The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - November 05, 2025


Carney Liberals budget disaster & Conservative floor-crossing fallout!


Episode Stats


Length

43 minutes

Words per minute

180.89316

Word count

7,923

Sentence count

468

Harmful content

Misogyny

8

sentences flagged

Hate speech

3

sentences flagged


Summary

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

Wyatt Claypool talks about the Liberals' $78B deficit and the fallout from Chris Dantremont's decision to cross the floor to join the Liberal Party. He also discusses the impact of the floor crossing, and what it means for the future of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hey guys, Wyatt Claypool here. So let's talk about the Liberals' budget. We have been waiting
00:00:06.200 a very long time to get this thing. In fact, I think we've gone without a budget for the
00:00:11.720 government for 18 months now, and it's not very good. Like, all the talk about Mark Carney being
00:00:20.280 a more conservative Liberal Prime Minister was obviously all fake, and anyone who was saying
00:00:26.080 that he was going to be more conservative than Justin Trudeau could be discredited. Now, his
00:00:31.020 temperament, his style may be more conservative. He just talks in a way that doesn't make him seem
00:00:36.560 super progressive. But if you looked at the way he talked about the economy, it was clear that he was
00:00:42.600 not really going to rein in spending. Now, they're pretending to rein in spending in a budget where
00:00:47.940 they blow out the deficit, but that's just liberal math for you. If they reduce spending over here by
00:00:54.680 15 billion dollars, and then they spend another 70 billion more over there, that's being more
00:01:01.320 fiscally responsible somehow. It would be like saying, well, I cut down on my junk food budget to
00:01:07.740 try and make our household finances better, but yes, I did buy a Lamborghini. This, okay, we are going to
00:01:15.040 go into it in just a second, and I want to go through all of the, some of the numbers. You don't really
00:01:19.760 need to go in depth on a budget. It's really just the top line, where's money being spent, and some warning
00:01:25.720 signs. But before I get into it, guys, I just want to remind you that, hey, if you like the show, make sure
00:01:31.600 to leave a like on this video, subscribe to the channel if you are not yet a subscriber, and leave a comment on
00:01:37.500 what you think about the budget. And of course, we will also be talking about the fallout of Chris
00:01:42.920 Dantremont leaving the Conservative Party and crossing the floor to join the Liberals. But let's
00:01:48.340 start off with Conservative Party leader, Pierre Polyev, criticizing the budget in question period.
00:01:53.920 And on behalf of all the Canadians who can no longer afford to eat, heat, or house themselves
00:02:00.100 because of Liberal inflation, we Conservatives cannot support this costly Liberal budget.
00:02:12.920 But there is still time for the Prime Minister to do the right thing. We will put forward an amendment that
00:02:18.000 will transform this policy by making Canada affordable again. It will get rid of the industrial
00:02:24.200 carbon tax, cut the wasteful spending to bring down debt, inflation, and taxes. It will open our country
00:02:33.100 up to opportunity by developing our prodigious resources, clear-wave bureaucracy to build affordable homes.
00:02:39.860 Now, it shouldn't be surprising that Polyev and the Conservatives are voting against the budget.
00:02:45.880 Hey, they are the official opposition. But Carney's given Polyev a very big gift here. Yes, the floor
00:02:53.860 crossings are distracting from Polyev making his point about the budget. But unlike the floor crossing,
00:02:58.800 the budget and its consequences are going to carry on as a news cycle story. Chris Dantremont is going to be
00:03:04.840 a bit of a footnote very soon here. If anything, the reaction to him leaving is probably going to prevent
00:03:08.980 any other Conservatives from leaving. They always could. I've heard there's a couple of Quebec
00:03:12.540 Conservative MPs that might go, but one of them already spoke out saying, I'm definitely not
00:03:17.060 leaving. There's a rumor about Matt Gennaro in Edmonton Riverbend. He said, I'm absolutely not
00:03:22.800 leaving. So I think it's pretty quiet at this point. The offside chance someone leaves is pretty low.
00:03:29.040 But the thing is that Carney's given Polyev a gift because the budget is what the Conservatives
00:03:34.860 would have basically said the Liberals are going to do in an election. And it effectively was what
00:03:40.500 Polyev said, that Carney's pretending like he's more responsible, but he is going to be running
00:03:45.220 bigger deficits than even the Trudeau Liberals did. In fact, Carney is a Trudeau Liberal. He was
00:03:51.860 the economic advisor to Justin Trudeau from 2020 until he became Prime Minister himself.
00:03:57.840 So why is anyone shocked that we're running such a big deficit? Because you are having members of 0.99
00:04:03.980 the media reacting to, oh, that's a pretty big deficit number, $78 billion. That's pretty big.
00:04:11.080 Of course it's big. The guy's entire business career, because this is another thing people cite,
00:04:15.840 thinking, well, you know, he worked at Goldman Sachs. Well, he was the chair of Brookfield Asset
00:04:20.920 Management. Well, he was the governor of the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England. Okay, simply being
00:04:27.460 around money doesn't actually make you good with money. If that was true, lottery winners would be
00:04:34.340 the most financially solvent people on the planet, when we all know that they usually quickly go
00:04:39.360 bankrupt because they are the type of people, the type of people who buy a lot of lottery tickets,
00:04:43.400 don't tend to be very good with their money, hence the fact that they buy a lot of lottery tickets.
00:04:47.960 Carney's entire business career in Brookfield Asset Management, the other roles he had was mostly
00:04:52.840 just following orders, so how could you mess it up? Although in England, he then decided that he had all
