National
Liberal MP calls for review of Trudeau’s leadership: ‘Every leader has a best-before date’
Ken McDonald, MP
From LifeSiteNews
” at least give people the opportunity to have their say “
Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) Ken McDonald is calling for a review of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s leadership.
In a January 24 interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), McDonald, a Newfoundland MP, argued that Canadians should be given an opportunity to replace Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party.
“Every leader, every party has a best-before date. Our best-before date is here,” he declared.
McDonald observed that Trudeau managed to lead the Liberal Party to victory in 2015. However, he also noted that Trudeau has since disappointed Canadians.
“As a party, let’s clear the air, and if people are still intent on having the leader we have now, fine. But at least give people the opportunity to have their say in what they think [of] the direction the party is going,” he said.
Trudeau seems to have already attempted to regain popularity in Atlantic Canada by pausing the collection of the carbon tax on home heating oil for three years.
However, the exemption has led to increased dislike for Trudeau nationwide as it primarily benefits the Liberal-held Atlantic provinces, leaving other provinces literally out in the cold as they heat their homes with clean-burning natural gas, a fuel that will not be exempted from the carbon tax.
Following this, five Canadian premiers from coast to coast banded together to demand Trudeau drop the carbon tax on home heating bills for all provinces, saying his policy of giving one region a tax break over another has caused “divisions.”
In recent months, Trudeau’s popularity with Canadians has plummeted, with polls revealing that most Canadians think that he should step down before the next election.
McDonald is not the only member of the Liberal Party to condemn Trudeau’s leadership. In November, Liberal Senator Percy Downe wrote that the Liberal party needs to look for another leader.
Recent polling shows that support for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party is hitting positive levels not seen since the early days of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Indeed, a Federal @338Canada model has the “Outcome Odds” for a Conservative majority government at 95 percent.
Digging a little deeper, a recent Leger poll shows the Conservatives taking some 211 seats, a gain of 90 seats (well over the majority of 170 needed) with the Trudeau Liberals losing 90 seats. They would win only 70 if an election were held today.
Earlier this week, Trudeau’s reputation took another blow: the Federal Court ruled that his use of the Emergencies Act in response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy was “not justified” and a violation of Charter rights. Notably, the ruling came from a Liberal appointed judge.
During the convoy, Trudeau had disparaged unvaccinated Canadians, saying those opposing his measures were of a “small, fringe minority” who held “unacceptable views” and did not “represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.”
In response to the ruling, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre called for Trudeau to be ‘fired.’ He argued that the current Prime Minister “caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens.”
“As PM, I will unite our country for freedom,” he promised.
Business
Public Accounts Committee Reveals Taxpayer Dollars Funneled to Liberal Insiders with No Accountability
Public Accounts Committee reveals SDTC’s rampant conflicts of interest, lack of oversight, and millions in taxpayer dollars benefiting insiders—while Liberal MPs defend Trudeau’s “green” slush fund.
What happens when politicians promise “green energy” but deliver taxpayer-funded corruption? If you tuned in to Canada’s Public Accounts Committee this week, you found out. On the hot seat was Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), a bloated agency supposedly designed to fund sustainable technology but apparently also set up as a welfare program for ethically dubious board members.
Now, SDTC isn’t some fledgling startup or small-time charity. This agency is sitting on $330 million of your money – Canadian taxpayer money. And what did Canada’s Auditor General find in her investigation? An unbelievable 186 conflicts of interest. That’s not an organization with a few bad apples; that’s a systematic problem.
So why isn’t anyone doing anything? Here’s where it gets even more outrageous. Enter Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finkelstein, a man whose entire job is to hold officials accountable for ethical breaches. Did he step up to expose the corruption in SDTC? Not really. Von Finkelstein told the committee that his role is simply to “expose” conflicts of interest, not to actually do anything about them. Think about that. Here’s a man whose salary is funded by taxpayers, and his job description basically amounts to reading out loud the names of people breaking the rules.
