The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - Liberal Infighting： Liberal MP attacks Mark Carney's budget!

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, Wyatt Claypool here.

00:00:02.740 In a piece of news that is both surprising and completely unsurprising,

00:00:07.320 Prime Minister Mark Carney's first budget has been attacked by a Liberal MP.

00:00:13.180 That Liberal MP is Nate Erskine-Smith, who if you have a bit of background on,

00:00:18.520 you will know that he has a deep hatred for Mark Carney.

00:00:22.660 He was one of these Liberal MPs who announced at one point last year

00:00:26.740 that he wasn't going to run for re-election.

00:00:28.720 He could see the writing on the wall.

00:00:30.560 Everyone hated Justin Trudeau.

00:00:32.340 And so he was probably going to duck out of federal politics

00:00:34.780 and maybe pursue Ontario provincial politics.

00:00:38.480 But then Carney became the Prime Minister.

00:00:41.320 And he promised Nate Erskine-Smith that if he ran for the Liberals again,

00:00:45.360 he could be the Housing Minister.

00:00:47.680 And technically Carney did make good on that

00:00:49.940 because he made Erskine-Smith the Housing Minister for three weeks.

00:00:53.920 He was the Housing Minister of effectively Carney's rump parliament

00:00:58.600 before the federal election.

00:01:00.820 And after the federal election,

00:01:02.660 not only was Nate Erskine-Smith not the Housing Minister,

00:01:06.040 he was no minister.

00:01:07.820 And the biggest insult of all,

00:01:09.880 he was replaced by Gregor Robertson,

00:01:12.100 the former mayor of Vancouver,

00:01:13.940 who shouldn't be nowhere near housing.

00:01:16.460 So Carney found it preferable to make the guy who touches things

00:01:20.480 and they set on fire the Housing Minister

00:01:22.620 instead of Erskine-Smith.

00:01:24.680 And it's probably because although Carney himself is pretty left-wing,

00:01:29.460 I think he's not really that kind of hyper-progressive leftist

00:01:33.560 like Erskine-Smith is.

00:01:35.460 Yes, Carney is very progressive,

00:01:37.840 but in terms of his temperament and attitude

00:01:39.780 and his need for everyone to wear ties at work,

00:01:42.900 he doesn't really seem to get along with Nate.

00:01:45.280 And Nate, since he was basically pushed into the backbench,

00:01:48.740 has a deep hatred for Carney

00:01:50.540 and has been chirping at him from there for quite a while.

00:01:53.900 You will remember at the flight attendant strike from Air Canada,

00:01:57.180 Erskine-Smith was one of the liberals who came out

00:01:59.400 to basically say that the government

00:02:01.080 was completely messing up worker relations

00:02:03.840 and that we should have been trying to actually,

00:02:06.380 you know, work with these people, negotiate,

00:02:08.760 and you don't throw people under the bus.

00:02:10.700 He was pretty vocal.

00:02:12.340 And now he is back to be vocal once again

00:02:15.260 and talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly

00:02:18.340 inside of Carney's budget.

00:02:20.540 And what's funny is when you look at the runtime

00:02:22.500 of this video, and we will be getting to it in a second,

00:02:25.400 the video is 4 minutes and 10 seconds.

00:02:27.880 And he talks about good stuff

00:02:29.620 for about maybe the first minute and 10 seconds

00:02:32.520 if you even include the lead-up.

00:02:34.220 If you just remove the neutral lead-up,

00:02:36.900 he maybe gives the budget compliments

00:02:38.700 for approximately 20 seconds

00:02:40.880 and then starts talking about things he finds bad and ugly.

00:02:44.960 But we will be getting into that in just a second here.

00:02:47.980 But before we do, I just want to remind you guys,

00:02:50.160 if you like the video, please scroll down and hit the like button.

00:02:54.500 Subscribe to the channel if you are not yet a subscriber.

00:02:57.360 Try and help me get to 100,000 subscribers.

00:03:00.440 And of course, leave a comment on what you think

00:03:03.100 about the situation in the comment section below.

00:03:06.300 But let's get to Nate Erskine-Smith,

00:03:08.140 who, in a certain sense, if I ever became an MP,

00:03:10.880 I'd kind of be a little bit like Nate

00:03:12.340 because I would just continue hosting a podcast

00:03:14.720 whether I was in office or not in office.

00:03:17.520 Nate hosts this podcast he puts on himself called Uncommons.

00:03:22.220 And he's, you know, pretty outspoken.

00:03:24.480 The thing is that I don't really attribute

00:03:27.460 why he made this video to being a guy

00:03:30.560 who just likes open discourse and likes honesty.

