Dan Knight
How John Rustad Dismantled Woke Politics: From Independent MLA to Leader of BC’s Official Opposition
From The Opposition with Dan Knight
The Stunning Collapse of BC United!
Kevin Falcon Shocks Supporters by Dissolving BC United Campaign – Throws Full Support Behind John Rustad and BC Conservatives
In a stunning turn of events, Kevin Falcon, leader of BC United, announced on August 28, 2024, that he is suspending his party’s campaign and encouraging all BC United supporters to rally behind John Rustad and the Conservative Party of BC. This decision marks a pivotal moment in British Columbia’s political landscape, a direct response to what Falcon describes as the urgent need to prevent another four years under the NDP government, which he deems disastrous.
“I got back into politics because I wanted to build a bright future for my daughters and the next generation of British Columbians,” Falcon stated. “Today, I’m stepping back for the same reason. We cannot defeat the NDP if the centre-right vote is split,” he continued, acknowledging the strategic necessity of uniting the conservative base to challenge the current government effectively.
The Rise of John Rustad: From Political Outcast to Conservative Champion
John Rustad’s journey to becoming a formidable force in BC politics has been nothing short of remarkable. Rustad, originally a Liberal MLA, was expelled from the BC Liberal Party in 2022 over his outspoken views on climate change—a stance that clashed with the party’s official position. Facing the political wilderness, Rustad chose to embrace his independence, not as a setback, but as a launchpad to champion conservative values and dismantle what he termed “woke politics” that have permeated British Columbia’s governance under the NDP.
Refusing to be silenced or canceled, Rustad joined the BC Conservative Party and quickly ascended to its leadership. Under his stewardship, the party’s popularity surged. Initially dismissed by many as a marginal player, the BC Conservatives were polling at a meager 5%. However, Rustad’s relentless campaigning and his unapologetic stance on free enterprise, resource development, and opposition to what he sees as the radical policies of the NDP quickly gained traction among disaffected voters across the province.
Taking the Fight to the Establishment
Rustad’s ascent is not just a story of political survival; it’s a declaration of war against the entrenched political establishment in British Columbia. His leadership has focused on highlighting the failures of the NDP government, from economic mismanagement to their handling of law and order. His message resonated particularly in rural and suburban areas, where many feel alienated by what they perceive as the metropolitan, progressive policies of the current government.
Falcon’s endorsement and the suspension of BC United’s campaign represent a seismic shift, recognizing Rustad’s leadership and the growing momentum behind the Conservatives. In recent polls, the Conservative Party of BC, under Rustad, has surged to 38%, within striking distance of the NDP’s 40%. This remarkable turnaround positions Rustad and his party as the official opposition and a credible alternative government in waiting.
A New Conservative Dawn for British Columbia?
The decision by Falcon to throw BC United’s support behind Rustad is a testament to the latter’s ability to galvanize support and articulate a vision for a post-NDP British Columbia. Falcon’s move effectively consolidates the conservative vote, reducing the risk of vote-splitting that has historically hampered the right-of-centre parties in the province.
Rustad’s focus on dismantling “woke politics” resonates with a broad swath of voters frustrated with what they see as government overreach, a decline in public safety, and an economic environment that stifles free enterprise. His promise to put “British Columbians first” and his defiance against both the NDP and liberal elites have made him a populist icon for many.
“People are looking for change,” Rustad said recently. “They are not looking for what has been.” With the campaign now gearing up, Rustad is poised to take his fight directly to the doors of the NDP, aiming to reshape British Columbia’s future with a conservative agenda that promises to roll back the perceived excesses of the current government.
As the province heads towards a critical election, all eyes will be on whether Rustad can translate his momentum into electoral victory and bring about the conservative revolution he promises. For now, the suspension of BC United’s campaign is a clear sign: Rustad and the BC Conservatives are the real deal, ready to take on the political establishment and, potentially, lead British Columbia into a new conservative era.
For the full experience subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
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 .
Dan Knight
Corruption, Crime, and Economic Chaos: Trudeau’s Canada Exposed in QP
Liberals Stonewall Corruption Probe, Bail System in Shambles, and Economy Sinks Below Alabama—All While Seniors and Canadians Struggle to Survive
This is a pilot—we’ve never reviewed Canada’s Question Period (QP) before. But after yesterdays circus, we might have to make this a regular thing. If you like this summary, comment, like, and share.
Yesterdays Question Period in Canada’s Parliament was exactly what you’d expect from Justin Trudeau’s government—pure corruption and delusion. We’re talking blatant scandals, crumbling economic conditions, and, of course, Trudeau’s ministers tripping over themselves to defend the indefensible. Let’s break it down, and remember—this is your money, your future, and your freedoms on the line.
Liberal Corruption: $400 Million in Self-Dealing
First up: corruption. Trudeau’s Liberals are embroiled in yet another scandal, this time involving $400 million in contracts funneled to Liberal insiders. The Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, hammered the government for refusing to hand over documents to the RCMP. These documents are crucial to investigating 184 cases of conflicts of interest uncovered by the Auditor General. In other words, the Liberals are using your tax dollars to line their own pockets.