Conservative MP Michael Cooper wasn’t having it. Cooper laid it out for von Finkelstein, practically begging him to explain why only two out of dozens of SDTC board members were investigated. But von Finkelstein’s excuse? He couldn’t bother because – get this – the Auditor General had already done the hard work. If that sounds like passing the buck, it’s because it is. Canadians aren’t paying for an Ethics Commissioner to sit back and watch. They’re paying for an official who’s supposed to defend the integrity of public institutions. But that’s clearly not happening here.
Liberal Apologists at Work
Not everyone on the committee wanted answers, though. Some were too busy defending SDTC’s “noble” cause. Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith practically bent over backward trying to downplay the whole thing. When Conservative MPs called SDTC a “green slush fund,” Erskine-Smith got indignant. He insisted that SDTC wasn’t a criminal organization and took offense at the term “slush fund.” Really? Because if funneling millions of public dollars into the hands of connected board members isn’t a slush fund, I don’t know what is.
Let’s call it what it is. While Erskine-Smith was busy defending SDTC’s “mission,” the committee heard exactly how that mission was carried out – through unethical, undisclosed conflicts of interest, with board members giving funds to companies they had direct financial ties to. And what did Erskine-Smith call this? Just a “few ethical lapses,” as if millions of taxpayer dollars being handed out without oversight is a minor paperwork error.
The Ethics Commissioner’s Toothless Office
Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings pressed von Finkelstein on his office’s glaring lack of oversight. Why was he investigating just two board members when nearly 200 conflicts of interest were flagged? His answer was almost laughable: His office couldn’t enforce anything, couldn’t recoup the wasted money, and couldn’t even stop the bleeding of taxpayer funds because his role is “limited.” Limited? That’s putting it lightly.
And here’s where it gets even more insulting. Von Finkelstein admitted that he wouldn’t coordinate with other agencies like the RCMP or the Auditor General to go after these ethical lapses. This office, which exists solely to enforce ethical standards, can’t or won’t go after those breaking them. It’s as if the Ethics Commissioner’s job is to stand back and announce that something unethical happened, only to shrug and do nothing about it. Can you imagine running any organization that way? Of course not – but in the Canadian government, this seems to be the new normal.
Auditor Testifies, and It’s Worse Than We Thought
Just when we thought the Ethics Commissioner’s testimony had exposed the worst of Canada’s green-tech “accountability” disaster, along comes Auditor General official Michel Bédard. You’d think with the staggering amount of taxpayer money SDTC has under its control, someone would be keeping tabs. But if today’s testimony proved anything, it’s that this agency has zero meaningful oversight, a culture that actively ignores conflicts of interest, and no one stepping in to protect Canadians’ hard-earned money.
So, here we go again. 186 conflicts of interest, millions in public funds granted to companies with ties to board members—SDTC is basically the Wild West of “green” government spending. And guess what? Just like the Ethics Commissioner, Bédard’s office can report on it, but he admitted they can’t actually do anything to stop it. All that money might as well be floating in a pool, with insiders diving in for their share.
The “Accountability” Problem: Michael Cooper’s Pointed Questions
Conservative MP Michael Cooper wasn’t here to play around. He honed in on the obvious question: if SDTC’s board members aren’t held accountable, what’s the point of an Auditor General report? Cooper pushed Bédard to explain why these SDTC board members weren’t facing any real consequences. Bédard’s response? His office doesn’t have the authority to penalize or recover funds—it’s all just for show. That’s the message, folks: this is a government program that “monitors” ethical breaches but has no teeth.
If you’re wondering why SDTC board members feel free to treat taxpayers’ dollars like a bottomless well, this is it. They know that nothing’s going to happen. Cooper hit the nail on the head when he called out the lack of deterrence, and Canadians ought to be asking: why are we funding oversight bodies that can’t actually hold people accountable?
Liberals Try to Soften the Blow—Iqra Khalid’s Flimsy Defense
Then, enter Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, swooping in with damage control. Her goal? To downplay this mess as if it’s all just a big misunderstanding. She floated the idea that SDTC’s ethical violations weren’t “intentional misconduct” but simply lapses in judgment, suggesting board members maybe didn’t “understand” conflict-of-interest rules. Are we supposed to believe that these seasoned board members—handling millions in taxpayer funds—just forgot their ethics training?