00:03:33.260 As much as Nate Erskine-Smith likes to cast himself

00:03:37.300 as, you know, the everyman who always speaks truth to power

00:03:40.700 and speaks his mind, it's very selective.

00:03:43.460 I find him to be a very cynical figure in reality.

00:03:46.660 And I think what he's trying to do is take jabs at Mark Carney

00:03:49.980 to prove his progressive bona fides

00:03:51.820 before he potentially resigns his seat

00:03:54.540 because that's a rumor that's going around too.

00:03:56.440 People like himself and Christia Freeland

00:04:00.440 might end up leaving Parliament in the next year here.

00:04:02.800 And I think he might try and go and take Bonnie Crombie's old job

00:04:06.840 as the Ontario Liberal Party leader,

00:04:09.120 which is actually something he fought her over the first time.

00:04:12.480 He came decently close to winning,

00:04:14.360 but fell short and just kept his job in federal politics.

00:04:17.980 But it looks like he may now jump over

00:04:20.340 to the Ontario Liberal Party again

00:04:22.660 now that it looks like the coast is clear to do that.

00:04:25.600 And now on his way out, he's slagging Prime Minister Carney.

00:04:29.080 From that, but here's a rundown of what I see

00:04:31.080 as the good, the bad, and the ugly from Budget 2025.

00:04:34.640 Let's start with the good.

00:04:36.480 In the face of threats,

00:04:37.240 the government is rightly prioritizing actions

00:04:39.480 to secure our sovereignty.

00:04:40.640 That includes support for businesses and workers

00:04:42.900 affected by tariffs,

00:04:44.160 a Buy Canada procurement policy,

00:04:46.040 significant new infrastructure spending,

00:04:48.160 and a huge commitment,

00:04:49.140 a huge commitment to the Canadian forces.

00:04:51.800 There are also smart, forward-looking ideas

00:04:53.940 like the Sovereign Fund for Critical Minerals,

00:04:56.020 taking a lesson from Norway.

00:04:57.560 And there are new dollars for innovation

00:04:59.180 and to attract talent and research from the US,

00:05:01.640 whose administration seems intent

00:05:02.980 to run intelligence out of its country.

00:05:04.600 I don't know what he means by that.

00:05:06.920 But a lot of the things he's praising

00:05:08.140 is just program spending, effectively.

00:05:10.700 We're going to spend a lot of money

00:05:11.960 trying to create shovel-ready jobs and whatnot,

00:05:14.360 a lot of infrastructure.

00:05:15.420 There are some green energy spending in there and whatnot.

00:05:18.040 But we're pretty much at the end of his praise.

00:05:21.020 And I basically had to run this up

00:05:22.520 to the first 10 seconds,

00:05:23.560 because before, in the first 10 seconds,

00:05:24.920 he's just introducing himself

00:05:27.000 and saying nothing particular.

00:05:29.300 Within 35 seconds,

00:05:30.460 he's pretty much done basically saying anything good

00:05:32.420 about his own party's budget.

00:05:34.660 There are also useful actions

00:05:35.780 to respond to rising youth unemployment,

00:05:38.220 to support PSWs,

00:05:39.720 to protect the Canada disability benefit

00:05:41.360 from taxation, and more.

00:05:43.400 There's lots to like in many ways.

00:05:44.940 And more generally,

00:05:45.900 I welcome the focus on productivity,

00:05:47.840 both to drive economic growth in the private sector

00:05:50.040 and to get the most out of public services.

00:05:52.560 Although, yes, care is required

00:05:53.920 to ensure those efforts don't go sideways.

00:05:56.340 Now to the bad,

00:05:57.580 or more fairly,

00:05:58.860 where expectations were set

00:06:00.040 at a level that we failed to meet,

00:06:01.580 including on the question

00:06:03.280 of generational investments.

00:06:04.980 You can already see

00:06:05.900 that this is going to be used

00:06:07.280 for a conservative attack ad.

00:06:09.220 And Erskine Smith knows this.

00:06:10.680 Again, this man does not like Carney.

00:06:13.240 And I think he is willing

00:06:14.140 to throw some barbs out there 1.00

00:06:15.620 that are going to hurt him.

00:06:17.080 Because I think that he sees his future

00:06:18.960 in Ontario liberal politics provincially.

00:06:21.800 And so I think he actually would like

00:06:23.220 to see Mark Carney

00:06:24.040 go down to flaming defeat

00:06:25.620 because he was unwilling to listen

00:06:27.460 to the expert of everything

00:06:29.460 that is Nate Erskine Smith.

