Nuanced. - 189. Maxime Bernier: Leader of the People's Party of Canada on the 2025 Election

Episode Date: March 10, 2025

What's the difference between Conservatives and the People's Party of Canada? Maxime Bernier joins Aaron Pete to discuss his party’s differences from the Conservatives, immigration, COVID-19, woke culture, the CBC, and why he believes Pierre Poilievre is a globalist.Send us a textThe "What's Going On?" PodcastThink casual, relatable discussions like you'd overhear in a barbershop....Listen on: Apple Podcasts   SpotifySupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

How do we differentiate between education and indoctrination? You don't have the right to mutilate young kids, and that's happening in our country right now. What is the difference between the Conservative Party of Canada and the People's Party of Canada? Polier is like Trudeau, who is a globalist. How do we resolve what happened during COVID-19? I was the only one who was arrested and cuffed and put in jail. They use fear and propaganda. With fear, you can control a population.

Would you defund the CBC? Maxime, it is an honor to have you on the show. Would you mind first introducing yourself for people who might not be acquainted? Yes, I'm Maxime Behani. I'm the leader of the People's Party of Canada. It is a new political party, as you may know, at the federal level here in Canada. Canada. We created that party in 2018. We had our first election in 2019, and we are ready now for the next election here in Canada. That will happen, as you know, maybe this spring or fall 2025 this fall. This is the place I'm going to start. I think it's where most Canadians are going to have questions. What is the difference between the Conservative Party of Canada and the People's Party of Canada from your perspective?

A lot. You know, a lot of differences. I must say that I was a minister under the Harper government. I, you know, I worked in the private sector for 19 years before being in politics. I'm not a career politician. Like Poliev, that's one difference. Polyev was elected at 24 years old and he never had a real boss. He is elected since that is a member of parliament since that time. So that being said, yes, I was with Hopper and I resigned in 2018. As you know, I did the leadership contest for the Conservative Party of Canada in 2017, 2018, didn't win with 49% of the vote. I tried to change the Conservative Party to be a real Conservative Party with the new leader at that time. Andrew Scheer, I worked with him for 15 months. And I must say that we had a good conversation, private conversation, just before the election in 2019, the election of 2019. So that was in 2018. And I told him, you know, are you taking some of our ideas in your next electoral platform for the election in 2019?

And he was honest. He said, no, because, you know, I said, oh, my ideas were very popular with the members of the Conservative Party of Canada. he said, yes, but they are not popular with the general population, and my goal is to be Prime Minister, so I won't take any of your ideas. So that's why I resign. I said this party is morally and intellectually corrupt, they're only conservative in name. And so now, I'm speaking about that because our platform, the platform that I had for the leadership contest is the same one. We use that platform to create the People's Party of Canada. So the big difference with us and the conservative is we are doing politics based on ideas.

and on convictions. We don't do any polling or focus group to know what people want to hear. You know, we have a strong vision for this country. And we believe that the population has been manipulated by the leftist media and the socialist politicians in Canada. So what I said during the campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, we use that platform and we launched at that time, the People's Party of Canada, based on four principles, individual freedom, personal responsibility, respect and fairness, and all our policies are in line with these principles. So what I'm telling you, it's that each election, we have the same platform, and at this election in 2025, you know, we're going to say the same thing that we said in 2018.

So what is the difference in our platform? There's a lot of differences. First, I must say, just a couple of days ago when all these establishment politicians said, we need to have a commercial war with the U.S. and impose tariffs, 25% of all U.S. import here in Canada. We were the only political party, and I was the only politician saying, no, we cannot do that, we must not do that. It will hurt Canadians, because if you impose tariff, that will be a tax on Canadians. a huge tax, 25%.

And, you know, we cannot win a war, commercial war, trade war against the U.S., where they are 10 times bigger. And actually, I was right because, you know, at the end, Trudeau did set with Trump, and we have a month to solve what is important. So I'm speaking about that because on our platform, we have, you know, contrary to the liberals and the conservative on immigration, we want to have a moratorium on immigration, a pause on immigration, because all that is destroying our country economically and socially.

The conservative, the liberals, the NDP are all in favor of the statute quo. We are ready to deport all illegals. The conservative are not speaking about that. Actually, we said that we must reinvest in our own national defense. And also, you know, if you look at what President Trump is doing in the U.S., the cultural war. Here in Canada, the conservative won't speak about that. You know, we want, you know, abolish the idea that a young girl can be a young boy and a young boy can be a young girl. That does not exist. There's no transitioning. The conservative, the liberals, all these parties voted for

the BNC4. They voted for the mutilation of kids. You know, we think that there's no transition and there's only two sexes, and that's important. All these woke ideology and DEI, you know, it's destroying our civilization. We need to cut all the funding to these third-party organization, and we will do that. I can go on on the Paris Accord and the climate change. Polyev will fight climate change. He believes that, you know, there's a climate emergency. You want to impose a carbon tax like the liberals and the NDP, but for us, it's not about the carbon tax.

It's about, you know, the Paris Accord. We will withdraw from the Paris Accord. The conservative won't. We won't impose any regulations to fight climate change because there's no climate emergency. We won't impose any taxes, but Polihev and Trudeau will give money to the green industry to fight climate change, money that we don't have, or they will impose more regulations. I can go on on the UN and, you know, the fact that Polyev is like Trudeau is a globalist. We will withdraw from the migration compact, Polyeyev won't. We will withdraw from the World Health Organization, Polyev won't.

