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

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 text

Support the show

www.biggerthanmepodcast.com

Episode Transcript

Aaron Pete (00:04):
How do we differentiate between education
and indoctrination?

Maxime Bernier (00:08):
You don't have the right to mutilate young kids
, and that's happening in ourcountry right now.

Aaron Pete (00:14):
What is the difference between the
Conservative Party of Canada andthe People's Party of Canada?

Maxime Bernier (00:19):
Paulier is like Trudeau he's a globalist.

Aaron Pete (00:22):
How do we resolve what happened during COVID-19?

Maxime Bernier (00:25):
I was the only one who was arrested and cuffed
and put in jail.
They use fear and propaganda.
With fear, you can control apopulation.

Aaron Pete (00:34):
Would you defund the CBC Maxime?
It is an honour to have you onthe show.
Would you mind firstintroducing yourself for people
who might not be acquainted?

Maxime Bernier (00:50):
Yes, I'm Maxime Bernier.
I'm the leader of the People'sParty of Canada.
It is a new political party.
As you may know, at the federallevel here in Canada, we
created that party in 2018.
We had our first election in2019.
And we are ready now for thenext election here in Canada.

(01:10):
That will happen, as you know,maybe this spring or fall 2025,
this fall.

Aaron Pete (01:20):
This is the place I'm going to start.
I think it's where mostCanadians are going to have
questions.
What is the difference betweenthe Conservative Party of Canada
and the People's Party ofCanada from your perspective?

Maxime Bernier (01:30):
A lot.
You know a lot of differences.
I must say that I was aminister under the Harper
government.
I, you know, I worked in theprivate sector for 19 years
before being in politics.
I'm not a career politicianlike Polyev.
That's one difference.
Polyev was elected at 24 yearsold and he never had a real boss

(01:53):
.
He is elected since that is amember of parliament since that
time.
So, that being said, yes, I waswith Hopper and I resigned in
2018.
As you know, I did theleadership contest for the
Conservative Party of Canada in2017-2018, didn't win with 49%

(02:14):
of the vote.
I tried to change theConservative Party to be a real
Conservative Party with the newleader at that time, andrew
Scheer.
I worked with him for 15 monthsand I must say that we had a
good conversation, privateconversation, just before the
election in 2019, the electionof 2019.

(02:37):
So that was in 2018.
And I told him you know, areyou taking some of our ideas in
your next electoral platform forthe election in 2019?
And he was honest.
He said no because you know.
I said, oh, my ideas were verypopular with the members of the
Conservative Party of Canada andhe said, yes, but they are not

(02:58):
popular with the generalpopulation and my goal is to be
prime minister.
So I won't take any of yourideas.
So that's why I resigned.
I said this party is morallyand intellectually corrupt.
They're only conservative inname.
And so now I'm speaking aboutthat, because our platform the
platform that I had for theleadership contest is the same
one.
We use that platform to createthe People's Party of Canada.

(03:21):
So the big difference with usand the conservative is we are
doing politics based on ideasand on convictions.
We don't do any polling orfocus group to know what people
want to hear.
You know, we have a strongvision for this country and we
believe that the population hasbeen manipulated by the leftist

(03:41):
media and the socialistpoliticians in Canada.
So what I said during thecampaign for the leadership of
the Conservative Party of Canadawe used that platform and we
launched at that time thePeople's Party of Canada based

(04:01):
on four principles individualfreedom, personal responsibility
, respect and fairness and allour policies are in line with
these principles.
So what I'm telling you, it'sthat each election, we have the
same platform and at thiselection in 2025, you know we're
going to say the same thingthat we said in 2018.
So what is the difference in ourplatform?
There's a lot of differences.
There's a lot of differences.

(04:21):
First, I must say, just acouple of days ago, when all
these establishment politicianssaid we need to have a
commercial war with the US andimpose tariffs 25% of all US
imports here in Canada, we werethe only political party and I

(04:44):
was the only politician sayingno, we cannot do that, we must
not do that.
It will hurt Canadians becauseif you impose tariff, that will
be a tax on Canadians, a hugetax, 25%.
And you know we cannot win awar commercial war, trade war
against the US.
We're 10 times bigger.
And actually I was rightbecause, you know, at the end

(05:07):
Trudeau did set with Trump andwe have a month to solve what is
important.
So I'm speaking about thatbecause on our platform we have,
you know, contrary to theliberals and the conservative,
on immigration, we want to havea moratorium on immigration, a
pause on immigration, becauseall that is destroying our

(05:29):
country economically andsocially.
The conservative, the liberals,the NDP are all in favor of the
statu quo.
We are ready to deport allillegals.
The conservative are notspeaking about that.
Actually, we said that we mustreinvest in our own national
defense.
And also, you know, if you lookat what President Trump is

(05:51):
doing in the US, the culturalwar here in Canada the
Conservatives won't speak aboutthat.
You know.
We want to.
You know, abolish the idea thata young girl can be a young boy
and a young boy can be a younggirl.
That does not exist.

(06:11):
There's no transitioning.
The Conservatives, the Liberals, all these parties voted for
the Bill C-4.
They voted for the mutilationof kids.
You know, we think that there'sno transition and there's only
two sexes and that's important.
All these woke ideology and DEI.

(06:32):
You know it's destroying ourcivilization.
We need to cut all the fundingto these third party
organization and we will do that.
I can go on on the Paris Accordand the climate change.
Poliev will fight climatechange.
He believes that.
You know there's a climateemergency.
He won't impose a carbon taxlike the liberals and the NDP,

(06:57):
but for us, it's not about thecarbon tax, it's about, you know
, the Paris Accord.
We will withdraw from the ParisAccord.
The Conservatives won't.
We won't impose any regulationsto fight climate change because
there's no climate emergency.
We won't impose any taxes, butPoliev and Trudeau will give

(07:17):
money to the green industry tofight climate change, money that
we don't have, or they willimpose more regulation, money
that we don't have, or they willimpose more regulation.
I can go on on the UN, and youknow the fact that Polyev is
like Trudeau, is a globalist.
We will withdraw from themigration compact, polyev won't.
We will withdraw from the WorldHealth Organization Polyev

(07:40):
won't.
We will stop foreign aid andbring that money back home,
polyev won't.
We will stop foreign aid andbring that money back home,
polyef won't.
We will also change theequalization formula that's
important in our country, mostlyfor people out West, that
formula, that is theredistribution formula, the

(08:03):
redistribution of wealth in ourcountry, 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 theprosperity of our country but
also for the unity of ourcountry.
You know there's a separatistmovement in Alberta and also in

(08:28):
Quebec.
We need the only way to solvethat is to respect the
Constitution and to, you know,being less generous on the
equalization.
So that's important for WesternCanadians.
And I say to Western Canadiansyou know the Conservative Party
of Canada is taking your votefor granted.
They are not, you know,speaking about the big issues

(08:49):
for you, like equalization, andI'm speaking about that.
We need to be less generous,and so, but you won't speak
about that and you know I can goon.
But I will ask people to readour platform at
people'spartyofcanadaca and Iwill ask them also to go on the

(09:09):
website of the ConservativeParty of Canada and try to find
Pierre Poliev's electoralplatform.
They won't be able to find thatbecause Poliev doesn't know
what he will believe in when theelection will come.
He will need to do some pollingand focus group to build a
platform For us.
It's always the same.
You can read it.
We are updating our policiesevery year with new numbers, but

(09:33):
it's the same ideas and samephilosophy.
So what we want it's a smallergovernment in Ottawa that will
respect taxpayers and respectour constitution and respect the
autonomy of every province inour country.

