National
Liberal Patronage: $330 Million in Questionable Allocations at Canada’s Green Tech Agency
What we learned from the committee is as clear as it is disturbing: Liberal ministers and appointees at SDTC have been funneling taxpayer dollars to friends under the guise of green technology funding.
In a damning House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PACP) meeting, details emerged that Canada’s flagship “green” agency, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), funneled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into companies connected to Liberal insiders. An Auditor General’s report shed light on the staggering scale of this apparent Liberal patronage scheme, revealing that $330 million was awarded to projects with board members tied to the SDTC itself. Another $59 million found its way into initiatives that didn’t even meet SDTC’s green-tech mandate, fueling accusations of political favoritism and cronyism within Prime Minister Trudeau’s government.
Opposition MPs, led by Conservatives Rick Perkins and Michael Cooper, along with Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings, took turns dissecting former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains’ role in appointing Annette Verschuren as SDTC’s board chair. Testimony from the hearing, corroborated by statements from SDTC’s CEO, revealed that Bains reached out to Verschuren multiple times about her appointment, despite his claims of following an “open, transparent, and arm’s-length” process. Yet, when grilled by the opposition, Bains repeatedly invoked “process” and shifted blame onto the Privy Council Office (PCO), claiming he merely encouraged a diverse pool of applicants.
But the evidence doesn’t line up with the former minister’s narrative. Witnesses testified that Assistant Deputy Minister Noseworthy had informed SDTC CEO Leah Lawrence of Verschuren’s appointment even before it was finalized, indicating a behind-the-scenes process driven by Liberal influence. These revelations throw the credibility of the appointment process into question, suggesting it may have been less about selecting qualified candidates and more about ensuring loyal Liberal allies held key positions.
The committee’s findings, sparked by the Auditor General’s investigation, expose a serious issue of conflicts of interest within SDTC’s funding operations. This is a public agency with a mission to advance sustainable development, yet the Liberal government’s management seems to have turned it into a cash machine for insiders. The Auditor General’s report has revealed a troubling pattern of funding allocations going to companies with board connections, undercutting the government’s credibility on environmental stewardship and transparency.
What we learned from the committee is as clear as it is disturbing: Liberal ministers and appointees at SDTC have been funneling taxpayer dollars to friends under the guise of green technology funding. This isn’t just a lapse in oversight; it’s a systematic approach that prioritizes insider deals over real environmental progress, putting the Trudeau government’s commitment to transparency and sustainability squarely in doubt.
Opposition MPs Call Out Lack of Accountability
During this pivotal Public Accounts Committee meeting, opposition MPs went on the offensive, exposing a deep pattern of evasion and mismanagement in how taxpayer dollars were funneled into the hands of Liberal insiders under former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains. Conservative MPs Rick Perkins and Michael Cooper led the charge, calling out Bains’ deflections and demanding straight answers. They pointed to the $330 million awarded by Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to projects connected to its own board members, questioning why this blatant conflict of interest was permitted under Bains’ watch.
Perkins and Cooper’s approach was blunt. They challenged Bains on his repeated reliance on vague, bureaucratic defenses, pointing out that as minister, he had a duty to exercise oversight on SDTC’s operations. Perkins in particular questioned Bains about his involvement in appointing Annette Verschuren as chair of SDTC’s board. Despite Bains’ claims that he couldn’t “recall” specific discussions with Verschuren, evidence surfaced that he contacted her multiple times prior to her appointment. For Perkins and Cooper, this level of involvement, coupled with Bains’ repeated refusal to acknowledge conflicts of interest within SDTC, painted a damning picture of a Liberal minister who prioritized insider appointments over accountability to Canadian taxpayers.
Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings focused their questioning on the government’s failure to ensure responsible oversight of SDTC’s environmental funds. Sinclair-Desgagné highlighted Bains’ “arm’s-length” defense as an excuse, given the testimony indicating that senior officials had preemptively informed SDTC’s CEO about Verschuren’s appointment, suggesting an internal network of influence rather than a transparent, merit-based process. She called out the apparent detachment of Bains from SDTC’s operations, underscoring how his office either ignored or bypassed red flags.
