The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 192. Individuality, Autonomy, and the PPC | Maxime Bernier

Episode Date: September 18, 2021

Honorable Maxime Bernier is the leader of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), former MP of Beauce (‘06-’19) and candidate for the Prime ministership of Canada.Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:Blazing Bull Grills - Visit https://blazingbullgrills.com and use code “JP150” at checkout to get $150 off the Blazing Bull 1,500 Degree Grill.ReliefBand: Reliefband.com Use promo code “JBP” to receive 20% off plus free shipping and a no questions asked 30-day money back guarantee.In this episode Maxime shares his story, how and why he got into politics, the founding of the PPC and his vision for the future of Canada. There is also discussion on “common sense” policies, free markets, governmental overreach, the dismantling of classical conservative ideals, and the upcoming Canadian election (20th September 2021).People’s Party of Canada:https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/ PPC’s YouTube Channel:https://youtube.com/c/PeoplesPartyofCanadaOFFICIAL Maxime’s Instagram:https://instagram.com/hon.maximebernie -Subscribe to “Mondays of Meaning” newsletter here: https://linktr.ee/DrJordanBPetersonFollow Dr. Peterson: Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/c/JordanPetersonVideos Twitter - https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson Instagram - https://instagram.com/jordan.b.peterson Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/drjordanpeterson Website: https://jordanbpeterson.com/Visit our merch store: https://teespring.com/stores/jordanbpetersonInterested in sponsoring this show? Reach out to our advertising team: [e-mail]

I'm super excited about today's sponsor. Dad and I and my mom are on this ridiculous all beef and lamb diet. I have called the lion diet for our really horrible autoimmune disorders. You guys have heard me talk about that before. So we're very good at cooking meat. I've probably cooked more steak than 99.9% of the population, but I've never used a grill like this. Blazing bull grill.

It's made in America. It's portable. It's a gas infrared grill that heats up to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. You know those steaks and restaurants that have a crispy layer on the outside, a mired reaction for the nerds out there, and perfectly rare or medium rare in the middle?

This grill does that, but in your backyard or on your patio. It doesn't smoke, it's super easy to clean, and it makes high-quality steakhouse-style steaks, or whatever else you feel like grilling, lamb chops, burgers, vegetables for you folks who aren't as restricted as us. Chicken wings, whatever. They sell their patented broiler to upscale restaurants like Mortons, but you can have that kind of quality steak in your backyard. Mom and dad are getting a grill too. These things are the best that I've seen out there. Stakes take around three minutes to grill depending on how thick they are. Three minutes

for a restaurant-style steak. It's quick to set up and portable with handles on the side, so you can take it anywhere you want to. I'm obsessed with my air fryer, but there's no comparison to this grill for how professional it makes your food. If you want to. I'm obsessed with my air fryer, but there's no comparison to this grill for how professional it makes your food. If you want to impress people, check them out. You can head to blazingbullgrills.com and get $150 off when buying the Blazing Bull 1500 degree grill. Use promo code JP150 at checkout. Again, that's $150 off a blazing bull 1500 degree

girl on blazingbullgirls.com. When using promo code JP150 at checkout, I love this girl. Welcome to the Jordan B Peterson podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. This is season four episode 46. On today's episode, Dad's joined by Canadian politician and leader of the People's Party of Canada, the Honorable Maxime Bernier. He was not involved in the Canadian election debate, and he really should have been so as a candidate for the Prime Minister ship, Dad had him on his show. Maxime shared his vision for the future of Canada and how his party is tackling today's political landscape.

He's the only candidate currently that's really pushing for freedom. They discussed free markets, governmental outreach, monetary policy, the dismantling of classical conservative ideals, and of course the upcoming Canadian election. Don't forget to share this with a friend and thank you for listening. This Canadian election is really important and I think it's going to determine whether or not Canada opens up or kind of continues to disintegrate. I'm voting for Maxine Bernier. Enjoy this episode. Hello, everyone. I'm pleased to have with me today one of the contenders for the Prime

Minister of Canada, the Honorable Maxine Bernier, a leader of a new Canadian political party, the People's Party of Canada. He was Minister of Industry, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism in Stephen Harper's Conservative Government, and he was an MP for the writing of Bose for 13 years and is currently running for election there. In 1985, Mr. Bernier earned a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Montreal. And entered law at the University of Ottawa. He was called to the Quebec Bar 1990. He worked for a variety of financial and banking institutions before becoming Executive Vice President of

the Montreal Economic Institute in 2005. He ran for leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party in 2017. That's generally Canada's dominant or second place party. Finishing second to Andrew Shear, who, the current PC leader, Progressive Conservative leader Aaron O'Toole, replaced, Maxim founded the PPC in 2018, citing disagreements with Shear's leadership. Mr. Berne and I came into personal contact during the controversy surrounding Canada's Bill C-16, which purported to protect the rights of trans individuals, but was regarded by me and others as a as a threat to free speech. I invited Aaron O'Toole, the current PC leader to this podcast. He

had other commitments and declined and I invited Mr. Bernier, and he agreed to talk, so we get to meet again. And so it's really good to see you. And thanks very much for agreeing to talk. Thank you, Mr. Peterson, Jordan. I'm very pleased to be with you. And you're right by saying that the first time we were at contact, it's when I called you in 2017,

because now I know that I did a mistake at that time. I voted for that deal since 16 and I didn't know a lot about that. That was the party position of the conservative party of Canada at that time. And I vote on in line with the party line. But after that, some of my friends told me, Maxime, I believe that you did a mistake. That deal, it's not only about gender self identification. It's about free speech. And you must have a discussion with Mr. Peterson. And we had a phone conversation at that time. And you explained me the impact of that deal.

And I was admit that you were right. And I was wrong at that time. But I was a little bit naive about all that transgender and cultural Mexican Marxism and all that world culture. Because Jordan, when I decided to be in politics as you just said in my bio, I was more a kind of an economist. I worked on late three years as a lawyer in a big law firm in Montior, but after that I worked in a financial institution and I was working for the Montior Economic Institute. That's a thing, thank, a free market, thing, thanks in Montreal. And I was VP over there.