Aaron Pete (09:46):
I wanted to give you the space to respond to that
because I do think that that'sgoing to be on a lot of people's
minds when they're consideringthe two parties.
My next question is aroundPierre Polyev.
What are your thoughts onPierre Polyev?

Maxime Bernier (10:00):
Oh, pierre Polyev is a good communicator,
for sure.
You know he's good with sloganand for me it's a good slogan.
But empty slogan that he's used, you know fix the budget, for
example.
That's his slogan.
You know, we don't know anydetails.
For us to fix the budget is tobalance the budget in one year.
It's to cut foreign aid, like Isaid we can save $10 billion.

(10:23):
It's to cut foreign aid, like Isaid we can save 10 billion
dollars.
Is to cut corporate welfaresubsidies to businesses.
We can cut, save another 10billion dollars over there.
Polyev is not speaking aboutthat.
Polyev is okay with subsidiesto big corporation.
We are not.
We want to.
Uh, we want to have a flat taxon business, uh, polyev also is
for the capital gains tax.

(10:45):
We are not.
We must abolish that.
So what I'm telling you is goodwith slogan, but it's all empty
slogan.
Tax the tax.
Actually, that's funny becauseright now he wanted to have an
election on the carbon tax, thecarbon tax election.
Well, it won't happen.
It won't happen because theliberals agree with him.

(11:07):
So that's why we must call anelection, not on the carbon tax.
And the most important isimmigration, that is changing
our society.
That's the main subject in theUS, in France, in Germany, in
the UK.
You know we need to speak aboutthat, we need to preserve our
country and that massimmigration cannot go on and go
on.
Plus, we need to speak aboutthat we need to preserve our
country and that massimmigration cannot go on and go

(11:27):
on.
Plus, add to that theMulticulturalism Act, the fact
that we are telling people keepyour culture, don't integrate
into our society, live in aghetto.
We have ghettos in this countryBurnaby, you know, in British
Columbia, brenton, ontario.
That's two ghettos.
We have that.
We don't want that anymore.
So let's abolish thatlegislation, repeal that

(11:50):
legislation on multiculturalism.
So, answering your question,polyev is very good with
communicating slogan, but wedon't know his platform and for
me it's not a real conservative.
He's better than O'Toole, theother leader.
He's speaking a little bit morelike a conservative, but if you
look at the big issues, likeyou know globalism and

(12:13):
immigration and woke culturehe's not speaking about that.
So good communicator.
And I must say that theargument that we have, people
are saying to us we like yourplatform, the People's Party, we
like you, bernie, but we wantto get rid of the liberals, so
we will vote conservative.
What I'm telling them?

(12:33):
You know there's a good newstoday, a very good news.
Look at the polls.
Poliev will win the nextelection.
It's always like that you havenine years liberals, nine years
conservatives, and yet theliberal will have a new leader.
That new leader will help theliberal party in the polls.

(12:54):
They will go up for a couple ofmonths, but when the election
will come, people will voteagainst the liberals, not for
Polyev, but against the liberal,and Polyev would be elected.
So I'm saying to these peoplelook at the polls.
Trudeau won't be there, theliberal won't be there.
Polyev will be elected.
There's no splitting the voteNow.

(13:15):
You can vote your conscience.
You can vote for your values.
You can support the PPC.
There's no risk, it is awin-win.
You don't have the liberal andyou have the People's Party
there.
That will push Polyev in theright direction.
We will be your insurancepolicy that Polyev will act as a

(13:37):
real conservative and there'sno risk there.
So let's vote your values andif you do that, we will be more
influential and we will startthat common sense real common
sense revolution in our country,like they did in UK with Nigel
Farage, like they will do inFrance with Marine Le Pen sorry

(13:58):
about that, I was Marine Le Pen.
They will do that in Germany.
They did that in the US withDonald Trump.
So let's start that commonsense revolution.
And you know, a vote for a PPC.
You are not splitting the vote,because we are.

(14:21):
First, we are so different thanthe conservative, like I said
before, on all these importantpolicies.
For me, when you spit something, if you spit an apple, you'll
have two pieces of an apple.
But you know, we're sodifferent and that's why I left
the conservative party, becausethey are not conservative.
So we are different.
First, the reality is andthat's a reality I won't be

(14:44):
prime minister tomorrow.
It's a revolution that we aredoing.
We need to grow this party.
Poliev will be prime minister,but you need us in the
opposition.
You need us to keep him honest.

Aaron Pete (14:59):
Interesting.
So, if I'm understanding youcorrectly, you are saying that
you predict that Pierre Polievwill win the next election and
that you are more than willingto accept that.
You understand that you have along term play, if I'm hearing
you correctly.

Maxime Bernier (15:13):
Absolutely.
You know, when we created thatparty, we had 1.6 percent of the
vote in 2019.
All the experts were saying, oh, bernie is dead.
This party is dead 1.6%.
We didn't work hard in betweenelections.
The last election we had 5% ofthe vote and so now you know, we

(15:34):
may be in the polls right nowaround 3%, 4%, 5%, depending on
the polls but we don't have anyvisibility.
We are not in an electoralcampaign and I believe if we
almost triple our score from 1.6to 5, it may be we can at least
double our score from 5 to 10.
And the challenge for us is tohave candidates elected because,

(15:57):
as our electoral system is thefirst past the post, so there's
no proportionality in ourelectoral system.
For example, we had 5% of thevotes, but we don't have 5% of
the members of parliament.
So that would be good if we canhave some proportionality in
our electoral system, but itwon't happen tomorrow.

(16:17):
But I'm looking in UK.
If you look at the reform ofNigel Farage in UK, their
platform is our platform.
They did copy our platform andyou know that's the same thing
in all Western countries.
It's the same most importantissues.
But Nigel, at the last electionNigel tried seven times to be

(16:38):
elected.
He was successful at the lastgeneral election in UK and with
15 percent of the vote he wasable to elect six candidates.
So for us, if we go from fiveto 10, 12 or 11, maybe we'll be
able to elect our firstcandidate or couple of
candidates at this election in2025.