00:04:57.360 the answers and actually greatly hurt their economy with all of the monetary policies he pursued over
00:05:02.220 there. But at Brookfield Asset Management, they mostly made money from the basically exploitation
00:05:08.800 of subsidies, grants, tax breaks, and other things, government contracts, because they were involved
00:05:15.960 in sectors that were effectively just subsidy sectors, subsidy industries, green tech, battery tech,
00:05:22.300 a lot of other areas of like the green transition type stuff, you know, new EV plants, all these
00:05:29.040 things where either the actual manufacturer or creation of the product or energy is heavily
00:05:35.320 subsidized by the government, or the people buying the product are heavily subsidized on the demand
00:05:40.460 side by giving massive tax breaks to buy electric vehicles and whatnot. So the guy doesn't actually know
00:05:47.320 how to create real productivity. His entire business career has nothing to do with real productivity,
00:05:52.620 it has to do with exploiting government programs. And so that's why we are here. And Paulie, I've
00:06:00.300 actually had this funny moment when talking about the budget today, where the liberals have been
00:06:05.020 pretending that no, no, no, we're actually, we're weaning ourselves off of carbon taxes, when in fact,
00:06:11.200 despite getting rid of the consumer carbon tax, they are strengthening the industrial carbon tax,
00:06:17.180 and they also have a clean power, clean energy, like a regulation that's going to come in that's
00:06:23.320 also going to raise the cost of fuel. And Paulie have pointed this out that it's literally there and
00:06:28.840 he had to take out their own budget book and they got mad because you're not allowed to have props
00:06:33.220 in the house, even though he's having to literally debunk them with their own words by holding up their own
00:06:40.240 words. He says it's imaginary, but it's in his budget. Does that mean the budget is a fictional
00:06:45.820 document? Here it is on page 106. Strengthen the industrial industry.
00:06:50.540 So they're all, they're all mad. They're all freaking out because you can't hold up the book. You're not
00:07:12.680 allowed having props. Okay. If we're going to allow someone one prop, can we allow them to hold up
00:07:19.180 the government's own budget? They are apparently proud of so they can read from it. In fact, I
00:07:25.040 actually find so many rules regulating how people speak and act in the house of commons and in
00:07:29.940 provincial legislatures to be frankly silly. You'll have some pretty bad behavior going on from people
00:07:34.660 jeering and freaking out and whatnot, but the person speaking is not allowed to use somebody's name.
00:07:39.280 It's kind of foolish.
00:07:53.720 The honorable member may continue now that the prop has been put away.
00:08:00.640 Mr. Speaker, they say their budget is a prop and its contents are imaginary. We're in real trouble.
00:08:06.520 They really walked into that zinger right there. Like guys, political optics liberals. Like,
00:08:16.580 please do not call your own budget a prop. Just say, oh, we don't, he shouldn't be able to,
00:08:20.700 he can't hold documents while he's talking.
00:08:25.380 Homes take steel. They take aluminum. They take concrete and cement and glass. The industrial carbon
00:08:32.100 tax drives all those things up. With our youth unable to afford homes, why don't they get rid of
00:08:37.400 this tax so that we can bring down the cost of housing?
00:08:41.660 So we don't have the response there just because it's not how the person clicked it who posted
00:08:47.520 online. Do we really think that the government house leader, Steve McKinnon, and by the way,
00:08:52.660 where's Prime Minister Mark Carney? Why doesn't he come out and defend his great budget? He's apparently
00:08:57.820 proud of it, but he's sending out Steve McKinnon, who is a, in my mind, I hold him in similar value
00:09:04.180 to a circus act to come out and probably say some mild things about how we are investing in Canadians.
00:09:10.160 We are growing the economy and we also care about the planet too. It's so obnoxious. I want to jump
00:09:19.240 over now to, as well, we have Andrew Scheer here talking about the budget and talking about the lack of
00:09:26.480 actual real affordability measures. Now, I believe in this clip he says there's no affordability
00:09:30.960 measures. There technically are. On net, do the affordability measures overcome the fact that
00:09:37.220 they are just blowing out the deficit and they're dumping money into, they're effectively going to
00:09:42.700 be causing massive inflation. Does it overcome that? Potentially not, but there are affordability
00:09:48.100 measures. Now, they're pitiful, but I just want to quickly fact check that. There are affordability
00:09:53.220 measures. They are lowering taxes under $50,000 by a little bit. When I say by a little bit, I mean
00:09:59.100 like a family of four might be able to get at the, only making $50,000 a year each. They may be able
00:10:06.360 to get like $800 back. The average person is probably going to get like $350 back, but technically
00:10:12.760 there is affordability things. With businesses, they have this one-year plan that all of your capital
00:10:19.920 expenditures for like a new building or like new equipment, you can fully 100% write off,
00:10:25.340 but that's only a one-year thing. It's not even exactly a bad idea, but why don't you just cut
00:10:29.940 taxes instead? Like just permanently lower people's taxes rather than giving them this one-year
00:10:35.080 giveaway where if you buy a new like excavator for your construction company that you can just write
00:10:40.400 off the cost of the excavator. Not a horrible plan, but it's a way of placating people for one year
00:10:46.140 and then going back to high taxes. This government is decreasing immigration, getting rid of climate
00:10:50.380 policies your party wanted gone, and cutting the public service. If you believe, as you told
00:10:55.240 Canadians during the election, that those things will better our country, isn't this budget worth
00:10:59.520 supporting? Why do you say they're shrinking the size of the federal service? The public service by