So when I decided to be in politics, I decided to be in politics for a smaller government, more freedom, less government intervention, and more free markets. That's why I decided to go in politics and all that Cultural Marxism and now that world culture. I didn't know anything about that and what I liked when I was a minister was to do a deregulation in the telecom industry and

The professor showed at university McGill said that I was the best minister of industry for the last 30 years because of that deregulation. So more competition prices went down for the telecom and cell phone. But all that was not part of my platform for the leadership of the conservative party of Canada in 2017. My platform was very more a kind of conservative libertarian less government, believing in people, not in big fat government. And I had something about extreme multiculturalism at that time and also on immigration. But I was in contact with all that world culture and build C-16 after discussion that we had. And now, today, today, it's part of my campaign. It's part of the

people's party of Canada, and I'm speaking about it every day, because it's a reality. It's a sad reality of our country right now. Yeah, well a lot of that sort of legislation is a wolf in sheep's clothing because it purports to be kind and compassionate and to be solely for the benefit of people who are oppressed in some unfair manner, but there are sharks and crocodiles lurking beneath the surface. And it's not necessarily that easy to see them. And I think that's really been hard on center thinkers and people who are more on the right as well, because they get defeated often before they even have a chance to speak, because

the woke crowd is extraordinarily good at setting the stage for the political discussion. We saw a lot of that in the debate, for example, in the last leader's debate. You're absolutely right on that. And that's why now we are the only national political party that has a policy on gender identity. Can you believe that? And for me, you know, back five years ago, for me that was an issue, but now it's an issue and we are speaking about that. When you have legislation or here in Canada, when you have men that are saying that they're women

with and going to a prison for women and the same prison. You have that in Canada. And when you have men that are in a competition against women in sport, and that's supposed to be normal. So that's why we needed to have a policy on that in our platform. And that's a policy that is very popular because we go back to the common sense. And I think there's a lack of common sense in our country right now. The common sense is not that common these days. But I'm speaking about it openly. And more and more people can understand that we

want to live in a free society when you don't have any racial politics or identity politics or gender issues like that. So you founded the people's party of Canada in 2018. That's, is that correct? And that was dissatisfaction in part with the leadership of Andrew Scheer and with the conservative platform in general. And so it's a radical move to start a new political party.

And of course, people have pointed out, and I'm sure you were aware of this regardless, that one of the risks of doing that is that you split the vote and that as a consequence, you move the probability of power more into the hands of people whose policies you might not agree with. And so why did you think that it was worth, why did you think it was necessary worth the risk and necessary and do you feel this is a few years later that that you were justified in that assumption? Yes, I believe that it was the best political decision in my political career. I'm very pleased that we did it.

But yes, at that time, when I was a conservative, and that was just after the leadership contest in 2017, I didn't win with 49% of the vote. And I tried, and we had a very popular platform, very popular conservatives, free market, smart government. And after a couple of months, I believe maybe 12 months. I was trying at that time to have the leadership

of the conservative party of Canada to take some of our ideas that were very popular with the membership of the Conservative Party of Canada. And Wuxier said publicly that, you know, when I'm speaking about policies, I'm speaking only for myself, I not engage the party, and the platform for the next election, the 2019 after that, will be a platform very different than the platform that I run on for the leadership of the

conservative part of Canada. So I said, why is this thing with a political party and running at the election of 2019, which a party, when you don't believe in that platform, and for me that party was not conservative, centrist, and a little bit centered to the left. And I said when I resigned, this party, the conservative part of Canada, is intellectually and morally corrupt. And that's why I created the Peoples' Party of Canada based on four principles individual freedom personal responsibility respect and fairness and and all our policies are in line with these principles and we don't do politics by survey or polling we believe that we have the right vision for this country and we are speaking about what we believe openly with passion and conviction,

and I believe that I will be able to have more support. But in the election, I could just say Jordan, the 2019 election, that was the first election for the Peoples' Party of Canada. And I didn't win my seat in vote. I was running as the leader and a Peoples' Party candidate. We had 1.6% of the vote, 200,000 people voted for us.

But for our first year, we did better than the Green Party of Canada, because it took the Green Party of Canada, 2020, election 20 years and six elections to have more than 1.6% of the vote. And we did that in our first year. But the biggest argument coming from the conservatives,

again, against us, was the fact that, oh, don't vote for Bernie. You'll divide the vote. You're going to split the vote. And I can tell you that was very efficient. I saw people outweighs in all across the country, Maxime, we like your ideas, we like your platform, but our most important goal is to get rid of Justin Trudeau. We don't want to spit the vote, so we won't support you.

That argument was very efficient. But now we know that they voted for some conservatives voted for the conservative party and Andrew Sheev and they end up with just in Trudeau. And now you have the same argument in 2021, but it is less effective because Aaron O'Toole is more leftist than Andrew Sheev. this then and we share and the party if you look at the platform of the liberal party of Canada and the conservative they're the same on imposing a vaccine passport, world culture, not balancing the budget I can go on and go on. So people realize now a little bit more than you know if you vote for Bernie it is not a vote for the liberal it It is a vote for yourself, for your values. And if Aaron Uttula is winning, it will be like Justin Trudeau

on the most important issues for the future of our country. So that argument is less effective. And I believe that's why also we are growing in the polls right now, as you know, the election will be this Monday. And I'm speaking about our freedom, I'm speaking about the fact that we have reckoning and measures that are, that these government, not only the Fed all won,

but the provincial ones, provincial ones are imposing on us. And that freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of choice. It's very important in this campaign and we are able to grow or support. I don't know what will be the result at the end of this campaign,

but I can feel a kind of momentum and we'll see what will happen. Where do you think you are in the polls right now? What do you think is a reliable figure? Yeah, so we don't do any internal polling. We don't do that, we don't believe in that. I'm looking at the public polls and we are between 7% nationally to 11, 12% nationally. In some provinces like in Ontario, we are around 8% in Alberta, around 10%. So I believe that we can have maybe a strong six

or seven percent of the vote. And if we have that from 1.6 to six or seven percent, that will be a big victory. If we have that score, we will have more votes than the Green Party of Canada, because since the beginning of that score, we will have more votes than the Green Party of Canada because since the beginning of that campaign, the Green Party is around three and four percent. And as we started that campaign at 1.6,

like now we are around six, seven, and maybe 12. So we'll be able to do better than the Green and maybe do better than the block Kibbequa that is a regional political party only in Quebec, they're at 6% in the polls. So the mainstream media and the political elites will have to speak about us and engage with us about our ideas. So that will be the beginning for us of a new step and another step for the growth of our party, because this party is there for a long term, and we won't merge with any party, we will always fight for what

we believe and pushing our ideas, because like I said, we are doing politics differently, and it's not a slogan, it's a reality. Usually, when you're a politician, you will speak about a subject when maybe 30%, 35% of the population is on that side because your goal is to have a majority. And you'll start to speak about it and hope that you have 50% on one subject. For us, that's not important.