(16:58):
And if not, we will grow.
And that's what I'm saying toour candidates we need to grow
our percentage of the vote andwe'll be more influential.
And you know, I was with Harperin 2006.
And Harper didn't do anything.
The legacy of Stephen Harper isnothing.

(17:19):
You know everything that he did.
Trudeau undo it in one year.
So Stephen Harper didn't haveany legacy because he didn't
have the courage to do the boldreforms.
He didn't do any privatization.
Actually, at that time he didthe biggest deficit in the
history of our country duringthe financial crisis in 2007,

(17:40):
2008.
He was not a real conservative.
No deregulation I did the last,the only deregulation the
Harper government, the telecomderegulation very successful,
but that was the only one.
No privatization we had a big.
Harper was a good manager of abig fat government.
That was.
And actually Harper did changethe equalization formula to be

(18:05):
more generous to Quebec to tryto buy votes to Quebec.
So Harper had a strategy ofbeing incremental.
You know, step by step, try todo changes, but he did nothing.
And now you have Poitier that islistening to Harper.
It would be the same he willhave, you know, the leftists,

(18:25):
the liberals and the NDP willpush him to the left and I think
in 2029, you know, after fouryears of Polyev people will look
at us and say, okay, maybe thePeople's Party is the real
option.
So that's why we are doingpolitics for the long term and

(18:46):
that's a new way of doingpolitics.
Also, because we don't appealto the emotion of Canadians.
We are appealing to theirintelligence.
They need to read our platformand 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 very powerful doingpolitics like that.

(19:08):
But you know, we need times andwe need to be able to reach to
more people and that's why, youknow, I'm very pleased that you
gave me this opportunity to bewith you.
I'm with a lot of YouTubers andpodcasters across America and U
here in Canada and also, yes,I'm doing a campaign, you know,
on the ground, with people.

(19:29):
But the People's Party willgrow and our time will come.
And, like I said to ourpartisan supporters when I'm
traveling, and in my speeches Isaid, I know that we will win,
but I don't know when.

Aaron Pete (19:45):
Interesting.
There's a lot to digest there.
We've covered a lot of ground.
The first piece I think it willbe a surprise for many
listeners to hear that StephenHarper isn't a true conservative
.
I think experientially I thinkthat's how a lot of people felt
during his reign was that he wasvery conservative.
So that's an interesting take.
The other piece that I justwant to commend you on from my

(20:07):
own— but about Stephen Alpert.

Maxime Bernier (20:09):
Just tell me what he did.

Aaron Pete (20:13):
Oh, his tough-on-crime approach was
horrible, but it was extremelyconservative and it was all
Kool-Aid from down south.
I think his policies werehorrible.
One of his statements was thatmarijuana is infinitely worse
than cigarettes, which is just awild statement that I think he
made in 2008 or something likethat.
Like it was not with the timesthat he was making those claims,

(20:34):
but his whole criminal justicepolicy screams at me to be
conservative.
And then how he approached thebudgets.
Being able to get to a balancedbudget is very difficult, and I
would say that that is usuallya conservative approach.
Those are probably my twostandout.

Maxime Bernier (20:47):
Okay, okay, let's think about, you know,
being tough on crime.
You're right about that.
I was there at that time and hewanted to have minimum
sentences for crimes that arehorrible.
But we had a discussion incabinet during that time and we
knew that the Supreme Court ofCanada maybe won't allow that
and say that it'sunconstitutional.

(21:08):
So he had some advice tellinghim you must use the
non-understanding clause to besure that our legislation will
stand.
He didn't want to do that, hewas afraid to do it.
So we passed a lot oflegislation, but the Supreme
Court of Canada did say allthese legislation are
unconstitutional.
So nothing happened.
I hope that Polyev will passthe same legislation and has the

(21:31):
courage to use thenon-understanding clause to be
sure that the parliament willhave the last say on that.
So, and about the deficit,you're right.

Aaron Pete (21:41):
Sorry, really quickly.
Are you pro-mandatory minimums?
Yes, yes yes, for sure, butthey like they've caused so much
harm to so many people yeah,but only for, for I can tell you
like like I worked in the courtsystem, like it ruined people's
lives and like there were a lotof people caught in that that
shouldn't have been caught inthat.

Maxime Bernier (22:02):
Yeah, so what we said?
I think you have a point thereabout speaking about that.
So when he did that, that wasall over On a lot of crimes.
We said there's a minimum overthere three years, five years,
10 years or things like that.
But my position on that is youknow, if you do a murder and

(22:26):
right now there's no minimum,the judge will decide, but at
least you must have a minimum offive years.
You know, sometimes they have10 years and there's only two
years in prison because theycount for before the trial.
If they were two years in jailbefore the trial, that counts
for twice the time, so that willcount for four years.

(22:47):
So we need to have somethinglike that.
That would change.
But yes, I believe that thejudges can have latitude to look
at the case case by case, butat least having you know when
you are two years in jail beforeyour trial, that must be two
years, not four years.
So that's, I'm okay withchanges like that.

Aaron Pete (23:12):
Okay.
My concern with that is always.
The thing I find fascinatingabout our system is how
complicated and how many yearsit took to develop, like it's
hundreds of years that thesystem's developed, and the
genius of it, from myperspective, is you can never as
a parliamentarian, as primeminister hypothetically like you
can never be in every courtroomto understand the nuances of

(23:34):
what's going on in those rooms,and so you have to trust the
judges to make informeddecisions because they have
access to all the information.
Parliament will never be thereand the distance between a
courthouse in BC and Ontario isa very vast distance, and so
there's a huge disconnect thathappens.
So allowing that flexibilityfrom my perspective is so

(23:54):
important because there's goingto be a case that comes up that
you would have never guessedever 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 beaddressed, and those mandatory
minimums really restrict theability to adapt.
Now I hear a lot ofconservatives and I understand
the concerns around one bail andhow that is approached and two

(24:19):
people who should have harshersentences, who we can see that
that is an unjust sentence notgetting the punishment they
deserve.
But that just requires moreinformation, more support to the
judges to understand howparliament would like to guide
and support their decision.
It doesn't necessarily mean youneed a mandatory minimum in
order to force the judges andtake it out of their hands to

(24:40):
have a thoughtful decision.
In that regard, I really likeour system because it always
goes back to the local people,the people who live in that
community, the people whounderstand the issues
surrounding their community, tomake the best decision within
their region.
It's never perfect, but my bigfear is always, when you have
Ontario making decisions aboutlocal issues, it's never going

(25:02):
to have the nuance it needs inorder to be effective.

