Business
SDTC “Green” Fund or Trudeau’s Slush Fund? 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 .
Business
Trudeau government spends millions producing podcasts
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Ryan Thorpe
Take the Eh Sayers Podcast from Statistics Canada, which has 21 episodes since January 2021. Episode topics have ranged from gender identity to climate change and misinformation to systemic racism.
The podcast has racked up 229 “estimated” subscribers, according to records.
To date, the podcast has cost $971,417.
Dozens of federal departments and agencies have launched podcasts in recent years, with the cost to taxpayers rising to millions of dollars once salary expenses are factored in.
That’s according to government documents, as well as access-to-information records, obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
“Canadians need the government delivering passports, not podcasts,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Can anyone explain why taxpayers are paying for government bureaucrats to spend a bunch of money on podcasts nobody listens to?
“This isn’t providing taxpayers value for money, these podcasts are make-work projects for government bureaucrats we don’t need.”
Take the Eh Sayers Podcast from Statistics Canada, which has 21 episodes since January 2021. Episode topics have ranged from gender identity to climate change and misinformation to systemic racism.
The podcast has racked up 229 “estimated” subscribers, according to records.
To date, the podcast has cost $971,417, meaning taxpayers are on the hook for $4,241 for every subscriber. The podcast averages 1,414 downloads per episode and has 39 reviews on Apple.
There have been anywhere from three to five full-time Statistics Canada employees assigned to the podcast, according to the records.
An August 2023 episode on gender identity begins with a “drag story time” reading from “drag king” Cyril Cinder.
During a December 2023 episode on misinformation, the host and guest talk about the problem with giving “both sides of an issue equal time or consideration.”
An earlier episode, from December 2021, focuses on “the arts and crafts movement across Canada, its renaissance and its necessity.”
“If Statistics Canada bureaucrats want to produce podcasts on gender ideology, climate change or misinformation they can fill their boots on their own time with their own dime,” Terrazzano said. “If you want proof there are too many bureaucrats in Ottawa with too much time and tax dollars on their hands, look no further than these podcasts.”
Or take CCI and CHIN: In Our Words, from Canadian Heritage, that seeks to “preserve” the history of the department “through interviews with current and former staff members.”
Between September 2019 and September 2021, when it was discontinued, the podcast released seven episodes. It has 17 reviews on Apple.
That podcast cost taxpayers $155,736, which works out to a cost of more than $22,000 per episode.
The costs included $9,000 for “podcast training and consulting,” $2,000 for equipment and $115,000 in salary expenses for the full-time staff assigned to it.
The First Sixteen podcast, from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, explores the “freshest ideas in agriculture and food.” It racked up $30,000 in expenses, on top of the salary costs for the full-time employee who works on it.
Healthy Canadians podcast, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, has four full-time employees assigned to it.
The average compensation for each full-time federal employee is $125,300 when pay, pension, paid time off, shift premiums and other benefits are considered, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Healthy Canadians also racked up $67,000 in expenses (over and above salary costs), including $34,000 spent on “podcast strategy, editorial planning and employee training.”
Business Unusual, a pandemic-era podcast produced by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, had 13 employees working on it, including two deputy ministers and two executives.
Government records released in November 2023 in response to an order paper question from Conservative MP Rob Moore reveal at least $1.7 million in podcast costs.
But that figure undercounts the true cost to taxpayers, because in most cases the departments did not include salary expenses for staff working on the podcasts.
In every case where salary expenses were included, it was the largest portion of costs.
“No wonder the government is more than $1 trillion in debt when it’s scheming up useless make-work projects for bureaucrats that accomplish nothing more than burning through tax dollars,” Terrazzano said. “With massive deficits and soaring debt, these taxpayer-funded podcasts should be the first thing on the chopping block.”
Alberta
Another Blow To The Carbon Tax
From Project Confederation
By Josh Andrus
Five years ago, I announced the launch of Project Confederation on Danielle Smith’s CHQR 770 radio show.
That interview changed my life forever.
The project launch was driven by a belief that federal policies – including, but not limited to, the carbon tax – were unfairly targeting Alberta and our economy.
Five years later, we find ourselves opening the next chapter of a long-running saga.
Slowly but surely, Canadians – not just Albertans – have worked out that carbon tax doesn’t make sense, doesn’t work, and isn’t constitutional.
And as the public backlash to the carbon tax grew, the federal government compromised the policy even further, making it even more unpopular and even less constitutional.
On Tuesday, Danielle Smith, now Alberta Premier, announced that her government is going to court to challenge the constitutionality of Ottawa’s selective carbon tax exemption on home heating oils.
The carbon tax, of course, is the levy charged for fuel and combustible waste as outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and its regulations.
The carbon tax is a tax on everything.
Every product you consume relies on energy-intensive steps in the production cycle – whether it’s the combines harvesting crops, commercial trucks transporting goods, or the electricity powering lights and refrigeration at the grocery store, just to name a few.
