are there any health regions out there that are going to come back and say that they requested funding to do year 2000 projects and that they didn't get them, and that's why the systems broke down?

J. Mullin: Well, it is possible. As I mentioned earlier, we funded all legitimate requests for capital. By legitimate, I mean that we were able to check that they were Y2K issues and not some other reason why they might want to have a new whatever. In virtually all cases, they're going to have to dip into their own budgets for the non-capital portion. They weren't very happy about that, as you can imagine, but only the Vancouver Hospital indicated significant concerns about their ability to do that. Since then they have provided us with the assurances that they will make the funds available to do that. So I don't believe that anyone will come back and say that the reason they weren't Y2K-compliant was because the ministry didn't give them enough money, albeit they would all like to have received more money.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you. I notice -- not that they probably want to have anything to say -- that we have Phil here and that we also have Robin. Was there anything. . . ? Yes, Pietro?

[1540]

S. Culbertson: Well, I'd go with the same global figure, I think, that Keyvan was talking about. It's going to be roughly a quarter of a billion dollars when we add it up: the $80 million from the core ministries, the $60 million from Crown corporations and then the additional $100 million that has been provided to health authorities.

I would emphasize that a lot of this, while being addressed at the Y2K issue, leaves us with a fairly significant upgrade of the status of our health equipment, for example. I mean that the machinery and equipment in hospitals has not really been so much computer technicians going in and rewriting code as machines being replaced, which may be eight or nine years old. So to say that it's a $250 million expenditure for Y2K is accurate. But the legacy that the province is left with in terms of better equipment to deliver the essential services is going to be something that will go on for quite a while.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you. I just want to make sure. . . . I think we have Robin here from Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Is everything okay in your area of responsibility? Is there anything that you want to share with us, since you've taken the time to come?

R. Ciceri: I think I'd just add one comment around the universities -- the big three, Simon Fraser, UVic and UBC -- and it's that we'll be speaking with them just to ensure that their communication initiatives are clear, so that if there's any public concern that has been flagged by the auditor general's report, they're addressing that. So that's what we'll do.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Why did they, at least in my read of the auditor general's report, seem not to be so cooperative?

R. Ciceri: Well, the universities have a different relationship with government by their legislation than the colleges and institutes do, for example. The colleges and institutes are agents of the Crown; the universities are set up as independent corporations. I think they felt that they were proceeding with their Y2K readiness. That they did initially send in a summary report is my understanding. Then they felt that they were on track in terms of being ready.

A Voice: If they're not, they'll look silly.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Well, I just found it quite interesting in reading it, realizing which ministry you fall under and which ministry Stuart falls under. I just found it quite interesting, the position that they appear to have taken.

R. Ciceri: Well, perhaps in hindsight they might reflect on their position. But our informal and formal communication lines with them are that they've taken it very seriously and that they are prepared. It is per our normal business relationship and practices with the universities. The 25 other institutions in the sector are well prepared.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you very much, Robin.

Phil, from the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, was there anything that you wanted to tell us that Arn didn't comment on?

P. Grewar: My name is Phil Grewar. I'm director of the risk management branch with the Ministry of Finance. One of our responsibilities with this is to lead business continuation planning in government. It's been a requirement for governments for the past seven years. I must say that

[ Page 1198 ]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you.

George, was there anything you or your staff wanted to say in conclusion?

G. Morfitt: I think we've said all we're intending to say. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, I'd like to thank you very much, Stuart. And to all of the other people -- Deborah and the rest of the people from the ministries -- thank you very much. It's 58 days and five hours now, Stuart, so good luck and keep us informed. If there's anything that this committee can do to help you in carrying out your duties, please call us.

[1545]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes. Well, just so all members know, we are rescheduled from ten to 10:30 tomorrow. So if you want to do that from 10:30 till 10:45, that would be fine.

J. Weisgerber: Just to clarify, we're meeting at 10 o'clock tomorrow?

R. Thorpe (Chair): At 10:30.

J. Weisgerber: Okay -- through until four?

Some Voices: Three.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Just like today was supposed to be till three. That's one thing I forgot to point out to Faye: MLAs do work on Saturdays and Sundays.

E. Walsh: Great. She'll be able to take care of those business continuation plans.

The committee adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada