Industry Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[Diane Poitras]

In Quebec, the Montreal declaration was a kind of voluntary code. I think that this is a step in the right direction and that it's normal to go through this. It takes a long time to find the right balance and to pass legislation.

A lot of concerns have been raised about certain applications of artificial intelligence, but that's not always the case. Indeed, there are a lot of advantages to using AI. I think that, collectively, we're at a point where we need to impose binding rules or even ban certain unacceptable systems that go against the democratic values and principles that we as a society have set for ourselves.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you for being with us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Masse, you now have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My apologies to Mr. Vis. It was me who created the commotion. I was excited to be back at industry here, and I have a loud voice, as people know, and I appreciate my colleague.

I want to say, Mr. McEvoy, that your privacy laws in the past as well as civil liberties coming out of British Columbia have been very solid over the years. I'm just wondering at this point in time, would you have a recommendation on whether we only do part of the bill right now, the privacy component, and then work on the AI stuff later on?

There are a lot of witnesses who have come here saying that we should scrap the whole process, and some are saying that we should just get on with it. We're getting a lot of mixed messages, so I'm wondering this.

I made a motion with the NDP that split the bill into two segments of voting in the House of Commons. I understand why the minister put them together. There is logic for that, but at the same time, there's a good case for the bill to be a bit different.

If we were to walk away with this, with just the privacy component, do you have any comments on whether that is important enough to meet the test of mettle to do that and get that done right away, or should we still continue to bundle up and maybe not get to the privacy stuff, because we may not be able to get the whole bill done?

[Michael McEvoy]

Far be it for me, as an impartial officer of the legislature of British Columbia, to be giving you political advice about how things should proceed.

What I would say in general terms is that the bill represents an advance for the privacy rights of Canadians. Is it perfect? No. I think Commissioner Dufresne has articulately expressed this view that there are improvements that need to be made, but there are advances here, and it's important to acknowledge those. We would hope that those would move forward. Again, we are trying to be helpful here today to make suggestions to you as to how that can be further improved.

We talked about the AI front, notification provisions and PIAs being associated with the high-impact mechanisms of AI, but it's also about things like protection for children's rights. Again, we would support the federal commissioner in his bid to have them strengthened.

In general terms, these are an advance, and that I think needs to be acknowledged.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

If political parties were included in the federal bill, would that mean that you'd have to look at coordinating with the provincial side?

I understand some of the reasons there's an opposition to the federal one applying, as you could have different standards across different provinces on privacy that make it difficult.

What would happen with regard to substantiating...? I guess it would have to be at least equivalent to B.C.'s. Is that the position of what the expectation would be on the federal one if we included political parties?

[Michael McEvoy]

The thing is, if political parties are encompassed within federal legislation, that would then provide a mechanism for Canadians to take whatever concerns or complaints they might have presumably to the federal Privacy Commissioner for adjudication. Again, and I can't express this strongly enough, that would substantially enhance the confidence and trust that Canadians have in having that dialogue with their parties. It is so important, at a time when democracy is so fragile, for that trust be strengthened. That can only be held through including political parties within the federal privacy legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

I'd like to thank the three witnesses who appeared today.

Mr. McEvoy, Mrs. Poitras and Ms. McLeod, thank you for taking the time to come and speak to us this afternoon for what is probably—at least I hope—the last meeting of the committee in 2023. We really appreciate it.

You are free to leave the meeting, if you wish. I have two quick motions for the committee's approval.

Committee members, I just have two quick motions for the adoption of committee budgets. I would like us to approve them together.

The first motion is as follows:

“That, in relation to the committee's study of the recent investigation reports on Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the proposed budget in the amount of $7,250 be adopted.”

Do I have unanimous consent?

(Motion agreed to)

Finally, the second motion is:

That, in relation to the committee's study on the use of foreign workers at the electric vehicle battery manufacturing plant in Windsor, Ontario, the proposed budget in the amount of $7,250 be adopted.

Do I have unanimous consent?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Without further ado, I will suspend the meeting for about five minutes so that we can prepare for the second part of our meeting.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Colleagues, we will now resume the meeting.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on November 7, the committee is resuming its study on the recent investigations and reports on Sustainable Development Technology Canada. For your information, today is the fourth and final hour of this study, as set out in the motion.

I would now like to welcome our witness, Annette Verschuren, who is joining us by videoconference.

Thank you very much for being with us this evening, Ms. Verschuren. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Annette Verschuren, O.C., As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, honourable members.

My first role out of university was as a development officer in Cape Breton. I focused on creating new opportunities as the mining industry in the region shut down. I brought this same focus to my role as CEO of Home Depot, where we successfully created 20,000 new jobs nationwide.