Maxime Bernier (25:05):
Speaker 2 so you have a point there and I may
agree on something that you justsaid.
But the most important for meis to do these changes.
And you know I'm not sayingthat 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 alsoto do that reform, to be sure

(25:26):
that you know how come you'regoing to have four years if
you're only two years in jailbefore your trial and it will
count for four years.
There's no logic there for me.
So that change was not approvedby the Supreme Court of Canada.
So what I'm saying, you knowyou have a clause in the
Constitution that you can usefor things like that when they

(25:46):
are very important for you.
So all that reform, you know Isaid that the legacy of Harper
is nothing.
All that, you know was justundue by the Supreme Court or by
the Trudeau.
And you have a point about thedeficit also.
Yes, harper was able to balancethe deficit at the end in 2015.

(26:08):
He was able to be able tobalance that.
He created the biggest deficit.
But you know, for me it was notenough.
You need to do it because wewant.
Canadians are paying a lot oftaxes, so it's good to balance
the deficit, but you know, ifyou can balance it, if you were

(26:29):
able to balance the deficit assoon as possible, if you can
balance it, if you were able tobalance the deficit as soon as
possible, you'd be able to lowertaxes, and we didn't do a lot
of that.
You know, canadians are stillpaying a lot of taxes.
Our proposal on the budget isto balance it in one year and
without cutting any taxes thatyear, and after that you are
cutting taxes.
You know, if you cut tax andyou create a deficit with that,

(26:51):
it won't help anybody becausethat will create inflation.
So that's our strongproposition on taxes.
But yes, oper did create thebiggest deficit in the history
of our country.
But you're right, yes, it wasable to, after four years, to be
back in a surplus in 2015.

Aaron Pete (27:08):
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 completelyagreeing with you and I can hear
others being furious with youand being very upset that I'm
not really challenging you onthat and I'm not an expert in

(27:29):
those pieces and I'm not goingto pretend to be.
The piece that I'd like to honein on a little bit more is and
correct me if you see somethingelse I see Canadians often being
very deferential, very kind,wanting to be compassionate and
supportive and respectful ofpeople's individual decisions,
wanting to be merciful andwanting the best for people.

(27:52):
And that's really where I feellike liberalism sort of wins the
day for people, because we wantto be kind and thoughtful
people and when we see thosevalues we go.
We don't want to get involved,we want people to make the
decisions that work for them andat times perhaps that goes too
far.
But when you're saying thosethings, I hear those

(28:12):
compassionate Canadians whodon't have like a strong issue
with what you're talking about,being very uncomfortable with
the idea of restricting rightsor controlling what people are
allowed to do, and I'm justwondering how do you balance
that for the compassionateCanadians who don't want to come
across like they're taking awayother people's rights or
abilities to make their owndecisions in their own lives?

Maxime Bernier (28:33):
We agree on that .
You know when you're 18 yearsold you can do what you want
with your body.
But now what is happening isunder 18 years old, you know you
have the indoctrination andthere's doing some surgeries on
kids to change their body andthat must be illegal, that must
be criminal.
And right now you know atschool if you have a kid who

(28:54):
wants to be called another name,a guy that wants to be called,
you know, chantal or Suzanne, atschool they won't and that's
happening in our country.
The teacher won't say that tothe parents.
You know we want to protectkids and you know if you are
trans and you can do what youwant, but I don't want you to

(29:15):
influence the kids to.
It's an ideology that you knowmust not be on our kids.
That must be a discussion withparents and people who are
supporting these kids.
But what we want, our positionon that, is very clear.
You can do what you want withyour body at 18 years old.

(29:36):
You know kids cannot go to abar.
Kids cannot drive a car Kidscannot take.
You know, consume drugs, butbefore 18 years old that kids
would be able to decide thatthey can mutilate their body for
life.
You know I'm against that 100%.
But yeah, people are sayingactually they are saying that

(29:58):
anti-trans.
You know, if you are notanti-trans, I'm respecting your
right, but you know you don'thave the right to influence and
mutilate young kids and that'shappening in our country right
now.
So that's our position.

Aaron Pete (30:16):
So I guess I would ask what's the difference, from
your perspective, betweeneducation and indoctrination?
Because, again, I feel like thegroup of people you're
describing would argue thatthey're involved in what's
called education and they wouldsay this is a legitimate area.
We're just educating people onwhat's called education and they
would say this is a legitimatearea.
We're just educating people onwhat the realities are and
you're calling thatindoctrination.

Maxime Bernier (30:36):
Yeah, calling that indoctrination because
there's only two sexes.
They try to educate them thatthere's a lot of genders.
That's not the science, that'snot biology 101.
There's only two sexes, okay,just really quickly.

Aaron Pete (30:49):
There is the word sexes.
Okay, just really quickly.
There is the word sexes andthere's the word education.
And again, I'm not an expert,but like their argument is
they're not disputing the sexes,they're disputing the gender
piece of the conversation, frommy understanding.
And why would we have twodifferent words if they mean
identically the same thing?

Maxime Bernier (31:07):
Yeah, that's a nice question.
We don't have two differentwords.
They invented that genderidentity, you know.
They're saying you know you canbe.
If you feel that you're a mantoday, you can be a man.
If you feel that you're a woman, you can be a woman.
It's worse than that.
In school they're saying tokids if you feel that you can be
, you know a lion, you're a liontoday.
That's indoctrination.

(31:28):
They're doing that to our kids.
You know, today, you know youcan be—.
Where are they doing that?
They're doing that.
You know we have the drag queen.
You know storytelling.
Why do we have drag queens overthere?

Aaron Pete (31:41):
Where are people allowed to be lions Like what—do
you have to go to school or—.

Maxime Bernier (31:47):
I was traveling and I was in Manitoba and I
spoke with the parents overthere and they're saying that
today my kids came back and hesaid that he's a lion at four
years old and he was.
That may be fun to play and tobe, but that's happening.
And look, also with the dragqueens Sorry, stella, why not, I

(32:16):
think, grandmam or grandpa or aveteran?
That's indoctrination.
They want to tell kids you know, if you want to change your
body, you can't, you cannotchange your body, so don't do
what you want with with parents.
You know the drag queen shows.
I'm living in montreal.
The drag queen shows that wasin bar late at night, in the

(32:39):
bars in montreal late at night.
And you go there, you see them.
You had fun not not in a schoolto try to indoctrinate kids and
telling them that they may beyou know another sex and they
can.
You know that's.
That's trying.
The beginning of thatindoctrination is start with the
name.
They can change their namewithout the approval of parents.