We are doing politics based on ideas and we believe that we have the best ideas, like I said. I'll give you an example, you know, speaking about ending the supply management system in Canada. That's a cartel for poultry, dairy, and milk. These producers are fixing the price in Canada, cannot export, and that's why Canadians are paying twice the price for milk, poultry, and eggs in our country. We want to abolish that and being sure that it would be a free market for these products. But when I'm speaking about that, you know, the huge majority, 70% of the population agree with that system. So what we need to do, we need to speak about it

more often and more people would be on our side. And that's what we are doing politics. We don't do that. OK, so let me ask about that. So well, OK, I want to summarize some of the things you said. See if I've got this right. So your feeling is that the conservatives in some sense, because they're doing politics by pull,

are drifting into the center and the center left. And you are providing an alternative set of ideas, and you think that the provision of that set of ideas is important enough to Canadians broadly speaking, that taking the risk of dividing the vote is a good, short and long term measure. These ideas need to be brought into the public forum, and it's risky. There's great risk in not doing it, and you also think that your party... And so then why is it as well that your party has decided that you're going to stick to your philosophical platform,

let's say, rather than being led by polls. And do you really think you can avoid doing that in the long run? Our goal is not to be in power, that's not the end goal. Yes, I hope everybody would be elected. But our end goal is to speak about our ideas and when they would become popular and we know that you know an idea, an idea will become popular if you speak about it. So the more we speak about

it, the more support we'll have and the more candidates will be elected. So the conservative, they are only conservative in name right now and what Erinoole is doing by speaking like the leftist and using that narrative is not helping the real conservative cause. And O'Toole is not speaking about that because it is not popular today. We are in a socialist era in Canada and in other countries. So if your main goal is to be in government, you will, you know, there's about 70, 60% of the populations in Canada that all left this. So that's why the conservative is going to the left because the only goal is to be in government. Our goal is not to be in government. I hope a day I'll be prime minister, but I'm realistic. Our goal is to have

increased our percentage of the vote to have some candidates that will be elected, this election, and growing our support. And the next election will be more powerful, will be more candidate. And that's why our electoral campaign for this election, our electoral platform for this election is the same one than the last election in 2019 and it would be the same one in 2022 or at the next election because you know, you know, why do you think these ideas are so important that so so Canadians are going to often vote to throw someone out rather than to bring someone in let's say and maybe often that's how democracy is function and it's hard to say whether that's a good thing

or a bad thing. That isn't what you're doing precisely. You're trying to bring these ideas into a wider public forum. Why do you think that's so important? And why do you think that you have the background knowledge to make that decision? Because you formed a party, you're changing the political

landscape in Canada. You're taking a big personal risk as well. This isn't an easy thing to do. So what is it that you're doing that you're offering that's so vital and important that all of that is worthwhile and why should Canadians take that risk? What happens if you don't do this? That would happen. We'll be in that leftist era for longer than we thought.

We have more and more draconian measures right now, I'm speaking about COVID-19. In Alberta, they will have a vaccine passport in Quebec. We have a vaccine passport. You know, tell you, we have a vaccine passport. Don't get me wrong. I'm not again that vaccine. You know, everybody must be free to choose if they want the vaccine or not with the right information.

But right now we are imposing a vaccine passport. So we are dividing the society in two groups. You know, the vaccinated people and the unvaccinated people and some of them will have more rights than other. That's not what we want in a free society. Everybody must be equal before the law. And we know that everybody can spread the virus, the vaccinated people and the unvaccinated people. We know that if you took the vaccine, you'll have mild symptoms if you have COVID-19 and your chances of spreading the virus

is a little bit minimum, but everybody can spread the virus. Look at what is happening right now in Israel and there's a lot of people there that took the vaccine and they can spread the virus. So why I won't be able to go to a restaurant because I decided personally not to take the vaccine and 58 years old. And if I'm looking at the data and the statistic coming from our country from statistic Canada, I have 0.5%

chances of dying if I have COVID. So my survival rate is 99.5%. So I decided not to take the vaccine, but my dad is 87 years old, diabetic, and I encouraged him to take the vaccine and the two shots, and he did it. So we just want people to be free. And now I'm not able to go to a restaurant or to a baseball game because I didn't take the vaccine and everybody can spread it.

And I know that if I'm a restaurant and a table just near me, there's people who took the vaccine, they're protected. They're not more in danger because I'm there. So we must be fair for everybody and stop that COVID hysteria. We need to learn to live with that virus. It will be there. We cannot have zero COVID-19 in one country. It won't happen. We need to learn to live with it. If not, we will live with more inequity

and justice. And I don't want that. So that's why, you know, I'm happy. So let me play devil's advocate for a minute. I'll take our prime minister stated a couple of weeks ago. I believe that pretty much had no sympathy for anyone who is unvaccinated who ended up in the hospital, for example. And you might say, well, the vaccines are widely available. And so, and people can get them whenever they want. And so why in the world shouldn't they do it? The science supports their utility. These aren't my claims, by the way. The science supports their utility. And if they're too damn stupid to get the vaccine, then why then they're limiting their own

freedoms and everyone else's security is paramount. Okay, so what's wrong with that argument in your view? Well, it is wrong at the basis, because first of all, yes, we are free to decide, but what that argument, what that argument is saying is if you want to be free, you need to have the vaccine passport. And that would create two kinds of cities. And like I said, in the beginning, and that would create or show me your paper society

that vaccinated people will have to show their papers to participate in the society. And maybe on vaccinated people will have to show maybe a negative COVID test to participate in the society and maybe on vaccinated people who will have to show maybe a negative COVID test to participate in the society. We don't want that because COVID is there, there's no difference between me that I didn't take the vaccine and another person. If you decide, if you decided to take the vaccine, to protect yourself, not the society. Now we have the immunity that is there or there, and yes, there are some variants, but the most important is we must learn to live with that virus. We not must care the people, and now we're just in Trudeau, it's saying, if you work for the federal

government and you don't have your two shots, you don't have the vaccine, you don't have the vaccine passport, he said, you know, there will be consequences that his words, there will be consequences. So he wants to finish people that decided not to take the vaccine, you know, everybody that's unconstitutional, that's illegal, you know, your personal health choice must be private. If your employer is asking you, do you, did you take the vaccine or not? Can it be answered? Must not answer that question. It's your personal private health information. And you must have the discussion with your doctor. Now the, and you know, all our personal information would be out there with that code QR that we have in Quebec and vaccine

passport. They're going to know your status, your age, what you're doing, which institution you are going. It is a little bit like a social credit in China. Maybe I'm exaggerated, yes, but it's going to that direction. And I don't like that. I see in some countries, I think it's Australia where there's technology where now you have to take a snapshot of yourself in a particular locale at a particular time and that the phone can tell

the people, the authorities that you're reporting to, if you're actually there. And for people who are concerned with governmental overreach, the establishment of such technologies, regardless of the rationale, poses a substantial, existential danger that's comparable in some sense to the health danger presented by the, well, by the pandemic. And so that seems to be what you're suggesting, I would say. And so all right, so let's let's talk about if what do you think Canada should look like in three months, then in relationship to COVID. So so you envision a completely open country fundamentally.