Khalid hinted that more “training” and “internal guidance” would fix things. Bédard’s subtle response was telling: yes, training is helpful, but let’s be clear, SDTC’s issues are deeper. It’s a cultural problem within an organization that has no incentive to follow the rules. Training can’t fix a system that fundamentally disregards ethical standards. Khalid’s attempt to sidestep accountability only underscored what’s really happening here—a refusal to impose consequences.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and Richard Cannings: Why Aren’t Taxpayers Being Compensated?
Bloc Québécois MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings brought up the most glaring issue yet: where’s the money? Taxpayers are funding SDTC, watching it go straight into the hands of conflicted board members, and yet, there’s no mechanism to get that money back. Sinclair-Desgagné demanded answers on why SDTC couldn’t recoup funds that were misappropriated due to these ethical lapses. Bédard’s response? The Auditor General’s office has no authority to force financial recovery, meaning SDTC’s board can make conflicted decisions with no risk of losing the cash.
Cannings and Sinclair-Desgagné went further, questioning whether anything less than legislative reform could solve this crisis. It was clear that these MPs understood the root of the problem: SDTC’s oversight is built on a house of cards, with taxpayer money at stake and no tools to hold anyone accountable. Canadians are effectively writing blank checks to a board of insiders who profit without consequences.
The Big Picture: A Culture of Entitlement and Zero Accountability
Michel Bédard’s testimony laid bare the sickening entitlement within SDTC’s leadership. This isn’t a minor oversight or an accidental misunderstanding—this is a systemic culture where people with a financial stake in the projects can vote themselves money, and no one bats an eye. Worse, the Liberal defense of SDTC is that because it has a “green mission,” its failures somehow don’t matter. They’re telling Canadians that as long as the organization’s purpose sounds virtuous, the rules don’t apply.
Let’s be real. No one believes that SDTC’s board members are unaware of basic ethics rules. These are people who sit in decision-making positions, who know full well the implications of conflict of interest. What’s happened here is that they’re taking advantage of a system that has no means of holding them accountable, and they know it.
What Canada Needs Now, Real Accountability, Not Empty Promises
The real takeaway from Bédard’s testimony? Canada’s so-called oversight framework is a farce. The Trudeau government has set up an accountability structure that looks good on paper but doesn’t stop the political class from dipping their hands in taxpayer money. If we want to see real change, Canadians need a complete overhaul of the system—one that actually empowers the Auditor General and Ethics Commissioner to take action and enforce consequences, not just to “report” and move on. Until that happens, SDTC will keep doing what it does best: functioning as a de facto slush fund for Trudeau’s elite insiders, where conflicts of interest are not exceptions but the rule.
Canadians deserve far better than a government handing out their tax dollars to political friends who think they’re untouchable. Michel Bédard’s testimony laid bare SDTC’s blatant failures, and it’s a moment of reckoning. Will any of these politicians rise above the corruption and demand real reform? Or will this testimony be just another chapter in the Trudeau government’s long saga of accountability failures?
Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t about “green energy” or “sustainability.” Those are just fancy words bureaucrats use while they funnel public money to friends and business associates without a shred of oversight. And here’s the kicker—Liberal MPs want Canadians to think this is just a “misunderstanding” or, worse, that questioning it is somehow unpatriotic. It’s the Trudeau swamp at its finest: shut down accountability by slapping a green label on taxpayer-funded corruption and hoping no one notices.
Let’s face it: Sustainable Development Technology Canada isn’t operating in some dark corner of bureaucracy. It’s operating right out in the open, with the full backing of Trudeau’s government, while the Ethics Commissioner, the Auditor General, and Liberal MPs play the role of political apologists, doing everything they can to sweep this rot under the rug.
This committee session showed Canadians one thing loud and clear: they’re being lied to. Told that their money is supporting green technology, but instead, it’s being pocketed by insiders. SDTC, the Ethics Commissioner, the Auditor General—they’re not protecting Canadians. They’re protecting the interests of a political class that’s putting cronyism above the public good.
