MPs grill federal green fund chair who took part in decision to grant her own firm $217,000

The chair of the board at a federal green fund has acknowledged that she participated in approving more than $200,000 in grants to her own company.

That news emerged from Wednesday's meeting of the House of Commons ethics committee. MPs on the committee had some pointed questions for Sustainable Development Technologies Canada (SDTC) board chair Annette Verschuren, who is also chair and chief executive officer of NRStor Inc., a Toronto-based energy storage firm.

As SDTC's chair, Verschuren participated in approving grants to NRStor totalling $217,000 in 2020 and 2021. The grants were part of the federal green fund's efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic to send money to companies with existing funding arrangements with SDTC.

SDTC is a federal foundation that provides more than $170 million per year in grants to small and medium-sized businesses in clean technology sectors.

Verschuren said she receives an annual salary of $120,000 from NRStor, in addition to her remuneration for her role at SDTC.

Questioned by MPs, she said she didn't have to recuse herself from the grant decision because NRStor was part of a group of about 100 companies that received the same levels of additional funding from SDTC during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"I took the advice from my lawyer," Verschuren told MPs on the committee. "I received legal advice and I think that was the proper approach."

Verschuren said her company did not receive "preferential treatment" because SDTC provided nearly $40 million in special payments during the pandemic.

"We were very afraid that we were going to lose the investments that we made, and the jobs," she said.

SDTC is in turmoil after being targeted last month by a whistleblower complaint and a report that found problems with governance and management of public funds at the foundation.

Several MPs criticized Verschuren for getting involved in the decision to give grants to NRStor.

NDP MP Matthew Green said her decision constitutes "at the very least a perceived conflict of interest, if not a very real one."

"Could you not appreciate why the perception to the public, the taxpayers who are watching this, hearing the discrepancies in that line of reasoning, would see this as a problem?" he asked Verschuren.

Green said her testimony "raises more questions than it does answer."