(33:00):
That's happening in Quebec, inNew Brunswick and other places
in Canada and after that youhave okay, you can, you can wear
, you know other things.
It's all crazy and you know, Iknow that the trans industry and
the trans people will say thatI'm anti-trans.
Like you know, in 2019, I wassupposed to be a racist because

(33:21):
I wanted fewer immigrants atthat time, one on good and
50,000.
I was right at that time.
We didn't do that and now wehave the problem of mass
immigration.
Now we are asking for amoratorium, but they were saying
that I was a racist at thattime and they can say that I'm
anti-trans.
I know that I'm anti-trans.

Aaron Pete (33:40):
Do what you want with your body, but don't mess
with our kids no-transcript andto allow people to see people be

(34:06):
comfortable in schools isn'tnecessarily a bad thing, and I'm
not saying that's my position.
I'm just saying that they'renot going to see that as
indoctrination.
That's such a strong word forwhat we're talking about that I
think that that's jarring to somany people.
The idea that just exposingpeople, the way you expose them,
to different concepts,different philosophies,

(34:28):
different viewpoints, you'reexposing them to different
information and this is just adifferent form of information
being shown to them and it's nottrying to convince them.
You've got to do it toonecessarily.
This is a different lifestyleand allowing people to kind of
consume that information allowyoung people to see the world as
a more broad and complex placethan perhaps they realize, so

(34:50):
that they grow up in a differentenvironment.
You're chuckling.
What are your perspectives onthis?

Maxime Bernier (34:54):
Yeah, I just don't agree with that and you
know you have the right of yourpoint of view.
But for me, you know the transideology in school, it is
indoctrination.
Maybe it's a strong word, butthat's my position and I can
understand that other people arenot happy with what I'm saying,

(35:15):
and that's you know.

Aaron Pete (35:18):
What's the difference between education?
How do we differentiate betweeneducation and indoctrination?
Because I guess I could makethe argument that public health
care other countries don't haveit, 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 indoctrinatedinto believing in something
like that.
Like, how do you differentiatebetween education and

(35:40):
indoctrination?

Maxime Bernier (35:41):
But for me it must be based on science and
biology.
There's only two sexes and weare not saying that in school.
That's the big difference, youknow.

Aaron Pete (35:49):
But scientific communities are saying that
there are.
There is gender fluidity andstuff.
So how do we agree on thescience, like during covid, I
think?
I think we might share someopinions on covid.

Maxime Bernier (36:00):
The science was was approved during that period
to have a certain perspectiveyeah, and we didn't have any
science on lockdowns and theywere telling us that it's based
on science.
That was not true.
They told us also that thevaccine was safe and effective,
and that was not true.
They told us that take thevaccine and you won't have COVID

(36:21):
.
That was not true.
You know they used science, butthat was not science.
And now we have the realscience after four years of
COVID-19.
So you know that's not science.
When you can say, you know youcan be fluid and you can change
your sex, for me it's dysphoriaand that was that in the past.

(36:42):
But now they changed that totry to appeal to a community.
Actually, you know, people havethe right to have another point
of view on that, but ourposition and my position is, you
know, saying that there's morethan two sexes.
It is indoctrination and noteducation.

Aaron Pete (37:01):
You recently referred to Hardeep Singh Najjar
as a foreign terrorist andsuggested that his Canadian
citizenship should beposthumously revoked.
Given that he is a Canadiancitizen at the time of his death
, how do you justify the stance?
How did you come to thatposition?

Maxime Bernier (37:19):
Yeah, it's all you know.
It is in our legislation.
It is the law in Canada thatyou know.
You can be deported if you're aCanadian citizen.
That's part of the legislation.
If you read the Citizen Act, itis in there.
If you commit something that isagainst the legislation and

(37:40):
violate our values, you can bedeported, considering that you
are a Canadian citizen.
And that's happening in thepast not regularly, but that's
in our legislation.
So what I'm telling people inour platform speaking about that
, I'm just repeating the law inCanada.

(38:00):
That's the law in our countryright now.

Aaron Pete (38:04):
So why aren't other people saying that then?
Why is that only like?
I've only heard you make thatposition?

Maxime Bernier (38:10):
Because it's not politically correct.
They're afraid to say that.
You know it's.
Go and read the legislation andit's all in our.
We quote the legislation in ourplatform and they don't want to
say that.
But it's part of the law.
But because it didn't happenoften and we don't need to do
that, it's an exceptional.

(38:30):
But it's part of thelegislation and we don't need to
do that.

Aaron Pete (38:33):
It's an exceptional but it's part of the legislation
and I'm not afraid to speakabout it.
In 2020, you filed a defamationlawsuit against Warren Kinsella
, which was dismissed by theOntario Superior Court in 2021.
You were later ordered to payabout $132,000 in legal costs.
I'm wondering if you canreflect on that case.
What were your takeaways andwhat are the implications for

(38:53):
filing that in regards tofreedom of expression?

Maxime Bernier (38:57):
Yes, actually that was the argument for
Kinshita freedom of expression.
And I said, no, you know,because you can see, I'm a
politician, I'm a public figureand when you're seeing things
that are not right.
And he said that I was a racistand based on that thing, and
for me, you know, when you callsomebody a racist, it's you know

(39:19):
.
I said you know, and not onlyme, but my party and also my
candidates.
We had Jewish candidates atthat time and we still have
Jewish candidates for thiselection and they were saying
that they were Jewish,anti-holocaust and racist.
So that was not true, that wasinvention.

(39:39):
And he was paid by theConservative Party of Canada to
do that.
That was public after that.
So, yes, I sue.
And the judge decided at the endto say, oh, bernier is a public
figure and so in politics,maybe you know if Bernier was
just a normal citizen and didn'thave any position in politics,

(40:01):
maybe you know that would be.
We will come to anotherdecision, something like that.
I don't forget, I forget alittle bit the details of the
decision, but you know at largewhat he was saying because I'm a
politician and you know, sayingsomething to a politician like
that, true or not true.

(40:21):
He must be allowed to do that.
So that was a decision.
I was not happy with that, butyou know that's life.

Aaron Pete (40:30):
I was not happy with that, but you know that's life
In 2021,.
You were arrested for violatingpublic health orders during an
anti-lockdown protest.
Looking back, can you reflecton your stance and the
consequences of that decision?

Maxime Bernier (40:46):
Yeah, you're right.
Just before that was inManitoba.
That was during the summer 2021.
And at that time in Manitobathey had public health orders
saying you know, you cannot bemore than five percent in a
meeting in a park outside, soyou didn't have the right to go
in a park with more than fivepercent.

(41:08):
And so I said I was travelingby car because I didn't have the
right to travel by plane.
As you know, I'm not vaccinated.
So my agenda was public andeverybody that was on my website
that I was going to Manitobaand I had a couple of meetings
because I wanted.
That was before the election.