In a fair system, people would lose their jobs over this. Taxpayer money would be repaid. And those who let SDTC slip through the cracks would face consequences. But in Trudeau’s Canada, officials hide behind excuses, Ethics Commissioners wring their hands about “exposure,” and Liberal MPs get offended when we dare call corruption for what it is.
This isn’t “oversight.” It’s an insult to every Canadian who funds this government. It’s time to drain the Trudeau swamp, end the era of unchecked cronyism, and demand real, accountable governance. Canadians deserve nothing less.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
Media
Trudeau government agency suggests writing its own articles for ‘trusted’ media outlets
From LifeSiteNews
According to an October 28 article by Blacklock’s Reporter, a Trudeau government agency has floated the idea of producing its own material to be published by certain ‘trusted media platforms.’
A federal agency has suggested writing its own news stories for “trusted media platforms” to publish.
According to an October 28 article by Blacklock’s Reporter, the International Development Research Centre, a Crown corporation run by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, has proposed the idea that subsidized media outlets publish government-authored articles.
“Significant shifts in the overall media landscape have affected how people receive and perceive information,” the International Development Research Centre said to contractors. “In addition, while the rapid rise of digital information has made it easier to reach people, consumers’ attention is scattered and harder to get.”
“In such context the Centre invests strategically to connect with its target audiences,” it continued. “This project provides an avenue to reach them where they are, on trusted media platforms they already consult on a regular basis.”
The cost of the project was not disclosed, according to Blacklock’s, nor was it explained if the articles would be clearly state whether or not they were written by the federal government. According to the plan, the agency would pick news themes and have final say on “content for articles to be produced” and “review all proposed final articles for accuracy.”
The agency stated that their ideal platform is “a French language, mass audience magazine based in Canada.”
“The project will secure the production and publication of articles related to Centre-supported research, international development or foreign affairs in a renowned current affairs outlet,” said General Interest Articles. “These stories will contribute to showcase the importance and relevance for Canadians.”
While the plan suggests that the government penned articles would better reach Canadians, media payouts have many Canadians concerned with the objectivity of the media.
In fact, in September, House leader Karina Gould directed mainstream media reporters to “scrutinize” Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who has repeatedly condemned government-funded media as being an arm of the Liberals.
Similarly, earlier this month, Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge’s department admitted that federally funded media outlets buy “social cohesion.”
While certain media has been funded by government for decades in Canada, the Trudeau government has ramped up such funding since taking power.
Beginning in 2019, Parliament changed the Income Tax Act to give yearly rebates of 25 percent for each news employee in cabinet-approved media outlets earning up to $55,000 a year to a maximum of $13,750.
The Canadian Heritage Department since admitted that the payouts are not even sufficient to keep legacy media outlets running and recommended that the rebates be doubled to a maximum of $29,750 annually.
Last November, Trudeau again announced increased payouts for legacy media outlets that coincide with the leadup to the 2025 election. The subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years.
Similarly, Trudeau’s 2024 budget outlined $42 million in increased funding for the CBC in 2024-25.
The $42 million to the CBC is in addition to massive media payouts that already make up roughly 70 percent of its operating budget and total more than $1 billion annually.
-
Indigenous9 hours ago
Indigenous Catholic Priest questions “The murder of 215 Indigenous Children” at Kamloops Indian Residential School
-
International6 hours ago
10 reasons Donald Trump is headed for a landslide victory over Kamala Harris
-
Artificial Intelligence8 hours ago
Character AI sued following teen suicide
-
espionage4 hours ago
Release the names! Foreign interference scandal reaching boiling point in shocking press conference
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy7 hours ago
Transition Troubles: Medical Risks and Regret Among Trans Teens
-
Daily Caller37 mins ago
Trump, RFK Jr’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Pledge Signals Major Shift In GOP Priorities
-
Business1 hour ago
Public Accounts Committee Reveals Taxpayer Dollars Funneled to Liberal Insiders with No Accountability
-
Housing3 hours ago
Poilievre will cut sales tax on new homes under $1 Million saving tens of thousands