We will stop foreign aid and bring that money back home. Polyeaf won't. We will also, we will change the equalization formula. That's important in our country, mostly for people out west, that formula, that is the redistribution formula, the redistribution of wealth in our country, coming from Western Canada to Eastern Canada. We need to radically, you know, decrease the amounts in that formula, being less generous. That's important for the prosperity of our country, but also for the unity of our country. You know, there's a separatist movement in Alberta

and also in Quebec. We need that the only way to solve that is to respect the Constitution and to, you know, being less generous on the equalization. So that's, that's important for Western Canadians. And I say to Western Canadians, you know, the Conservative Party of Canada is taking your vote for granted. They are not, you know, speaking about the big issues for you. like equalization, and I'm speaking about that. We need to be less generous. And so Polyev won't speak about that. And, you know, I can go on,

but I will ask people to read our platform at People's Party of Canada.cate.a. And I will ask them also to go on the website of the Conservative Party of Canada and try to find Pierre Polyev's electoral platform. They won't be able to find that because Polyev doesn't know what he will believe in. When the election will come, you will need to do some polling and focus

group to build a platform. For us, it's always the same. You can read it. We are updating our policies every year with new numbers, but it's the same ideas and same philosophy. So what we want, it's a smarter government in Ottawa that will respect taxpayers and respect our constitution and respect the autonomy of every province in our country. I wanted to give you the space to respond to that, because I do think that that's going to be on a lot of people's minds when they're considering the two parties. My next question is around Pierre Polyev. What are your thoughts on Pierre Polyev?

Oh, Pierre Polyev is a good communicator, for sure. You know, he's good with slogan. And for me, it's a good slogan, but empty slogan that is used. You know, fix the budget, for example. That is slogan. You know, we don't know any details. For us, it fixed the budget is to balance the budget. in one year, is to cut foreign aid, like I said, we can save $10 billion, is to cut corporate

welfare, subsidies to businesses. We can save another $10 billion over there. Polyev is not speaking about that. Polyev is okay with subsidies to be corporation. We are not. We want to have a flat tax on business. Polyev also is for the capital gains tax. We are not. We must abolish that. So what I'm telling you is good with slogan, but it's all empty slogan, acts the tax. Actually, that's funny because now he wanted to have an election on the carbon tax, the carbon tax election. Well, it won't happen. It won't happen because the liberals agree with him. So that's why we must call an election not on the carbon tax. And the most important is the immigration that is changing our society.

that's the main subject in U.S., in France, in Germany, in U.K., you know, we need to speak about that. We need to preserve our country, and that mass immigration cannot go on and go on. Plus add to that the Multiculturalism Act, the fact that we are telling people, keep your culture, don't integrate into our society, live in a ghetto. We have ghettos in this country. Bernardi, you know, in British Columbia, Brenton, Ontario, that's two ghettos. have that. We don't want that anymore. So let's abolish that legislation, repeal that legislation on multiculturalism. So, and send you a question, Polyev is very good with communicating

slogan, but we don't know his platform. And for me, it's not a real conservative. He is better than O'Toole, the other leader is speaking a little bit more like a conservative. But if you look at the big issues, like, you know, globalism and immigration and woke culture is not speaking about that. So good communicator, and I must say that the argument that we have, people are saying to us, we like your platform, the people's party, we like you, Bernie, but we want to get rid of the liberals, so we will vote conservative. What I'm telling them, you know, there's a good news today, a very good news. Look at the polls. Polyev will win the next election. It's always like that, you know, you have nine years liberals, nine years conservative,

And yeah, the liberal will have a new leader. That new leader will help the liberal party in the polls. They will go up for a couple of months. But when the election will come, people will vote against the liberals, not for Polyev, but against the liberal. And Poliyev would be elected. So I'm saying to these people, look at the polls. You know, Trudeau won't be there, and the liberal won't be there. Polyev will be elected.

There's no spitting the vote. Now you can vote your conscience, you can vote for your values, you can support the PPC, there's no risk, it is a win-win, you don't have the liberal, and you have the people's party there that will push Polyev in the right direction. We will be your insurance policy that Polyev will act as a real conservative, and there's no risk there. So let's vote your values, and if you do that, we will do that. be more influential and we will start that common sense real common sense revolution in our country like they did in uk with a nigel farage like they will do in france with uh marine

marine um what's the second name uh marine lepen sorry about that i was marine lepen they will do that in germany they did that in u.s with the donald trump so like Let's start that common sense revolution. And, you know, a vote for a PPC, you are not spitting the vote because we are first, we are so different than the conservative. Like I said before, on all these important policies, for me, when you spit something, if you spit an apple, you'll have two pieces of an apple. But, you know, we're so different. And that's why I left a conservative party, because they are not conservative. So we're different.

First, the reality is, and that's a reality. I won't be prime minister tomorrow. It's a revolution that we are doing. We need to grow this party. Polyev will be prime minister, but you need us in the opposition. You need us to keep him honest. Interesting.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that you predict that Pierre Polyev will win the next election and that you are more than willing to accept that. You understand that you have a long-term play if I'm hearing you correctly. Absolutely. When we created that party, we had 1.6% of the vote in 2019.

All the experts were saying, oh, Bernie is dead. This party is dead. 1.6%. We did work hard in between elections. The last election, we had 5% of the vote. And so now, you know, we may be in the polls right now around 3, 4, 5% depending on the polls. But we don't have any visibility. We are not in electoral campaign.

And I believe if we almost triple our score from 1.6 to 5, it may be we can at least double our score for 5 to 10. And the challenge for us is to have candidates elected because, as our electoral system, is the first past the post. So there's no proportionality in our electoral system. For example, we had 5% of the votes, but we don't have 5% of the members of parliament. So that would be good if we can have some proportionality in our entire system, but it won't happen tomorrow. But I'm looking in UK. If you look at the reform of Nigel Farage in UK, their platform is our platform. They did copy our platform. And, you know, that's the same thing in all Western countries, the same most important issues.

