National
How Rick Perkins and Larry Brock Revealed a $330 Million Cover-Up While Liberal MPs Run Damage Control
The True Cost of Letting Corruption Slide
Canada’s government is rotting from the inside, and if you needed more proof, look no further than Public Accounts of Canada (PACP) meeting 143. What we witnessed was a showcase of blatant corruption, institutional incompetence, and Trudeau’s Liberal elite running a racket—this time under the guise of environmentalism and “clean tech.” Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), the so-called green tech fund, has turned into nothing more than a green slush fund used to enrich Trudeau’s cronies while taxpayers foot the bill.
Let’s break it down: Trudeau’s government has turned what should have been a platform to invest in cutting-edge green technology into a cash pipeline for Liberal insiders. The PACP meeting laid bare how $330 million of taxpayer money flowed into conflicted projects approved by board members who had ties to the very companies benefiting from these funds. This isn’t negligence—this is corruption, plain and simple.
The Heroes of Accountability: Larry Brock and Rick Perkins
Two Conservative MPs stood out during this farcical hearing, and thank God they did. Larry Brock and Rick Perkins relentlessly grilled Marta Morgan, the bureaucrat who’s supposed to be in charge of overseeing SDTC. Let’s be real, though—Morgan’s job isn’t about fixing anything. Her role is to protect Trudeau’s insiders, to dodge questions, and to ensure that Canadians never find out the full extent of how deep this rot goes.
Larry Brock didn’t mince words when he compared the SDTC corruption to the Sponsorship Scandal, the Liberal boondoggle from the early 2000s that took down the Martin government. In this case, billions of dollars earmarked for clean technology are being funneled into projects tied to people sitting on SDTC’s board. “This is the sponsorship-style level of corruption within the government, the likes of which we haven’t seen since that scandal,” Brock declared.
Brock’s comparison is spot on. The Sponsorship Scandal was about buying influence with taxpayer money, and SDTC is no different. What’s worse is that this time, it’s all happening under the guise of fighting climate change. Trudeau’s Liberals have mastered the art of using high-minded rhetoric about the environment to hide what’s really happening—a cash grab for Liberal-friendly businesses.
Then there’s Rick Perkins, who absolutely took Marta Morgan to task. He demanded answers about why the SDTC board hadn’t taken steps to recover the $330 million in conflicted transactions. Let’s not forget that Annette Verschuren, former SDTC chair, was found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner for approving $220,000 in funds to her own company. Perkins didn’t hesitate to ask Morgan why the board hadn’t moved to recover this money, despite months having passed since the findings came to light.
“Why have you not taken steps to recover money for the taxpayer? The mandate is there—why aren’t you acting?” Perkins asked pointedly.
Morgan’s response? The same old bureaucratic doublespeak we’ve heard for years. “It has taken a few months for the board to get up and running… We have engaged legal advice,” she said, failing to provide any real answer. That’s not oversight—it’s stonewalling.
Morgan’s Evasion, Liberal Corruption Laid Bare
Morgan’s refusal to answer basic questions about conflicts of interest or the recovery of misallocated funds is exactly what you’d expect from Trudeau’s bureaucrats. When Perkins asked which law firm was advising SDTC on recovering taxpayer funds, Morgan dodged. She refused to name the firm, hiding behind vague references to “ongoing processes.” But let’s be clear here—this is all about protecting the same insiders who enabled this corruption in the first place.
Perkins saw right through it. “Are you getting legal advice as to what process should be followed to recover money? Yes or no? And if you say yes, which law firm is giving you that advice?” he asked, exposing the depth of the cover-up. Morgan couldn’t answer. Why? Because naming the firm would likely reveal the same old swamp creatures, still entangled in this corrupt web of green grift.
This isn’t about oversight or accountability—this is about Trudeau’s Liberals using every trick in the book to protect their insiders.
Redactions, Non-Answers, and Bureaucratic Cover-Ups
But it wasn’t just about recovering money. Larry Brock highlighted the heavily redacted documents that SDTC provided to the committee. He slammed the government for hiding the truth from Canadians, calling the redactions a deliberate attempt to cover up the depth of the corruption. “No small surprise that government departments heavily redacted hundreds of pages… the opposite of transparency and accountability!” Brock exclaimed, expressing the frustration that every taxpayer should feel.
It’s infuriating but not surprising. Trudeau’s Liberals love to talk about transparency and openness, but when push comes to shove, they’ll redact every piece of evidence that exposes their corruption. They know the truth is damning, and they’ll do anything to keep it hidden.