This drives costs up throughout the production process in virtually every industry.
The carbon tax also serves as the flagship policy of the Liberal-NDP coalition government, which took office following the 2019 election – just two days before my first appearance on Danielle Smith’s show.
In the eyes of the federal government, the carbon tax represents a beacon to the world, signalling Canada’s new global position as a green, socialist utopia.
In the eyes of the voters, it represents a symbol of the Trudeau government’s unpopularity, a major contributor to ongoing affordability problems and a sluggish economy.
In the eyes of the provinces, it is a clear violation of provincial jurisdiction.
The Act requires provinces to establish these punitive carbon taxes, and if they don’t, the Act allows for Ottawa to impose carbon pricing.
When it was introduced, it faced immediate legal challenges from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.
They were joined in opposition to the law by Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick – meaning that six provinces, making up over 80% of the Canadian population, believed the carbon tax was a violation of provincial jurisdiction.
The provinces contended that natural resources fall under provincial authority, and that the carbon tax essentially imposes a levy on resource development.
Ottawa, however, argued that climate change constitutes a national crisis and thus falls under federal responsibility.
In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government – on the premise that it could be applied as a “minimum national standard.”
“This is in fact the very premise of a federal scheme that imposes minimum national standards: Canada and the provinces are both free to legislate in relation to the same fact situation but the federal law is paramount.”
Just two years later, the Liberal-NDP coalition completely abandoned the minimum national standard by granting a carbon tax carve-out to home heating oils.
Here’s the catch.
In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, less than one percent of households use home heating oils to keep their homes warm during cold weather.
That number rises to seven percent in New Brunswick, eighteen percent in Newfoundland and Labrador, thirty-two percent in Nova Scotia and forty percent in Prince Edward Island.
The carbon tax had become such an unpopular policy in Atlantic Canada that the Liberals, trying to stop their collapsing poll numbers, decided to try and regain some votes in the region.
If that weren’t enough, the Liberal government blatantly admitted that the decision was political.
On CTV’s Question Period, Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings said “I can tell you, the (Liberal) Atlantic caucus was vocal with what they’ve heard from their constituents, and perhaps they need to elect more Liberals in the Prairies so that we can have that conversation, as well.”
So much for the “minimum national standard.”
Immediately, the constitutionality of the carbon tax was called into question.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said the move was “not about fairness or about families, it’s only about votes.”
Moe moved swiftly, announcing that SaskEnergy – the Crown corporation that supplies natural gas to residents – would no longer collect or remit the carbon tax on home heating bills in Saskatchewan.
In a misguided effort to curry political favour in the Atlantic provinces, the Liberals have completely compromised the legal standing of the carbon tax and opened the door for provinces to explore new legal avenues against their signature policy.
Now, the Alberta government is seizing that opportunity by filing an application for judicial review of the exemption with the Federal Court, requesting a declaration that the exemption is “both unconstitutional and unlawful.”
“Albertans simply cannot stand by for another winter while the federal government picks and chooses who their carbon tax applies to,” Smith said in a statement. “Since they won’t play fair, we’re going to take the federal government back to court.”
Minister of Justice Mickey Amery added that:
“This exemption is not only unfair to the vast majority of Canadians, but it is also unlawful as the federal government does not have the authority to make special exemptions for certain parts of the country under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”
“The federal government isn’t even following its own laws now. Someone needs to hold them accountable, and Alberta is stepping up to do just that.”
The carbon tax has always been unfair to western Canadians, where households use more energy per capita, thanks to our geography and climate.
In a press conference, Danielle Smith went further, saying:
“We’re calling on (the federal government) to repeal the carbon tax. We’ve been calling for that for years. The retail carbon tax is just punitive to taxpayers. It’s punitive to consumers.”
We agree.
It adds an additional expense at every level of the economy, affecting everything from home heating to transportation, and it creates an environment of higher prices on the goods and services we all rely on.
It’s time to take the action that should have been taken long ago.
It’s time to repeal the carbon tax.
Please sign this petition and join our effort to hold the federal government accountable:
Once you’ve signed, please share with your friends, family, and every Canadian.
Regards,
Josh Andrus
Executive Director
Project Confederation
-
COVID-192 days ago
The Biden-Harris Administration Wasted Nearly One Billion on Misinformation
-
Uncategorized1 day ago
UK Government And Media Spread Disinformation About Southport Killer, Evidence Suggests
-
National1 day ago
Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference
-
Culture2 days ago
Judge rejects call for recusal in Trump assassination case
-
Great Reset1 day ago
A One-Stop Shop for Illegal Migration Reveals Ongoing Plans for Illegal Immigration
-
Alberta1 day ago
Lesson for Ottawa—don’t bite the hand that feeds you
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy17 hours ago
The Destructive Legacy of Gender Theory’s Popular Pioneer
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now