What is what do you think we should do? But I think we should do like in other countries or in other state that didn't lock down their economy, lock down people and shut down their economy. I'm thinking about Florida with government distances, Texas and other countries. What we did with COVID-19, the fact that the true government with the $354 billion that the true government spend because of COVID-19 that was the biggest deficit in our history. And what he said, he said, you know, he said to provinces, you can lock down your province, I will, I will finance your economic cost, I will give grants and subsidies to businesses for them to stay

close, and I will create a program for Canadians. That was not the solution, some medical expert and expert that signed the Bollington Declaration in the US said that, you know, we must, yes, lockdown the most vulnerable Canadians and that Canadians, older Canadians older Canadians would go more bit at ease and open the economy. That was a big mistake and now and now we are paying for that with our huge deficit. We are paying for that because there's a lot of waiting lists for surgeries right now and we we lockdown the economy

suicide rates is going up, depression. That was not the solution. And I hope that right now, or just after the election, all these lockdowns and mass mandate that are imposing on people must end. And that's an important fight for us, for the people's party. And I believe that this country must be more open, no more lockdowns, no more stay-at-home orders,

no more curfew. In Montreal, during that COVID, at the peak of the COVID-19 crisis, we had a curfew from eight o'clock PM to five o'clock AM. And to fight a virus, that's the first time in the history of the world that we use lockdowns to fight a virus. That was an experiment, a failed experiment. So my vision for this country, I hope, will be open.

I hope that fear won't be there anymore. That people understand that we can fight COVID-19 with the vaccine. And there's other medication, I'm not an expert, medical expert, but I know that there's other medications. We were promote other medication, naturally, or pharmaceutical ones, and we must reopen the economy, no mask mandate, no lockdowns, no vaccine passport, and we must go back to our life like it was before that COVID-19 started. Okay, so you're encouraging Canadians in some sense to take the risk to vote for you

and to vote for your new party because you believe that that particular side of the story, let's say, seriously needs to be told and that it needs to be told over and over, and it needs to be part of the national discussion and parliament and all of that. So Canadians who agree with the propositions that you just set forward, if they vote for the PPC, then they can be reasonably assured that their voice is at least going to be heard in the national debate. Otherwise, as far as you're concerned, the conservatives are basically going to put together something approximating a liberal platform and all of this argument, libertarian argument in some sense for increased freedom and for return to essential normality and warning about government overreach, that's not going to be part of the national conversation at all.

Absolutely, you're absolutely right about that. And I tried to, I tried for that conversation to be part of this election, but the mainstream media is cancelling us and just recently, because we are growing in the pool that they are speaking about us. But that growth was ordinary Canadian, but using their social media, speaking to their families, their friends about the PPC, because our biggest

challenge right now is still a lot of people don't know that we exist, don't know that there's another option. And we didn't have that conversation during the telektor campaign. All the other political parties agree with vaccine passport and lockdowns and we are the only one. But we were not part of that national debate in the mainstream media. And yes, you're right. After this election, we'll have a couple of candidates that will be elected. And I believe that I'll be able to be elected in my writing in both, and we'll have that conversation. And the mainstream media won't be able to ignore us anymore. Well, you know, one of the things that we can talk about too is just exactly

what we're doing right now is that increasingly, as far as I can tell, and I believe this is going to be the way of the future, and maybe this will transform politics in a relatively radical way, is you can do what we're doing right now and just talk directly to people. You can circumvent the media, and that's going to be more and more the case. And so I'm hoping that that will help us while that'll produce a, in some sense, a new breed of politician who speaks directly to people and isn't trying to craft their image so they look good when presented, you know, in the sound bites that are characteristic of the legacy media. There's just no reason for that anymore. And so hopefully we'll see people present ideas that live or die on the

strength of the idea. That would be really nice. So yeah, that would be something. And that's why we are using social media a lot. And I believe the fact that we are very active on social media. And I want to thank you also for giving me this opportunity to speak to your viewers, the fact that we are more active on social media, it is helping us. And yes, there's a lack of leadership in Canadian politics. Politicians are following the polls and they try to tell you what you want to hear. And you know, like in that political campaign, we have a huge deficit and they want to spend more and more money.

Yeah, okay. So let's talk about that So I'm gonna play devil's advocate again It's like well, I thought about this and I can understand the dangers of both the debt and the deficit but but The fact that these debts are being racked up and the deficits as well seems to be Characteristic of Western democracies in general everyone Everyone seems to be doing it. And so it isn't obvious that people will flee our currency because we're in a relatively weak economic position because of that because everyone's doing it. And so why can't we just get away with this?

Why aren't we rich enough just to get away with it? What do you think the danger is? And why do you think that your analysis of that danger is credible? Yeah, because you know that deficit and we'll have more deficit because every traditional establishment parties, a party are promoting more deficit, more spending with money that we don't have, but with borrowed money and that will increase our deficit and update. So why it's so important to balance the budget? Because it's not our children and grandchildren that will pay for these deficits. It is us right now.

It is us right now and we are paying with the inflation tax. And inflation is a hidden tax. Instead of the government taking your own money in your own pockets and forcing you to give that to the government, the government is telling you keep your money in your pockets, but you won't be able to buy the same amount of food. Okay, so let's walk through that. So I first of all, I think it might be useful just to distinguish for everyone the difference between the deficit and the debt. Yeah. Just so everyone knows the terminology. And then I would like you to walk through why you think increased

government spending at the deficit and debt level increases inflation and where that's showing up in in Canadian's lives. Okay, first, the deficit is the deficit of last year. The deficit was $340 billion. And every day, the government is spending more money that is collecting. So every day that we will add, and that deficit is going to the debt. And every day, we are adding to the debt. So when I'm speaking about balancing the budget, we are not speaking about paying the debts. No, we are just speaking at no more deficit. We don't want to increase the debt anymore.

So that's very important. But the other political parties are ready to have more deficit and that will increase our debt. So right now, like I said, we are paying because the inflation in Canada, it's 4.1%. That's the official inflation in Canada right now. But if you do your grocery, you know that the real inflation is bigger than that, 5-6% inflation. So that's why I said inflation is a hidden tax. Because with the same money that you have in your pocket, you cannot buy the same amount

of goods and services with that money. Your purchasing power is going down. Your standard of leaving is going down. All prices are going up and everybody's poor. So inflation is a hidden tax and we are paying right now. Why don't you trust the official inflation rate figures? Why do you think it's higher than they state? And where do you think that's primarily showing up? Because the way that they calculate the inflation, since the Canada in the Bank of Canada, it's the best get of goods and services. And in that basket, they don't put everything. So yes, we have a four or five percent inflation in our grocery, but globally, since the Canada is standing us that it's 4.1%.