NDP MP Cannings raised critical points about the hypocrisy of a government that claims to champion green innovation while allowing SDTC to devolve into a taxpayer-funded favor bank. Cannings pointed out that SDTC’s funds, meant for real environmental progress, were instead granted to projects with questionable ties and little sustainability impact. For Canadians concerned with climate action, Cannings’ questions laid bare the truth: the Liberal government’s commitment to “green” initiatives is far weaker than their dedication to keeping insiders funded.
This unified front by Conservative, Bloc, and NDP MPs highlighted the same disturbing trend: a Liberal government that talks about accountability and climate action but delivers neither, choosing instead to use taxpayer funds to benefit those closest to the party.
Bains’ Defense: Hiding Behind “Process” and Arm’s-Length Excuses
When faced with tough questions on SDTC’s mismanagement, former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains clung tightly to procedural defenses, repeatedly deflecting responsibility to the Privy Council Office (PCO) and downplaying his role as minister. Bains insisted that the PCO alone was responsible for vetting board members, suggesting his involvement was “hands-off” and strictly procedural. Yet, opposition MPs saw right through this tactic, viewing it as a clear attempt to dodge accountability.
Throughout the hearing, Bains deflected pointed questions by portraying SDTC’s oversight as out of his hands, claiming his office only followed standard processes. He avoided addressing why his appointee, Annette Verschuren, landed the SDTC board chair role despite potential conflicts of interest, with millions later flowing to companies linked to board members. By painting himself as a mere bystander to PCO’s vetting process, Bains sidestepped responsibility for ensuring taxpayer funds went to projects with genuine environmental merit, rather than those benefiting Liberal insiders.
When pressed about specific discussions surrounding Verschuren’s appointment, Bains leaned on what can only be described as selective memory. Asked about his personal involvement, he claimed he “couldn’t recall” multiple key conversations — a response that only raised eyebrows among committee members. Testimonies from SDTC’s CEO and other witnesses indicated Bains contacted Verschuren several times, yet his failure to acknowledge this directly cast doubt on his narrative of impartial oversight.
Opposition MPs argued that Bains’ procedural evasions were thinly veiled attempts to cover for what looks like a Liberal patronage pipeline. His refusal to answer clearly and his dependence on “I don’t recall” responses drew sharp criticism, with opposition leaders labeling it as a standard Liberal tactic to avoid admitting responsibility. The result? A testimony that shed little light on how SDTC was run but spoke volumes about the government’s willingness to dodge accountability whenever insiders are involved.
Inclusion and “Transparency” Won’t Save Liberals from Accountability
Throughout the Public Accounts Committee hearing, Liberal MPs Jean Yip and Francis Drouin took on a clear mission: protect Navdeep Bains at all costs. Instead of addressing the mountain of allegations around SDTC’s blatant cronyism and taxpayer waste, Yip and Drouin turned the hearing into a platform for Liberal talking points, spinning tales of “transparency” and “diversity” that conveniently dodged the actual corruption in front of them. Let’s be clear: hiding behind “inclusivity” doesn’t make the Liberals less corrupt, nor does it absolve them of responsibility when taxpayer money is at stake.
Jean Yip’s questioning gave Bains endless opportunities to recite the “open and competitive” process that supposedly led to Annette Verschuren’s appointment as SDTC board chair. Yet she never asked about Verschuren’s Liberal ties, or why so many millions were awarded to companies connected to SDTC board members. Yip’s focus on “inclusion” and “diverse voices” on the board was a distraction — a slick attempt to shift attention away from the Auditor General’s findings and avoid the reality that those “diverse voices” are well-connected Liberal insiders benefiting from your money.