But Nigel at the last election, Nigel tried seven times to be elected. he was successful at the last general election in UK, and with 15% of the vote, he was able to elect six candidates. So for us, if we go from 5 to 10, 12 or 11, maybe we'll be able to elect our first candidate or a couple of candidates at this election in 2025. And if not, we will grow.

And that's what I'm saying to our candidates. We need to grow a percentage of the vote and will be more influential. And, you know, I was with Harper in 2006, and Hopper didn't do anything. The legacy of Stephen Hopper is nothing. You know, everything that he did, Trudeau undo it in one year. So Stephen Harper didn't have any legacy because he didn't have the courage to do the bold reforms. He didn't do any privatization.

Actually, he was at that time, you know, he did the biggest deficit in the history of our country during the financial crisis in 2007, 2008. It was not a real conservative. No deregulation. I did the only deregulation in the upper government, the telecom deregulation, very successful. But that was the only one. No privatization.

We had a big. Harper was a good manager of a big fat government. And actually, Harper did change the equalization formula to be more generous to Quebec, to try to buy votes. to Quebec. So Harper had a strategy of being incremental, you know, step by step, try to do changes. But it did nothing. And now you have Polyev that is listening to Harper. It would be the same. He will have, you know, the leftists, the liberals and the NDP will push

him to the left. And I think in 2029, you know, after four years of Polyeuf, people will look at us and say, okay, maybe the people's party is the, here's the real option. So that's why we are doing politics for the long term. And that's a new way of doing politics also because we don't appeal to the emotion of Canadians. We are appealing to their intelligence. They need to read our platform. And if they like it, I hope they will support us. If they don't like our platform, don't vote for us because we won't change. So that's, that's very powerful doing politics like that. But, you know, we need times and we need to be able to reach to more people. And that's why, you know, I'm very pleased that you gave me this opportunity to be with you.

I'm with a lot of YouTubers and podcaster across America and U.S. here in Canada. And also, yes, I'm doing a campaign, you know, on the ground with people. But the people's party will grow and our time will come. And like I said to our partisan supporters when I'm traveling and in my speeches, I said, I know that we will win, but I don't know when. Interesting. There's a lot to digest there. We've covered a lot of ground.

The first piece, I think it will be a surprise for many listeners to hear that Stephen Harper isn't a true conservative. I think experientially, I think that's how a lot of people felt during his reign was that he was very conservative. So that's an interesting take. The other piece that I just want to commend you on from my own. But about Stephen Rupert. Just tell me what he did. You know, his tough on crime approach was horrible, but it was extremely conservative. And it was all Kool-Aid from down south.

I think his policies were horrible. One of his statements was that marijuana is infinitely worse than cigarettes, which is just a wild statement that I think he made in 2008 or something like that. Like, it was not with the times that he was making those claims, but his whole criminal justice policy screams at me to be conservative. And then how he approached the budgets, being able to get to a balanced budget is very difficult. And I would say that that is usually a conservative approach. Those are probably my two stand out. Okay, okay.

Let's think about, you know, being tough on crime. You're right about that. I was there at that time. And he wanted to have minimum sentences for crimes that are horrible. But we had a discussion in cabinet during that time. And we knew that the Supreme, we knew that the Supreme Court of Canada maybe won't allow that and say that it's unconstitutional. So he had some advice telling him, you must use the non-understanding clause to be sure that our legislation will stand. He didn't want to do that.

He was afraid to do it. So we passed a lot of legislation, but the Supreme Court of Canada did say all these legislation are unconstitutional. So nothing happened. I hope that Poliev would pass the same legislation. has the courage to use the non-understanding clause to be sure that the parliament will have the last say on that. So, and about the deficit, you're right. Sorry, really quickly.

Are you pro-mandatory minimums? Yes, yes, for sure. But they've caused so much harm to so many people. Yeah, but only for, I can tell you, like, I worked in the court system. Like, it ruined people's lives. And, like, there were a lot of people caught in that that shouldn't have been caught. in that. Yeah. So what we said, I think you have a point there about speaking about that. So when he did that, we, that was all over, you know, on a lot of crimes, we said there's a minimum

over there, three years, five years, ten years, or things like that. But my position on that is, you know, if you do a murder, and right now there's no minimum, the judge will decide. But at least you must have a minimum of five years. You know, sometimes they have 10 years, and there's only two years in prison because they count for before the trial. If they were two years in jail before the trial, that count for twice a time. So that will count for four years. So we need to have something like that that would change. But yes, I believe that the judges can have latitude to look at the case, case by case.

But at least having, you know, when you are two years in jail before your trial, that must be two years, not four years. So that's, I'm okay with the changes like that. Okay. My concern with that is always, the thing I find fascinating about our system is how complicated and how many years it took to develop. Like it's hundreds of years that this system's developed. And the genius of it, from my perspective, is you can never, as a parliamentarian, as prime minister hypothetically, like you can never be in every, in every courtroom to understand the nuances of what's going on in those rooms. And so you have to trust the judges to make

informed decisions because they have access to all the information. Parliament will never be there. And the distance between a courthouse in BC and Ontario is a very vast distance. And so there's a huge disconnect that happens. So allowing that flexibility from my perspective is so important because there's going to be a case that comes up that you would have never guessed ever arises. And it's going to be the one exception to the rule, the one outlier that you could never predict comes up that comes up that needs to be addressed. And those mandatory minimums really restrict the ability to adapt. Now, I hear a lot of conservatives and I understand the concerns around, one, bail and how that is approached. And two, people who should have harsher sentences, who we can see that that is an unjust sentence, not going to.

getting the punishment they deserve. But that just requires more information, more support to the judges to understand how Parliament would like to guide and support their decision. It doesn't necessarily mean you need a mandatory minimum in order to force the judges and take it out of their hands to have a thoughtful decision in that regard. I really like our system because it always goes back to the local people, the people who live in that community, the people who understand the issues surrounding their community to make the best decision within their region. It's never perfect, but my big fear is always when you have Ontario making decisions about local issues, it's never going to have the nuanced needs in order to be effective.