But 4.1%, it is huge. The Bank of Canada has an inflation target of 2%. Now, it's more than 2%, it's 4.1%. But 20% inflation is no good, 10% inflation is not good, 2% is not good, we must have an inflation target of 0%. And if we have that, the Bank of Canada won't be able to print money out of Tinea and creating inflation because the inflation is created by the Bank of Canada. And so our goal as a political party, we are the only political party that is thinking about monetary policy that is important for the well-being of Canadians. We want to have for the Bank of Canada a zero-inflation target. We want people to be able to keep their purchasing power.

So that is important. And so we can talk about this in more straightforward terms too. So let's say there is a four four to five percent inflation rate for the next five to ten years and what that means is that the average Canadian savings are going to be cut in terms of their purchasing power by something exceeding 50% that would be over a five to ten year period. So it doesn't sound like a lot for four to five percent, but it compounds across time and it can add up to something substantial and no time flat. Hey, so I got a question this little, pushing the envelope a little bit.

The cryptocurrency types, you know, the people who are pushing Bitcoin, Bitcoin in particular, make the extraordinarily radical claim that it would be better for everyone if the entire business of money was taken out of the hands of government permanently. And that's essentially what Bitcoin allows, at least at the present time. And so that means that central bankers and politicians would, in principle, assuming this is actually a possibility, would never be able to print money and they would never be able to inflate currency.

And what do you think about those sorts of cryptocurrency claims and are, well, I'd like to know what you think about that. Yeah, I agree with that. I think they're right. We have a fiat currency right now. And that's why this inflation and we are losing our possession power.

Yes, I believe that we must have more competition and the cryptocurrencies and the Bitcoin can be an alternative. But personally, I prefer a gold standard like we added the 19th century here in Canada because when you have a gold standard, the central bank won't be able to print money out of tin air. It's another way to control the central bank. So, and we had that before in the past, in the 19th century, and we was very, that was very prosperous, a time, a prosperous century. So, but I'm not again the crypto currency. I think we must have more competition. You answered the right on that. but I'm not again the cryptocurrency. I think we must have more competition.

You answer the right on that. So the Austrian economists, the Hayek types, and they believe that the business cycle is actually, the boom in bus business cycle is actually produced by the attempts by government to overspend in the face of so-called crises. And that produces inflation and a variety of other factors that then produce

the business cycle in term, this sequence of essential busts and booms. And so does that seem like a reasonable proposition to you, or do you look at it differently than that? No, no, I think you're absolutely right, Jordan. I.E.K. Mrs. Ruddbord, that they're real economies, and they know that, and they're the only one that wrote about that and studied that. And I believe, yes, the circle that we have, the up and down in the economy, it's because

of the central bank, you know, money is everywhere, and if you create too much money out of Tinear, you'll have inflation and distortion in the economy and boom and boost that we have. So I 100% agree with Mrs. Rodborg, Iyek and these economists. So you know, I think these are ideas. Just we'll move a bit sideways here again. I think a lot of what political leaders could do if they had the intellectual capacity would be to use forums like YouTube to actually educate the public. And I don't mean, I'm shaking my finger at you

because you need to be educated. I mean to walk people through the logic and to explain why these propositions are reasonable. And to treat the public as if they're capable of engaging in actual intellectual exercise, because my experience on YouTube is being that they are to a massively surprising degree, because I conduct these discussions with people I really admire. And sometimes those people are really, really smart. And so the discussions go fast and deep. And there's no evidence at all that people aren't following along.

And there's plenty of evidence that they really appreciate it. And so, so let's do this for a second. So I would like you to contrast your preparation to be a leader of a political party and a figure of authority who dares to discuss such issues, economic issues, let's say, with that of Trudeau.

And perhaps a little tool, like why are you the guy and not Trudeau. And perhaps a little tool, like, why are you the guy and not Trudeau and not a tool? Assuming, well, so let's go there. I'm doing just what you said. I'm using social media, YouTube, I have a YouTube channel, people's party of Canada. And everything that I'm telling you right now,

I said that in speeches 10 years ago, on videos 10 years ago. So that's what I believe. I mean politics because I believe in this idea, it needs ideas and I want them to be successful. So yes, I believe that Canadians are intelligence. And I'm saying always, you know, I don't try to appeal to you,

as a Canadian voter, to your emotion. I try to appeal to you as a Canadian voter to your emotion. I try to appeal to your intelligence, that discussion that we have, it's very difficult to have that discussion in social media and all the debates that they had in Canada, and I was not part of that, but maybe I'm at very happy note that I was not there because that was not a debate. That was some bite for the media without any real discussion like we have right now. So yes, I'm doing politics differently.

And yes, I believe that people are intelligent and I don't want to, I don't see people like children that we must give their more security and more regulations and a bigger government that will control them. Yeah, well, I also think it's stunningly cynical on the part of political leaders to manage their message. You know, because it means that there's no real faith in just direct discussion and maybe

and maybe no capacity for that discussion to begin with. I mean, our prime minister has stated publicly that he's really not interested in monetary policy. And what I read that, I mean, I read that two ways is one, well, three ways. One, how could you possibly say that and not notice what you just said? And second, well, perhaps that's because you actually don't understand it. And third, it's because not only do you not understand it, but you don't know how terrible it is that you

don't understand it. Absolutely, absolutely. And they don't want to have these kind of debates about real issues. And that's why our platform of the last election is the same one. We won't change the issues because they're popular or not. And there's a lack of leadership with politicians right now, because they all do politics by polling and serving. And I remember I have an example in Canada, Brian Maroney. Maybe Brian Maroney was not so good, but the election of 1988, the election

on the free trade agreement with the US, when Brian Menor decided to have that as a principal team of his campaign, he said it's important to have that freedom agreement for the prosperity of our country. When he started that campaign in the polls, the majority, 66% of the population were against a free trade, a free trade, free trade sorry with the US.

So the Liberals and all the other party were on the side of the majority of the population. They didn't want to educate the population, but Brian Roni is important for the future. I'll campaign on it. And my goal is I will be able to convince Canadians on that. And he was able to do that. At the end of the campaign, he had the biggest majority

in Canadian history. And that was a referendum on the free trade agreement with the US. That's only an example with Brian Moroni about that. I'm not telling you that he was the better the greatest prime minister that we had, but that's an example of doing politics based on principle and leadership, but we don't have that right now in Canada. Question I discussed with Rex Murphy. I talked to Rex earlier this week and posted his analysis of the debate. So let's start.