00:11:03.280 40,000 jobs. Well, you know, what I saw was a deficit of 55.6 billion, sorry, that's public debt
00:11:10.360 dollars. The deficit under Mark Carney is even bigger than under Justin Trudeau. I didn't say
00:11:15.320 they're not spending, but I'm saying that they are cutting the public service, which is something
00:11:18.480 you advocate for. Now, I actually like Vashie Capella. She grew on me over time. I find she asks
00:11:23.700 good questions, and maybe this is her just pushing back, doing some hardball, make sheer justify what 1.00
00:11:29.220 he's talking about. But like, well, yeah, but they are cutting back on spending. Like, okay, it doesn't
00:11:35.800 matter if you are trying to cut some ministerial bloat, if you're trying to cut some public service
00:11:41.660 bloat, if that bloat is being increased and then just shifted somewhere else. Now, some of it,
00:11:47.340 they'll say, well, it's an actual investment. It's not just spending, although it's all spending at
00:11:51.400 the end of the day, we can just evaluate if it's good or bad. Maybe they're going to argue it's good
00:11:55.180 spending to be putting money towards infrastructure projects like their clean energy grid, which is
00:12:00.680 probably going to come in massively over budget and not be nearly as worthwhile as they think.
00:12:04.720 But at the end of the day, that is still weight on the private sector. That is weight on people's
00:12:10.700 personal finances. So yes, they can say that they're cleaning up some of the personnel spending.
00:12:16.420 But do I really think that the personnel are even going to go away? Are they just going to be shifted
00:12:20.400 towards the department carrying out the infrastructure, the bigger infrastructure projects?
00:12:25.420 Like, I don't believe them. Sorry. But let's get to Shear's response here.
00:12:29.500 Well, first of all, there's a lot of notional things that they're hoping Canadians
00:12:34.700 will trust them. It will actually come to fruition. When you see a government that's
00:12:38.520 announcing new programs, massive amounts of new inflationary spending that's going to drive up
00:12:43.400 that deficit, I don't see that as the government getting smaller. I see more and more Canadians
00:12:46.980 having to work harder, pay more taxes to pay the interest on that debt that Mark Carney's
00:12:51.380 racking up. What Mark Carney has essentially said is, after 10 years of inflationary deficits and
00:12:55.820 massive overspending by Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney's saying the problem in Canada is that the government
00:12:59.800 wasn't spending enough, that the deficit wasn't big enough, and that the debt was not big enough.
00:13:04.740 You know that now, under Mark Carney, more of your tax dollar is going to pay the interest on that
00:13:09.240 debt than on health care? That's not sustainable. 0.52
00:13:11.580 I have a number of questions for the minister about the level of debt service charges, and I do take your
00:13:16.360 point on that. I also think back to the last time we, as a country, were in a crisis in 2008 and 2009.
00:13:22.560 And I remember the prime minister at the time, Stephen Harper, spending a lot of money on
00:13:26.220 infrastructure in order to stimulate the economy. Now, I want to respond to this point. It's not
00:13:31.360 even a bad question. Again, sometimes a tough question, even if it's not technically true,
00:13:35.500 is fine to pose to someone like Scheer so he can shoot it down. But this is, I've seen people posting
00:13:40.880 this, that I think it was this Tyler Meredith guy on X saying, well, technically with inflation,
00:13:47.040 Harper in 09-1010 spent more money in his, but his deficit was bigger than Mark Carney's in
00:13:54.160 with inflation added. It would be like saying, well, technically the deficits we ran during World
00:14:00.280 War II were bigger than the ones today when you take inflation into account. And I just think,
00:14:06.840 what are you possibly talking about? You're comparing the world financial crisis and the spending we did
00:14:13.680 to kind of buoy the economy back then to currently our economy is just begging for the government to get
00:14:20.900 off its neck. They are just wanting lower taxes and lower regulations. And we're just going to spend
00:14:26.600 more. You can't just keep spending money to try and get yourself through any like a situation. Even
00:14:33.420 in 09-1010, that spending would have negative consequences. But Harper eventually balanced the
00:14:39.920 budget too. There is the consequences to spending that much money for Stephen Harper, but he understood
00:14:45.720 what the consequences were. This is for short-term gain. And then we are very quickly going to bring
00:14:50.660 spending back down and even balance the budget. That is what he did. But the thing is that this
00:14:55.800 government is not responsible. In fact, I ought to read this right here. I'm not going to bring it up
00:15:01.860 on screen. There's just no point in my opinion to doing this. But I just want to show you the actual
00:15:08.580 debt or deficit. We're running a $70 billion deficit this year. Next year, it'll be about
00:15:15.760 $60 billion. Then it'll be like $56 billion. And then in like 2028, 2029, it's going to be like $30
00:15:21.760 billion. And then the year after that, it's only going to be $10 billion. Woo! Yes, let's just have
00:15:26.200 really good-looking budget projections for years in the future as if they ever stand by those things.
00:15:32.540 Because based on Trudeau's previous budget projections, we should be at a balanced budget
00:15:37.780 or something by now. Or at the very least, the deficit should only be like $10 or $20 billion.
00:15:42.700 Remember, the Liberals, their big red line last year was keeping the deficit to like $40 billion.
00:15:49.760 And then they ended up blowing it out to $60 billion. And now Carney's blowing it out to $78
00:15:54.440 billion. But when these people show you a chart showing their deficits falling, then you're supposed
00:16:00.160 to assume that, oh, yeah, of course, they're going to be able to achieve that. But I'll let
00:16:02.980 Scheer now respond to this. When I look at the line items that add to increased spending to