The MP from Regina-Capel, Michael Kram, went after the government, asking the obvious question: why is Trudeau hiding these documents? Why are Liberals protecting their insiders while Canadians can’t even afford to feed their families? Poilievre demanded accountability, but what did the Liberal House Leader, Karina Gould, have to say? That the Conservatives were trying to “trample the Charter rights” of Canadians by asking for these documents.
Hold on. The Liberals are talking about Charter rights? Let’s get real here. These are the same Liberals who trampled all over Charter rights when they invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022. They shut down protests, froze bank accounts of peaceful demonstrators, and trampled on freedom. Trudeau’s government violated Canadians’ most basic freedoms, but now they’re hiding behind the Charter to dodge corruption allegations? The hypocrisy is nauseating.
Bail Reform: Trudeau’s “Hug-a-Thug” Program Exposed
And while we’re on the subject of failure, let’s talk about crime. Trudeau’s government has created a public safety nightmare. Under his watch, criminals walk free because of his “hug-a-thug” bail policies. Today, Pierre Poilievre exposed yet another case: a repeat violent offender, out on bail, shot a police officer. This is the reality in Trudeau’s Canada—violent offenders arrested, released, and committing more crimes. All while our police officers are under siege.
The Justice Minister, Arif Virani, blamed the provinces, as usual. No solutions. Just excuses. He tried to shift the blame, while the streets remain unsafe. Virani’s response to a cop getting shot by a criminal on bail? Crickets. Meanwhile, families across the country are afraid to walk down their own streets.
Canada is Now Poorer Than Alabama: The Liberal Legacy of Economic Collapse
And if you think that’s bad, let’s dive into Trudeau’s economic disaster. Under his leadership, Canadians are now poorer than people in Alabama. That’s right—an Economist report compared Canada’s living standards to one of the poorest states in the U.S., and guess what? Canada came up short. How’s that for leadership?
Adam Chambers, the MP from Simcoe North, laid out the truth. Canada has the worst consumer debt in the G7, housing costs have doubled, and GDP growth is projected to be the worst in the OECD until 2060. 2060! That’s how long the Trudeau nightmare will haunt Canada. And what do the Liberals say in response? Jean-Yves Duclos, the Public Services Minister, bragged about their investments in “affordable housing.” What a joke. This government built six affordable housing units in a riding over the course of years. Six!
But it gets better. Trudeau’s government keeps parading around their dental care plan like it’s some kind of win. Great—Canadians can get their teeth fixed, but they can’t afford to buy food! What’s the point of dental care when families are lining up at food banks? The Liberals are so out of touch with reality it’s unreal.
Seniors: Two Classes, One Betrayal
The Bloc Québécois and NDP didn’t hold back on the government either. They called out Steven MacKinnon, the Minister of Labor and Seniors, for continuing to create two classes of seniors. Right now, seniors aged 65 to 74 are being treated like second-class citizens because the Liberals refuse to increase their Old Age Security (OAS) by 10%. Seniors over 75 get the bump, but if you’re under 75? Forget about it.
The Bloc MP from Shefford, Andréanne Larouche, ripped into MacKinnon, accusing him of failing seniors in his own riding. But MacKinnon, like a good Liberal, brushed it off, hiding behind weak excuses. Larouche was right—this government is willing to throw seniors under the bus to avoid a political fight. MacKinnon had the nerve to lecture us about how well the Liberals are doing for seniors, but all we see are skyrocketing costs, poverty, and broken promises.
“Hate Speech”? No, It’s Just Speech
Finally, we need to address the elephant in the room—this obsession with so-called “hate speech.” NDP MP Leah Gazan pushed her bill to classify residential school denialism as hate speech. Let’s be clear: we all agree that residential schools were a horrific chapter in Canadian history. But this isn’t about that. This is about free speech.
You may not like what someone has to say, but free speech exists for a reason. It allows us to have a dialogue, to debate, to confront bad ideas with good ones. Labeling everything you disagree with as “hate speech” only shuts down conversation. And let’s be real—Trudeau’s government is the last group of people that should be defining what is or isn’t acceptable speech. These are the same people who trampled on free expression during the Freedom Convoy protests. Speech is speech. You either support free speech, or you don’t.
This has been your first recap of Canada’s Question Period—what a disaster zone. Trudeau’s Liberals are corrupt, out of touch, and more interested in defending their friends than helping Canadians. Crime is out of control, the economy is in free fall, and seniors are being thrown under the bus. And don’t even get me started on the hypocrisy of Liberals defending Charter rights after invoking the Emergencies Act to crush dissent.
Let’s get the truth out there. If you like what you’ve read, comment, like, and share. Should we keep this going? Let us know.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight newsletter.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
Business1 day ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
ESG22 hours ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Daily Caller22 hours ago
Los Angeles Passes ‘Sanctuary City’ Ordinance In Wake Of Trump’s Deportation Plan
-
John Stossel20 hours ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
COVID-192 days ago
Dr. McCullough praises RFK Jr., urges him to pull COVID shots from the market
-
Business2 days ago
Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations
-
MAiD1 day ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data