00:06:31.820 First, stalled climate action.

00:06:34.060 I don't want to be too dismissive here

00:06:35.200 as the Canadian Climate Institute

00:06:36.340 rightly highlighted the importance

00:06:37.760 of a strengthened industrial carbon price.

00:06:39.780 But apart from that promise,

00:06:40.800 there was nothing new.

00:06:42.200 Yes, we are moving forward

00:06:43.380 with strong methane rules

00:06:44.480 and clean investment tax credits.

00:06:46.140 And these are key pieces.

00:06:48.120 But we are also cutting tree planting,

00:06:49.820 moving away from an emissions gap.

00:06:51.900 We're cutting tree planting.

00:06:53.460 The liberals never planted a tree.

00:06:55.320 They're just admitting

00:06:56.120 that the tree planting program 1.00

00:06:57.420 was stupid and scrapping it. 1.00

00:06:59.280 But what you'll get here 1.00

00:07:00.760 is that he is criticizing Carney

00:07:03.020 from the liberals' progressive left.

00:07:05.660 Because every party has a left flank

00:07:07.540 and a right flank.

00:07:08.760 Even the NDP, even the Greens

00:07:10.640 have more conservative wings

00:07:12.360 and more left-wing wings.

00:07:14.540 Inside the liberal party,

00:07:16.200 remember, to get into government,

00:07:18.320 they relied on a lot of both NDP

00:07:20.620 and conservative liberal switch voters,

00:07:22.880 people who had previously voted

00:07:24.080 for one of those parties,

00:07:25.240 but were willing to cast a ballot

00:07:26.960 for the liberals.

00:07:27.940 The budget seems perfectly calculated

00:07:29.920 to tick off those two planks of the party

00:07:33.320 because the people who maybe switched

00:07:35.140 from voting conservative

00:07:35.980 or were more conservative-tempered voters

00:07:38.800 who voted for the liberals

00:07:40.120 in the last election,

00:07:41.240 they're going to be mad

00:07:42.000 about just all of the spending

00:07:43.460 in the budget.

00:07:44.400 How it's just not a deviation

00:07:46.040 from the way that Justin Trudeau

00:07:47.820 did government budgets.

00:07:49.820 It's just a lot of money

00:07:51.240 being sprayed around the economy,

00:07:53.000 hoping that it's going to try,

00:07:54.600 it's going to like invest us

00:07:55.860 into the future.

00:07:56.940 We're just lighting money on fire

00:07:59.140 and putting money

00:08:00.240 into bloated national projects.

00:08:02.160 It's not actually going to be good

00:08:04.220 in the long run

00:08:05.020 compared to just cutting tax

00:08:06.380 and letting people do what they want.

00:08:08.180 So that's why that wing of voters

00:08:10.100 is ticked off.

00:08:11.140 And if you take like the 43% 0.98

00:08:13.180 of liberal voters,

00:08:14.360 I would say that probably about 7%

00:08:17.140 on the right flank

00:08:18.140 are a little uneasy about the budget.

00:08:20.660 It doesn't mean they're all going to vote

00:08:22.240 conservative next time,

00:08:23.460 but 7 out of those 43 voters

00:08:26.120 are probably the types

00:08:27.180 who were looking for

00:08:28.100 way more fiscal responsibility.

00:08:30.220 But Erskine-Smith probably represents

00:08:31.900 the other 7,

00:08:33.400 the other maybe even 10%

00:08:34.860 on the left side of the liberal party

00:08:36.840 who actually could go and vote NDP

00:08:39.280 if they're not impressed

00:08:40.260 with what's in the budget.

00:08:41.620 And he's basically saying

00:08:43.000 it's not progressive enough,

00:08:44.560 and then he's going to go into

00:08:45.880 how it's going to be

00:08:46.700 cutting jobs and whatnot.

00:08:47.920 And that is why,

00:08:49.780 that's probably what the NDP

00:08:50.980 is going to be running on

00:08:52.040 in the next election.

00:08:53.240 The idea that the liberals

00:08:54.340 were pursuing too much austerity,

00:08:57.280 meaning that, you know,

00:08:58.140 they're cutting too much,

00:08:59.160 you know, operational spending

00:09:00.900 and too many public sector employees

00:09:02.420 are being thrown under the bus.

00:09:04.040 The funny thing is that

00:09:05.040 the budget's extremely irresponsible

00:09:06.840 in its spending,

00:09:07.800 even with the cost-saving measures.

00:09:10.120 But Carney, again,

00:09:11.580 has made a fiscally irresponsible budget

00:09:13.760 that also ticks off

00:09:15.260 the public sector unions

00:09:16.480 and the green progressives

00:09:18.180 like Nate Erskine-Smith.