00:16:07.600 drive up that deficit, a huge chunk in this case is exactly that, is spending on infrastructure
00:16:12.480 in order to spur economic growth against the backdrop of an economic crisis. Why was it
00:16:17.240 okay then and not now? Well, the difference was targeted investments after years of balanced
00:16:22.820 budgets bringing Canada's fiscal house back in order versus now when we see a government
00:16:28.500 that's really spending a lot of money on areas that's not going to benefit Canadians. There's
00:16:32.660 not a single affordability measure in this budget, not a single thing that's going to lower grocery
00:16:37.660 prices or reward hard work. This is a budget that's creating new ways for the government
00:16:44.760 to spend money. It's bloating bureaucracies. All the things they're talking about are notional
00:16:50.340 and far off. I look at the tables that they actually put in the budget. Investments going
00:16:54.600 down this quarter, went down last quarter. They're projecting it to go down next quarter. This
00:16:58.620 is all since Mark Carney's become prime minister. And one of the problems with their plan to just
00:17:05.940 dump a lot of money into infrastructure and give this one year big capital write-off for
00:17:12.340 corporations, and that's fine. Small businesses, medium-sized businesses, large businesses can
00:17:17.280 use it. They can say, hey, I would usually be paying this in taxes. How about I just take
00:17:21.480 this for a smaller business? I'll take this like $400,000 I'm usually going to pay in taxes,
00:17:26.960 and I'll just spend that on capital stuff and they'll let me write off most of it. I think
00:17:31.160 they only let them write it off to a point because obviously every single company would just try and
00:17:35.120 pay no corporate taxes next year by just spending as much as possible on capital stuff. But at the
00:17:40.600 end of the day, one, that's going to make a bigger deficit for next year and this year. But as well,
00:17:46.600 the problem that we're going to be running into is that nobody wants to try and navigate in an
00:17:52.080 economy where you have to kind of like read the rulebook really deeply to know what's coming down
00:17:57.740 the pike, to know the kind of grants and subsidies that are available to you when taxes may go up, 0.69
00:18:03.260 when regulations may go up, when they may throw you a bone like on this capital spending write-off.
00:18:08.860 That's the problem. People would rather operate in Texas. People would rather operate in Florida.
00:18:15.320 They would rather go to pretty much any state in the U.S. because it's predictable the kind of
00:18:22.500 policies that are going to be in place. Obviously, there are bad fringe examples, but the bad fringe
00:18:27.260 examples in the U.S. and places like San Francisco and New York City now with Zoran Mamdani as the
00:18:32.440 mayor, those prove the point of why places like Texas are so good to set up a business. In fact,
00:18:37.640 Alberta even proves the point because Alberta, with its better provincial regulations and taxes,
00:18:42.520 make it an actual somewhat viable economic zone in Canada compared to the rest of the country if
00:18:48.940 only the federal government would do the same things as the Alberta government is doing.
00:18:54.440 Have you ever gotten deep in a video and you're like, oh my goodness, Wyatt, I hate the sound of
00:18:57.900 your own voice? And that's why I just thought there. But anyways, I just want to move on and bring up
00:19:04.760 the reactions that we've had from the different party leaders. I want to start off here with
00:19:10.840 with Don Davies first reacting to the digital service tax being taken out because he is
00:19:17.260 trying to hit the liberals for being too conservative for backing down on the DST because
00:19:22.300 of Trump threatening to walk away from the table over it and on the liberals backing down.
00:19:26.820 So here is the interim NDP leader, Don Davies, talking about that. And then I will get to the
00:19:31.580 clip of him giving his overall opinion of the budget.
00:19:34.520 There's no digital services tax. You know, this was a measure that the liberals themselves
00:19:40.180 invented five years ago, worked on. It would raise a billion dollars a year in revenue taxing the
00:19:46.180 biggest U.S. tech companies in the world. We're talking Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk on profits over
00:19:52.840 $20 million in Canada.
00:19:55.040 Is he just giving the game away that that was in fact a tariff? Because that was Trump's argument and
00:20:00.240 Don Davies is entirely admitting, yeah, that the entire tax was invented to mostly
00:20:06.760 tax American companies. The only Canadian company that most people ever list that would even qualify
00:20:12.460 for this would be like Shopify. And that's it. Only Shopify would have revenues that's a Canadian
00:20:19.960 company high enough in Canada to have to pay money on this. And a billion dollars? He's going to get,
00:20:25.280 he's going to quibble about a billion dollars in extra revenue for the government. The deficit's
00:20:31.680 $78 billion. And you think that we could be having a new bureaucracy to carry out taxing U.S.
00:20:40.860 corporations mostly in order to get $1 billion and making Canada a place that less tech companies
00:20:47.560 want to be based in.
00:20:48.740 Now, if you have a revenue problem in Canada, and you have to cut public services, or you could tax
00:20:54.820 the wealthiest people on the planet, NDP thinks that it would have been a wiser choice to tax those
00:21:00.220 people. So you see, there's positive and negatives in this budget. And we're going to take a
00:21:05.080 comprehensive look and weigh it out in the aggregate over the next few years.
00:21:09.460 So Don Davies and the NDP are the ones hedging the most on whether or not they're going to be voting
00:21:15.280 for it. Obviously, we already know the answer from Kir Polyev that the opposition will not be voting
00:21:22.180 for it. And here is him just giving his general overview on the budget. Then we will go to use
00:21:27.480 Francois Blanchet. And then because life hates us, we're going to have to listen to Elizabeth May,
00:21:33.540 who oddly enough, actually does not support the budget.
