Connect with us

Business

Green Energy or Green Grift? SDTC at the Center of a $38 Million Scandal

Published

24 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

The Auditor General’s report reveals millions in taxpayer funds funneled to insiders, with government officials shrugging off responsibility. Andrew Noseworthy’s testimony in PCAP

Conflicts of Interest, Negligence, and Liberal Mismanagement Unveiled

In yet another stunning display of Liberal mismanagement, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) has found itself at the center of a growing scandal. The Auditor General’s recent report revealed systemic conflicts of interest and gross negligence in handling taxpayer money—conflicts that funneled millions of dollars to companies connected to SDTC board members.

The controversy reached new heights during a heated Public Accounts Committee meeting, where Andrew Noseworthy, a former assistant deputy minister, was grilled over his role as the government’s “eyes and ears” on the SDTC board. His testimony wasn’t just underwhelming—it was a masterclass in buck-passing.

Here’s Andrew Noseworthy’s opening statement, boiled down: “I was there, but I wasn’t responsible. I saw things, but I didn’t do anything about them. It wasn’t my job to actually oversee anything, and even though I was supposed to be the government’s eyes and ears, somehow, I missed all the obvious corruption right in front of me.”

Are you kidding me? This guy sat in board meetings where millions of dollars—your tax dollars—were being funneled to companies with clear, blatant conflicts of interest. He says, “I wasn’t a decision-maker, I was just an observer.” Observer of what? A train wreck of mismanagement? The deputy minister calls him the “eyes and ears” on the board, and yet he’s playing dumb when asked about conflicts of interest that were declared, minuted, and repeatedly ignored.

But wait—it gets better. When pressed about COVID-19 relief payments—$38 million handed out like party favors—he just shrugs and says there was “urgency.” Urgency to do what? Bail out friends and allies under the guise of saving the clean tech sector? No proper due diligence, no accountability. Just money flying out the door to keep the Trudeau administration’s cronies happy.

And this guy wants us to believe he wasn’t complicit? That he had no responsibility? The buck stops nowhere, apparently—not with Noseworthy, not with SDTC, not with the Liberal government that created this green slush fund in the first place.

This is exactly what you get with Trudeau’s “green energy” initiatives. It’s not about the environment; it’s about lining the pockets of insiders and calling it progress. Canadians deserve better. But under Trudeau, this is just another day in the swamp.

Now let’s get into the Public Accounts Committee’s Meeting 145, starting with Rick Perkins and his fiery takedown of this shameless display of negligence. Buckle up, folks, because it only gets worse from here.

Rick Perkins Exposes Liberal Rot

 

Here’s the scene: Conservative MP Rick Perkins goes on the offensive, trying to get a straight answer out of Andrew Noseworthy. And what does he find? A human shrug emoji. Noseworthy, the so-called “eyes and ears” of the Deputy Minister at SDTC, claims he sat in meetings, watched directors funnel taxpayer money into their own companies, and thought, “Not my problem!”

Perkins doesn’t let up. He reads the SDTC Act aloud: “No director shall profit or gain any income.” It’s not rocket science, folks. It’s the law. But Noseworthy’s excuse? He didn’t have an “independent way” of assessing conflicts of interest. What?! The conflicts were declared in the meetings! The minutes even said, “Here’s who’s conflicted. Here’s who’s getting millions of dollars.” Yet Noseworthy insists he couldn’t connect the dots.

Then Perkins drops the hammer. He points to André-Lise Mato, a Liberal insider who raked in $10.4 million for companies she’s connected to—all in direct violation of the SDTC Act. And what does Noseworthy say? He assumed recusal was enough. Recusal! As if stepping out of the room while your cronies vote to line your pockets somehow makes it okay.

But the pièce de résistance is when Perkins asks Noseworthy the million-dollar question: “Who are you covering up for?” And what does Noseworthy do? He throws up his hands and says he didn’t know it was his job to report conflicts. His job was apparently to sit there and watch taxpayer dollars burn while doing nothing.

Here’s the bottom line: This isn’t oversight—it’s willful negligence. Noseworthy didn’t miss the corruption; he just didn’t care.

Liberal Damage Control: Valarie Bradford Plays Defense

After Rick Perkins rips Andrew Noseworthy apart for his role in enabling millions of taxpayer dollars to be funneled into the pockets of Liberal insiders, here comes Valarie Bradford—stepping in with a velvet glove to do damage control. And folks, it’s laughable.

