The Commons Public Accounts Committee on Thursday was told the Trudeau Liberals had nearly 100 other applicants to choose from to chair the now-disbanded Net Zero Accelerator program. MPs questioned why the Trudeau Liberals chose Annette Verschuren to chair the $8 billion “green slush fund”, a Liberal Party donor with a conflict of interest worth millions, per Blacklock’s Reporter.Verschuren resigned under investigation on November 20. The Ethics Commissioner ruled July 24 she breached the Conflict Of Interest Act by voting to award six-figure grants to companies in which she held a direct interest.“It appeared one of the qualifications required to be appointed to this board is that you have a conflict,” said Conservative MP Rick Perkins. Perkins questioned “how it came to be that an individual with a declared conflict of about $12 million of business with Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the green slush fund, had gone through the appointments process with a great deal of speed and acceptance.”Donnalyn McClymont, deputy cabinet secretary responsible for appointments, testified “close to a hundred individuals” applied along with Verschuren to serve as chair of the agency. The number of applicants was reduced to a short list of six, she said.The Commons Industry Committee earlier determined the CEO of Sustainable Development Technology Canada specifically warned cabinet that Verschuren was in conflict. “I expressed concern,” then-CEO Leah Lawrence testified last January 30.“I expressed concern that Ms. Verschuren and Sustainable Development Technology Canada could potentially be damaged by the appointment,” testified Lawrence. “In the days that followed our government relations lead contacted the minister’s staff to reiterate our concern about Ms. Verschuren’s appointment, noting no previous chair had direct or perceived conflicts of interest and further it was previously a condition of the chair’s appointment to be conflict-free.”“Is there evidence?” asked Liberal MP Tony Van Bynen.“I was giving the advice that I thought would be taken and that would be common sense which would be that a person with a direct conflict would potentially damage the organization,” replied Lawrence. “My advice was not in writing.”Conservative MP Michael Cooper expressed disgust with the appointment and called for accountability.“It was conflict upon conflict upon conflict,” he said.“Someone has to be held accountable. Ultimately it was the minister who must be held accountable, but I think Canadians deserve to know if the Privy Council signed off on Ms. Verschuren’s name as a recommended candidate notwithstanding the very serious conflicts of interest at play.”Former industry Minister Navdeep Bains, minister responsible for the appointment, testified June 5 at the industry committee he could not recall any specific discussion about conflicts of interest. “I am not sure,” said Bains.Sustainable Development Technology Canada was disbanded June 4. The cabinet order came the same day auditors documented 186 known conflicts of interest by directors of the agency that paid $856 million in corporate subsidies over a six-year period.
The Commons Public Accounts Committee on Thursday was told the Trudeau Liberals had nearly 100 other applicants to choose from to chair the now-disbanded Net Zero Accelerator program. MPs questioned why the Trudeau Liberals chose Annette Verschuren to chair the $8 billion “green slush fund”, a Liberal Party donor with a conflict of interest worth millions, per Blacklock’s Reporter.Verschuren resigned under investigation on November 20. The Ethics Commissioner ruled July 24 she breached the Conflict Of Interest Act by voting to award six-figure grants to companies in which she held a direct interest.“It appeared one of the qualifications required to be appointed to this board is that you have a conflict,” said Conservative MP Rick Perkins. Perkins questioned “how it came to be that an individual with a declared conflict of about $12 million of business with Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the green slush fund, had gone through the appointments process with a great deal of speed and acceptance.”Donnalyn McClymont, deputy cabinet secretary responsible for appointments, testified “close to a hundred individuals” applied along with Verschuren to serve as chair of the agency. The number of applicants was reduced to a short list of six, she said.The Commons Industry Committee earlier determined the CEO of Sustainable Development Technology Canada specifically warned cabinet that Verschuren was in conflict. “I expressed concern,” then-CEO Leah Lawrence testified last January 30.“I expressed concern that Ms. Verschuren and Sustainable Development Technology Canada could potentially be damaged by the appointment,” testified Lawrence. “In the days that followed our government relations lead contacted the minister’s staff to reiterate our concern about Ms. Verschuren’s appointment, noting no previous chair had direct or perceived conflicts of interest and further it was previously a condition of the chair’s appointment to be conflict-free.”“Is there evidence?” asked Liberal MP Tony Van Bynen.“I was giving the advice that I thought would be taken and that would be common sense which would be that a person with a direct conflict would potentially damage the organization,” replied Lawrence. “My advice was not in writing.”Conservative MP Michael Cooper expressed disgust with the appointment and called for accountability.“It was conflict upon conflict upon conflict,” he said.“Someone has to be held accountable. Ultimately it was the minister who must be held accountable, but I think Canadians deserve to know if the Privy Council signed off on Ms. Verschuren’s name as a recommended candidate notwithstanding the very serious conflicts of interest at play.”Former industry Minister Navdeep Bains, minister responsible for the appointment, testified June 5 at the industry committee he could not recall any specific discussion about conflicts of interest. “I am not sure,” said Bains.Sustainable Development Technology Canada was disbanded June 4. The cabinet order came the same day auditors documented 186 known conflicts of interest by directors of the agency that paid $856 million in corporate subsidies over a six-year period.
