Evidence of meeting #97 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was business.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. Genuis. That is our time.
Mr. Jowhari, please, you have five minutes to finish up for us, sir.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Wow. What a great clip that's going to be.
Mr. Brennan, a number of times, you talked about hypothetical and speculative scenarios that you were working on with Botler to help them. You've already said you completed the work that you did for $2,565.10, and there was this goodwill whereby you were trying to help this company. You worked on a number of hypothetical and speculative scenarios with them and the draft of that letter to the minister's office—however it was founded, whether it was through Botler or with direction from Botler—and to Mr. Firth.
Was there any expectation as part of this work that if and when a Botler AI solution was licensed and rolled out, you would somehow be compensated or you would have some type of compensation as part of that? Might that be the reason that there was an invoice of $12,000 sent to the lawyers, as per your claim?
1:55 p.m.
Professional Consultant, As an Individual
No. I'd actually discussed the opportunity of being part of the company when we first met with Botler, and that was not an option.
Again, the $12,000 invoice was literally to address the extra work they were asking me to do.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Okay. That's perfect.
Can you now talk about the hypothetical and speculative...? Can you explain to us, for the next two minutes and 10 seconds...?
Give me a scenario of when you would use that terminology as it's relevant to the work you did for Botler.
1:55 p.m.
Professional Consultant, As an Individual
Sure. We could go right into what the architecture is and how Botler could map what the federal government might be looking at doing.
The federal government is looking at a data strategy and a data artificial intelligence strategy. Botler is an AI company, so what would the scenarios be, if you were in hypotheticals, of what the federal government might standardize? The same way that the federal government has a standard HR application, how would it look at mapping its data to that HR application? What would be the hypotheticals? What would be the speculatives, if you will, in the same way that any of those conversations we had in texts were all hypothetical and/or speculative?
It's part of the marketing process. As you learn, you know, “That's going to work. No, that's not going to work. That might work.” So—
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I apologize for interrupting.
You had an understanding of Treasury Board strategies, specifically around AI and specifically around the organization structure process engineering, because those guys are the ones who set the guidelines.
You ran into Botler AI, and they said they had an application that made you feel, “I really want to be part of this.” They said, “No, but help us. We'll pay you,” and you said, “Fine.” You then came back and said, “If you present the application or if you consider these functionalities within this application, it's very much aligned with what the government might be looking for.”
If my understanding is wrong, just tell me I'm wrong. I don't have any problem with that.
You said, “As it relates to the data, if you amend your solution like this or if you enhance your solution like this, it's a better fit. If you incorporate these types of processes into your AI process around HR, it will be a better fit for that.”
Those are the hypothetical and speculative situations that you are talking about. Am I right in understanding that?
2 p.m.
Professional Consultant, As an Individual
Yes. That's actually part of it, along with the conversations we had. Apparently, there are hundreds of them taped. A lot of those conversations were, again, speculative and/or hypothetical, based on where the government is and where Botler was and where they would want to go—
2 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Basically, you were trying to help them align their development with where the government was going to go, so that they would be successful in being able to launch that application or sell that application.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
What you were talking about hypothetically and speculatively was very much the alignment of the potential future development of a solution to fit the government's need.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Okay.
I have only about seven seconds left, which I will yield.
Thank you.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.
Unless anyone has anything else, we'll dismiss Mr. Brennan and adjourn....
Mr. Sousa, go ahead.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Before we adjourn, I just want to confirm: Are we doing in camera tomorrow, as requested by the president in her letter?
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's wonderful.
Colleagues, we are adjourned, so—
Yes, Mr. Genuis.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
Could you give us an update as well on the situation regarding the request for Mr. Firth to appear before the committee?
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Certainly.
Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony were summoned to appear a second time, and for a second time they have stated the same reasoning that was behind the first one. I think everyone received the letter. They wish not to appear. We'll have to discuss a step forward at a future meeting. A second summons was issued for them. Again, they are, I guess, refusing to appear for the same reasons as the first time, with identical reasoning.
I suspect we'll deal with that either tomorrow or when we're back on January 29.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, the bottom line is that these guys need to appear. I think the committee has been clear about that.
If they're watching, I mean—
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The committee has been clear. Twice the committee has asked them to be summoned, and again, twice they've used the identical reasoning behind their not appearing. We'll have to discuss next steps either tomorrow or when we're back in January. We are sitting on Mondays now, so I think it's January 29 that we're back. We will have to deal with it then.
If there's nothing else, colleagues, we are adjourned.