00:09:19.760 Winding down greener homes

00:09:21.100 and the budget offers

00:09:22.260 no new money for climate action.

00:09:25.260 On housing,

00:09:26.120 we've got the beginnings

00:09:27.060 of Build Canada Homes.

00:09:28.720 You can feel the seething contempt

00:09:31.300 from Erskine-Smith on this issue

00:09:34.160 because he should have been

00:09:35.220 the guy in charge of housing.

00:09:37.300 A tax cut for new homebuyers

00:09:38.800 and some dollars

00:09:39.540 for housing-enabling infrastructure

00:09:41.200 that are important,

00:09:42.340 but unfortunately very unlikely

00:09:43.640 to move the needle on development charges

00:09:45.180 to a degree we would like.

00:09:47.040 It falls short of these specific promises

00:09:48.840 in our platform

00:09:49.680 and it unfortunately falls well short,

00:09:52.340 well short of the wartime effort

00:09:53.880 that many of us thought we'd deliver.

00:09:56.220 Now, the fiscal frame of

00:09:57.340 spend less to invest more

00:09:58.380 is actually one that I like.

00:10:00.040 Operational books generally imbalance

00:10:11.060 and a capital deficit spending

00:10:12.680 more easily justified.

00:10:14.200 But the budget adds $140 billion

00:10:16.720 in new spending over five years,

00:10:18.460 $90 billion net after savings,

00:10:20.260 and only 36% of the net new spending

00:10:22.240 is capital.

00:10:23.520 Related, there is a lot of deficit financing here

00:10:25.700 to cover non-capital new spending.

00:10:27.640 Yes, honoring our initial 2% commitment

00:10:29.540 to NATO made sense,

00:10:30.500 and a middle-class tax cut

00:10:31.580 was a platform promise.

00:10:32.880 But these are far and away

00:10:34.080 the two largest financial commitments.

00:10:36.340 This is where he's also showing

00:10:38.180 how left-wing he is.

00:10:39.120 The spending he is having

00:10:40.840 the biggest problem with

00:10:42.000 is defense spending and tax cuts.

00:10:44.920 And the tax cuts

00:10:45.680 aren't even really a tax cut.

00:10:47.240 It's nothing.

00:10:48.580 The fact that the tax cut

00:10:49.920 only cost the government $27 billion

00:10:52.440 should tell you something

00:10:54.540 about how minor it was.

00:10:56.640 In terms of the total deficit,

00:10:58.780 $70 billion,

00:11:00.440 a very small portion of it

00:11:02.360 is going to paying

00:11:03.300 to give people back their own money.

00:11:06.040 But I'll let Nate keep it talking.

00:11:07.620 But the funny thing about all this

00:11:08.880 is he's criticizing

00:11:10.100 the amount of spending too,

00:11:11.460 which, let's be clear,

00:11:12.460 if Nate Erskine-Smith

00:11:13.300 was the housing minister,

00:11:14.300 he would have probably

00:11:14.820 blown even more money.

00:11:16.540 But, again,

00:11:17.800 part of the goal of this video

00:11:19.040 is no doubt

00:11:19.680 just to slag Mark Carney

00:11:20.940 on his way out of government

00:11:22.080 because no chance

00:11:23.660 Nate Erskine-Smith

00:11:24.460 runs again for this party.

00:11:25.960 They are non-capital

00:11:26.800 and they should be paid for.

00:11:28.680 My kids shouldn't pay 0.99

00:11:29.720 for today's military

00:11:30.540 or for me to save $400

00:11:32.160 of income taxes.

00:11:33.860 And much-needed OAS reform.

00:11:35.340 And even right there,

00:11:36.760 he just admitted

00:11:37.400 that the tax cut,

00:11:39.040 on average,

00:11:39.700 is only giving people $400 back

00:11:41.500 because the liberals 1.00

00:11:42.520 did this stupid thing 1.00

00:11:43.500 where they're like, 1.00

00:11:44.180 oh, on a household level,

00:11:46.300 if both people

00:11:47.480 only make up to $50,000,

00:11:49.540 you're saving up to, like,

00:11:50.920 $800 or $750.

00:11:53.320 They, like,

00:11:54.040 really stretched

00:11:55.160 how much money

00:11:56.320 was going to be

00:11:57.480 given back to people

00:11:58.520 by creating this, like,

00:11:59.920 scenario where we're

00:12:00.820 talking about it

00:12:01.480 from a household level.

