https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=ltZ7iGrF4BM
But you know, the mainstream media is canceling 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 that electoral campaign. All the other political parties agree with vaccine passports 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 reelected in my riding in both, and we’ll have that conversation. And the mainstream media won’t be able to ignore us anymore. Hello, everyone. I’m pleased to have with me today, one of the contenders for the Prime Ministership of Canada, the Honourable Maxime Bernier, the 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 riding of Bosse for 13 years, and is currently running for election there. In 1985, Mr. Bernier earned a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the Université du Quebec, Montreal, and entered law at the University of Ottawa. He was called to the Quebec Bar in 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 Scheer, who the current PC leader, Progressive Conservative leader, Erin O’Toole, replaced. Maxime founded the PPC in 2018, citing disagreements with Scheer’s leadership. Mr. Bernier 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 threat to free speech. I invited Erin 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 in 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 Bill C-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 voted 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 is 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 must 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 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 only three years as a lawyer in a big law firm in Montreal. But after that, I worked in a financial institution. And I was working for the Montreal Economic Institute. That’s a think tank, a free market think tanks 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 Professor Schultz 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 also of my platform for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2017. My platform was very more a kind of a 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 wasn’t in contact with all that world culture and Bill 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 leaders 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? For me, back five years ago, for me, that wasn’t 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 and going to a prison for women in the same prison, and the same prison, you have that in Canada. And when you have men that are in the 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. Is that correct? And that was dissatisfaction in part with the leadership of Andrew Sheer 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? And do you feel, this is a few years later, 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 markets, smarter 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 Andrew Scheer said publicly that, 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 ran on for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. So I said, why staying with a political party and running at the election of 2019 with 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 Party of Canada is intellectually and morally corrupt. And that’s why I created the People’s Party of Canada based on four principles, individual freedom, personal responsibility, respect and fairness. And all our policies are in line with these principles 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, like you just said Jordan, the 2019 election, that was the first election for the People’s Party of Canada. And I didn’t win my seat in vote. I was running as the leader and a People’s Party candidate. We had 1.6% of the vote, 300,000 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, 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 against us was the fact that, oh, don’t vote for Bernier. You’ll divide the vote, you’re gonna split the vote. And I can tell you that was very efficient. I saw people out west and 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 split 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 Scheer and they end up with Justin Trudeau. And now you have the same argument in 2021, but it is less effective because Aaron O’Toole now is more leftist than Andrew Scheer. 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 if you vote for Bernier, it is not a vote for the liberal, it is a vote for yourself, for your values. And if Aaron O’Toole is winning, he 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 draconian measures that these government, not only the federal one, but the provincial ones are imposing on us. And that freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of choice is very important in this campaign. And we are able to grow our support. I don’t know what will be the result at the end of this campaign, but I can feel a kind of a 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 6% or 7% of the vote. And if we have that from 1.6 to 6 or 7%, 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 campaign, the Green Party is around 3 and 4%. And as we started that campaign at 1.6, now we are around 6, 7 and maybe 12. So we’ll be able to do better than the Green and maybe do better than the Bloc Québécois 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 the 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’ll 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, 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, the huge majority, 70% of the population agree with that system. So what do we need to do? We need to speak about it more often and more people would be on our side and that’s the way we are doing politics. We don’t do it. Let me ask you about that. So, well, okay, 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 poll 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 will be elected, but our end goal is to speak about our ideas and when they will become popular and we know that 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 Aaron O’Toole 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, there’s about 70, 60% of the populations in Canada that are leftist. So that’s why the conservative is going to the left because their 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 increase 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 will be the same one in 2022 or at the next election because you know- Why do you think these ideas are so important that, so Canadians are gonna often vote to throw someone out rather than to bring someone in, let’s say, and maybe often that’s how democracies 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 will 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. In Ontario, we have a vaccine passport. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not again that vaccine. 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 into two groups, the vaccinated people and the unvaccinated people. And some of them will have more rights than others. 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 enough to take the vaccine. I’m 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 encourage 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 at the restaurant and the table just near me, there’s people who took the vaccine, they’re protected. And 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 injustice. And I don’t want that. So that’s why, you know. 