(41:29):
I wanted to have meetings withthe executive of our riding
association, the people, ourvolunteers helping us during the
election.
We were not able to havemeetings inside, that was.
So we decided to have meetingsoutside, in a park and in some
places we had more than fivepercent social distancing, by
the way.
So I said that and I wantedafter that to do a big rally in

(41:52):
winnipeg the day after.
So we received an email comingfrom, uh, the authority over
there, the health authority, Idon't remember the name, but
they said you're not welcome.
If you come here, you mustrespect our legislation and
something like that.
And I wrote back on socialmedia that's my right to travel

(42:14):
across the country.
I will travel, I'm a politicianand it's important for me, for
my party, to be ready for thatnext election that will come,
the election in 2021.
And after that, the premier ofManitoba did a press conference
and in a press conference hesaid Bernie is not welcome and
if he's coming here we willempty his pocket.

(42:36):
That was his expression.
So I did that.
I went there and I did mymeeting in a park, the first
meeting that I had in a park.
We were a seven-person socialdistancing and the police came
and they said you know, if theydidn't give me any tickets, if
you do your other meeting thatwas 200 kilometers away from

(42:58):
there, you may have a ticket.
So I did the other meeting andwe were, I think, 10 person in a
park.
I received a ticket and I wasthe only one, by the way, also
the only one who received thetickets.
And I was the only one, by theway, also the only one who
received a ticket.
You know, that was politicaldriven.
And the third meeting, theysaid after giving you a ticket,
if you go to the third one, wemay arrest you and I did the

(43:21):
third meeting.
We were about nine, 10 peopleperson, you know, in the park I
was the only one who wasarrested and cuffed and put in
jail for 12 months for an owncrime and for fighting for
freedoms and I wasn't able to dothe rally that I was supposed
to do in Winnipeg.
So that's, and you know, we know, now that you know, being

(43:46):
outside, you know they have nodanger when you're outside.
All these regulations were, youknow, unconstitutional and I
did fight that in court.
I didn't win, but you knowthat's a big deception because a
lot of freedom fighters didn'twin and didn't want to apply to

(44:07):
our Charter of Rights.
The court didn't want to applyto the Charter of Rights, the
court didn't want to apply toCharter of Rights.
So I had to pay a fees and Idid pay that fees after that.
But you know, a politicianhandcuffed in just to fight for
freedoms and having a meetingwith 10% outside in a park.
So and I can tell you that waspolitical driven, because the

(44:28):
police who arrested me was in alittle village.
He was, you know, wearing jeansand when we came in the police
station the guy didn't knowwhere was the toilet.
He was not coming from there,he was coming from, you know,
winnipeg, and that was his jobto arrest me.
And so that was what happened,and shame on our country doing

(44:52):
that to politicians.
But I was not the only one whowent in jail to fight for our
freedoms at that time.

Aaron Pete (44:59):
I think this is one of the most complicated topics.
I do think that it's worthexploring because Canada's
response to COVID-19 has madeinternational headlines a few
times and I think because ofthat we need to reflect and
there's a lot of pieces here.
One it was very unpopular totalk about a lab leak hypothesis

(45:25):
at the beginning of this.
We now know that that has cometrue.
At the beginning of this, wenow know that that has come true
.
It was settled science that ifyou got the vaccine you could
not get COVID-19.
Anthony Fauci had four or fivevaccines and still talked on
national television aboutgetting COVID-19.
There were different responses.

(45:46):
Different political partiestook were different responses.
Different political partiestook the piece that I have
trouble squaring and, like you,were a person who took a very
bold stance when it was veryunpopular to do so.
So it's an honor to speak withyou.
Regardless of whether or notpeople agree with you or not.
It is easier to go with thecrowd than to stand against the
crowd.
It is easier to go with what ispolitically popular than it is

(46:09):
to go against.
So, on that regard, I haverespect for your ability to
stand up to a mob when it waseasier to get in line.
So the piece that I juststruggle to balance and I'd be
interested in your feedback onis around.
There's an argument to be madethat none of us knew for sure

(46:30):
during certain parts of thisprocess what was right and what
was wrong, and it's our instinctto shut down ideas of like oh,
let's just do whatever we want.
There's an argument to be madethat if we all start doing our
own thing, then some people aregoing to get left behind because
we don't have a consistentapproach.
As a First Nations councillor,if we all just do our own thing,

(46:51):
then we're not going't have aconsistent approach.
If I, as a First Nationscouncillor, if we all just do
our own thing, then we're notgoing to have a healthy response
to certain problems that needto be addressed.
The argument here is that youneeded to have kind of a
crackdown.
You needed to have consistentpolicies Everybody's following
the same policies so that youhave that uniformity.
The failure of that is that itwasn't adaptive to the
circumstances that it needed tobe, but the reason for that is a

(47:11):
lot of people were scared.
I interviewed Minister PattiHajdu on her approach and she
talked about how she would stayup nights, not knowing whether
or not she made the right call,that that period of being health
minister changed her lifebecause of the weight and the
responsibility that she wasnever prepared for, that she was
never trained in, that shedidn't have years of experience

(47:32):
dealing with pandemics to thatextent, and she was put into
that circumstance and she talkedabout trying to make the best
decision she could in the moment, and I have a lot of sympathy
with that because I, as apolitical leader of my community
, I'm just doing the best I canin those moments.
The other side, the argumentthat you've put forward, is we

(47:52):
did know some of these thingsthroughout this process, that we
did have some informationcoming out and that was
suppressed, and so I'm justwondering how do we balance the
fact that in trying times you'renot always going to get it
right, but we did maybe go toofar.
So how do we kind of, how do weresolve what happened during

(48:12):
COVID-19?
How do we find peace with whattook place?

Maxime Bernier (48:17):
freedom, openness, debates and we didn't
have that.
You know censorship was thereand you know prominent doctors
were censored.
We know that right now and theydidn't want to hear another
point of view.
If you had a solution for COVIDor medication for COVID other
than the vaccine, that wasprohibited.

(48:38):
Doctors didn't have the rightto prescribe that.
And you know we had in thebeginning of that.
We have permanent doctors whosaid you know drug don'ts won't
work.
You know that virus is affectedonly is very, you know, deadly
for older people withcomorbidities.
The young kids, they're not indanger for that and we are

(49:01):
vaccinating everybody.
That was a huge mistake.
So the answer to that is youhave to allow dissidents and you
know that's why in thebeginning for me I told you one
of our principles for the partyis individual freedom and
personal responsibility.
That was very easy for me to beand speak for freedom and

(49:21):
freedom of choice with informedconsent.
I never said don't take thevaccine.
They said that I was anti-vax.
I didn't take the vaccinepersonally.
My dad took the vaccine.
He's older, that was he was.
You know he had comorbidity.
So I'm very pleased that he didthat.
But I said everybody must havethe choice, freedom of choice

(49:42):
with informed consent, anddecide, but we didn't have the
other point of view.
The way to solve that in afuture pandemic it's to let the
markets and people discuss, andI think you know it's a little
bit bizarre if they didn't wantthe other point of view.
For me, when I saw that we hadcensorship, something was wrong
and I knew that something waswrong and they were pushing an

(50:04):
agenda to us, and not only herein Canada, but in every, almost
every country.