00:21:36.280 Well, today we have the first budget at the federal level in 18 months. And I want to contextualize
00:21:42.660 it a little bit. Canadians are facing serious economic pressures from coast to coast to coast.
00:21:48.700 We have skyrocketing prices in groceries and rent. And housing as an ownership proposition is simply
00:21:56.020 out of the question for too many people. We have unemployment at 10-year highs, particularly hard for
00:22:01.660 young people. We're one in six. Young people is out of work. And many more than that are underemployed.
00:22:07.780 Economic growth is weak. And of course, we face serious problems from south of the border. 0.90
00:22:14.080 So it is in that context that we're evaluating this budget today. I can tell you that New Democrats
00:22:21.000 are going to take the time to study this budget. We're going to consult with stakeholders.
00:22:26.120 We're going to talk to Canadians, particularly working Canadians, and review this budget to see
00:22:32.080 if this budget passes our lens of whether it works for working Canadians.
00:22:36.000 Let's be very clear here. If the NDP was actually intellectually consistent,
00:22:40.240 they should say we're totally fine with this because, like, here's really the thing.
00:22:46.940 This is what I'm trying to say. So I'm going to back up a little bit here.
00:22:49.880 If they were intellectually consistent, they should just say they want even more spending
00:22:53.920 and no cuts to public services and public service personnel. Again, I don't actually think
00:22:59.760 those people are being cut. They're just going to be transferred somewhere else. But in general,
00:23:03.020 I always find it kind of funny because you think a deficit of $78 billion should be right up the
00:23:08.340 NDP's alley. But the NDP can turn anything into it's too conservative. Yes, we only have theoretical
00:23:14.660 public service cuts that this thing may entail. And it's spending way more money. And a lot of these
00:23:19.840 people are probably just going to get jobs in the new departments. But somehow this is like,
00:23:24.420 you know, too mean to public sector workers. At the same time, the thing is that the layoffs may
00:23:30.060 actually affect the Ottawa-Gatineau area, because while it may actually be reducing kind of that
00:23:35.820 Ottawa-tied position, it's going to open up a lot of more government positions around the country
00:23:41.360 elsewhere. Man, Bruce Fanjoy must be taking it on the chin from all of his constituents who beat
00:23:47.960 Pierre Polyev for his Carlton seat on the idea that he was going to stand up and fight for public
00:23:53.440 sector workers. You know, I don't actually think many of these people are actually going to be
00:23:57.780 fired. But the perception from those workers and parties like the NDP is that it will. And even if
00:24:03.860 it fires even just a few thousand people in Ottawa, you're going to have this big backlash. And I think
00:24:08.380 that Carlton is going to be a winnable seat for the Conservatives next election again, because you're
00:24:12.240 going to see a surge for the NDP and a backlash to Bruce Fanjoy. I think, though, that the NDP are
00:24:17.860 probably going to vote for this thing. The issue for them is they are stuck in the middle of a
00:24:22.320 leadership race. So they can't really vote for to take down the government right now and then have
00:24:27.640 interim leader Don Davies lead the party. It would feel kind of fake. Like, obviously, the NDP is
00:24:34.360 never going to form government and make their guy the prime minister. But it always feels weird that
00:24:38.200 the guy who is at the leaders debate is not really the full leader. I guess they would say he's the
00:24:43.480 full leader and we'll put the leadership race on pause and then continue this in a year or so.
00:24:46.960 But it will always feel a bit hollow. So that's why the NDP is going to say bad things about the
00:24:51.980 budget. But they'll say there's just enough here. But this is the final straw. This is the last thing
00:24:56.520 that we're going to support you guys on. The next budget better be 10,000 times better. We're going
00:25:01.120 to vote against it because it is in the NDP's best interests to have an early election. But because of
00:25:07.220 their leadership race, it is currently just too early at the moment.
00:25:11.360 I hardly see. And of course, now we're listening to Yves-Francois Blanchet's reaction to the budget
00:25:18.300 for the Bloc Québécois. After having met with our caucus tonight, we could vote in favor of this
00:25:26.200 budget. Those $78 billion of deficit, whatever tricks they want to invent.
00:25:35.400 There's nothing of what we did ask in the budget. And I must tell you that what the Bloc Québécois asked
00:25:47.340 in order to maybe support the budget about elders, about health care transfers, about what we did ask,
00:25:57.880 but one thing that was not given to Québécois and given to everybody else would have been good
00:26:03.560 for all Canadians, not only Québécois. Still, the answer is no. This is a red conservative budget
00:26:14.540 which Mr. Harper might have signed. And there's nothing for Québécois in there. Absolutely nothing.
00:26:23.980 We did ask what was basically the object of a large consensus within the population of Quebec.
00:26:31.980 And the answer from a Québecer, Mr. Champagne, is a blunt. No.
00:26:38.660 And so it's funny, again, the Bloc are actually a lot like the NDP on this. They're mad that the public
00:26:45.420 service spending may go down in terms of public service personnel, that they're going to cut 15%
00:26:50.960 of positions. Again, that's something where I think the liberals will just keep putting off really
00:26:56.740 doing a mass layoff. So they'll maybe trickle out some staffing cuts here and there. I don't think
00:27:02.100 it's going to be hard and fast because one, it would just be a bad look for their political side
00:27:07.440 to fire people this quickly. But it's funny seeing the NDP and the Bloc. Blanchet kind of pretends
00:27:17.660 like he cares about the deficit, but he cares about the deficit only insofar as that it's such