I am now focused on helping to realize the potential of the clean-tech economy in Canada. This passion led me to found NRStor. I am proud that we are the co-developer of the Oneida battery storage project, with the Six Nations of the Grand River. Together, we are creating the largest battery energy storage project in Canada and one of the largest in North America by an indigenous-led project.

In 2017, NRStor received $2.1 million in funding from SDTC for its Goderich project, a partnership with Hydrostor. This was the first commercialization of long-duration compressed air energy storage in the world. Two years later, in 2019, I was approached to serve as SDTC's chair. I informed the minister, the deputy minister and the Ethics Commissioner that I was the CEO of NRStor and that the project had received SDTC funding in 2017. I accepted the appointment after completing my full disclosure and conflict-of-interest review.

Let's be clear. My direct involvement in the clean-tech industry was precisely what Parliament intended when it created SDTC in 2002. Section 11 of the founding act of SDTC requires board members to be people with direct knowledge of sustainable development technologies.

As a public member of numerous boards since I was 38, I am extremely familiar with conflict-of-interest policies. I recused myself from the discussion and vote regarding 14 companies when there were real or perceived conflicts of interest. I had no direct or indirect investment in any companies funded by SDTC, other than NRStor, during four and a half years there.

Not only did Parliament want people with expertise on SDTC's board, but its choice to enshrine this in its founding act has worked. The board and its sector expertise have helped make the right investment choices.

On the recent Global Cleantech 100 list, there are 12 Canadian companies, and 10 of the 12 received funding from SDTC. We are punching above our weight. I believe the success of the projects SDTC has funded demonstrate that the board, under my leadership, has done a lot that is right.

I resigned as chair of SDTC's board on December 1, not because I have done anything wrong but because I believe the organization's work is too important to be compromised by the distraction that these allegations have caused. Board processes can and should be reviewed and updated from time to time. Renewal and improvement are both good things, and we did this routinely at SDTC.

Now, think back to the early days of COVID-19. The World Health Organization had declared a global pandemic. The borders were closed. We were terrified of the impact on the clean-tech sector. The young organizations in our portfolio needed our help to survive. If they did not, the incredible talents and know-how vital to Canada's future would be lost.

Under the COVID-19 emergency payments, no company received preferential or different treatment from any other company in SDTC's portfolio. This emergency funding was entirely different from the initial approval of individual projects. These projects had already received funding—in NRStor's case, since 2017, two years before I joined the SDTC board.

As a board, we received legal guidance that granting the envelope of emergency funding to already approved projects meant no individual board member was in conflict of interest. The legal advice is recorded in the board minutes.

In approving emergency funding to all 126 companies in the portfolio, the board did not consider or discuss any companies individually. We did not even have a list of the recipients when the vote was taken. We acted in good faith.

Our entire focus was on the well-being of the portfolio companies during an unprecedented global crisis. At that time, we were lauded for taking proactive measures to help secure these companies' future, including a thank you letter from the minister.

To be clear, the $217,000 NRStor received as a COVID payment from SDTC was directly invested in the Goderich project, a limited partnership distinct from NRStor itself. These monies are accounted for as part of the project, and the expenditures were verified by audited statements prepared by PwC. No money went to me or my salary.

In fact, I did not receive a salary from NRStor in 2020. This is the true nature of Canadian start-up culture.

I truly believe in the potential of the clean-tech sector to create jobs and transform our economy. This is what drives me.

Thank you. I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Madam Verschuren.

We'll start the conversation with MP Perkins for six minutes.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Verschuren, you were hand-picked by the Prime Minister, as I think as you said in your opening remarks, to do this job. Is that correct?

[Annette Verschuren]

I was asked by the minister of ISED at the time.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

On June 9, 2022, the Annette Verschuren Centre was granted $2 million from ACOA and an additional $2.5 million from NGen. NGen is an industry department-funded organization that got $177 million from ISED. That's $4.2 million that the Annette Verschuren Centre received on that date. Is that correct?

[Annette Verschuren]

The Verschuren Centre is named after my parents, Tony and Annie Verschuren—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's called the Annette Verschuren Centre—

[Annette Verschuren]

Let me—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm sorry, it's called the Annette Verschuren Centre, and I didn't ask you the history of it. I asked you if it got that grant.

[Annette Verschuren]

It's not called the Annette Verschuren Centre. It's called the Verschuren Centre. That Verschuren Centre is a not-for-profit organization that has created an amazing number of jobs in Cape Breton—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Are you denying that they got the grant?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, just let—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I asked the question, and I have limited time, and she's ragging the puck.

[Annette Verschuren]

I'm certainly not ragging—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes, you are. Answer the question, please.