00:12:02.480 If both people

00:12:03.760 are basically making

00:12:05.500 the bare minimum

00:12:06.260 to be able to qualify for it,

00:12:07.720 they're not making

00:12:08.380 more than $100,000 a year.

00:12:10.200 They did their best

00:12:12.840 to make it look like

00:12:13.500 they're giving you

00:12:13.900 a lot of money back.

00:12:14.980 And Erskine-Smith basically says,

00:12:16.340 yeah, we're giving you $400.

00:12:17.540 So, like, nothing.

00:12:19.000 I do like the honesty there.

00:12:21.080 The largest non-capital

00:12:22.600 growing expenditure,

00:12:23.760 it still isn't part

00:12:24.780 of our political conversation.

00:12:26.840 Now, the ugly.

00:12:27.960 And there isn't a lot

00:12:29.000 that falls in this category,

00:12:30.300 thankfully.

00:12:31.080 First, we see the budget

00:12:32.000 commit to a new,

00:12:32.920 inefficient fossil fuel subsidy

00:12:34.280 for LNG facilities.

00:12:35.920 Look, if there's a business case

00:12:36.840 for LNG,

00:12:37.480 there is a business case.

00:12:38.560 We do not need more public dollars

00:12:40.180 chasing fossil fuels.

00:12:42.640 There's a business case.

00:12:43.940 The problem is

00:12:44.460 the government regulations

00:12:45.840 on top of it.

00:12:47.140 And Nate Erskine-Smith

00:12:48.320 is one of these people

00:12:49.000 who talks out

00:12:49.620 both sides of his face.

00:12:50.940 He keeps talking about,

00:12:51.900 well, if the private sector

00:12:52.840 wants it,

00:12:53.560 then they can fund it themselves.

00:12:55.060 But at the same time,

00:12:56.280 he's cheering on

00:12:57.340 raising industrial carbon taxes.

00:12:59.400 He thinks that there's

00:13:00.000 not enough climate action

00:13:01.140 in the budget.

00:13:02.080 He opposes the Conservatives

00:13:03.480 wanting to get rid

00:13:05.320 of regulations

00:13:05.980 that are stifling

00:13:07.080 fossil fuel development.

00:13:08.420 You can keep saying that,

00:13:09.300 oh, I'm a believer

00:13:09.920 in the free market.

00:13:10.800 If the private sector

00:13:12.700 wants it,

00:13:13.180 we can have it,

00:13:13.860 but I'm not putting

00:13:14.620 any public dollars towards it.

00:13:16.120 Well, yeah,

00:13:17.100 he can say that,

00:13:17.860 but he's being dishonest 0.60

00:13:19.040 because he's the one

00:13:20.140 making it so expensive

00:13:21.040 that the private sector

00:13:21.860 won't do it.

00:13:22.800 While at the same time,

00:13:23.580 he's like,

00:13:23.780 oh, that's just how

00:13:24.400 the free market works.

00:13:25.320 Like, no,

00:13:25.700 that's how killing

00:13:26.820 a project

00:13:27.680 from the governmental

00:13:28.400 side works.

00:13:29.960 Worse,

00:13:30.400 we see major cuts.

00:13:31.740 Major cuts of over

00:13:32.460 two and a half billion

00:13:33.280 over four years

00:13:34.100 to international

00:13:34.780 development assistance.

00:13:36.200 Real Keir Starmer energy

00:13:37.560 that unfortunately

00:13:38.320 caters to a prevailing,

00:13:39.940 albeit short-sighted,

00:13:40.820 current view

00:13:41.320 among wealthy donor countries.

00:13:43.400 A Pearsonian budget,

00:13:44.520 this is not.

00:13:45.440 Now, I know that's,

00:13:47.320 again,

00:13:47.860 that's another tell

00:13:48.880 of just how radically

00:13:50.440 left-wing this guy is.

00:13:51.760 He's upset

00:13:52.360 that the amount

00:13:53.180 of foreign aid spending

00:13:54.400 is going down,

00:13:55.920 that he actually attacked

00:13:57.700 Keir Starmer,

00:13:59.000 the Labour prime minister

00:14:00.400 of the UK,

00:14:01.460 basically casting him

00:14:02.820 as too right-wing

00:14:04.320 because this guy

00:14:05.520 is like a Jeremy Corbyn,

00:14:07.840 Bernie Sanders

00:14:08.800 type of a liberal.

00:14:09.860 These are not easy times

00:14:11.100 and a budget process

00:14:11.920 involves tough choices.

00:14:13.020 Of course it does.

00:14:13.920 It's also only a first budget.