Brock also pressed Morgan on why SDTC continued to take legal advice from Osler, the very firm that helped facilitate the conflicts of interest at the heart of this scandal. Perkins had hammered her on this earlier, and Brock followed up, demanding an explanation for why SDTC hadn’t cut ties with a firm so deeply implicated in the corruption.
Morgan’s response? You guessed it—another non-answer. “Processes are being followed, and we’re looking at legal structures,” she mumbled, refusing to explain why the same law firm that helped create this mess is still providing legal advice. It’s absurd, but it’s par for the course in Trudeau’s Canada.
Liberal MPs Like Iqra Khalid: Protecting the Swamp
Let’s not forget Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who swooped in during the committee to do what she does best—protect Trudeau’s swamp. Rather than asking tough questions or holding the government accountable, she focused on soft issues like governance improvements and the future of SDTC. Khalid didn’t once mention the $330 million in misallocated funds or the conflicts of interest that allowed board members to enrich themselves.
Instead, she harped on future reforms and administrative improvements, as if that would somehow wipe away the corruption embedded in this system. Khalid is playing a role that every Liberal shill plays—pretend everything is fine, talk about process, and hope that Canadians forget about the billions of dollars being wasted.
The Bigger Picture: SNC-Lavalin Was the Warning
This SDTC scandal is bigger than just the misallocation of funds. It’s a pattern of corruption that’s plagued Trudeau’s government from day one. If you look back, SNC-Lavalin was the canary in the coal mine. That scandal showed us exactly what Trudeau is willing to do—protect his corporate friends at all costs. Trudeau went so far as to pressure his own Attorney General to interfere in a criminal case to help SNC-Lavalin avoid prosecution for bribery.
Back then, Liberal voters shrugged. Trudeau got away with it, and now we’re seeing the consequences. This green slush fund is what happens when corruption goes unchecked. Liberals have become emboldened, knowing that they can use virtue-signaling about the environment to enrich their own, all while claiming they’re saving the planet.
This is what happens when corruption slides.
National
Canada’s NDP is now calling women ‘non-males’
From LifeSiteNews
This is all very amusing, but it poses a problem for the Conservative Party.
Has Canada become a two-party system? This is one of the key questions political strategists and MPs have been asking each other in Ottawa. In the past federal election, the New Democratic Party’s (NDP’s) support collapsed, with the progressive standard-bearer securing only 7 seats (12 are necessary for official party status) and getting only 6 percent of the popular vote. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives wonder—one with glee, the other with concern—if the NDP will survive.
The NDP, however, is filled with self-loathing for its blue collar, labor roots. It is now the party of “sexual diversity.” In September, interim leader Don Davies admitted that the party needed to recognize that there were differences between the interests of straight, white male workers and a non-white lesbian; the party then promptly demanded that at least 50 percent of the signatures collected for the leadership race be from NDP members who do not identify as a “cisgender male,” but from “equity-seeking groups” such as non-white people, Indigenous members, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.
“Cisgender” is LGBT-speak for someone who has a “gender identity” that “aligns” with their body; basically, it means someone who is not transgender. Or as the comedian Norm Macdonald noted, “cisgender” is a term used to stigmatize normal people.
The NDP did not learn from the combination of chortling and contempt that greeted this story; they take themselves far too seriously for that. In fact, they have lurched directly into another gender scandal. According to the UK Daily Mail, the NDP “has come under scrutiny for an email that appeared to be sent to members, announcing newly elected leaders as ‘non-male’ and ‘male.’” The email was shared on X by journalist Jonathan Kay:
The @NDP now apparently classifies its executive members in two categories: (1) NON-MALE, and (2) MALE pic.twitter.com/0S8Kq4kbRx
— Jonathan Kay (@jonkay) October 25, 2025
The email, which Kay screenshotted, was sent by the New Westminster-Burnaby-Maillardville chapter of the NDP and “detailed highlights from the party’s last annual general meeting. The new members who identified as ‘non-male’ were listed as Doris Mah, Alodie Yen, Agnes Jackman, Penny Oyama, and Marla Penner. The ‘male’ members were listed as Dante Abbey, Eric Van Fleet, Aidan McDonough, Peter Julian, and Kebebe Abate.”
