Dan Knight

After parroting a Chinese bounty on a Canadian citizen, Chiang exits the race without once mentioning the regime behind it—opting instead to blame “distractions” and Donald Trump.

So Paul Chiang is gone. Stepped aside. Out of the race. And if you’re expecting a moment of reflection, an ounce of honesty, or even the basic decency to acknowledge what this was really about—forget it.

In his carefully scripted resignation statement, Chiang didn’t even mention the Chinese Communist Party. Not once. He echoed a foreign bounty placed on a Canadian citizen—Joe Tay—and he couldn’t even bring himself to name the regime responsible.

Instead, he talked about… Donald Trump. That’s right. He dragged Trump into a resignation about repeating CCP bounty threats. The guy who effectively told Canadians, “If you deliver a Conservative to the Chinese consulate, you can collect a reward,” now wants us to believe the real threat is Trump?

I haven’t seen Donald Trump put bounties on Canadian citizens. But Beijing has. And Chiang parroted it like a good little foot soldier—and then blamed someone who lives 2,000 miles away.

But here’s the part you can’t miss: Mark Carney let him stay.

Let’s not forget, Carney called Chiang’s comments “deeply offensive” and a “lapse in judgment”—and then said he was staying on as the candidate. It wasn’t until the outrage hit boiling point, the headlines stacked up, and groups like Hong Kong Watch got the RCMP involved, that Chiang bailed. Not because Carney made a decision—because the optics got too toxic.

And where is Carney now? Still refusing to disclose his financial assets. Still dodging questions about that $250 million loan from the Bank of China to the firm he chaired. Still giving sanctimonious speeches about “protecting democracy” while his own caucus parrots authoritarian propaganda.

If you think Chiang’s resignation fixes the problem, you’re missing the real issue. Because Chiang was just the symptom.

Carney is the disease.

He covered for it. He excused it. He enabled it. And now he wants to pose as the man who will stand up to foreign interference?

He can’t even stand up to it in his own party.

So no, we’re not letting this go. Chiang may be gone—but the stench is still in the room. And it’s wearing a tailored suit, smiling for the cameras, and calling itself “leader of the Liberal Party.”

Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finkelstein

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.