Evidence of meeting #152 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sdtc.
A video is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
That project did not provide any returns to NRStor, but it was successful in terms of commercialization.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Did you personally benefit from the Verschuren Centre before it received funding? Did you have an expense allowance? Did you receive any payment or salary from this non‑profit organization?
As an Individual
I have never received any fees, any salaries. I don't think I ever put in an expense account to the Verschuren Centre.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Once the Verschuren Centre and MaRS were able to obtain SDTC funding, did you receive any such benefits from MaRS? Did you have an expense allowance with this organization? Did you receive an honorarium or payments?
As an Individual
MaRS, like the Verschuren Centre, is a not-for-profit organization, and I've never received any fees. I don't think I ever submitted an expense account for MaRS either.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
After the Verschuren centre and MaRS were successful in obtaining funding from SDTC, did you receive any payment or an honorarium? Was your expense allowance increased?
As an Individual
I never received anything financially from those two organizations.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The Commissioner said that, in some cases, you abstained, when you should have recused yourself, which you acknowledged.
If you had to do it all over again, what would you do differently to make sure you complied with the Conflict of Interest Act?
As an Individual
Of course, based upon the study done by the Ethics Commissioner, I accepted his recommendations, and I certainly would have recused instead of abstained from those projects. I did abstain in most of them; I just did not recuse myself. The procedure was set up in such a way that management recommended this, so I followed that. That was a mistake that I learned, and I would absolutely make sure I followed that precisely.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Ms. Verschuren, I'd like to come back to the bioreactor project, for which you submitted a funding application to SDTC.
In your request, we see that it was basically a matter of equipment. The cost of the equipment was about $2.5 million, and the total cost of the project, taking into account the electrical installation, was about $6 million. I have the numbers in front of me. However, when we look at the total amount paid out for this famous bioreactor, we see that it’s about $11 million.
What happened, Ms. Verschuren? What did you do with the $11 million of public money that was paid for a bioreactor that cost only $6 million?
As an Individual
I did not apply for any monies for the Verschuren Centre. The CEO did. I was not operating that organization. I was a board member, so this is a matter associated with the existing organization.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Are you saying that you have no idea what's going on at the Verschuren Centre, which bears your name and where you're chair of the board? That is a problem.
As an Individual
As a board member, absolutely, we were involved in the strategy of the organization and received budgets and proposals.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I'm going to ask my question very specifically.
The cost of the bioreactor project was $6.5 million. The Verschuren Centre received over $11 million. What happened to this taxpayers' money, Ms. Verschuren?
As an Individual
The Verschuren Centre is a not-for-profit organization. It's funding the support of the ecosystem. It is building these organizations to create commercial support in the ecosystem. The organization is supporting a lot of companies.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Ms. Verschuren, I'm astounded by the lack of response to a simple and direct question, especially when you consider that the Verschuren Centre doesn't even publish an annual report, while all its money comes from public funding.
It's impossible for taxpayers to know where the money is going. In this case, I would have hoped to get an answer from you, and I'm really disappointed not to receive one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
Up next is Mr. Cannings.
You have the floor for two and a half minutes, please.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you.
I'm going to switch my focus now to some of the criteria used in making these decisions, in trying to understand how those decisions were made at the board level. For instance, the Auditor General found that eight of the projects that we're talking about here today, totalling $51 million—these are not insignificant projects—didn't meet the eligibility criteria, presumably criteria developed as part of the SDTC and what the goals of that organization were. For example, some of the projects didn't support the development or demonstration of a new technology—and that's, to my understanding, one of the raisons d’être of this organization—or the projected environmental benefits, the sustainable technology benefits, were unreasonable.
Why were these types of projects funded when they didn't meet those criteria? What went into that?
I'll let you answer that question, and then I might have a follow-up.
As an Individual
Management would make recommendations for projects to be approved through a rigorous analysis, and then they would be presented to the board. Again, I was not part of the management team. Management would make recommendations to the board.
It's my understanding that many of the Auditor General's recommendations—and I see that from media—already have been adopted by the SDTC organization.
Again, these decisions were supported and made by management, and recommended to the board.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that perhaps things might have been too loose and lax in those decisions, and that after the Auditor General's report, the SDTC management—the people doing the grunt work and assessing these projects—have changed their ways, have changed the methods they use to decide whether projects can be funded as a result of that. Mistakes were made and we've learned from them. Is that what you're saying?
As an Individual
The Auditor General's report was very broad and it was over a scope of time when I wasn't there as well. It's really hard for me to comment on these management processes. I think that the organization is taking the necessary step to make changes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Mr. Cooper, you have the floor for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Verschuren, the Auditor General's report found that the conflict of interest policy for directors at SDTC did not comply with the SDTC act. Specifically, it did not comply with respect to subsection 12(2) of the act, which states unequivocally that board members shall not “profit or gain any income” from the foundation.
You were the chair of the board. Can you explain how the board adopted and maintained a conflict of interest policy that did not comply with the SDTC act?
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I believe that all office-holders owe Canadians a commitment to accountability, and I've been accountable. I resigned as the board chair—