Aaron Pete (50:13):
So it's not.
It's not bizarre to me becausethey did it, because under the
guise of saving lives and likethat's a very difficult argue
argument for me to resolve,because I did interview people
throughout the pandemic and likeregular people were like I just
if it means that I'm going toprotect other people, I'm happy
to do it, and like that was theargument put forward.

(50:34):
It wasn't follow the rules,because just do as your
government says.
The argument was always putforward that this is going to
protect people and that this isgoing to save lives and if you
care about other people, you'regoing to follow the rules.

Maxime Bernier (50:46):
But that was a lie because we know that you
know being vaccinated or not,you can have the COVID and
transmit COVID.
That was a big lie and actuallyyou know what they did.
It's trying to control thenarrative.
And so, for me, the fact thatyou know you're right about
saying that.

(51:07):
You know I was the onlypoliticians and everybody, every
opposition, at the provinciallevel and at the federal level,
the conservative party they wereall the same and in the same
direction and promoting, youknow, all these draconian
measures.
You must ask why.
Why?
Because they use fear andpropaganda and they were able.

(51:29):
And with fear you can control apopulation.
And if you are a politician inthe opposition, your goal is to
be in government.
And when you see that in thesurvey and polls, that more than
60 percent of the populationare OK with these draconian
measures, you don't want to.
You want to be on the rightside, you want to be with them.

(51:49):
So that's why you didn't haveany opposition, because all
these politicians are doingpolitics by survey and polling,
not us.
We said that's not right, thepopulation is not right.
The population has beenmanipulated.
They use fear.
We must be out there and tellthe truth, and you know what
Time was on our side.
It took four years and now weknow that we were right.

(52:09):
So that's the way we're doingpolitics, with conviction and
our principles.
But I can understand thesetraditional politicians.
They look at short term andthey wanted to be be elected and
they look at the majority thathas been manipulated.
You know they had a pressconference every day, like in a
communist country, and the presswas not asking the real

(52:31):
questions.
The propaganda was everywhere.
The federal government spent alot of money in advertising on
TV, on radio.
That was full propaganda allacross.
And so you are able tomanipulate the population and
with fear, and also, at the sametime, manipulate the opposition
, the politicians in theopposition who said, okay, I

(52:55):
want to be on the right sidewith people, so I will be okay
with all these draconianmeasures, and you know, not for
us, not for us, and I prefer tobe in the minority, but being
right.

Aaron Pete (53:08):
What's the difference, I guess, with
information and propaganda fromyour perspective?

Maxime Bernier (53:16):
When you don't allow the other point of view,
that's for me.
You must have questions in yourmind how come we cannot have
another point of view?
How come other doctors, ifthey're speaking with another
solution for COVID, they willlose their license?

(53:36):
When you have all that, youmust question what is happening.
We're not in a democracyanymore.
We don't have any debates.
So for me, when you don't haveany debates, that's propaganda.

Aaron Pete (53:48):
The next piece is around.
What's going on?
You talked about mainstreammedia.
Would you defund the CBC?

Maxime Bernier (53:55):
Yes, not only the CBC.
I will defund Radio Canada.
In French also, polyev won't dothat 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, forme it's CBC, radio Canada.
And all the subsidies that thefederal government is giving to

(54:17):
other mainstream media likeToronto Sun, ctv that's about $2
billion.
Let's save that money and Iwant the media to be independent
, not dependent on thegovernment for money.
So, and yes, if CBC is goingbankrupt, they will go bankrupt.
If they're not as good andpeople don't want to give money

(54:41):
to CBC, I'm giving money to someindependent 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 anyviewers and they don't have any
money, it's because you knowthere's no add value there and
they will go bankrupt.

Aaron Pete (55:02):
Reconciliation is a topic that I care about.
I'm a First Nations councillorwith my community, Tawathul,
First Nation.
I'm curious what would yourapproach to reconciliation be?

Maxime Bernier (55:13):
But first, if you want to do that, you must
abolish the Indian Act.
That's a racist act.
There's no in Canada, you know,there's no systemic racism, but
there's one legislation that isracist is the Indian Act.
We are the only party.
If you want a realreconciliation, start by that
abolishing the Indian Act.
And after that, you know weneed to sit with the First

(55:34):
Nations and I want them to havemore autonomy, I want them to
have a kind of property rightson reserve.
If you don't have propertyrights, you cannot have economic
growth, and you know we need tohave discussion about that.
I don't like when you knowOttawa is in charge of drinking
water on reserve.
Everybody must be responsible.

(55:57):
You have some First Nationsthat are very successful, others
that are not.
So I want to reopen that.
I don't have the solution.
I just want to followprinciples.
You know, sit down with theFirst Nations, try to find a
solution in a book a green bookin 1968, that we must abolish

(56:24):
the Indian Act and try to have anew agreement with First Nation
based on respect and being surethat you know they will be part
of our society and not a partof our society.
After you know, 1968, nothinghappened.
So we need to have thatdiscussion and that's our
position on the First Nation andreconciliation with them.

Aaron Pete (56:46):
Do you think the recent increase I've seen it
throughout Canada there's anincreased sense of Canadian
pride that I'm very happy to seebecause 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 becauseI think we need to have a
conversation about what thatflag means.
I think there's a disconnectDuring that time.

(57:08):
Obviously people felt that itwas representing the truckers
and positions they didn't have.
But I think these areopportunities to refresh our
Canadian identity and figure outwhat values we're standing by
and how we feel.
And I'm seeing the same thingright now in regards to the
threats from Trump's tariffsthat Canadians are starting to
go.
Well, what does it mean to be aCanadian?
What am I proud of?

(57:30):
And we've been through a period, for my position under Justin
Trudeau's leadership, where wedidn't have a national identity.
There wasn't something that wecould put forward and say we are
proud to be Canadian for A, band C reasons, that we've gone
through a period where it's beenshameful to be Canadian, where
we're not proud, and I thinkthat's really, really dangerous

(57:51):
for the health and the vibrancyof our culture, of our
communities, of us to feel thatsense of connection with our
national identity, and so areyou seeing the same thing.
What are your thoughts on theCanadian flag and on Canadian
values?