Francis Drouin was right there to keep the narrative going, pivoting to SDTC’s supposed “green mandate” and giving Bains a platform to tout his government’s commitment to sustainability. But let’s call it what it is: a cover. By talking up sustainability and diversity, Drouin helped Bains avoid explaining why SDTC mismanaged $330 million on projects tied to its own board members, and why an additional $59 million went to ineligible initiatives. This wasn’t accountability — it was damage control, plain and simple.
Yip and Drouin’s interventions were textbook Liberal tactics: deflect, divert, and dilute the discussion. They may have repeated “transparency” and “inclusivity” all they wanted, but these buzzwords are nothing more than a smokescreen for taxpayer-funded favoritism. For Canadians watching, it was an unmistakable display of damage control — the Liberals doing everything they can to dodge real accountability while your tax dollars keep flowing to their inner circle.
Broader Implications: A Systemic Liberal Culture of Avoiding Accountability
The revelations from this Public Accounts Committee meeting show us something far darker than the mismanagement of a single agency. They expose a deeply entrenched system where Trudeau’s Liberal government doesn’t just waste taxpayer money — they use it to reward political cronies and shield insiders from accountability. This isn’t just negligence; it’s the Trudeau Swamp in action, a well-oiled machine funneling your money to friends and allies under the thin cover of bureaucratic “process.”
At the center of this scandal is a strategy the Liberals have perfected: hide behind procedural jargon and “arm’s-length” defenses to dodge any responsibility. The moment former Minister Navdeep Bains took the stand, you could see the tactics at work. Facing questions on how Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) turned into a cash cow for Liberal insiders, Bains and his fellow Liberal MPs defaulted to the same tired script — insisting every questionable allocation, every insider appointment, was just “routine process.” They claim “independence,” they claim “transparency,” but the evidence paints a different picture: Liberal insiders filling key roles and pulling the strings to channel your money into their pockets.
This scandal isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a glimpse into a troubling pattern, where taxpayer funds — meant for genuine public service — have become Trudeau’s political currency, up for grabs to those with the right connections. And make no mistake: Navdeep Bains’ refusal to answer real questions isn’t just about protecting himself. It’s about preserving a whole Liberal network that thrives on government patronage, hidden behind bureaucratic red tape. The Liberals have turned “process” into a shield, protecting ministers from facing the consequences of their actions.
The stakes couldn’t be higher for Canadians. This isn’t just about misusing a few dollars — it’s about a government prioritizing loyalty over public good, rewarding insiders while millions of Canadians wonder where their taxes are actually going. Under Trudeau’s watch, the promise of accountability has become a punchline, replaced with cronyism and evasion. So here’s the real question: Is Canada governed for its citizens, or for an elite network of well-connected Liberal insiders? Because after this committee meeting, the answer seems painfully clear.
Alberta
Media melts down as Danielle Smith moves to end ‘transitioning’ of children in Alberta
From LifeSiteNews
After Alberta’s Danielle Smith put forth legislation to protect kids from being gender ‘transitioned,’ the Canadian media went on a predictable melt down, citing ‘experts’ who blatantly lie to advance the LGBT agenda.
A year after announcing her intention to combat transgender ideology and protect children, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has tabled three pieces of UCP (United Conservative Party) government legislation:
- The Education Amendment Act 2024 will require parental consent for “socially transitioning” children under the age of 16 (changing a child’s name or “preferred pronouns”). The bill also gives parents an “opt-in” option for any sexual or content at school. Smith has emphasized that the Alberta Teaching Profession Commission has the power to discipline teachers if they decide to break the law.
- The Health Statues Amendment Act 2024 will ban the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, as well as prohibit sex change surgeries on minors.
- The Fairness and Safety in Sport Act will ban trans-identifying men from female sports teams.
Together, these three bills represent the most definitive pushback against gender ideology in Canada by any premier. Smith’s decision to announce her intent to pursue such legislation and then wait has turned out to be politically savvy—it has given the UCP government a good look at the LGBT response, and during that time the U.K.’s Labour government has successfully fought to maintain a similar ban in the courts and publicly rebutted many of the scare tactics used by LGBT activists.