Instead of holding Noseworthy accountable, Bradford throws him a lifeline. She asks him to—what?—clarify his role again? As if we haven’t heard it already. Noseworthy, ever the bureaucrat, drones on about “policy coordination” and how he wasn’t there to actually do anything, just to… exist, apparently.

And then Bradford takes it a step further. She asks him about the conflict of interest process. Noseworthy assures her, “Oh, don’t worry, board members declared their conflicts and left the room.” Oh, really? They declared their conflicts before approving millions of dollars for their own companies? And that’s fine because they recused themselves? What kind of clown world are we living in where this is acceptable?

But Bradford doesn’t press him. Nope, instead, she shifts the focus to COVID-19. According to Noseworthy, the clean tech sector was in a “state of crisis.” Markets collapsing, capital drying up, supply chains falling apart—it’s the same sob story they always trot out to justify throwing taxpayer money out the window. What he doesn’t mention? That $38 million in COVID-19 funds went out with no proper oversight or accountability. Were they saving the sector or just padding their friends’ pockets?

And then, the cherry on top: Bradford asks Noseworthy to wax poetic about Canada’s “potential” in the clean tech sector. Of course, Noseworthy obliges, talking about how promising the industry is and how Canada can be a global leader. Sure, it’s easy to sound optimistic when you’ve just described how billions of dollars are wasted propping up a system riddled with corruption.

Here’s the truth: This wasn’t a real line of questioning. It was a performance—an attempt to clean up the mess Perkins just exposed. Bradford wasn’t there to get answers. She was there to protect the Liberals’ green slush fund and keep the gravy train running. It’s not accountability; it’s theater.

Bloc Asks the $38 Million dollar question

 

Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné took Noseworthy to task, and folks, it wasn’t pretty. She grilled him on the $38 million in COVID-19 payments that SDTC threw around like Monopoly money, completely outside the rules of their contribution agreements. And Noseworthy? He admitted he knew these payments didn’t comply. But don’t worry, he flagged it to the Deputy Minister. And then what? Nothing. Just more hand-wringing about how it wasn’t his job to actually enforce the rules.

But Sinclair-Desgagné didn’t let him off the hook. She drove home the point that Noseworthy’s entire salary—paid for by taxpayers—was supposed to fund oversight and accountability. Instead, we got a guy sitting in meetings, nodding along, and then shrugging when asked about the massive breaches happening under his nose.

And let’s talk about that bioreactor project she brought up. A piece of equipment worth $6.2 million somehow ended up costing over $8 million—an extra couple million dollars that just poof! disappeared into the ether. When pressed, Noseworthy said, “Oh, I didn’t know the financing details.” Of course not. That would require actually doing his job.

Here’s the kicker: Sinclair-Desgagné asked the hard question everyone’s thinking—“How could you, as a public servant, let taxpayers get ripped off like this?” And Noseworthy’s answer was the same tired song and dance: “It wasn’t my responsibility.”

Let’s be honest. This guy wasn’t a watchdog. He was a lapdog, sitting there to give the appearance of oversight while turning a blind eye to corruption. Taxpayer dollars were wasted, contribution agreements were ignored, and Noseworthy’s excuse? “Not my job.”

Sinclair-Desgagné nailed it: Canadians pay public servants like Noseworthy to protect their interests, not to act as human rubber stamps for Trudeau’s green slush fund. But instead, we’re left with millions of dollars missing, projects overinflated, and a government official who thinks shrugging is a valid defense.

NDP’s Missed Opportunity: Softball Questions Fall Short

Richard Cannings, the NDP’s mild-mannered investigator, gently tiptoeing around the real issues. Instead of holding Andrew Noseworthy’s feet to the fire, Cannings basically hands him a pillow. “Could you kindly explain your role again?” Really? How many times does Noseworthy have to repeat the same nonsense before people realize it’s a dodge?

Noseworthy again plays the broken record: “I wasn’t responsible. I didn’t have oversight. I was just there for policy coordination.” Sure, because policy coordination is what taxpayers are worried about when $38 million is being funneled into friends’ pockets during the COVID-19 “crisis.”

And then Cannings digs into conflicts of interest, asking if board members who declared conflicts actually stayed for discussions or left the room. Noseworthy assures him, “Oh, they usually recused themselves.” Usually? That’s reassuring! But the real kicker? Noseworthy claims he never witnessed violations. Never. Despite the Auditor General uncovering 186 conflicts, Noseworthy saw nothing. Blind? Or just complicit?