Yes, so you have a point there, and I may agree on something that you just said, but the most important for me is to do these changes. And, you know, I'm not saying that I want minimum sentences for every crime. You know, you can be precise, you can pick two or three crimes, but the most important is also to do that reform, to be sure that, you know, how come you're going to have four years if you're only two years in jail before your trial and it will come for four years? There's no logic there for me. So that change was not approved by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So when I'm saying, you know, you have a clause in the Constitution that you can use for things like that when they are very important for you. So all that reform, you know what I said that, upper the law, legacy of Harper is nothing. All that, you know, was just undue by the Supreme Court or by the Trudeau. And you have a point about the deficit also. Yes, Harper was able to balance the deficit at the end in 2015. He was able to be able to balance that. He created the biggest deficit. But, you know, we, for me, it was not enough. You need to do, because, Because we want – Canadians are paying a lot of taxes, so it's good to balance the deficit.

But, you know, if you can't balance it – if you were able to balance the deficit as soon as possible, you'll be able to lower taxes. And we didn't do a lot of that. You know, Canadians are still paying a lot of taxes. Our proposal on the budget is to balance it in one year and without cutting any taxes that year. And after that, you are cutting taxes. You know, if you cut tax and you create a deficit with that, it won't help anybody. because that will create inflation. So that's our strong proposition on taxes.

But yes, Opper did create the biggest deficit in the history of our country, but you're right, yes, it was able to, after four years, to be back in a surplus in 2015. The other piece, I just want to understand, you had talked at the beginning about, like, transgender rights, about some of those issues, wokeism, those pieces. The part, because I can hear some completely agreeing with you

and I can hear others being furious with you and being very upset that I'm not really challenging you on that. And I'm not an expert in those pieces and I'm not going to pretend to be the piece that I'd like to hone in on a little bit more is, and correct me if you see something else, I see Canadians often being very deferential, very kind, wanting to be compassionate and supportive and respectful of people's individual decisions, wanting to be merciful and wanting the best for people. And that's really where I feel like liberalism sort of wins the day for people because we want to be kind and thoughtful people. And when we see those values, we go, we don't want to get involved. We want people to make the decisions that work for them. And at times,

perhaps that goes too far. But when you're saying those things, I hear those compassionate Canadians who don't have like a strong issue with what you're talking about, being very uncomfortable with the idea of restricting rights or controlling what people are allowed to do. And I'm just wondering, how do you balance that for the compassionate Canadians who don't want to come across, like they're taking away other people's rights or abilities to make their own decisions in their own lives? We agree on that. You know, when you're 18 years old, you can do what you want to do with your body.

But now what is happening is under 18 years old. You know, you have the endotination and there's doing some surgeries on kids to change their their body. And that must be illegal. That must be criminal. And right now, you know, at school, if you have a kid who wants to be called another name, a guy that want to be called, you know, Chantal or Susan, at school, they want, and that's happening in our country. The teacher won't say that to their parents. You know, we want to protect kids. And, you know, if you're a trans and you can do what you want, but I don't want you to influence kids to, to, it's, it's an ideology that, you know, must not be on our kids. That must be a discussion with parents and, and, and people who are

supporting these kids. But what we want, our position on that is very clear. You can do what you want with your body at 18 years old. You know, kids cannot go to a bar, a kids cannot, cannot drive a car, kids cannot take, you know, consume drugs. But before 18 years old, that kids would be able to decide that they can mutilate their body for life, you know, I'm against that 100%. But yeah, people are saying, actually, they are saying that anti-trans, you know, if you, I'm not anti-trans, I'm respecting your right. But, you know, you don't have the right to influence and mutilate young.

kids, and that's happening in our country right now. So that's our position. So I guess I would ask, what's the difference from your perspective between education and indoctrination? Because again, I feel like that the group of people you're describing would argue that they're involved in what's called education. And they would say, this is a legitimate area. We're just educating people on what the realities are. And you're calling that indoctrination. Yeah, calling that indoctrination because there's only two sexes. They try to educate them that there's a lot of genders. That's not the science.

That's not biology 101. There's only two sexes. Okay, just really quickly, there is the word sexes and there's the word education. And again, I'm not an expert. But their argument is they're not disputing the sexes. They're disputing the gender piece of the conversation from my understanding. And why would we have two different words if they mean identically the same thing? Yeah, that's a nice question.

We don't have two different words. invented that gender identity. You know, they're saying, you know, you can be, if you feel that you're a man today, you can be a man. If you feel that you're women, you can be a woman, it's worse than that. In school, they're sending to kids. If you feel that you can be, you know, a lion, you're a lion today. That's endotination. They're doing that to our kids, you know, today, you know, you Where are they doing that? But they're doing that, you know, we have the drag queen, you know, Storytelling, why do we have drag queens over there? No, but where are people allowed to be lions?

Like what, do you have to get a school or? I was traveling and I was in Manitoba and I spoke with the parents over there and they're saying that. Today my kids came back and he said that he's a lion at four years old and he was proud and he wanted to eat his breakfast on the ground like a lion. You know, there was so, it's crazy. But I know that may be fun to play and to be, but that's happening. And look also with the drag queens, Soros Taylor. Why not I think grandma or grandpa or a veteran, that's endotination.

They want to tell kids, you know, if you want to change your body, you cannot change your body. So don't do what you want with parents. You know, the drag queen shows, I'm living in Montreal. The drag queen shows that was in bar late at night, in the bars in Montreal, late at night, and you go there, you see them, you had fun, not in a school to try to indoctrinate kids and telling them that they may be, you know, another sex, and they can, you know, that's, that's right. The beginning of that indoctrination is thought with the name. They can change their name without the approval of parents.