00:27:22.280 a high deficit with none of our demands included in it. And that this is just, you know, you should
00:27:27.400 have put more care for the elderly in there. You should put more entitlements in there. You should 0.61
00:27:32.520 have done whatever. Again, for his political purposes, this is probably good for Blanchet that
00:27:39.260 the liberals didn't do what he wanted because now he could run back and say, see, you can't vote for
00:27:44.460 the liberals in Quebec because they are going to start cutting your jobs in Gatineau. They are
00:27:49.200 going to start reducing public service spending that you like, and they're not signing on to our
00:27:54.660 demands for better old age security pensions and all this stuff. So that's where they are.
00:28:01.260 They're going to vote against it to be stridently more left-wing and progressive than the liberals are.
00:28:06.960 But before I move on, I have to do this. I don't know why I have to do this.
00:28:10.640 That lady's very tall. That is it. That's the public service announcement. I was just looking
00:28:16.600 at her during the thing. I was like, ah, she's tall. I should vocalize that. Good for her.
00:28:22.020 Anyways, okay, now let's move on to Green Party leader Elizabeth May. Oddly enough, not voting for 0.99
00:28:28.560 it, even though they are just dumping money into green energy grids or whatever. It's probably that
00:28:33.840 it doesn't ban all economic activity, and that's why she can't vote for it.
00:28:38.200 As it stands right now, would you vote no on the budget?
00:28:40.660 Absolutely. There's no way that we can, as Greens, vote yes on this budget. But I want to emphasize,
00:28:47.840 there are several days in which this budget can be negotiated and amended before it goes to a vote,
00:28:55.360 and that's something that doesn't get discussed much. I am surprised that Mr. Carney has not reached
00:29:01.760 out or that more of his ministers haven't reached out to say, what would it take to get Greens to
00:29:07.360 vote for this budget? In the same way I hear from friends.
00:29:10.100 She's saying this as she is literally the only Green MP. Is she the only Green MP?
00:29:15.460 I'm pretty sure she is the only Green MP. It would be odd to me, yeah, that she is the only one. Why
00:29:23.880 does she keep referencing to the guy behind her as if he's going to have any say over all this? He's
00:29:28.820 literally not an MP. Like, okay.
00:29:30.860 The new Democratic Party, they haven't felt that there's been an effort to get us on side early
00:29:35.740 on. So we are now in a position where I think every vote's going to matter, every vote's going to
00:29:41.120 count. And I would invite the Prime Minister, and I've sent this message through the officials who
00:29:47.100 were with us in the lockup, please let them know I'd like to talk because there's some things that
00:29:52.020 could be done that would make it possible for us to vote for this budget. Yeah, honestly, I could
00:29:56.960 actually see a smart political play by the NDP here, being that they only have some of their MPs vote
00:30:04.500 for the budget. So if the Liberals only need two more votes of the seven NDP, five of them vote
00:30:10.520 against, two of them vote for, and they say symbolically, we are basically, that is basically
00:30:15.460 the ratio. The two people voting for it aren't in favor of it. It's just that our caucus can only say
00:30:20.180 that we are two-sevenths in favor of this budget, so we voted for two of our MPs. And maybe in that
00:30:27.480 scenario, Elizabeth May's vote actually does matter if they want to make it that only one NDP 0.98
00:30:31.740 MP votes for the budget, and then Elizabeth May puts it over the top. In fact, that actually would 1.00
00:30:37.500 look really bad for the Liberals, that this was effectively a Green Party budget in a lot of
00:30:42.460 ways since they were so needed in passing it. But now, it's a bit of a longer episode. I do just
00:30:48.480 want to comment a little bit more on Chris D'Entremont leaving the Conservative Party and
00:30:54.500 crossing the floor over to the Liberals. Just a little more follow-up from this. Now, there was
00:30:59.220 rumors again that there were going to be a bunch of other MPs who were potentially going to cross the
00:31:03.800 floor. And so far, based on two of the people that were being suspected speaking out saying,
00:31:08.020 absolutely, I'm not leaving, maybe they were thinking about it at some point, maybe they're
00:31:12.000 not. Let's just take their word for it that they were never thinking about it. It's the most favorite
00:31:15.600 thing to do. I think it's a pretty low chance anyone else leaves because D'Entremont is making
00:31:22.020 himself look pretty bad right here. So this was his interview right after having left. And then I want
00:31:29.120 to go back and show some of his own statements in the House and how foolish this all looks in
00:31:34.020 context. Hey, Mr. D'Entremont, just a quick question. Was there anything tangible, you know,
00:31:40.540 offered towards you by the Liberals, a promise of perhaps a position in Cabinet, down the line,
00:31:45.600 anything along those lines to get you to cross the aisle? No, it really was it had to do with my
00:31:49.920 writing itself. You know, Acadianapolis is a big rural writing with lots of fishery and lots of
00:31:55.580 agriculture and a military base. I want to make sure that I'm doing the right thing for them
00:32:01.160 to make sure that they have the housing and the infrastructures that they need. And I felt this
00:32:04.900 budget was one that was going to provide that. Last question, Gillian. Some of your former 0.79
00:32:09.660 colleagues have already been reacting to this news. They've called you a coward, disingenuous and
00:32:14.300 disloyal. What's your message to your former colleagues? Well, I think they should look at
00:32:18.020 themselves and see if they're offering the right thing to Canadians of trying to build
00:32:25.260 build for the world. I mean, we have a great opportunity here in Canada. And rather than
00:32:31.540 knocking people down, we should try to find ways to work together. And that's what I've always tried
00:32:37.140 to do in my career. Does he understand that he was part of the official opposition? Now,