00:14:15.120 It can't be expected

00:14:16.140 to solve all problems

00:14:17.200 and the devil will be

00:14:18.380 in the details

00:14:18.980 of implementation

00:14:19.620 in many cases

00:14:20.520 as it always is

00:14:21.340 from infrastructure

00:14:22.340 and housing

00:14:22.820 to innovation spending

00:14:23.880 to the industrial carbon price

00:14:25.320 to finding efficiencies

00:14:26.620 in government

00:14:27.060 in a manner that is fair

00:14:28.140 and effective.

00:14:29.640 Overall,

00:14:30.160 the budget meets

00:14:30.800 the moment in part

00:14:32.020 on questions of sovereignty

00:14:33.400 and the focus

00:14:34.160 on spurring economic growth

00:14:35.480 at home.

00:14:36.480 And look,

00:14:36.720 it's certainly not.

00:14:38.060 I'm just going to leave it there.

00:14:39.480 What does he mean by like,

00:14:40.240 oh, it's going to,

00:14:40.800 it's going to,

00:14:41.380 it's going to spur

00:14:42.040 economic growth at home.

00:14:43.560 We've been doing this

00:14:44.620 for nine previous

00:14:46.380 liberal budgets.

00:14:47.580 What do you mean

00:14:48.020 spurring growth at home?

00:14:49.780 Every single budget

00:14:50.940 that Justin Trudeau put out

00:14:52.340 was just throwing

00:14:53.340 a pile of money

00:14:54.240 into a giant fan

00:14:55.440 and hoping that it was

00:14:56.660 just going to fly

00:14:57.440 around the economy

00:14:58.460 and it was going

00:14:59.240 to just grow things.

00:15:00.760 It's like the,

00:15:01.780 the farming equivalent

00:15:03.120 of someone just going back

00:15:04.600 in medieval times

00:15:05.480 and just grabbing

00:15:06.040 a bunch of seeds

00:15:06.640 out of a bag

00:15:07.100 and just tossing it.

00:15:07.960 Like we do better

00:15:09.420 these days

00:15:09.980 without kind of

00:15:11.240 hackneyed methods

00:15:12.240 like that.

00:15:12.840 Just let the private sector

00:15:13.940 grow and just like

00:15:15.520 grow on their own.

00:15:16.540 Just get out of their way.

00:15:17.520 But Nate Erskine-Smith

00:15:18.740 comes from

00:15:19.540 the left wing perspective

00:15:20.980 that this budget,

00:15:22.440 you know,

00:15:22.740 might not fix problems

00:15:23.720 this time,

00:15:24.380 but the right budget

00:15:25.240 can fix problems.

00:15:26.380 The right budget,

00:15:27.280 there's no such thing

00:15:28.120 as the budget

00:15:28.700 that will fix problems.

00:15:29.840 The budget that will fix problems

00:15:31.440 has way less spending

00:15:33.120 in it

00:15:33.420 because a good budget

00:15:35.000 knows that the budget

00:15:36.320 is not going to solve

00:15:37.060 the problems.

00:15:37.880 People are going to solve

00:15:38.840 their own problems

00:15:39.700 and you better just

00:15:40.820 get out of their way.

00:15:41.980 Get out of industry's way.

00:15:43.680 Get out of the way

00:15:44.240 of large and small businesses.

00:15:46.480 Get out of the way

00:15:47.160 of farmers.

00:15:48.080 Let them do their own thing.

00:15:50.020 But again,

00:15:50.700 Erskine-Smith

00:15:51.360 is an economic meddler

00:15:52.780 who thinks that

00:15:53.740 it's the government's job

00:15:54.660 to pick winners and losers

00:15:55.840 and to grow the economy

00:15:57.520 from his idealized perspective

00:15:59.840 of having,

00:16:00.700 you know,

00:16:01.140 green energy

00:16:01.820 be the thing

00:16:03.300 that drives us

00:16:04.120 into the future

00:16:04.700 and that we're going

00:16:05.440 to do away

00:16:06.120 with fossil fuels

00:16:07.020 who are going

00:16:07.780 to basically unionize

00:16:09.300 the entire labor force

00:16:10.520 and stuff like that. 0.99

00:16:11.740 He's kind of a nut. 0.91

00:16:13.120 But I do find 0.95

00:16:14.480 this very telling,

00:16:15.520 again,

00:16:15.900 about the budget

00:16:17.160 that this is something

00:16:18.400 that he's being attacked over,

00:16:19.980 that the liberals

00:16:21.000 are being attacked

00:16:22.080 from their left flank

00:16:23.820 of their own party.

00:16:25.820 But now I want to get

00:16:26.720 to the reaction

00:16:27.380 that the CBC

00:16:28.180 actually had to this.