Couple of things came out of that that I thought were real interesting. The first is the debate itself featured five main topics. And hypothetically, those are the most important issues facing Canadians. So that was, let me see if I've got this right. Well there was leadership and accountability, there was climate change, there was reconciliation, there was affordability into which everything to do with the economy was lumped, and then the last one I believe was COVID policy. And when I looked at that, I thought, well, the choice of the topics is actually the debate. And so what one of the things I really wanted to ask you is, okay,

you're assessing something exterdinated complex, which is the state of the country. It's like, okay, what are the most important issues facing Canadians as far as you're concerned? What do you think we should be concentrating on? I think we might have a discussion about, yes, COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 and all these measures that these government are imposing to us, that must be very important. Second, we must have a discussion in Canada about our immigration policy. They are afraid to speak about that, you know, that's important. When you believe in mass immigration, 400,000 people a year that will come to our country. After two years, it is the

population of Nova Scotia, a new Nova Scotia in three two years, but the worse of that, it's the big majority of them are refugees or people coming on the re-inification of family. So I want to have a discussion on immigration because I love my country. I want my country to be like that in 25 years. I don't want my country to be like in France

when there's no gozone over there. People must come to our country and share our values. And they must know that men and women are equal before the law. We must have a discussion about them and we must welcome them. But instead of having the majority of our migrants really freebies and reeducation of family, we are immigration policy,

most of the in line with our economic needs. And it is not the case actually right now. So that's why we want fewer immigrants and more, more skill immigrants, economic immigrant that will come here, they will have a job, they will be able to integrate our society easily. And so we don't have that discussion,

it's always more and more. And if you have that discussion, people will look more and more. And if you have that discussion, people will look at you, oh, you're xenophobic, you may be racist. No. Actually, we had that discussion in Quebec, as you know, I'm coming from Quebec, that discussion about immigration, because for Quebec, their francophone entity is very important. And at the last election, logo that was elected and is the premier of Quebec now, said during the election, he won 28% fewer immigrants. Nobody said that he was a racist. And he said, these people must come here

and it would be better if they can speak French. If not, we must be able to give them French lesson. And so we had a discussion, I don't pre-minsial the volume Quebec, but in Canada, for the first time at the last campaign, we started the discussion. So I think it's important for the future of this country to have the discussion. It's important for the future of this country to have the discussion on balancing the budget, like I said. We don't have this discussion and it's sad. like I said, we don't have these discussion and it's sad.

Okay, so you identified COVID immigration budget. I mean, the climate change issue, the tremendous amount of time we spent on that. And that drags up the 30 issue, let's say of Alberta and while in Canada's, Canada's what, the largest that we've been shown by divine providence, so to speak, to give us these immense oil reserves. And so we have this industry and that's under assault in some sense as a consequence of concern about climate change. And so, Albertans are feeling the pressure of that sort of discussion.

So, what do you think about all that? What's the way forward there? What do you think about all that? What's the way forward there? Well, we must have a discussion also on the Paris Accord and climate change. We have that discussion right now, but it's only on one side and we are the only political party that did say no to the Paris Accord. We believe that there's no climate emergency. Yes, the climate is changing and we will always change. And we believe that we can do better things, better actions for the environment. And I said, you know, we want to impose a carbon tax, we want to sign the Paris Accord, what we will do, we will do concrete actions for the environment. Like, you know, we still have lakes in our country that are not clear.

And I'll let the climate change battle at the provincial level, because the beauty of that is the environment is a shared jurisdiction in Canada with the federal and the provincial government. So let provincial government deal with it and us at the federal of all without order policy. But the one that we don't discuss also is our equalization formula. And I think

and I believe it is important for the prosperity of our country, but also for the unity of our country. When you have Jordan about 30% of the population in Alberta that want to separate because they believe that the equalization formula, that is a formula that is redistributing wealth in this country, from rich provinces to poor provinces, they think that it's unfair and I believe that they have a right to say that. I think they think it's particularly unfair when the equalization payments are the way they are and the province is simultaneously demonized for the very economic engine that allows those equalization payments to be a reality. That's a bit much right to have to pay and then to be

criticized for how you raise the money. So yes, yes, and that's another point. That's why they're not happy with that. But the traditional politicians, the other political parties don't want to speak about that because they need to have a solution. And the solution, and you don't want to speak about the solution because you have to educate the population. The solution is what? To be less generous. We need to do a distribution. It is in the constitution. We need to have a formula. But the Philal government is in charge of that formula. And the Philal government can decide how much money it will give to other provinces, to have not provinces. And we can be less generous. Because now there's no incentive for Quebec or New Brunswick to develop their own

mature resources. There's a lot of Shell gas in Quebec and New Brunswick. If they do that, they would be more prosperous and they receive few more money from the equalization formula. I was in New Brunswick and I'll give you an anecdote at the last campaign and I did a rally over there and I spoke about the equalization formula. I said we must cut it, we must be be generous to give the right incentive to your province

to exploit their own natural resources. And that formula is unfair. And a journalist from CBC was there at that rally. And they asked me after that Mr. Bernie, I want you with me live tomorrow morning at 7 o'clock. I said, I'll be there. And when I was there, the discussion she said would be only on the equalization from Milan, you have three minutes. I said, okay, she said, you want to cut the equalization from Milan? I said, not cutting all the formula, but I want to be less generous.

Do you know Mr. Bernie that here in Newunswick, half of our budget is coming from the equalization formula? I said yes, I know that half of the provincial budget, I know that. So Mr. Bernier, I don't understand you. You want to have support here in New Brunswick. You want people to vote for you and you are telling them that you will cut half of their provincial budget. I said yes. I said yes. I will do that, but on a transition period because I believe in your people. You'll not afford province here. You're rich province. You have bad economic policy at your financial level. And we need to give the right incentive to your province to have more free markets, develop more your natural resources that you have,

but we'll do that on a transition period and that will be fair for everybody and every province. So you need to have the courage of your conviction and having discussion like that, but the other political parties don't want to speak about that because they will have to speak like that in Ubuntu and in Quebec and they are pandering to these provinces for votes. So, and it's important for me because in a country Canada and in Western Canada, they know that that formula is not fair. And I'm seeing the same thing in French in Quebec and in a country Canada and our across the country.

And that's why I believe we have a lot of support in Western Canada because they know that we have the solution. They're not happy with Ottawa right now and they have great reason for not being happy. So you talked about small government, you talked about balancing the budget. And so let's talk about concrete issues there. So where is the government federally being particularly profligate? And what would you do or what do you think should be done? How do you analyze the problem and what do you think would go a long ways to solving it?

Yeah, so what I think I I believe that we must respect the Constitution. It's all about our Constitution We have a good Constitution a great Constitution. The problem is politicians don't respect our Constitution If you do that you will have a radical decentralization in Canada. You will give more autonomy to Alberta and every provinces. And if in Alberta they want to have their police force like in Quebec, they will be able to have that. If in Alberta they want to have more private delivery for health care services. They would be able to have that.