Hilariously, the NDP—which struggles not to say that they resent being the party of the white working man and desperately want to be the party of intersectional two-spirited lesbianism instead—is now being accused of “erasing women” due to their linguistic kowtowing to the transgender movement. What is a woman? Well, the NDP can’t quite say. And so instead, they simply refer to “non-males,” which I’m sure seemed quite an efficient way to solve the problem to whoever made the list. Doris, Agnes, Marla, and Penny did not say whether they appreciated being downgraded from “women” to “non-males.”
This is all very amusing, but it poses a problem for the Conservative Party. With the NDP determined to offend as many voters as possible in their search for intersectionality, the Liberals—who are, in practice, just as woke but far more powerful—actually manage to look somewhat moderate. Mark Carney may show up at Vancouver Pride and hug a near-naked LGBT activist wearing nothing but a thong, but he doesn’t use the term “cisgender” or refer to women as “non-males.” But like Trudeau—who has left politics for Katy Perry—he does raise the LGBT flag over Parliament Hill every June.
The NDP continues their freefall. The Liberals are close behind them, but with an adult-looking central banker in charge. The Conservatives need to provide an alternative. If they need ideas, they might look to Premier Danielle Smith in Alberta, who, despite being non-male, has more guts than any of them.
National
Canadian MPs order ethics investigation into Mark Carney’s corporate interests
From LifeSiteNews
The House of Commons ethics committee voted to look into personal financial disclosures as well as blind trust arrangements made before Mark Carney became prime minister.
Canadian MPs voted to launch an ethics investigation of Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney to look into whether or not there is a conflict of interest because of his personal “corporate and shareholding interests” while serving as the nation’s leader.
“The standard needs to be very high for people who want to serve in Canada’s highest office,” said Conservative MP Michael Barrett, who sponsored the motion.
“Canadians expect that. We need this transparency,” he added.
Conservative, NDP, and Bloc Québécois MPs all voted in favor in a 170-164 vote to pass Barrett’s motion calling for the probe. Green Party leader Elizabeth May was the only non-Liberal MP to vote against the motion, joining all Liberal MPs.
The motion asks the House of Commons ethics committee to look into Carney’s personal financial disclosures as well as blind trust arrangements he made before becoming prime minister.
This past July, a 16-page report detailed Carney’s private investments that include stock options in federally regulated companies such as Coca-Cola, Tesla, Canadian Pacific, Netflix, oil companies, and Microsoft.
Carney’s holdings are now in a blind trust with a “conflict of interest screen.”
According to Barrett, “Canadians are the ones left blind while the Prime Minister continues to be aware of how he can benefit from the decisions he takes, how they will improve his financial standing and how he can make more money based on the decisions he or his government takes while he is in office.”
“That is why this review of the Conflict of Interest Act is so necessary,” he said.
In particular, Barrett’s motion asks about Carney’s connections to the Brookfield Corporation.
“Should a Prime Minister have investments in tax havens? I would say no,” Barrett told his fellow MPs while speaking about the motion.
“They should be paying taxes like everyone else, not using accounting tricks that the wealthy rely on to avoid paying their fair share.”
Carney’s investments included shares in more than 600 worldwide companies. Barrett and now most MPs want answers as to whether or not this creates a conflict of interest.
The motion now means a list of high-profile witnesses will be called to testify November 21 regarding Carney’s alleged financial conflicts of interest. Witnesses include Carney’s chief of staff, Marc-André Blanchard, as well as Brookfield executives Bruce Flatt and Connor Teskey.
Carney was in Singapore when the motion was called forth.
Before Carney became PM earlier this year, he worked as an executive for Brookfield Asset Management, where he, as reported by LifeSiteNews, championed the idea of “net zero” climate goals to spur a financial “revolution.”
Shortly after becoming PM, he admitted he would “probably” have to recuse himself on certain governmental matters because of potential conflicts of interest.
Before becoming prime minister, Carney worked for Brookfield Asset Management and the United Nations special envoy on climate action.
Recent reports claim that Carney held $6.8 million in Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. stock options before quitting the company.
-
Business1 day agoTrans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Alberta2 days agoPremier Smith sending teachers back to school and setting up classroom complexity task force
-
Alberta2 days agoThousands of Albertans march to demand independence from Canada
-
Crime2 days agoSuspect caught trying to flee France after $100 million Louvre jewel robbery
-
Economy1 day agoStunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
-
Addictions2 days agoThe Shaky Science Behind Harm Reduction and Pediatric Gender Medicine
-
Business1 day agoFlying saucers, crystal paperweights and branded apples: inside the feds’ promotional merch splurge
-
International1 day agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”