Maxime Bernier (58:05):
Yes, you have a point there.
You know our people arepatriots, they believe in this
country and I'm always sayingyou know, we are the last hope
for this country.
If our platform is not adopted,is not part of legislation,
this country risks disappearing.
You know you have to.

(58:26):
Actually, right now, in Quebec,the separatist movement is in
advance in the polls the PQ andthey're saying you know, if
Quebecers vote for the PQ, thePQ will have another referendum
on the sovereignty a year afterthe election In Alberta.
You have the same thing.
So we need.
That's why, you know, we thinkthat with a radical

(58:49):
decentralization that will givemore autonomy to provinces,
that's a way to solve that.
But, yeah, I'm proud to beCanadian, but I was not proud
and I'm not proud to destroy ourcountry with mass immigration
and all these whole policies.
So, that being said, yes, rightnow people are a bit prouder to
be Canadians because of thatfight with Trump.

(59:10):
But you know all thesepoliticians who are speaking for
Canada now, speaking aboutPoliev and Jack Mead and Trudeau
where were they the last nineyears when Trudeau was
destroying our country?
That was not important for them.
To speak for Canada, to speakfor an immigration system that

(59:31):
will respect our country.
That we know will be in linewith our values and fighting
against crime and deporting allthese illegals.
That was not important for themto fight for our country.
Now it's very important becauseTrump wanted to impose tariffs
on us, but it was not onCanadians, it was on businesses

(59:54):
that are exporting to the US.
Actually, tariffs that's not uswho will have to pay, that,
that's the American.
But anyway, I'm very pleasedthat now you know we have a
discussion with the Trumpadministration and I think that
the solution will come and wewon't have these tariffs.
But I was against theretaliation and imposing tariffs

(01:00:16):
on us, on Canadian consumers.
So that's great that now youknow they are proud to be
Canadians and they're ready tofight for our country.
But I will ask one questionwhen were they the last nine
years?

Aaron Pete (01:00:31):
You are a man on a mission.
You have described at thebeginning of this interview that
you don't have an end date.
You don't exactly know whenyou're going to get over the
edge, when you're going toarrive at the goals that you've
set for yourself and for theparty.
I'm just wondering, when youroll out of bed, what is that
drive that keeps you going?

Maxime Bernier (01:00:50):
Because you know the People's Party, we believe
in people.
I don't believe in a big fatgovernment.
We have faith in people.
We have faith that you have theability, the dignity and the
right to make your own decisionsand determine your own destiny.
That's the People's Party.
That's why we are calling ourname is people.
We are putting people first andour country first, and that's

(01:01:10):
not an empty slogan.
Read our policies, you'll seethat it is right.
So I like what I'm doing andactually, you know, I know that
you know there's progress andright now, with what is
happening in US, in Europe, youknow that that win, that freedom
win that is coming from othercountries, will come to Canada
and the only vehicle for that isthe People's Party.

(01:01:34):
And so you know, we createdthat party six years ago.
It was very tough to speak likethat six years ago, but now
it's a little bit easier.
You know we have now 65% of thepopulation who are saying
enough is enough withimmigration and they're ready to
have a moratorium onimmigration, and so our ideas

(01:01:55):
are growing and that's good forme and that's why you know I
like what I'm doing.
I can sleep very well because Idon't do any compromise with our
ideas.
And I'm telling people if youdon't like me and our ideas and
our candidates, don't vote forus.
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 towin the battle of ideas, and

(01:02:20):
that's what we try to do win thebattle of ideas and we believe
that we are on the right side ofthe history and on the right
side of the argument.

Aaron Pete (01:02:29):
How can people follow along with your work?

Maxime Bernier (01:02:32):
They can go on our website, people's Party of
Canadaca 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.

(01:02:52):
People's Party of Canada at CA.
They can follow me on Twitter,maxime Bernier on Facebook and
YouTube and Rumble and all thesesocial media.

Aaron Pete (01:03:00):
Maxime, it has been a pleasure to speak with you
today and to get a betterunderstanding of your positions
on very complicated issues, andI just I commend you
specifically for being willingto go on the podcast tour.
We've seen that.
I had the opportunity to speakwith David Eby, john Rustad,
sonia Fersenau during our BCelection.
I think the direction we'regoing is in this format of

(01:03:21):
communication where we can flushout ideas a little bit longer,
dive into them and really get anunderstanding, rather than four
minute segments where you haveto try and respond and explain a
policy in 12 seconds.
So I appreciate you beingwilling to do this.
I know you're doing otherinterviews and I just commend
you for taking that approachbecause that's open, that's
transparent.
You're going to get a mixed bag.
We didn't send over anyquestions to you in advance.

(01:03:43):
You didn't have any preparation.
You're just sitting downwilling to have conversations
with people to share your ideasand your approach, and I just I
think that's very admirable.
So I appreciate you beingwilling to take the time today.

Maxime Bernier (01:03:53):
No, thank you very much for giving me that
opportunity and you know thatyou are the future.
I just want to end with ananecdote.
You know, when we created theparty, I was very upset because
the mainstream media didn't wantto cover us, they were not
following us.
And I had a discussion at thattime with Jordan Peterson and I
said to Jordan you know, Jordan,what can I do?

(01:04:15):
You know the mainstream mediaI'm not there, they don't want
to cover what we are doing.
We had 5% of the vote andJordan looked at me and he said
Maxime, they are dying, Don'twaste any time.
They are dying over there.
The future is podcaster,YouTubers, independent media.
Go there.
That's the future.
And he's right, You're thefuture and I want to thank you

(01:04:38):
for giving me that opportunitywith you today.

Aaron Pete (01:04:41):
My pleasure.
I have to ask, just because youbrought it up Jordan and Pierre
did an interview not too longago.
It went viral.
What was your reaction to thatand just how did you feel about
kind of Jordan giving him thatbig opportunity to kind of put
him on a global stage?

Maxime Bernier (01:04:58):
No, that was good.
But actually you must know thatI did an interview with Jordan
at the last election.
You know I had an hour and ahalf interview with him and I'm
OK with that and I'm pretty surethat I will have the
opportunity to have an interviewwith Jordan before the election
.
I'm not asking him for thatright now I want to wait until

(01:05:19):
the election will start but I'mpretty sure that I would be able
to have an interview with himand I'll be ready to answer the
questions.
You know he was a little bitkind with Polyev and didn't ask
the very tough questions, butyou know it's okay and I'm ready

(01:05:39):
to debate our ideas and I'mpretty sure that I will have
that opportunity with Jordanwhen the election would be
called Fantastic.
Thank you again, maxime.
Thank you, have a nice day.
Bye-bye.