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 was 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 that basis, because first of all, yes, we are free to decide, but 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 citizens, like I said in the beginning, and that would create a show me your papers 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. We don’t want that because COVID is there, there’s no difference between me that I didn’t take the vaccine and other person. If you decided to take the vaccine to protect yourself, not the society, now we have the immunity that is there out there. And yes, there are some variants, but the most important is we must learn to live with that virus. We not must care people. And now what Justin Trudeau is 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, there will be consequences that his words, there would be consequences. So he wants to punish people that decided not to take the vaccine. Everybody that’s unconstitutional, that’s illegal. Your personal health choice must be private. If your employer is asking you, did you take the vaccine or not? Canadians must not answer that question. It’s your personal, private health information, and you must have that discussion with your doctor. Now, all our personal information would be out there with that code QR that we have in Quebec and vaccine passport. They’re gonna 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. You know, 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, you know, 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 pandemic. And so that seems to be what you’re suggesting, I would say. And so, all right, so let’s talk about if what do you think Canada should look like in three months then in relationship to COVID? So you envision a completely open country fundamentally? 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 downs their economy, lock downs people and shut down their economy. I’m thinking about Florida with governor of the census, Texas and other countries. What we did with COVID-19, just the fact that the total government with the 344 billion. 10 billion. 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 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 their citizen. Is it more money in a socialist system or maybe more competition? And Canadians will know who to blame for a lack of services in healthcare and for waiting list. 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, you’ll have less and the best system will come. And like in other countries, when you have a 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 GSD. They will raise that tax and they will keep that tax and all the incomes coming from the GSD 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 mast for six months or something like that. And 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 akin 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 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 gonna 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 Edmonton and unveiled that platform with some of our candidates. That one of them is a atheist and others are 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 based on property rights on reserve, based 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 must be able to solve that. So why specify property rights? What do you see that be? Why is that the issue? Because, you know, you cannot, if you’re on reserve, 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 reserve in BC that develop 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 their house. Okay, so Canadians don’t understand this. I don’t understand this. So what’s the typical economic arrangement? So 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 the reserve. You have a house, yes, but you cannot do what you want in that house because that’s under the authority of the reserve. And that’s why 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 Nations, they agree that we must abolish the Indian Act, but they want to be part of the solution. What I’m telling them, yes, we want you to be fully participate in our 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, or if that’s distributed entirely in ways that are beyond their personal control. Yeah, but I want people to understand that they have a house. They can do what they want in their house, but they cannot mortgage the house. So 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 they don’t want them. They want more autonomy. They want to be able to have maybe the same responsibility like a municipality. So let’s have that discussion. We need to respect treaties. Yes, we can do that, but we need to open that. But the mainstream political parties are not ready for that because they don’t have the solution. Why do the Metis, 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 want to base our relationship nation to nation, respecting everybody, turning the page about the past. Not Ottawa will be there and telling you what to do every time. So abolishing the Indian Act, they like all that, but they want to participate with us to find a 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? Well, I believe it’s a failure. 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 core identity. And I think that that was his goal. And now with the racial politic that we have in this country and Trudeau was successful to put us in a little box. You are black, 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 Trudeau. For me, he’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. I believe that’s why people are ready to have that discussion and more and more people. The world culture put that in. When Trudeau said, there’s no recession anymore, a secession. And 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 Trudeau, all that world culture, and you know that better than me, Jordan. It was all in the universities couple of years ago. And now it’s in the civil society. And that’s the Trudeau heritage. And also the big deficit and the inflation. And so what do you think of Trudeau 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? Well, we will have O’Toole or Trudeau in a couple of days. But both of them, both of them I don’t like I don’t like them because they don’t have any character. They are following the polls. And some day they’re saying something, the other day they’re saying the opposite. But Trudeau I can tell you that he’s a good communicator. He’s able to have one line and with the mainstream media, everything. He was a teacher. So I understand that he’s very good, but there’s nothing for me is a puppet. And he 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, Trudeau said a couple of months ago that imposing a vaccine passport will be too divisive. That’s why I won’t do that. And now he’s seeing the opposite. Why? Because you look at the polls and he knows that more people are ready for that. So there’s no leadership that is listening, is advisor and he will say everything to be elected. And O’Toole is the same. So I don’t have any, I don’t know Trudeau personally. I don’t know O’Toole personally. I know them like every Canadian and I’m judging them by their policies as political leaders. And for me, the policies that they promote is not the right policies for our 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. 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 provinces, province, or it 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 to depot, their own pension plan, they must be able to have that. So that’s why what we are doing, 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 unites us across those regions as far as you’re concerned? What is it this Soctrudo 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 unites us across those fairly pervasive regional differences? It’s our history, our culture that is different in different region. It is our charter of rights, our freedom. The fact that we want 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-French 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 Justin Trudeau wants to build, a country more divisive. And for him, you are not Canadian. If you are a Canadian from Canada, China, he will, and O’Toole will do the same thing. He will call you a Chinese Canadian or a Pakistani’s Canadian. No, people came here to celebrate our freedoms. 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 a 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 our country. And we want to stop that and having policies that will look at everybody as a Canadian and not try to do that pandering 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 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, but you will have a freedom voice, not a war. You will have a common sense voice, not a war. 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 out 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 would be- Yeah, it’ll be 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.