00:32:43.100 the opposition doesn't always need to oppose, but it's not like Polyev and the Conservatives have
00:32:48.820 been reflexively asking for the world, knowing that the Liberals will say no. They've been asking for
00:32:53.780 things that if the Liberals rolled it out, I wouldn't be that shocked by it. Not that the Liberals
00:32:59.500 would do it on their own power, but if they were badgered enough on the industrial carbon tax,
00:33:04.540 maybe one day they'll reduce the effect of it. If the Liberals, that would be actually working 0.95
00:33:10.300 together. In fact, the Liberals right now seem like they don't want to work with anybody as they
00:33:14.180 keep just threatening a new election for the NDP and the Bloc and the Green and the Conservatives
00:33:22.180 not voting for the budget. That, you know, well, you know, we'll take it to Canadians and we're
00:33:25.860 worried that nobody's going to be voting for the budget. And they haven't actually,
00:33:29.180 you know, based on the testimony of Elizabeth May and Blanchette and Don Davies, they really
00:33:35.580 haven't been even listening to the other parties, even on their left, or trying to get votes on the
00:33:40.820 budget. And obviously, they really don't listen to the Conservatives. And so him acting like,
00:33:45.460 oh, we just need to all work together. And why are the Conservatives being so oppositional?
00:33:48.600 It's like, well, they are the opposition risks. And also, they, you know, want things. They're not
00:33:57.280 just going to work together for nothing, because that's not what their own voters and constituents
00:34:02.220 want. And it was so odd to me that he even said that stupid statement about, oh, I'm in a very
00:34:08.200 rural riding with a lot of fisheries and a military base and all this stuff. And it's like, okay,
00:34:12.440 maybe he's justifying, oh, it's good for defense spending. It's good for my constituents. There's
00:34:16.520 more defense spending, because we have a military base here. The Liberals were the ones who put
00:34:21.080 quotas, who put very low quotas on the fisheries as killing the fishing industry. It's more of an
00:34:28.480 issue in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they were the ones who banned the seal hunt, which is now
00:34:33.620 decimating fishing populations, because fishermen can now no longer shoot any seals that are actually
00:34:39.400 threatening their ability to harvest fish. You know, the Liberals have not been good for industry
00:34:45.140 of any kind outside of like the green industry, the subsidy industries. I don't know what he's
00:34:51.400 possibly talking about. And this really goes back to the fact that everyone knows the real thing he's
00:34:55.440 ticked off about is that the Conservatives wouldn't vote for him to be the Speaker of the House or the
00:34:59.920 Deputy Speaker. Well, of course they didn't. The Liberals are that close to a government. They're
00:35:05.560 that close to a majority. So why would they want their own Conservative MP to sit as the Speaker,
00:35:11.220 making it this much easier for the Liberals to pass things? Now, if the Liberals had a big majority
00:35:16.620 government and a Conservative wanted to sit as the Speaker, I don't think that would be a bad thing.
00:35:20.620 That's fine. Fair enough. You know, it doesn't really change anything. He wants to be the Speaker.
00:35:24.140 It's his dream or whatever. No, for practical political considerations, sorry, Chris, you don't get to be
00:35:30.660 the Speaker. Now, let's move on to another clip of Chris D'Entremont talking in the House of Commons
00:35:38.780 about what he thinks of the Liberal government. Because isn't this kind of funny that the Liberals,
00:35:44.260 that Chris D'Entremont a while ago was criticizing the Liberal budget and saying that they spend too
00:35:50.760 much, but now apparently it doesn't really matter. There's also a video of him going to the Liberal
00:35:56.840 caucus today and they're all cheering Chris and freaking out and whatnot. And, you know, you're such
00:36:01.780 a hero for crossing the floor. No, he's in fact a coward. And I think that he's, we're going to get
00:36:06.540 to this a little bit later, has made it almost automatic that he's going to lose the next election.
00:36:12.100 Because do you think he hasn't activated local grassroots Conservatives to organize against him now
00:36:16.920 to make sure that he does not win re-election as a Liberal?
00:36:20.380 I want to speak in support of the Conservative motion because Canadians are hurting. Families are being forced
00:36:25.960 to cut deeply into their grocery budgets just to get by. And frankly, that makes me a little bit
00:36:32.280 angry and a little bit sad. The Canada is a wealthy country, but under this Liberal government,
00:36:41.600 it's being mismanaged. Taxpayers are being squeezed and their hard-earned money is, is being wasted.
00:36:52.140 In Southwest Nova Scotia, where I have lived my entire life, people work hard. They want to own
00:36:58.460 a home, feed their children, provide a good education to them, and maybe take a vacation
00:37:05.180 every once in a while. But you know what? Since 2015, everything changed. Since I was first elected
00:37:10.980 here in 2019, the cost of living has skyrocketed. Even then, families in West Nova, it was called at the
00:37:17.760 time, but in Acadianapolis, we're struggling. We warned that liberals that are out of control
00:37:22.000 spending and massive deficits were irresponsible. But of course, they didn't listen. And now,
00:37:28.700 after six months under a new Prime Minister, who promised financial discipline, Canadians
00:37:33.840 are still waiting. He said they'd be judged by the cost, he'd be judged by the cost at the
00:37:39.680 grocery store. Well, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are judging him, and they are not impressed.
00:37:45.220 But, I can just cut off there. But he left, and now he's a Liberal MP. Why? What changed?
00:37:52.480 Literally nothing. Using his own words, nothing has changed. Canadians are not impressed. The
00:37:57.620 deficit is bigger than Carney was trying to play up just a few months ago. Oh, you know,
00:38:02.060 he wasn't saying this himself, because it would still be embarrassing to even vocalize this.
