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.
Things have only gone from bad to worse for the global Electric Vehicle industry. And that’s a problem for Canada, because successive Liberal governments have done everything in their power to hitch our cart to that horse.
Earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back more Biden-era regulations that effectively served as a back-door EV mandate in the United States. These rules mandated that all passenger cars be able to travel at least 65.1 miles (and for light trucks, 45.2 miles) per gallon of gasoline or diesel, by the year 2031. Since no Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle could realistically conform to those standards, that would have essentially boxed them out of the market.
Trump’s rolling them back was a fulfillment of his campaign promise to end the Biden Administration’s stealth EV mandates. But it was also a simple recognition of the reality that EVs can’t compete on their own merits.
For proof of that, look no further than our second bit of bad news for EVs: Ford Motor Company has just announced a massive $19.5 billion write-down, almost entirely linked to its aggressive push into EVs. They’ve lost $13 billion on EVs in the past two years alone.
The company invested tens of billions on these go-carts, and lost their shirt when it turned out the market for them was miniscule.
Ford’s EV division president Andrew Frick explained, “Ford is following the customer. We are looking at the market as it is today, not just as everyone predicted it to be five years ago.”
Of course, five years ago, the market was assuming that government subsidies-plus-mandates would create a market for EVs at scale, which hasn’t happened.
As to what this portends for the market, the Wall Street Journal argued, “The company’s pivot from all-electric vehicles is a fresh sign that America’s roadways – after a push to remake them – will continue to look in the near future much like they do today, with a large number of gas-powered cars and trucks and growing use of hybrids.”
And that’s not just true in the U.S. Across the Atlantic, reports suggest the European Union is preparing to delay their own EV mandates to 2040. And the U.K.’s Labour government is considering postponing their own 2030 ICE vehicle ban to align with any EU change in policy.
It’s looking like fewer people around the world will be forced by their governments to buy EVs. Which means that fewer people will be buying EVs.
Now, that is a headache for Canada. Our leaders, at both the federal and provincial levels, have bet big on the success of EVs, investing billions in taxpayer dollars in the hopes of making Canada a major player in the global EV supply chain.
To bolster those investments, Ottawa introduced its Electric Vehicle mandate, requiring 100 per cent of new light-duty vehicle sales to be electric by 2035. This, despite the fact that EVs remain significantly more expensive than gas-and-diesel driven vehicles, they’re poorly suited to Canada’s vast distances and cold climate, and our charging infrastructure is wholly inadequate for a total transition to EVs.
But even if these things weren’t true, there still aren’t enough of us to make the government’s investment make sense. Their entire strategy depends on exporting to foreign markets that are rapidly cooling on EVs.
Collapsing demand south of the border – where the vast majority of the autos we build are sent – means that Canadian EVs will be left without buyers. And postponed (perhaps eventually canceled) mandates in Europe mean that we will be left without a fallback market.
Canadian industry voices are growing louder in their concern. Meanwhile, plants are already idling, scaling back production, or even closing, leaving workers out in the cold.
As GM Canada’s president, Kristian Aquilina, said when announcing her company’s cancellation of the BrightDrop Electric delivery van, “Quite simply, we just have not seen demand for these vehicles climb to the levels that we initially anticipated…. It’s simply a demand and a market-driven response.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney, while sharing much of the same environmental outlook as his predecessor, has already been compelled by economic realities to make a small adjustment – delaying the enforcement of the 2026 EV sales quotas by one year.
But a one-year pause doesn’t solve the problem. It kicks the can down the road.
Mr. Carney must now make a choice. He can double down on this troubled policy, continuing to throw good money after bad, endangering a lot of jobs in our automotive sector, while making transportation more expensive and less reliable for Canadians. Or he can change course: scrap the mandates, end the subsidies, and start putting people and prosperity ahead of ideology.
Here’s hoping he chooses the latter.
The writing is on the wall. Around the world, the forced transition to EVs is crashing into economic reality. If Canada doesn’t wake up soon, we’ll be left holding the bag.
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? |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| 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. | ||||||
|
Why is Canada paying for dairy ‘losses’ during a boom?
Ottawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
Ford’s EV Fiasco Fallout Hits Hard
Hunting Poilievre Covers For Upcoming Demographic Collapse After Boomers
-
armed forces2 days ago
Ottawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
espionage2 days agoCarney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues
-
Health2 days agoAll 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier
-
International9 hours agoOttawa is still dodging the China interference threat
-
Energy2 days ago75 per cent of Canadians support the construction of new pipelines to the East Coast and British Columbia
-
Business7 hours ago
There’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
-
Automotive6 hours ago
Canada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire
-
International8 hours ago2025: The Year The Narrative Changed