Smith and the UCP are thus walking into this debate with eyes wide open, and are clearly certain that the public is on their side (it is) and that the legislation can survive the court challenges surely coming from LGBT activists. The policies are clearly popular with the UCP party’s base, who handed Smith a staggering 91.5% approval rating in her leadership review at UCP gathering in Red Deer last Saturday.
The party also passed 35 policy resolutions, including several that indicate the UCP’s willingness to go further in fighting transgender ideology, with resolutions that would restrict “exclusively female spaces” like bathrooms and changerooms to females and designating transgender surgeries as “elective cosmetic procedures” not funded by the taxpayer. The motions received near-unanimous support.
The Canadian press, unsurprisingly, is working hard to present policies that the vast majority of Canadians support as an attack on fundamental norms (albeit norms that only surfaced in the last few years and were never presented to voters). Global News ran the headline: “Alberta unveils 3 sweeping bills affecting trans and gender-diverse youth.” It is important to note that the press accepts the premises of transgender ideology as the starting point for their reporting, with heavy usage of nonsensical phrases like “gender-diverse youth,” which implies that there are many genders.
In fact, Global News and other Canadian outlets trotted out talking points that have been definitively rebutted by the U.K.’s Cass Review and multiple medical studies—in fact, even the New York Times has been reporting on the permanent harms of puberty blockers over the past several years. An example from Global News:
Alberta parents of gender-diverse youth like Haley Wray believe the new laws will give kids less choice — especially when it comes to health-care that is not permanent but instead, gives kids time to work through their identity struggles.
‘Hormone blockers are a very valuable tool,’ Wray said, explaining they have a very small window of effectiveness to pause, but not prevent, puberty. ‘It is reversible because nothing changes. And what that does is it allows youth and families to have that that pause, that break to explore further, validate, understand what this means and know that permanent changes aren’t happening.’
Wray believes the proposed legislation will make the province a less safe place for tens of thousands of Alberta kids who aren’t straight. It’s why, Wray says, a growing number of families with transgender children are now grappling with whether Alberta is a place they can stay. ‘I know people who have, and I know people who genuinely feel like there is likely nowhere to go,’ she said.
This is incorrect. Puberty blockers cause permanent damage, and children may be rendered permanently sterile after taking them for a relatively short period of time. Puberty is not something that can be “paused,” and it frequently causes irreversible rather than reversible damage. Smith and her government understand this, which is why they have decided to pass this legislation—not, as nearly every press outlet claimed, to “target trans youth,” but to protect them.
The CBC chimed in with sentences like this one:
Terms like ‘biological female’ and ‘biological male’ can be used to imply that transgender people are still their assigned sex at birth, despite their identity.
To translate: a scientifically accurate and precise statement is now an ideological one, but inherently ideological language invented by the transgender movement over the past decade is, in fact, technically accurate. People can identify as anything they want; it is irrelevant to their biology. The CBC presents pointing this out as some sort of propagandistic attack on vulnerable people.
Fortunately, Smith appears to know what she’s doing here. She’s taken her time to ensure that the legislation she has put forward will pass, and that it is defensible in court. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, who has just led the Saskatchewan Party to its fifth straight majority government, is of a similar mind—he’s promised to put forward legislation protecting female spaces as a matter of first priority. It took long enough, but Canada’s conservatives are finally starting to move.