00:38:05.920 But the whole idea was, it's probably going to be $60 billion, and then it became $78 billion.
00:38:10.280 And then there's also a lot of bad stuff baked into it outside of just the bad spending in general.
00:38:15.800 Like, the current debt servicing costs are $54 billion a year, or I think $55 billion a year.
00:38:23.200 That's what Andrew Scheer was referencing in that previous clip. We are spending more on debt
00:38:29.180 servicing than healthcare transfers. The amount of money the federal government sends to the provinces
00:38:34.840 to help their healthcare systems, which is a massive portion of the healthcare spending in
00:38:40.780 the provinces every year. That is a smaller amount of money to the debt servicing costs right now.
00:38:46.360 That should send alarm bells through Canadians' minds. But, you know, say now I've changed teams
00:38:53.180 because I want to work together. Well, hopefully that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, Chris.
00:38:57.900 But I now want to reference something that my friend Chris from the Great Canadian Bagel,
00:39:02.480 a good Chris, said. Chris from the Great Canadian Bagel YouTube channel on X said,
00:39:08.720 reacting to Rick Perkins, basically saying that Chris D'Entremont, because Rick Perkins is a former MP
00:39:18.720 from King's Haunts right next to Chris D'Entremont, and he said that Chris had basically vocalized to him
00:39:24.880 that I might as well not even run as a conservative because I'm going to lose my seat next election
00:39:29.300 because the Liberals came within a 0.1%. They were 1.1% away from beating me, so I am in a bad,
00:39:36.140 vulnerable position now. And Chris, the good Chris, from the Great Canadian Bagel says,
00:39:42.260 ironically, Chris D'Entremont was going to win re-election, and now he stands a good chance of losing it.
00:39:48.040 Crossing the floor because the Liberals had once a decade high performance in Nova Scotia
00:39:53.520 is mind-numbingly stupid. And I want to then jump over to the actual voting record in Acadianapolis
00:40:01.640 because Chris, the Great Canadian Bagel, is absolutely right. He's actually very likely to
00:40:07.460 lose now because here is the result from this last election. The Liberals gained 15.88% of the vote.
00:40:15.940 The People's Party fell by 4.41%, the New Democrats fell by 9.3%, and the Conservatives fell by
00:40:23.280 3.64%. I don't think the People's Party went to the Liberals. I think the PPC probably went to the
00:40:28.100 Conservatives, and there were more Conservatives who then also left to the Liberals. But the Liberals
00:40:33.220 had a massively better performance than they usually do, and they still lost by 1%.
00:40:39.580 Go back to the previous election. This is the redistributed results based on the new boundaries.
00:40:46.240 Chris D'Entremont won with 51% of the vote, with the Liberals getting 30%, the NDP getting 12%,
00:40:52.400 and the PPC getting 5%. This is back when it was West Nova. Chris D'Entremont, 50%, Liberals 31%. That was the
00:41:02.160 actual result before the redistricting. 2019, West Nova, 39.3% beat the Liberal 36.38% because it was
00:41:11.180 a Liberal riding very briefly in 2015 during the high-water mark election for the Conservative Liberals.
00:41:17.300 They got 62% of the vote. But before that, in 2011, it was a Conservative riding. This, in fact,
00:41:24.480 used to be, I believe, at one point, or yeah, it was more of a Liberal riding previously.
00:41:29.940 But this has always been a more trending Conservative riding over time. So I don't know what he's possibly
00:41:38.000 thinking that this was going to be a good thing for him to leave, because the Liberals had a great
00:41:45.040 news cycle to run on back in April against Donald Trump. They had replaced their very unpopular
00:41:50.580 leader with Mark Carney, which gave the perception they were more Conservative. Carney is a name that
00:41:55.580 many people who are, you know, seniors in the East Coast would know of, and they may really like him.
00:42:03.080 And he basically got to run on a clean slate, pretending he was going to be more fiscally
00:42:07.880 responsible and all these other things. So, and then the NDP also collapsed under the sheer
00:42:13.400 irrelevance of then-leader Jagmeet Singh. Obviously, it was going to be a close election somewhere like
00:42:18.620 Acadienapolis. Do you think it's going to happen a second time that the Liberals are going to do even
00:42:23.360 better this time than they did last time? No, they're not. They're probably going to fall.
00:42:28.440 They're probably going to lose seats in Nova Scotia. The Liberals just got clobbered in Newfoundland
00:42:33.740 and Labrador, despite what the polls are saying, because the Liberal brand ain't that popular right now
00:42:37.960 past April, past all the elbows up stuff. We're going back to the mean. And the mean is that people
00:42:44.100 don't like the Liberal Party very much, and they're tired of them. So maybe this is a good thing in the
00:42:50.860 sense that Chris D'Entremont is going to prove a very, he's going to basically teach us a political
00:42:56.220 lesson about how elections work, about how, you know, grassroots politics work, that you can't just
00:43:04.000 simply wish that you were part of the team that you perceive will be easier to win with. Even by
00:43:08.680 doing that, you're going to tick off so many people, you're not going to get what you want.
00:43:12.380 But anyways, with that all being said, thank you guys for watching. This has been a long episode,
00:43:16.880 but hopefully you like that sort of thing. Right before I did this, I was actually just on Candice
00:43:21.680 Malcolm's show on Juno News. So if you like to watch Juno News as well, watch out for me on that one.
00:43:27.880 I got to be on the same episode as Brian Lilly, so I'm moving up in the world. I wasn't on camera with
00:43:32.780 him, but I was, you know, I was, I was, I followed him on the show. Oddly enough, he still has me
00:43:38.620 blocked on X and I forget the reason why, but whatever. Things happen in life. Like, share,
00:43:44.420 subscribe, do all that fantastic stuff, guys, and I will see you all later.