Government Operations Committee on Nov. 17th, 2022

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first questions will be for Ms. Clarke.

Ms. Clarke, we received your guide on IT procurement reform at the Government of Canada, which contains very logical and relevant recommendations, particularly regarding contract size. The smaller the contract, the lower the risk, since they allow for better follow up. You also talked about recruiting specialized employees. You said we need to make sure managers have IT knowledge. I think that's a basic requirement if you work in this field. You can be a manager and have many skills, but the IT field does require some fairly technical knowledge.

There is, however, one recommendation on which our opinions diverge. You stated yourself, in your brief, that this recommendation would likely lead to disagreements. That is indeed the case. I am talking about the recommendation to eliminate the bilingualism requirement for IT employees in order to broaden the pool of available talent.

First, talent has nothing to do with the language spoken at birth. In addition, proportionally speaking, Francophones are the most bilingual and more easily express themselves in both of Canada's official languages, especially in Quebec. Moreover, of the managers who are supposedly bilingual, some are perfectly bilingual while others have difficulty answering questions in French.

Given all of this, what impact do you think adopting this recommendation would have on the right of Francophones to access IT jobs in government and on their right to work in their mother tongue?

What about francophones' access to government information and data?

Basically, your recommendation is saying that we are second-class citizens. It's a distressing recommendation. It's as though we don't matter.

Would you be comfortable in the opposite situation, that is, if a unilingual francophone with great IT expertise made everyone work in French?

These are questions that come to mind in reading this recommendation. Sometimes, when you are part of the majority, you don't realize how this kind of recommendation can impact the minority, particularly the linguistic minority in North America. Were you aware of all the repercussions and impacts this could have on employees?

[Amanda Clarke]

Thanks for the question.

We acknowledge in the brief that it is a highly controversial suggestion. What it emerges from is interviews with public servants to try to better understand the barriers to attracting tech talent, which is really in demand, into government. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to say that the values of bilingualism and the objectives of inclusivity and ensuring that francophone Canadians are represented in the federal public service, which is a policy objective, are valid. If that makes it harder to hire IT talent, we just accept that, because it's a more important value. I think that is perfectly reasonable. Where we were going with that suggestion was to say that objectively the more requirements you have for hiring, the smaller the pool can become.

The other thing we would note, for example, is that the current requirement to be in the office is another huge barrier to attracting tech talent. Acknowledging that government will never be able to compete, dollar for dollar, with the private sector in hiring tech talent, we have to have other incentives, and that's where we're going with that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You said you spoke with public servants and asked them questions. What was their mother tongue? Which language did you use the most?

[Amanda Clarke]

I should be clear that there's—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Was it English or French?

[Amanda Clarke]

I should be clear that the public servants I speak to don't explicitly say that we should give up on the bilingualism requirements. They just note that it is a legitimate challenge—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The question is still the same: what was their mother tongue?

[Amanda Clarke]

For the vast majority of public servants I interview, I'd say most of them are anglophones.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

There, thank you.

Are you implying that there are not enough bilingual people in Canada to fill these positions and that francophones should therefore give up their own rights so that unilingual anglophones can get jobs? It is important to note that, in a place such as Quebec, where the majority is francophone, bilingualism is required in more than 70% of cases, while that is not a requirement in francophone regions elsewhere in Canada.

Are you suggesting that we should drop francophones' rights so that English becomes the only language of work in IT in Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid you're not going to be able to have time for an answer there. We are out of time. I gave you an extra 30 seconds for the translation issue, so maybe next round....

Mr. Johns, you have six minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Before I get started, I want to thank you and, by extension, your teams and your families as well, for your extraordinary service to Canadians in protecting their health during a very difficult time.

Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Stewart. Can you tell us who owns the intellectual property for the ArriveCAN app?

[Rob Stewart]

I believe it to be CBSA.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay. The government owns the IP. Now, my understanding is that it is the policy on title to intellectual property arising under Crown procurement contracts that the default prevents the Crown from owning the IP for software products produced under government contracts.

What exemption to this policy was relied on to allow the Crown to obtain the IP? Was a Treasury Board approval granted?

[Rob Stewart]

I'm sorry. I can't answer that question. I was assuming—and when I said “I believe”, it was on the basis of an assumption—that CBSA would own that technology because it was CBSA personnel who—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

So you don't know.

[Rob Stewart]

No.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay. My understanding is that the policy of the title to intellectual property arising under Crown procurement contracts generally prevents the Crown, as I said, from owning the IP for software products produced under government contract.

Under this policy, the default is that the IP is owned by the contractor. In this case, the contractor would be GC Strategies, an IT staffing firm, or perhaps it's one of the unnamed subcontractors. Are you able to confirm in writing who owns the intellectual property for the ArriveCAN app, whether that's GC Strategies, an unknown subcontractor or the Crown?

[Rob Stewart]

I can certainly undertake to do that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

Does the government need to acquire and maintain any licences to make the app available to the public, and if so, who issues these licences? Can you advise if CBSA has paid any licensing fees in relation to ArriveCAN or if it anticipates that it will need to do so in the future?

[Rob Stewart]

I'm sorry, sir. I'm not able to answer questions of this type because they should go to CBSA.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay. It would be good to get those responses in writing.

I'm going to change my questions and go to Mr. Boots.

I was surprised to learn that the policy on title to intellectual property arising under Crown procurement contracts generally prevents the government from owning the IP for software products produced under government contracts, and that certain exemptions must be met or Treasury Board approval must be granted in order for the Crown to take ownership of the IP.

How often does the Treasury Board grant approval to allow departments to take ownership of IP for products that they are paying to have developed?

[Sean Boots]

That's certainly a great question. Thanks.

Some of that is available in the proactive disclosure of contracts dataset for more recent contracts, but maybe I can pass that to Ms. Luelo for more details on that.

[Catherine Luelo]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we will undertake to get you that information. I don't have that at my fingertips.

I would say that CBSA wrote over a million lines of code to develop this product, but we will get back to you on the terms of the IP.

Thank you.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay. This policy seems like it would lock the governments into contracts with vendors and prevent software reuse between departments without additional licensing fees being paid.

Will the Treasury Board's comprehensive strategy policy review be looking at this policy and evaluating whether increasing public ownership of IP or use of open-source software would better achieve the goals of obtaining best value and demonstrating sound stewardship of public funds?

[Catherine Luelo]

I'm sorry. Is that directed to me or Mr. Boots?