If they want to have their own pension plan, they would be able to have that. So let's have a radical decentralization. And like that, you won't have any constitutional crisis. And you have more prosperity. So that's our vision of our country. That is based on the vision that the father of our constitution had in 1867. Okay, so you see decentralization as a way of promoting economic experimentation at least

in part, but you also think that it would take some of the pressure off regional concerns. And what about federal spending per se? I mean, what is it that the government spending poorly, where is government spending being conducted, particularly poorly, and what do you think should be done about that? And what kind of numbers are we looking at? Yeah, absolutely.

So you're right about giving more autonomy to provinces and I want them to be able to raise their money for their own responsibility. So, but the federal government as a role and the role of the federal government is to be sure that, you know, we'll be able to invest in our Canadian forces. We are in charge of the monetary policy. We need to have a really economic union in this country that we don't have. And to be able to do on that, we need to cut spending. You know, I believe that we must not give subsidies to businesses. We must have a policy that would be fair. Every business must have a flat tax of 10%. So I don't believe it's fair to tax a small business in Toronto and forcing these entrepreneurs to pay taxes and after that we are giving that to GM or Boboardy.

Let's have, let's abolish that. We can save about eight to ten billion dollars. So we want to have a smaller government that will spend in their jurisdiction and let provinces deal with their own responsibility. You know, we are transferring in Canada $41 billion to provinces for health care. I don't want to do that. Health care is a 100% provincial jurisdiction.

We must be sure that Ontario and every province will be able to raise money for their own responsibility. And we know that the best government is the government that is near the people. So to do that instead of the federal government taxing people and after that giving that to provinces and some time with conditions, we must abolish that and we must give them the GST. Actually, we are raising in Canada $41 billion with the GST. We must do a tax point transfer. The GST will be managed by provinces,

and they will be able to raise money for the healthcare. And they will be independent. They won't be able to come to Ottawa for asking for more money all the time. So they will be in a position for healthcare, for example, to find the best system for the citizen. Is it more money in a socially system or maybe more competition?

And Canadians will know who to blame for a lack of services in healthcare and for waiting lists. Now they don't know who to blame. Is it the federal government because the federal government is not giving enough money to provinces? Or is it the province because they're not able to manage efficiently their healthcare system?

So the pressure will be on the provinces, and they will have all the tools and the responsibility to deal with it, and maybe we'll have competition. Maybe in Quebec, you'll have more private delivery. Maybe in Ontario maybe we'll have competition, maybe in Quebec you'll have more private delivery, maybe in Ontario, you'll have less and the best system will, the best system will come and like in other countries when you have an universal coverage but people can choose to go to a private delivery, a private clinic or a public hospital. We don't have the best system for that, but it's under the provincial jurisdiction. I cannot change a system, but I can give the incentive

for them to change it by giving them the GST. They will raise that tax, and they will keep that tax, and all the incomes coming from the GST, and they will be responsible. So let's turn to just briefly, if you don't mind, we'll turn to another topic of the debate. So, fifth of the debate was about reconciliation and Canada's flags have been flying at half mass for six months or something like that. My sense of that part of the debate was that none of the real issues were ever discussed and This is I think of reserves in some sense the Canadian reserves are the vast majority of them as a kin in To the small towns in Canada that have been absolutely devastated over the last 40 years

They're without economic viability. You see them drying up all over Saskatchewan and Alberta, and out in Atlantic Canada as well, because these little outposts just can't survive. They don't have the economy for it anymore. And so, and I didn't see anybody talk about that particular problem, which seems to be the big one. So, I think that these attempts at reconciliation are going to be lumped in with the big lies in no time flat because we're not addressing the real issues. Maybe I'm wrong. Am I wrong? What do you think about that issue? And is it something that the PPC is concentrating on? Is it something that's of the nature of a crisis? What should be done? Yeah, you're not wrong. You're not wrong, Jordan. The solution is there. The solution is there.

And we have a policy, a platform for the First Nation. And I was in a mention, and I unveiled that platform with some of our candidates. That one of them is the METIS and others, or a First Nation. And they agree with our platform. What we need to do, we need to turn the page and build a new relationship with the First Nation.

They is on property rights on reserve. They is not on a top-down approach that is what is happening right now. You know, we don't have clean water on reserve. And Ottawa cannot solve that. They I tell what cannot solve that. They must be able to solve that. Okay, so why specify property rights? What do you see that be?

Why is that the issue? Because you know, you cannot, if you are on reserve, you cannot, you cannot have a house, but you cannot have a mortgage, you don't have any property. It's a kind of a communist system on reserve. There's no property right there. There are some reserves in BC

that they've developed a kind of a property right. When you don't have any property rights on reserve, people living on reserve, they are dependent. They cannot build wealth. They cannot have a house. They cannot have a mortgage on a house. So Canadians don't understand this. I don't understand this. So what's the typical economic arrangement? So I'm a I'm a First Nations person. I'm living on a reservation. I have a house,

but I don't have a house according to you. I don't have property rights. Who owns the land? Who has the rights to it? How does that work exactly? And why is it a problem? Yeah, that's a reserve. You have a house, yes, but you cannot do what you want in that house because that's that's under the authority of the reserve and that's why you know, you don't have people and you have the Indian Act also that is managing everything and the Indian Act, it's a racist act, it is based on race. So we need to abolish that. But the problem is, if you want to abolish it, the other question is, you will replace that by what? And we don't have the solution. But when I'm saying that to people, to First Nation, they agree that we must abolish the NL Act, but they want

to be part of the solution. What I'm telling them, yes, we want you to be fully participating on society, being part of the solution. Let's abolish that. And after that, I think a discussion for a better future on reserve, a kind of a property rights on reserve. Well, it must be very hard for people to be incentivized to improve their property, to invest in their property, et cetera, if they have no stake in the future of that property, if that's distributed entirely in ways that are beyond their personal control. Yeah, but I don't want people to understand that they are their house. They can do what they want in their house, but they cannot mortgage their house.

Right. So they can, they can improve it. And that's why. But that's a discussion that we must have with them. But we don't have that discussion. We don't want to have that discussion because the solution is complicated. And oh, and we prefer to give money to them, billion of dollars. But that they don't want them. They want more autonomy. They want to be able, you know, to have maybe the same responsibility

like a municipality. So let's have the discussion. We need to respect treaties. Yes, we can do that. But we need to open that and but the mainstream political parties are not ready for that because they don't have the solution. Why did the Métis people who are running for your party agree with that? What do they see that's valuable for them? Because they see that we are able to speak about that. They know that we don't have all the solution, but they know that the principle where we went based on relationship, nation to nation, respecting everybody, turning

the page about the past, not Ottawa will be there, I'm telling you what to do every time. So abolishing the end and act there, they like all that, but they want to participate with us to find the solution, and they want to have that discussion. That's why they agree with our position. So I would like you to tell me your opinion about what's happened in Canada at the federal level under Trudeau. So what's your story of Trudeau's government? How should we conceptualize it and what do you think about it and why? And what do you think about it and why? Well, I believe it's a theory. First of all, Trudeau said in the beginning of his mandate, the first one that Canada is the first post-national nation country with no car identity.