That's happening in Quebec, in New Brunswick and other places in Canada. And after that, you have, oh, okay, you can wear, you know, other things that it's, it's, it's all crazy that. And, you know, I know that the trans industry and the trans people will say that I'm in tea trends. Like, you know, in 2019, I was supposed to be a racist because I wanted fewer immigrants at that time. One on good in 50,000. I was right at that time. We didn't do that. And now we have the problem of mass immigration. Now we are asking for a moratorium. But they were saying, that I was a racist at that time, and they can say that I'm anti-trans. I know that anti-trans. Do what you want, you with your body, but don't mess with our kids. So I guess the only follow-up on this, and I don't want this to take up the full conversation, but again, I'm just trying to figure out this piece because, again, I'm hearing the argument in people's minds that, yes, it was perhaps taboo in occasional bars, but those people actually

felt the most comfortable there. And to allow people to see people be comfortable in schools isn't necessarily a bad thing. And I'm not saying that's my position. I'm just saying that they're not going to see that as indoctrination. That's such a strong word for what we're talking about that I think that that's jarring to so many people, the idea that just exposing people, the way you expose them to different concepts, different philosophies, different viewpoints, you're exposing them to different information and this is just a different form of information being shown to them and it's not trying to convince them you've got to do it too necessarily it's it's this is a different lifestyle and allowing people to kind of consume that information allow young people to see

the world is a more broad and complex place than perhaps they realize so that they grow up in a different environment you're chuckling what are your perspectives on what is yeah but yeah i just don't agree with that and you know you you have the right of your point of you, but for me, you know, the trans ideology in school, it is indoctrination. Maybe it's a strong world, that word, word, but that's my position. And I can understand that other people are not happy with what I'm saying. And that's, you know, what's the difference between education? How do we, how do we differentiate between education and indoctrination?

Because I guess I could make the argument that public health care, other countries, have it and so when you just grow up and you think that's normal you're indoctrinating to people to think that that's normal and so now you're you're indoctrinated into believing in something like that like how do you differentiate between education and indoctrination but for me it must be based on science and biology there's only two sexes and we are not saying that in school that's the big difference you know but scientific communities are saying that there are there is gender fluidity and stuff so how do we

agree on the science like during COVID I think I think we might share some opinions on COVID. The science was, was approved during that period to have a certain perspective. Yeah, and we didn't have any science on lockdowns, and they were telling us that it's based on science. That was not true. They told us also that the vaccine was safe and effective, and that was not true. They told us that take the vaccine and you won't have COVID. That was not true. They used science, but that was not science. And now we have the real science after four years of COVID-19. So, you know, that's not science when you can say, you know, you can be fluid and you can change your sex. For me, it's dysphoria. And that was that in the

past. But now they change that to try to appeal to a community. Actually, you know, people have the right to have another point of view on that. But our position and my position is, you know, the saying that there's more than two sexes, it is entertainment. and not education. You recently referred to Hardeeb Singh-Nijar as a foreign terrorist and suggested that his Canadian citizenship should be posthumously revoked. Given that he is a Canadian citizen at the time of his death, how do you justify the stance?

How did you come to that position? Yeah, it's all right, you know, it is in our legislation. It is the law in Canada that, you know, you can be deported if you're a Canadian citizen, that's part of the legislation. If you read the Citizen Act, it is in there, if you commit something that is against the legislation and violate our values, you can be deported, considering that you are a Canadian citizen. And that's happening in the past, not regularly, but that's in our legislation. So what I'm telling people in our platform speaking about that,

I'm just repeating the law in Canada. That's the law in our country right now. So, like, why aren't other people saying that, then, why is that only, like, I've only heard you make that position? Because it's not politically correct. They're afraid to say that, you know, it's go and read the legislation, and it's all in our, we quote the legislation in our platform. And they don't want to say that, but it's, it's part of the law.

because it didn't happen often. We don't do that. It's exceptional, but it's part of the legislation. And I'm not afraid to speak about it. In 2020, you filed a defamation lawsuit against Warren Kinsella, which was dismissed by the Interior Superior Court in 2021. You were later ordered to pay about $132,000 in legal costs. I'm wondering if you can reflect on that case.

What were your takeaways? And what are the implications for filing that in regards to freedom of expression? Yes, actually, that was the argument for Kinsedah, freedom of expression. And I said, no, you know, because you can say I'm a politician, I'm a public figure, and when you're seeing things that are not right, and he said that I was a racist and based on nothing, and for me, you know, when you call somebody a racist, it's, you know, I said, you know, and not only me, but my party and also my candidates, we had Jewish candidates, at that time, and we still have Jewish candidate for this election.

They were saying that they were Jewish anti-Holocos and racist. So that was not true. That was invention, and he was paid by the Conservative Party of Canada to do that. That was public after that. So yes, I sue. And the judge decided at the end to say, oh, Bernie is a public figure. And so in politics, maybe, you know, if Bernie was just a normal citizen and didn't have any position in politics, maybe, maybe, you know, that

would be, we will come to another decision, something like that. I don't forget, I forget a little bit the details of the decision, but, you know, at large, what he was saying, because I'm a politician, and, you know, saying something to politicians like that, true or not true, he must be allowed to do that. So that was, that was a, that was a, decision. I was not a happy with that, but, you know, that's life. In 2021, you were arrested for violating public health orders during the, during an anti-lockdown protest. Looking back, can you reflect on your stance and the consequences of that decision? Yeah, you're right. Just before, that was in Manitoba. That was during the summer 2021. And, I, and, I, you're right. Just before,

that was in Manitoba. That was during the summer 2021. And at that time in Manitoba, they had public health orders saying, you know, you cannot be more than five percent in a meeting, in a park outside. So you didn't have the right to go in a park with more than five percent. And so I said I was traveling by car because I didn't have the right to travel by plane. As you know, I'm not vaccinated. my agenda was public and everybody that was on my website that I was going to Manitoba and I had a couple of