00:16:29.300 They did mention this

00:16:30.380 on their panel

00:16:31.140 just a couple of hours ago.

00:16:32.860 Kate,

00:16:33.120 I see you nodding along.

00:16:34.220 Is Nate Erskine-Smith

00:16:34.880 United,

00:16:35.200 the New Democrat

00:16:35.840 and the Conservatives

00:16:36.600 in a similar view point

00:16:37.840 on this?

00:16:38.220 Is that what's happening here?

00:16:41.660 Yes,

00:16:42.240 United in Chief.

00:16:43.520 No,

00:16:43.760 I think that

00:16:44.660 there's really

00:16:45.720 two things at play.

00:16:47.300 The first one

00:16:48.280 is Nathaniel Erskine-Smith's

00:16:49.980 own ambitions.

00:16:51.680 And, you know,

00:16:52.240 he's been pretty clear

00:16:52.960 that he's at least

00:16:53.700 kicking the tires

00:16:54.500 at perhaps another run

00:16:56.220 at the Ontario Liberal Party.

00:16:57.980 And they really are poised

00:16:59.380 to make gains

00:16:59.980 at the expense

00:17:00.500 of the NDP.

00:17:01.040 So it's not strange.

00:17:02.360 I think that he would be

00:17:03.060 flexing some of his

00:17:04.580 progressive bona fides

00:17:05.660 as that party

00:17:07.340 goes through

00:17:07.820 a leadership review

00:17:08.640 in a race.

00:17:10.160 By the way,

00:17:10.800 I think I said bona fides

00:17:11.880 earlier in this video,

00:17:13.300 but I actually did not

00:17:14.580 even listen to this clip

00:17:15.540 beforehand.

00:17:16.480 So just in case

00:17:17.220 you think I'm a hack

00:17:18.060 stealing other people's

00:17:19.140 verbiage,

00:17:19.780 I usually just screen

00:17:21.200 these videos

00:17:22.620 very lightly beforehand

00:17:24.040 because I don't want to know

00:17:24.940 exactly what's said

00:17:25.940 so I come off as robotic.

00:17:27.040 But the other piece

00:17:30.920 of this, of course,

00:17:31.700 is that

00:17:32.400 Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

00:17:34.800 is part of the team.

00:17:37.100 You know,

00:17:37.360 he has an objective,

00:17:38.960 has a misalignment,

00:17:40.880 I think,

00:17:41.660 right now

00:17:42.240 that a lot of progressives

00:17:43.440 may be feeling

00:17:44.260 in the party.

00:17:45.360 We just talked about,

00:17:46.420 you know,

00:17:46.840 do red Tories have a home

00:17:48.060 in the Conservative Party?

00:17:49.980 I think there might be

00:17:51.020 a lot of progressive liberals,

00:17:52.280 I'll call them

00:17:52.720 terracotta liberals,

00:17:53.740 people that might go

00:17:54.540 orange and red.

00:17:55.980 Where do they fit

00:17:56.680 into the Carney government

00:17:57.640 and to the objectives

00:17:59.500 that are being put forward there?

00:18:00.860 So Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

00:18:02.320 is not the only person

00:18:03.420 that may fall into that camp

00:18:06.160 that's in caucus

00:18:06.760 or even necessarily cabinet

00:18:08.180 and certainly to band

00:18:09.440 at this point

00:18:09.920 a lot of the younger people

00:18:10.940 that support the Liberal Party.

00:18:12.520 So I think that

00:18:13.540 that might be something

00:18:14.420 that the Carney government

00:18:15.280 may continue to grapple with.

00:18:16.920 You see them trying

00:18:17.680 to kind of have it both ways

00:18:19.060 on environmental policy,

00:18:20.920 for example,

00:18:21.860 but we may see more

00:18:23.020 Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

00:18:24.060 in terms of

00:18:25.060 discontent

00:18:26.480 with moving away

00:18:27.240 from some more

00:18:27.800 of those progressive

00:18:28.420 policy banners

00:18:29.280 that were carried

00:18:30.000 by the previous Trudeau administration.

00:18:32.080 Now, I'm not going

00:18:33.260 to hold my breath

00:18:34.320 and see if the media

00:18:35.700 is going to start

00:18:36.260 stirring up rumors

00:18:37.600 about whether or not

00:18:38.820 Mark Carney is vulnerable

00:18:40.200 going towards

00:18:41.220 some sort of

00:18:41.720 a leadership review

00:18:42.520 because that's what

00:18:43.040 they're doing

00:18:43.640 to hear Polyev

00:18:44.920 after Chris Dontremont

00:18:46.260 ended up crossing the floor.