But wait—it gets better. Cannings asks about the process for approving projects. Noseworthy proudly describes a system where the Project Review Committee does all the heavy lifting and the board just rubber-stamps their work. Cannings doesn’t even challenge him on the obvious: if this committee is the gatekeeper, where’s the oversight? Who’s accountable? Clearly not Noseworthy.

And then we get to the $38 million in COVID-19 payments, the scandal at the heart of all this. Does Cannings press Noseworthy on the illegality of handing out taxpayer money without following contribution agreements? Nope. Instead, he lets Noseworthy ramble on about the “urgency” of the pandemic as if that justifies blatant mismanagement.

Here’s the truth: Cannings had a chance to demand answers, but instead, he gave Noseworthy the opportunity to spin the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 minutes. “I didn’t know.” “It wasn’t my job.” Give me a break. This isn’t accountability; it’s a softball game.

Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve someone who will actually stand up and say, “This is corruption, plain and simple.” But instead, we get Cannings politely nodding along while the Liberals laugh all the way to the bank. This is why Canadians are so frustrated with government—it’s all talk, no action.

Conservative Michael Cooper Turns Up the Heat

 

Michael Cooper didn’t just ask Andrew Noseworthy questions—he eviscerated him. If Rick Perkins set the tone, Cooper turned the heat all the way up. And the question at the heart of this whole fiasco? “How could you sit through board meetings where directors blatantly violated the SDTC Act and say nothing?”

Cooper pulled no punches. He read section 12 of the SDTC Act aloud: “No director shall profit or gain any income.” It’s crystal clear, right? But then there’s André-Lise Mato—an SDTC board member—walking away with $10.4 million for her companies. That’s not a conflict of interest, folks. That’s a crime.

And what does Noseworthy say? Oh, “I assumed recusals were enough.” Really? Since when does stepping out of the room magically erase the fact that you’re breaking the law? Cooper wasn’t buying it, and neither should Canadians.

But wait—it gets worse. Noseworthy claims it wasn’t his job to report these violations, even though he was literally the Deputy Minister’s “eyes and ears” at SDTC. What was his job, then? Warming a chair? Collecting a paycheck? Because it sure wasn’t holding anyone accountable.

Here’s the truth: Noseworthy wasn’t just complicit; he was an enabler. He sat there, meeting after meeting, watching millions of taxpayer dollars flow into the hands of Liberal insiders. And when pressed on why he didn’t do anything, his defense is essentially, “It wasn’t my problem.”

Cooper nailed it. This isn’t just bureaucratic incompetence; it’s systemic corruption. The SDTC Act was broken. Taxpayer money was stolen. And Noseworthy sat there, twiddling his thumbs, while the Liberals ran their green energy slush fund like a cash cow for their friends.

Kelly McCauley’s Exposé: The Buck Stops Nowhere

Kelly McCauley followed up with Cooper and he wasn’t there to play games, folks. He walked in with the facts, and he left no room for excuses. For six straight minutes, McCauley dismantled Andrew Noseworthy’s entire defense, piece by piece, and what did we learn? That the buck doesn’t stop anywhere in Trudeau’s government.

First, McCauley establishes the obvious: Noseworthy worked closely with the Deputy Minister for years. They had meetings, they had conversations, but somehow, Noseworthy never thought to mention the glaring conflicts of interest happening right in front of him. Why? Because he “didn’t think it was his job.” Of course not! Why do your job when you can just collect a paycheck and look the other way?

Then McCauley goes for the jugular. He asks why Noseworthy didn’t report these conflicts to the Minister, as required by Article 20.03 of the contribution agreement. And what does Noseworthy say? “Oh, I assumed the board was handling it.” Right. The same board handing out millions of dollars to its own members was “handling” the conflicts. That’s like letting the fox guard the henhouse and then acting surprised when feathers are flying.

And let’s not forget the whistleblower. A lower-level public servant had the courage to come forward and expose the rot at SDTC. But Noseworthy? The Deputy Minister’s “eyes and ears”? He sat in the room, watched the corruption unfold, and did absolutely nothing. McCauley makes it clear: this isn’t just incompetence—it’s a complete failure of accountability.

But here’s the real kicker: Noseworthy keeps saying, “It wasn’t my role.” Not his role to oversee conflicts. Not his role to report violations. Not his role to ensure taxpayers’ money wasn’t being flushed down the drain. So, what was his role? To show up and nod along while Trudeau’s Liberal insiders cashed in?