meeting because I wanted that was before the election I wanted to have meeting with the executive of our writing association the people or volunteers helping us during the election we were not able to have meetings inside that was so we decided to have meeting outside in a park and in some places we had more than five percent social distancing thing, by the way. So I said that. And I wanted after that to do a big rally in Winnipeg the day after. So we received an email coming from the authority over there, the health authority. I don't remember the name. But they said, you're not welcome. If you come here, you must respect our legislation and something like that. And I wrote back on social media. That's my right to travel

across the country. I will travel. I'm a politician. And it's important for me, for my party to be ready for that next election that will come, the election in 2021. And after that, the premier of Albert, of Manitoba, did a press conference. And in a press conference, he said, Bernie is not welcome. And if he's coming here, we will empty his pocket. That was his expression. So I did that. I went there and I did my meeting in a part. The first meeting that I was, had in a park, we were seven-person social distancing, and the police came, and they said, you know, if they didn't give me any tickets, if you do your other meeting that was 200 kilometers away from there, you may have a ticket. So I did the other meeting, and we were, I think,

10% in a park, I received a ticket. And I was the only one, by the way, also. The only one receive a ticket. You know, that was political driven. And the third meeting, they said after giving you a ticket, if you go to the third one, we may arrest you. And I did the third meeting. We were about nine, ten people, person, you know, in the park. I was the only one who was arrested and cuffed and put in jail for 12 months for an own crime and for fighting for freedoms. So, and I wasn't able to do the rally that I was supposed to do in Winnipeg. So that's, and, you know, we know now that, you know, being outside, you know, they had no danger with when you're outside. All these regulations were, you know, unconstitutional. And I did

fight that in court. I didn't win. But, you know, that's a big deception because a lot of freedom some fighters didn't win and didn't want to apply our charter of rights. The court didn't want to apply the charter of right. So I had to pay a fee's, and I did pay that fees after that. But, you know, a politician handcuff in just to fight for freedoms and having a meeting with 10% outside in a park. And I can tell you, that was political driven because the police who arrested me was in a little village, he was, you know, wearing jeans.

And when we came in the police station, the guy didn't know where was the toilet. He was not coming from there. He was coming from, you know, Winnipeg. And that was his job to arrest me. And so that was what happened. And shame on our country doing that to our politicians. But I was not the only one who went in jail to fight for our freedoms at that time. I think this is one of the most complicated topics.

I do think that it's worth exploring. because Canada's response to COVID-19 has made international headlines a few times. And I think because of that, we need to reflect. And there's a lot of pieces here. One, it was very unpopular to talk about a lab leak hypothesis at the beginning of this. We now know that that has come true. It was settled science that if you got the vaccine, you could not. not get COVID-19. Anthony Fauci had four or five vaccines and still talked on national television

about getting COVID-19. There were different responses, different political parties took. The piece that I have trouble squaring, and like you were a person who took a very bold stance when it was very unpopular to do so. So it's an honor to speak with you, regardless of whether or not people agree with you or not, it is easier to go with the crowd than to stand against the crowd. It is easier to go with what is politically popular than it is to go against. So on that regard, I have respect for your ability to stand up to a mob when it was easier to get in line. So the piece that I just struggle to balance, and I'd be interested in your feedback on, is around there's an argument to be made that none of us knew for sure,

during certain parts of this process what was right and what was wrong and it's our instinct to shut down ideas of like oh let's just do whatever we want there's an argument to be made that if we all start doing our own thing then some people are going to get left behind

because we don't have a consistent approach if I as a First Nations counselor if we all just do our own thing then we're not going to have a healthy response to certain problems that need to be addressed the argument here is that you need to have kind of a crackdown You needed to have consistent policies.

Everybody's following the same policies so that you have that uniformity. The failure of that is that it wasn't adaptive to the circumstances that it needed to be. But the reason for that is a lot of people were scared. I interviewed Minister Patty Heidu on her approach. And she talked about how she would stay up night, not knowing whether or not she made the right call, that that period of being health minister changed her life because of the weight and the responsibility that she was never prepared for, that she was never trained in, that she didn't have years of experience dealing with pandemics to that extent. And she was put into that circumstance and she talked about trying to make the best decision she could in the moment.

And I have a lot of sympathy with that because I, as a political leader of my community, I'm just doing the best I can in those moments. The other side, the argument that you've put forward is we did know some of these things throughout this process. that we did have some information coming out, and that was suppressed. And so I'm just wondering, how do we balance the fact that in trying times, you're not always going to get it right, but we did maybe go too far. So how do we kind of, how do we resolve what happened during COVID-19? How do we find peace with what took place? Freedom, openness, debates, and we didn't have that.

You know, censorship was there. and, you know, prominent doctors were censored. We know that right now, and they didn't want to hear another point of view. If you had a solution for COVID or medication for COVID, other than the vaccine, that was prohibited. Doctors didn't have the right to prescribe that. And, you know, we had in the beginning of that, we have permanent doctors who said, you know, drugdance won't work. you know, that virus is affected, affect only, is very, you know, deadly for older people with comorbidities, the young kids, they are not in danger for that, and we were vaccinated everybody.

That was a huge mistake. So the answer to that is you have to allow dissidents. And, you know, that's why in the beginning for me, I told you, one of our principles for the party is individual freedom and personal responsibility. That was very very, very, easy for me to be and speak for freedom and freedom of choice with informed consent. I never said, don't take the vaccine. They said that I was anti-vax. I didn't take the vaccine personally. My dad took the vaccine.