00:18:48.720 Erskine-Smith,

00:18:49.900 Christia Freeland,

00:18:50.540 many other liberals

00:18:51.460 are actually likely

00:18:53.340 within the next year

00:18:54.360 to resign their seats

00:18:55.560 potentially at the same time

00:18:56.900 that someone like

00:18:57.800 Matt Jenneru

00:18:58.600 may end up resigning

00:19:00.000 his seat in the spring

00:19:00.980 in Edmonton Riverbend

00:19:02.260 because there are people

00:19:03.780 who are sort of

00:19:04.620 either part of

00:19:05.240 the old Trudeau guard

00:19:06.560 who Carney

00:19:07.300 has completely

00:19:07.960 sidelined out.

00:19:08.960 Christia Freeland

00:19:09.400 has gotten some

00:19:10.060 effectively

00:19:10.600 like an envoy job

00:19:12.000 to Ukraine,

00:19:13.120 so it doesn't even

00:19:13.900 really make sense

00:19:14.520 for her to stick around

00:19:15.360 as an MP

00:19:15.820 because her job 0.59

00:19:16.440 very much puts her

00:19:17.520 on foreign soil

00:19:18.640 most of the time.

00:19:19.500 And with someone

00:19:20.280 like Erskine-Smith

00:19:21.060 he's just not only

00:19:22.520 kind of part

00:19:23.520 of the old Trudeau guard

00:19:24.560 but he's also

00:19:25.340 just part of

00:19:25.920 the new left

00:19:27.840 who doesn't really

00:19:29.020 have a place

00:19:29.640 in Carney's government.

00:19:30.560 It's not because

00:19:31.000 Carney's somehow

00:19:31.800 a big conservative,

00:19:33.300 he's just not willing

00:19:34.280 to move left

00:19:35.180 at the speed

00:19:35.840 that Erskine-Smith is.

00:19:37.720 Carney just kind of

00:19:38.600 understands political reality

00:19:39.840 that he can't be

00:19:40.800 a wild-haired

00:19:42.080 progressive right now

00:19:43.060 and that he has to

00:19:43.680 kind of move slowly

00:19:44.880 and Erskine-Smith's like

00:19:46.120 why don't we just

00:19:46.980 have a big cavalry charge

00:19:48.480 against the fossil fuel industry 1.00

00:19:49.960 and kill them all 1.00

00:19:51.160 and part of this again 1.00

00:19:53.060 is also just him

00:19:53.940 trying to criticize Carney

00:19:55.540 to make himself

00:19:56.180 look better

00:19:56.760 as a progressive

00:19:57.460 running for the

00:19:58.360 Ontario Liberal leadership

00:19:59.660 although you then wonder

00:20:01.480 is Mark Carney

00:20:02.820 then going to try

00:20:03.640 and go after him

00:20:04.640 and try and stumble

00:20:05.600 try and trip him up

00:20:06.820 if he tries to leave

00:20:07.860 the party

00:20:08.300 and run for OLP

00:20:09.780 the Ontario Liberal Party

00:20:11.740 leadership

00:20:12.420 you know as revenge

00:20:13.400 you know you don't

00:20:14.320 criticize me

00:20:15.020 when you're in my caucus

00:20:16.100 so I'm going to make sure

00:20:17.020 that you definitely

00:20:17.700 don't get to become

00:20:18.620 the provincial Liberal leader

00:20:20.000 so that you can keep

00:20:20.980 prodding at me

00:20:21.860 but anyways

00:20:22.940 so that should be it

00:20:24.280 for this video

00:20:24.940 guys

00:20:25.780 hopefully you enjoyed

00:20:26.840 me highlighting

00:20:27.500 the specific

00:20:28.200 little gripe

00:20:29.240 that's happening

00:20:29.800 with the budget

00:20:30.440 inside the Liberal Party

00:20:31.580 again

00:20:32.300 don't hold your breath

00:20:33.700 for a bunch of

00:20:34.360 legacy media coverage

00:20:35.460 on if Carney

00:20:36.720 has proper control

00:20:37.780 over his caucus or not

00:20:39.020 they do it for

00:20:39.940 the Conservatives

00:20:41.020 but obviously

00:20:41.580 they're not going to

00:20:42.080 do it for the Liberals

00:20:42.880 like share and subscribe

00:20:44.380 everyone

00:20:44.900 thanks for watching

00:20:45.800 and I'll see you guys

00:20:46.560 all later

The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - November 11, 2025

Liberal Infighting： Liberal MP attacks Mark Carney's budget!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript