Juno News - May 12, 2026


Carney-backed candidate cries foul after losing Ontario Liberal nomination

Mentioned
Nate Erskine Smith
Gad Saad joins The Candice Malcolm Show to discuss his new book, Suicidal Empathy： Dying to Be Kind Course for educators pushes communist indoctrination on Concordia campus

Episode Stats


Length

2 minutes

Words per minute

188.71

Word count

438

Sentence count

8


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

MP Nate Erskine Smith's defeat in the Liberal Nominating Meeting on the weekend has some wondering if there's a legitimate reason to challenge the outcome of the primary election. On this episode of the podcast, we talk about what happened at the nominating meeting, and whether or not Nate should have challenged the outcome.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 Let's listen once again to what MP Nate Erskine Smith had to say right after his defeat in that
00:00:06.980 liberal nominating meeting on the weekend. Let's listen. A few scrutineers already who said they've
00:00:11.340 never seen anything like it. And it's unreal what happened in there. So I need to do a full
00:00:20.160 debrief with the team. I mean, I wasn't in the room. I was shaking hands. And all they told you
00:00:26.500 we've never seen anything like that and didn't tell you they said they've never seen anything
00:00:30.020 like it there were at one table it was 50 of the people that had id issues uh saying they've lost
00:00:35.780 driver's license they just moved in the area so look i like i don't i don't know it's unfair for
00:00:39.940 me to specifically speculate i i got no idea i would like to hear from every single person
00:00:44.740 that was in that room on our team to understand what took place and what what their feeling is
00:00:50.340 and if there is a legitimate reason to challenge obviously given everything we've seen in the race
00:00:55.220 to date uh and for some frustrations along the way with this allowing members and and then we see uh
00:01:02.420 screw nears in that room articulate concerns i i honestly have to do a full full debrief with them
00:01:07.460 before i decide next steps before i decide if i really consider the outcome fair there you go
00:01:12.980 suspicious goings on he's never seen anything like it steven half the people had id issues
00:01:18.580 some just moved to the area what do you make of this well there's two uh two focal points on it
00:01:24.260 it's what the the losing candidates say candidate said mark and uh he said that he has strong
00:01:31.140 suspicions of voting irregularities fine uh he's losing candidates i think it looks like sour
00:01:39.540 grapes if he has evidence he should shut up until he has that evidence and then bring it forward
00:01:45.780 but not just throw ask you know ideas out there and say oh i've i've been told by my people that
00:01:51.620 there were irregularities i was also told that his chief scrutineer the person who was there to
00:01:57.140 make sure there were no irregularities had signed off on the process so there's a number of issues
00:02:03.300 to be resolved however in the meantime uh that candidate does not he's not putting his best foot
00:02:11.300 forward because it just sounds like he's uh you know he lost no one likes to lose uh but unless
00:02:16.500 unless you have some evidence, you just shut up and take the verdict.