McCauley’s cross-examination exposes the truth about this government: no one takes responsibility because the system is designed to protect the corrupt. Millions of dollars, your dollars, are gone. And Noseworthy? He’s not apologizing. He’s not taking ownership. He’s passing the buck like it’s an Olympic sport.

This is Trudeau’s Canada, folks. A government where “accountability” is a dirty word, and taxpayer money is a slush fund for insiders. McCauley pulled back the curtain, but unless people like Noseworthy are held accountable, the swamp isn’t draining anytime soon.

Final Verdict: A Government Designed to Protect Corruption

What was this guy’s job? I’ll tell you what his job was: to be a useful idiot for the board. That’s it. A rubber-stamp figurehead who sat in the room to give the illusion of oversight. “Look, we have checks and balances!” they’d say. But in reality, Noseworthy’s only responsibility was to collect his taxpayer-funded paycheck and look the other way while corruption ran wild.

Let’s be clear: It doesn’t take a Ph.D., a law degree, or even a high school diploma to know that when taxpayer dollars are being funneled into board members’ pockets, you REPORT IT. You stand up and say, “This is wrong!” But not Noseworthy. Nope, he just shrugged, collected his salary, and moved on. Why? Because that’s the system—designed by Trudeau’s Liberals to enable the swamp to thrive.

This guy sat through meetings where conflicts of interest were openly discussed. He saw money being handed out like candy to insiders, and his excuse is, “Well, I didn’t think it was my job.” Really? Then why were you there? Why did Canadians pay for your salary, your benefits, your pension, if you weren’t going to do the bare minimum and speak up?

Let me say it plainly: This guy needs to be charged. The SDTC Act was broken—repeatedly—and he was complicit. He may not have pocketed the money himself, but he enabled the system that let it happen. And as a taxpayer, I want every single dollar that went to him reimbursed.

Because here’s the reality: This isn’t just about Andrew Noseworthy. This is about a government that has normalized corruption, where accountability is dead, and where public servants think their only job is to protect the Liberal swamp. Canadians deserve better. And it starts by holding people like Noseworthy accountable—because if we don’t, the message is clear: corruption pays.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

There’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…

Published on

It’s been nearly a year since I last wrote about the CBC. In the intervening months, the Prescott memo on bias at the BBC was released, whose stunning allegations of systemic journalistic malpractice “inspired” multiple senior officials to leave the corporation. Given how the institutional bias driving problems at the BBC is undoubtedly widely shared by CBC employees, I’d be surprised if there weren’t similar flaws embedded inside the stuff we’re being fed here in Canada.

Apparently, besides receiving nearly two billion dollars¹ annually in direct and indirect government funding, CBC also employs around a third of all of Canada’s full time journalists. So taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing what we’re getting out of the deal.

Naturally, corporate president Marie-Philippe Bouchard has solemnly denied the existence of any bias in CBC reporting. But I’d be more comfortable seeing some evidence of that with my own eyes. Given that I personally can easily go multiple months without watching any CBC programming or even visiting their website, “my own eyes” will require some creative redefinition.

So this time around I collected the titles and descriptions from nearly 300 stories that were randomly chosen from the CBC Top Stories RSS feed from the first half of 2025. You can view the results for yourself here. I then used AI tools to analyze the data for possible bias (how events are interpreted) and agendas (which events are selected). I also looked for:

  • Institutional viewpoint bias
  • Public-sector framing
  • Cultural-identity prioritization
  • Government-source dependency
  • Social-progressive emphasis

Here’s what I discovered.

Story Selection Bias

Millions of things happen every day. And many thousands of those might be of interest to Canadians. Naturally, no news publisher has the bandwidth to cover all of them, so deciding which stories to include in anyone’s Top Story feed will involve a lot of filtering. To give us a sense of what filtering standards are used at the CBC, let’s break down coverage by topic.

Of the 300 stories covered by my data, around 30 percent – month after month – focused on Donald Trump and U.S.- Canada relations. Another 12-15 percent related to Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Domestic politics – including election coverage – took up another 12 percent, Indigenous issues attracted 9 percent, climate and the environment grabbed 8 percent, and gender identity, health-care worker assaults, immigrant suffering, and crime attracted around 4 percent each.

Now here’s a partial list of significant stories from the target time frame (the first half of 2025) that weren’t meaningfully represented in my sample of CBC’s Top Stories:

  • Housing affordability crisis barely appears (one of the top voter concerns in actual 2025 polls).
  • Immigration levels and labour-market impact.
  • Crime-rate increases or policing controversies (unless tied to Indigenous or racialized victims).
  • Private-sector investment success stories.
  • Any sustained positive coverage of the oil/gas sector (even when prices are high).
  • Critical examination of public-sector growth or pension liabilities.
  • Chinese interference or CCP influence in Canada (despite ongoing inquiries in real life).
  • The rest of the known galaxy (besides Gaza and the U.S.)