National
Free Speech and Inflation top US Voter Concerns; Climate Change a Non-starter according to Polls
News release from the Friends of Science
A new poll from FIRE, championed on X by Elon Musk reports that free speech is a critical US voter issue on par with economic issues; climate change is a non-starter, far down the list, says Friends of Science Society. Climate change has lost steam among Canadian voters; a major push-back against the costly carbon tax is happening nation-wide. CALGARY, AB, Oct. 31, 2024 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ — On Oct. 24, 2024, Elon Musk on “X” wrote: “Major vibe shift” as FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reported their recent poll results with free speech ranked higher than health care, crime and immigration; climate change was second from the last of twelve issues, says Friends of Science Society. The poll was conducted by the prestigious National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. Even a September 9, 2024 Pew Research Centre poll of the ‘most important’ voter issues had climate change last on the list of 10. It appears that one of the benefits of Elon Musk’s take-over of Twitter, now “X,” has led to an opening up of the debate on climate change and other topics, to the point where leaked documents show that the Centre for Countering Digital Hate out of the UK specifically targeted him and his platform to be shut down prior to the US election, as reported by the Express Tribune, Oct. 22, 2024. People are now asking “What if CO2 is Good For You?” Climate fearmongers on “X” are met with a barrage of scientific papers and biting memes pushing back, says Friends of Science. On November 11, 2024, just 6 days after the US election, the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29), countries signatory to the UNFCCC, begins in Baku, Azerbaijan, a petro-state. This year’s focus is on climate finance. S&P Global reports that the target for a climate fund for developing nations is $1 trillion dollars while imposing more stringent Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emissions reductions, especially in Europe and other Western industrialized nations where that money is expected to come from. Robert Lyman is a former Canadian federal public servant of 27 years, diplomat of 10 years, and a retired energy economist, predicted in June of 2024 that COP29 will fail, as have all the previous COP conferences. Friends of Science Society issued a report by Robert Lyman titled “Europe on the Brink” which summarizes key points in Prof. Samuel Furfari’s analysis of Mario Draghi’s report on European Competitiveness. Both Europe and Canada seem to be on a climate-policy driven path toward economic destruction, thanks to their commitments to NetZero goals, says Friends of Science Society. Friends of Science Society’s analysis of “Getting to Net Zero” shows that poverty, degrowth and deprivation await citizens. Video explainer here. For most Canadians, the climate change has fallen from public interest with a September 2023 poll showing a 93% concern for economic issues, only a 7% concern for climate change. A more recent poll using different metrics showed 70% of Canadians are focussed on immediate concerns like housing and the cost of living. Provinces are pushing back on the burdensome carbon tax. As reported in the Western Standard of Oct. 30, 2024, David Suzuki and 4 other broadcast colleagues want CBC, the national broadcaster, to make climate emergency a daily news issue. Author Seth Klein proposes a War Measures Act style economy; much like that outlined in the US House Judiciary’s report on the “Climate Cartel” which is reviewing Mark Carney’s “GFANZ.” Friends of Science Society rejects their climate catastrophe activism and rebuts their claims in this video. Canada’s Climate Action Network (CAN-RAC) in “Paving the Way” is pushing for an emissions cap in Alberta, and for COP29 a phase-out of fossil fuels, an increase in foreign spending on climate finance and a tripling of renewables. The manufacturing of renewables requires vast quantities of oil, natural gas and coal, as explained in IEEE Spectrum’s publication of Vaclav Smil’s “To Get Wind Power You Need Oil,” thus these groups are asking the impossible, says Friends of Science Society. Regarding Canada’s proposed emissions cap, Robert Lyman summarizes a Deloitte report in “A Dire Assessment,” showing that “If production is curtailed as Deloitte projects, GDP in Alberta’s oil and gas sector would be $16.2 billion (20%) lower compared to the baseline in 2040. In the rest of Canada, GDP in the sector is projected to be $2.7 billion lower by 2040 compared to the baseline.” |
|
About:Friends of Science Society is an independent group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers, and citizens who are celebrating its 22nd year of offering climate science insights. After a thorough review of a broad spectrum of literature on climate change, Friends of Science Society has concluded that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). |
-
International2 days ago
IRS whistleblowers confirm agencies knew the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Australian local council calls for ‘immediate suspension’ of mRNA COVID vaccines
-
Energy2 days ago
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
-
National2 days ago
Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference
-
National1 day ago
Trudeau government introduces bill that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers of charity status
-
Alberta1 day ago
Lesson for Ottawa—don’t bite the hand that feeds you
-
John Campbell1 day ago
Prominent COVID jab critic examines the amazing evidence for the Shroud of Turin