And I think that that was his goal. And now with the racial politic that we have in this country, and Tudou was successful to put us in a little box. You are black, boy, we have a policy for you, like he did, a new program for black entrepreneurs, only for black entrepreneurs. That's racial politics, that's Tudou. For me, it's the most divisive prime minister in our history. We need to abolish programs like that. If you want to have a program for entrepreneurs,

we need to have a program for all entrepreneurs, and not only for black entrepreneurs. So, and that's why we, I believe that's why people are already to have that discussion. And more and more people, the world culture put that in it. When Trito said, there's no recession anymore. See session. And you know, what's that? Because he believed that a recession would be harder on women. So it's all that political correctness at the extreme. And I said no to political correctness

long time ago. There's no taboo subject for us. And to do all that world culture and you know that better than me Jordan, it was all in the university, universities a couple of years ago. And now it's in the civil society. And that's the Tudot heritage, and also the big deficit and the inflation. And so what do you think of Tudot personally? How do you assess his character and his fitness for leadership? And maybe you could also say the same about O'Toole.

And would you rather see O'Toole or Trudeau as Prime Minister? But you know, we will have O'Toole or Trudeau in a couple of days, but both of them Both of them I don't like because I don't like them because they don't have any character They're following the polls and you know some some data saying something the other data saying opposite But to do I can tell you that is a good communicator You know he's able to have one line and with the mainstream media everything you know it was teacher Teacher so I understand that is very good

But there's there's nothing, for me, is a puppet, and it will say what... A puppet of what, do you think? A puppet of the establishment of the liberal party of Canada, and the establishment, they want to stay in power and they will do everything to stay in power. They will be, to those said, couple of months ago that imposing a vaccine passport will be too divisive, that's why I won't do that. And now it's in the opposite.

Why? Because you look at the polls and you know that more people are ready for that. So there's no leadership there. You know, is listening is advisor and he will say everything to be elected. And the tool is the same. So I don't have any, I don't know too personally. I don't know who to personally.

I know them like every Canadian, and I'm judging them by their policies as political leader. And for me, the policies that they promote is not the right policies for country and for the future of our country. Another question, when you think about Canada, the way it is now, like Murphy told me, for example, that he conceptualizes Canada. He sees, well, we're a regional country. There's

the Atlantic provinces. There's Ontario. There's Quebec. There's the Western provinces. BC is its own place. There's the North. So when you envision Canada, where do you see its regional divisions and what does the PPC have to offer, let's say, each of those particular regions? Yeah, first, I agree with that. We have different regions in this country, but the most important for me, we have different culture. The culture of Quebec is different of the culture of Alberta, but that's our country. And we cannot change that, but we are united.

We are united because we share the same values. And if we want to have a constitutional peace in our country, we need to have more decentralization. Every province, sorry, must be able to do what they want to do. If something is very important in Alberta and they want to have, I don't know, their own case that they pull, their own pension plan, they must be able to have that. So that's why, you know, what we are doing is not, we don't try to reopen our constitution or to rewrite our constitution. We just want the federal government to respect the constitution and by doing that

that will give more autonomy to provinces and you will have a constitutional peace in this country. And yes, it's beautiful that we have different culture in this country and we are unique in the world with that. So we are Canadian and that's part of our identity as Canadian. So what do you think it is that United States across those regions as far as you're concerned? What is it that Socturneau said, well, we're the first post-Nation nation in some sense.

We don't have a central culture. You don't agree with that, obviously. What do you think it is that United States across those fairly pervasive regional differences. It's our history, our culture that is different in different region, is our charge of rights, our freedom, the fact that we want every Canadian to be, every Canadian to be equal before the law. Our Western civilization values. And the fact that, yes, in Quebec, you can speak French over there.

And we don't impose that to anybody. And in Alberta, that's an Anglo-Fone province and outside. But people appreciate that. But they don't want anything being imposed by the federal government. So let provinces do what they want to do. But our country is not the country that just and to do wants to build a country more divisive.

And for him, you are not Canadian. If you are a Canadian from China, it will, it will, and it will do the same thing. It will call you a Chinese-Canadians or a Pakistani-Canadians. No, people came here to celebrate off-predents. And everybody, for me, is a Canadian. I don't call, you know, if I'm speaking with a person, the different ethnicity that you are Chinese, Canadian. No, you are a Canadian. And these people came in here to celebrate and to become

Canadians. So that divisive politics, that identity politics is killing or country. And we want to stop that and and having policies that will look at everybody as a Canadians and not try to to do that pandering to to a region or pandering to an ethnicity like the traditional politicians are doing right now. So if Canadians vote for you on Monday, elections on Monday, what's their reward for doing that? We can return to that to some degree. Yeah. Like, like I said, I want them not to vote against something. I want them to vote for something for their values, for what they believe.

And look, if you like our platform, I hope you support us. What would be after the election? I can tell you that I won't be the leader of the opposition. I won't be prime minister. I'm going to be the leader of the opposition. believe and look if you like our platform, I hope you support us. What would be after the election? I can tell you that I won't be the leader of the opposition. I won't be prime minister, but you will have a freedom voice in Ottawa. You will have a common sense voice in Ottawa. You will have a voice that is ready to do these important debates for the future of our country.

That's what I can tell you. And we will start that common sense revolution together. That's only the beginning of another step for the people's party of Canada. And the beginning of that common sense revolution in this country. Well, we've gone 90 minutes. That is a nice closing statement. I guess I'm wondering if there's anything else

you'd like to discuss or add, and apart from that, then I think that that's a nice wrap. No, I appreciate that. Yeah, I appreciate that. And Mr. Peterson, Jordan, I'm very pleased that you gave me that opportunity to be up there and to reach more people. That's the most important for us.

That's our biggest challenge. So yes, we can end there. And I think that's interesting. Yeah, a little bit interesting to see how people respond to this. Because, well, because I'm hoping that this kind of discussion can become a model for a different kind of political dialogue in the future. And one that's not mediated so much by media handlers

and appearance and all of that, but that's predicated on straight blunt, somewhat complicated talk. And I guess we'll see how that works. We'll launch this as soon as we possibly can. you