He's older. That was, he was, you know, he had comorbidity, so I'm very pleased that he did that. But I said, everybody must have the choice, freedom of choice, with informed consent and decide. But we didn't have the other point of view the way to solve that in a few. pandemic. It's to let the markets and people discuss. And I think, you know, it's a little bit bizarre if they didn't want the other point of view. For me, when I saw that we had censorship, something was wrong. And I knew that something was wrong. And they were pushing an agenda to us.

And not only here in Canada, but in almost every country. So, so it's not, it's not bizarre to me because they did it because under the guise of saving lives. And like, that's a very difficult argument for me to resolve because I did interview people throughout the pandemic and like regular people were like, I just, if it means that I'm going to protect other people, I'm happy to do it. And like, that was the argument put forward. It wasn't follow the rules because just do as your government says. The argument was always put forward that this is going to protect people and that this is going to

save lives. And if you care about other people, you're going to follow the rules. But that was a lie because we know that, you know, being vaccinated or not, you can have to COVID and transmit COVID. That was a big lie. And actually, you know, what they did, it's right to control the narrative. And so for me, the fact that, you know, you're right about saying that, you know, I was the only politicians. And everybody, every opposition at the provincial level and at the federal level, the conservative party, they were all the same and in the same direction and promoting, you know, all these draconian measures. You must ask why. Why? Because they use fear and propaganda and they were able. And with fear, you can control a population.

And if you're a position in the opposition, your goal is to be in government. And when you see that in the survey and polls, that more than 60% of the population, are okay with these draconian measures, you don't want to, you want to be on the right side, you want to be with them. So that's why you didn't have any opposition, because all these politicians are doing politics by survey and polling, not us. We said that's not right. The population is not right.

The population has been manipulated. They use fear. We must be out there and tell the truth. And you know what? Time was on our side. It took four years, and now we know that we were right. So that's the way we're doing politics. with conviction and our principles, but I can understand these traditional politicians.

They look at short-term, and they wanted to be elected, and they look at the majority that has been manipulated. You know, they had a press conference every day, like in a communist country, and the press was not asking the real questions. The propaganda was everywhere. The federal government spent a lot of money in advertising on TV, on radio. That was full propaganda. cross and so you are able to manipulate the population and with fear and also at the same time

manipulate the opposition, the politicians in the opposition who said, okay, I want to be on the right side with people, so I would be okay with all these Reconian measures. And, you know, not for us, not for us. And I prefer to be in the minority, but being right. what's the difference, I guess, with information and propaganda from your perspective? When you don't allow the other point of view, that's for me, you must have questions in your mind. How come, we cannot have another point of view. How come other doctors, if they're speaking with another solution for COVID, you know, they will loss their license. that's, when you have all that, you must question what is happening.

We're not in a democracy anymore. We don't have any debates. So for me, when you don't have any debates, that's propaganda. The next piece is around what's going on. You talked about mainstream media. Would you defund the CBC? Yes, not only the CBC. I will defund Radio Canada in French also.

Polyev won't do that because, again, Radio Canada is more popular in Quebec. So what is the logic? Radio Canada or CBC. So for him, it's only CBC. For me, it's CBC, Radio Canada, and all the subsidies that the federal government is giving to order mainstream media like Toronto, Toronto Sun, CTV. That's about $2 billion. Let's save that money. And I want the media to be independent, not dependent on the government for money. And yes, if CBC is going bankrupt, they will go bankrupt.

If they're not as good and people don't want to give money to CBC, I'm giving money to some independent media because I like what they're doing. So if they're in a free market, they will be able to receive money from their viewers. And if they don't have any viewers and they don't have any money, it's because, you know, there's no add value there and they will go bankrupt. Reconciliation is a topic that I care about. I'm a First Nations counselor with my community, Chihuahua First Nation. I'm curious, what would your approach to reconciliation be? But first, if you want to do that, you must abolish the Indian Act. That's a racist act.

In Canada, you know, there's no systemic racism, but there's one legislation that is racist, is the Indian Act. We are the only party, if you want a real reconciliation, start by that, abolishing the Indian Act. And after that, you know, we need to sit with the First Nations and I want them to have more autonomy. I want them to have a kind of property rights on reserve. If you don't have property rights, you cannot have economic growth. And, you know, we need to have discussion about that. I don't like when, you know, Ottawa is in charge of drinking water on reserve.

Everybody must be responsible. You have some First Nation that are very successful. order that are not. So I want to reopen that. I don't have the solution. I just want to follow principles, you know, sit down, which First Nation, try to find a solution. Actually, Jean-Cretien wrote in a book, a green book in 1968 that we must abolish the Indian Act and try to have a new agreement with First Nation based on respect and being sure that, you know, they will be part of our society and not a part of our society. After, you know, 1968, nothing happened.

So we need to have that discussion. And that's our position on the First Nation and reconciliation with them. Do you think the recent increase, I've seen it throughout Canada, there's an increased sense of Canadian pride that I'm very happy to see because I've been calling for it for some time. When I saw the trucker convoy, I said on this show, I think that's really important because I think we need to have a conversation about what that flag means. I think there's a disconnect.