Interpretation Bias

There’s an obvious pattern of favoring certain identity narratives. The Indigenous are always framed as victims of historic injustice, Palestinian and Gazan actions are overwhelmingly sympathetic, while anything done by Israelis is “aggression”. Transgender representation in uniformly affirmative while dissent is bigotry.

By contrast, stories critical of immigration policy, sympathetic to Israeli/Jewish perspectives, or skeptical of gender medicine are virtually non-existent in this sample.

That’s not to say that, in the real world, injustice doesn’t exist. It surely does. But a neutral and objective news service should be able to present important stories using a neutral and objective voice. That obviously doesn’t happen at the CBC.

Consider these obvious examples:

  • “Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true” – here’s an overt editorial contradiction in the headline itself.
  • “Trump bans transgender female athletes from women’s sports” which is framed as an attack rather than a policy debate.

And your choice of wording counts more than you might realize. Verbs like “slams”, “blasts”, and “warns” are used almost exclusively describing the actions of conservative figures like Trump, Poilievre, or Danielle Smith, while “experts say”, “historians say”, and “doctors say” are repeatedly used to rebut conservative policy.

Similarly, Palestinian casualties are invariably “killed“ by Israeli forces – using the active voice – while Israeli casualties, when mentioned at all, are described using the passive voice.

Institutional Viewpoint Bias

A primary – perhaps the primary job – of a serious journalist is to challenge the government’s narrative. Because if journalists don’t even try to hold public officials to account, then no one else can. Even the valuable work of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be wasted, because there will be no one to amplify their claims of wrongdoing. And Canadians will have no way of hearing the bad news.

So it can’t be a good sign when around 62 percent of domestic political stories published by the nation’s public broadcaster either quote government (federal or provincial) sources as the primary voice, or are framed around government announcements, reports, funding promises, or inquiries.

In other words, a majority of what the CBC does involves providing stenography services for their paymasters.

Here are just a few examples:

  • “Federal government apologizes for ‘profound harm’ of Dundas Harbour relocations”
  • “Jordan’s Principle funding… being extended through 2026: Indigenous Services”
  • “Liberal government announces dental care expansion the day before expected election call”

Agencies like the Bank of Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Transportation Safety Board are routinely presented as authoritative and neutral. By contrast, opposition or industry critiques are usually presented as secondary (“…but critics say”) or are simply invisible. Overall, private-sector actors like airlines, oil companies, or developers are far more likely to be criticized.

All this is classic institutional bias: the state and its agencies are the default lens through which reality is filtered.

Not unlike the horrors going on at the BBC, much of this bias is likely unconscious. I’m sure that presenting this evidence to CBC editors and managers would evoke little more than blank stares. This stuff flies way below the radar.

But as one of the AI tools I used concluded:

In short, this 2025 CBC RSS sample shows a very strong and consistent left-progressive institutional bias both in story selection (agenda) and in framing (interpretation). The outlet functions less as a neutral public broadcaster and more as an amplifier of government, public-sector, and social-progressive narratives, with particular hostility reserved for Donald Trump, Canadian conservatives, and anything that could be construed as “right-wing misinformation.”

And here’s the bottom line from a second tool:

The data reveals a consistent editorial worldview where legitimate change flows from institutions downward, identity group membership is newsworthy, and systemic intervention is the default solution framework.


You might also enjoy:

Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars?

·
Jan 19
Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars?
Plenty has been written about the many difficulties faced by legacy news media operations. You might even recall reading about the troubled CBC and the Liberal government’s ill-fated Online News Act in these very pages. Traditional subscription and broadcast models are drying up, and on-line ad-based revenues are in sharp decline.
Read full story
1  Between the many often-ignored sources of funding that I itemize here, and the new funding announced in the recent budget, that old “$1.4 billion” number you hear all the time is badly outdated.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

COP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand

Published on

From Resource Works

By

What a difference a few weeks make

Finally, the Conference of the Parties to the UN climate convention (COP30) adopted a pragmatic tone that will appeal to the working class. Too bad it took thirty meetings. Pragmatism produces results, not missed targets.

We should not have been surprised. Influential figures like Bill Gates and Canadian-Venezuelan analyst Quico Toro, who have long argued that efforts to reduce CO₂ should focus more on technology and prosperity, and less on energy consumption and declining growth, have gained ground.

In the World Energy Outlook 2025, prepared by the International Energy Agency for COP30, you can see that many of the views held by the people above had already gone mainstream before the conference started.

The World Energy Outlook 2025 lays out three scenarios: Current Policies (CPS), Stated Policies (STEPS), and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE). In WEO 2025, all three scenarios reflect longer timelines for the decline of fossil fuels than in earlier editions, and the NZE pathway explicitly states that major technological breakthroughs will be required.

Unfortunately, many potential technologies are adamantly opposed by the loudest groups within the Climate Change Movement because they are not perfect. Even some continue to oppose nuclear power, one of the few proven sources of large-scale, zero-carbon, firm electricity.

Another noteworthy standout in WEO 2025 was the strong recognition that energy security, costs, and supply chains are now the primary considerations in determining each country’s energy mix.

What all this means is we are breaking away from emotionally charged, fear-based policies and rhetoric and moving toward a practical “let’s do things better” approach.

For 30 years, the radical leadership of the environmental movement has focused on what we should stop doing and on sacrificing prosperity. Essentially, what has been going on is an attack on working people in the industrialized and developing world.

Today, workers in the developed world are so anxious that many are losing faith in democratic institutions. Meanwhile, people in the emerging and developing world see light at the end of the tunnel and are determined to industrialize.

Clearly, it is time to merge the fight to lower CO₂ emissions with prosperity. “Let’s do things better” captures the history of human progress and resonates with working people today.

What does it take for longer, healthier, safer, and more sustainable lives? It takes the pragmatism of workers. They spend their lives striving to improve workplace safety, to develop tools that enable them to perform tasks more effectively with less physical effort, to earn higher pay, to produce more food with less land, and to preserve their opportunity to continue working.

Resource workers have felt under attack and are humiliated when celebrities fly in on a helicopter to denigrate their work and make references to the virtues of small-plot gardening, or politicians who tell them to go back to school for “jobs of the future”, only to find themselves in low-paying service jobs.

As the COP30 discussion indicates, we have reached a turning point. It is time to focus on doing what needs to be done, but doing it better. It is time to stop banning activities entirely as though circumstances and technology never change. Demanding perfection hides what is possible, slows progress and, in some cases, stops it altogether.

Bill Gates’ memo to COP30 points to the turn in the road:

“We should measure success by our impact on human welfare more than our impact on the global temperature, and our success relies on putting energy, health, and agriculture at the centre of our strategies.”

Gates also makes a point that will resonate with working people: “Using more energy is a good thing because it is closely correlated with economic growth.” Ironically, a statement made by a billionaire resonates with working people more than does the message of many climate activists.

The work at the Port of Prince Rupert comes to mind, given its growing role in supplying cleaner cooking and heating fuels, when we are reminded that 2 billion people worldwide cook and/or heat their homes with highly polluting open fires (wood, charcoal, dung, agricultural waste).

Persuasion published Quico Toro’s essay on November 13, 2025, which speaks another truth.

“COP imagines these emissions as something a country’s government can set, like the dial on a thermostat. But emissions are more like GDP: the outcome of a complex process that politicians would like to be able to control, but do not actually control.”

I am feeling more secure about the future here in Canada and BC, as governments, First Nations and the public are leaning into climate and economic pragmatism.

There will be hard discussions and uncomfortable trade-offs. Past decisions need to be re-examined in good faith. Do they meet today’s demands? Are we doing what needs to be done better? Is it the right move for today’s youth and future generations? Will we bring back the hope and opportunity of a growing middle class?

Nobody, not the Liberal government, the BC NDP government, First Nations, none of us would have predicted the world we are facing today, where our economy and sovereignty are challenged.

Today, oil, natural gas, and critical minerals, not one or two but all three, are the financial backstop Canada needs, as we rebuild the economy and secure our sovereignty.

Look West: Jobs and Prosperity for Stronger BC and Canada is as much of an admission that we are falling behind as it is a call to action. Success will take billions of dollars, the exact amount unknown.

But what we do know is that oil, gas, and critical minerals generate the most public revenue, the highest incomes, and are our most significant exports. They are Canada’s bank and comparative advantage. They will provide the cash flow needed to get it done.

Not maximizing oil production and exports is fighting with both hands tied behind our back. We all know it; now we need to focus on doing it better because circumstances have changed dramatically.

Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X