During that time, obviously, people felt that it was representing the truckers and positions they didn't have. But I think these are opportunities to refresh our Canadian identity and figure out what values we're standing by and how we feel. And I'm seeing the same thing right now in regards to the threats from Trump's tariffs, that Canadians are starting to go, well, what does it mean to be a Canadian? What am I proud of? And we've been through a period for my position under Justin Trudeau's leadership where we didn't have a national identity. There wasn't something that we could put forward and say we are proud to be Canadian for A, B, and C reasons. That we've gone through a period where it's been shameful to be Canadian, where we're not proud. And I think that's really, really dangerous for the health and the vibrancy of our culture, of our communities, of us to feel that sense of connection with our national.

identity. And so are you seeing the same thing? What are your thoughts on the Canadian flag and on Canadian values? Yes. You have a point there. You know, our people are patriots. They believe in this country. And I'm always saying, you know, we are the last hope for this country. If our platform is not adopted, it's not part of legislation, this country risk of disappearing. You know, you have the, actually right now in Quebec, the separatist movement is in advance in the polls, the PQ, and they're saying, you know, if Quebecers vote for the PQ, the PQ will have another referendum on the sovereignty a year after the election. In Alberta, you have the same thing. So we need, that's why, you know, we think that with a radical decentralization that will

give more autonomy to provinces, that's a way to solve that. But yeah, I'm proud to be Canadians, but I was not proud, and I'm not proud as Trudeau destroy our country with mass immigration and all these whole policies. So that being said, yes, right now, people are a bit proudered to be Canadians because of that fight with Trump. But, you know, all these politicians

who are speaking for Canada now, I'm speaking about Poliev and Jack Mead and Trudeau, where were they the last nine years when Trudeau was destroying? our country. That was not important for them to speak for Canada, to speak for an immigration system that will respect our country, that we know will be in line with our values, and, you know, fighting against crime and deporting all these illegals. That was not important for them to fight for our country. Now it's very important because Trump wanted to impose

tariff on us. But it was not on Canadian. It was on businesses who are businesses that are exporting to the U.S., actually tariffs, that's not us who will have to pay that. That's the American. But anyway, I'm very pleased that now, you know, we have discussion with the Trump administration, and I think that the solution will come and we won't have this tariff, but I was against the retaliation and imposing tariffs on us, on Canadian consumers. So that's great that now, you know, they are proud to be Canadians and they're ready to fight for our country.

but I would ask one question, where were in the last nine years? You are a man on a mission. You have described at the beginning of this interview that you don't have an end date. You don't exactly know when you're going to get over to the edge, when you're going to arrive at the goals that you've set for yourself and for the party. I'm just wondering, when you roll out of bed, what is that drive that keeps you going? Because, you know, the people's party, we believe in people. I don't believe in a big, fat government.

We have faith in people. We have faith that you have the ability, the dignity and the right to make your own decisions and determine your own destiny. That's the people's party. That's why we are calling our name is people. We are putting people first in our country first. And that's not an anti-slogan. Read our policies.

You'll see that it is right. So I like what I'm doing. And actually, you know, I know that, you know, there's progress. And right now with what is happening in U.S. in Europe, you know, that win, that freedom win that is coming from other countries will come to Canada. And the only vehicle for that is the People's Party. And so, you know, we created that party six years ago. It was very tough to speak like that six years ago. But now it's a little bit easier. You know, we have now 65% of the population who are saying enough is enough with

immigration and they're ready to have a moratorium on immigration. And so our ideas are growing, and that's good for me. And that's why, you know, I like what I'm doing. I can sleep very well because I don't do any compromise with our ideas. And I'm telling people, if you don't like me and our ideas and our candidates, don't vote for us. We won't try to please you. That's it.

You like what you're doing? I hope you support us. That's the only way for us to win the battle of ideas. And that's what we try to do. win the battle of ideas, and we believe that we are on the right side of the history and on the right side of the argument. How can people follow along with your work? They can go on our website, People's Party of Canada, and click on platform, read our platform, only two pages on every subject. We have 21 policies. We have, you know, the issue, the facts, and our solution in two pages

for every policy. People's Party of Canada at CA, they can follow me on Twitter, Maxime Bernier, on Facebook and YouTube, and Rumble, and all these social media. Maxime, it has been a pleasure

to speak with you today and to get a better understanding of your positions on very complicated issues. And I just commend you specifically for being willing to go on the podcast tour. We've seen that. I had the opportunity to speak with David Eby,

John Rustad, Sonia first now, during our BC election, I think the direction we're going is in this format of communication where we can flush out ideas a little bit longer, dive into them and really get an understanding rather than four-minute segments where you have to try and respond and explain a policy in 12 seconds. So I appreciate you being willing to do this. I know you're doing other interviews and I just commend you for taking that approach because that's open, that's transparent, you're going to get a mixed bag. We didn't send over any questions to you in advance,

you didn't have any preparation, you're just sitting down, willing to have conversations, with people to share your ideas and your approach. And I just, I think that's very admirable. So I appreciate you being willing to take the time today. No, thank you very much for giving me that opportunity. And you know that you are the future. I just want to end with an anecdote. You know, when we created the party, I was very upset because the mainstream media

didn't want to cover us. They were not following us. And I had a discussion at that time with Jordan Peterson. And I said to Jordan, you know, Jordan, what can I do? You know, the mainstream media, I'm not there. They don't want to cover what we are doing. We had 5% of the vote. And Jordan looked at me and he said, Maxine, they're dying.

Don't waste any time, you know. They are dying over there. The future is, you know, podcaster, YouTubers, independent media. Go there. That's the future. And he's right. You're the future. And I want to thank you for giving me that opportunity with you today.

My pleasure. I have to ask just because you brought it up. Jordan and Pierre did an interview not too long ago. It went viral. What was your reaction to that? And just how did you feel about kind of Jordan, giving him that big up opportunity to kind of put him on a global stage? No, that was good.

Actually, you must know that I did an interview with Jordan at the last election. You know, I had an hour and a half interview with him. And I'm okay with that. And I'm pretty sure that I will have the opportunity to have interview with Jordan before the election. I'm not asking him for that right now. I want to wait until the election will start, but I'm pretty sure that I would be able to have an interview with him and I'll be ready to answer the questions. You know, he was a little bit kind with Polyev and didn't ask the very tough questions, but you know, it's okay and I'm ready,

I'm ready to debate our ideas and I'm pretty sure that I will have that opportunity with Jordan when the election would be called. Fantastic. Thank you again, Maxine. Thank you. Have a nice day. Bye-bye.