Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 9, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

01:24:09

Maxime Bernier, Viva Frei & Lauren Chen Canadian Debate Debrief

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Debate Debrief.
	I will be your host for tonight, Lauren Chen, and with me is party leader of the People's Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier, and as well as candidate for the Westmount NDG writing, David Freyheit.
	Freyheit, yeah.
	There we go.
	Good start.
	I'll say hello to everyone watching on my channel.
	I would have done this live with Maxime.
	Had I not been a candidate, but I thought I might have lacked the partiality that is required and expected in order to hear Maxime's voice, although we did a live stream, was it almost a year ago now?
	And it was great.
	But this is what I was joking earlier.
	This is what the media gets for not letting Maxime speak.
	You get collaboration between YouTubers.
	The power of the people to now give Maxime the voice that was denied to him earlier this week.
	But just for clarity's sake, I do not claim to be impartial.
	However, I can definitely say that I am no less impartial than the CBC and the political establishment.
	Who have barred you from appearing in the previous three leaders' debates?
	And actually, that's a great point to start at.
	So we have heard the leaders of the NDG, Green Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, and Liberal Party discuss their issues on different policies that affect Canadians.
	How does it feel not being included as part of that discussion, despite now polling, I think, the latest numbers were at 10 or 12 percent?
	Yeah, first of all, as you know, the rules were for us, the PPC, to have 4% on average in the polls in the beginning of the campaign.
	And I believe that we were there, but, you know, we were not able to appeal that decision.
	So that being said, I campaigned all across the country.
	I was on the trail and speaking to people.
	But the worst of that is because there's still a lot of people that don't know that they have an option, don't know that the PPC exists.
	So for me, being there yesterday, I was not there, but...
	That would have been a nice opportunity for me to express our point of view to more Canadians.
	But that being said, when I saw that debate, that was not a debate.
	You know, I think, you know, it was a waste of time.
	They didn't have real discussion.
	The journalists were more leftist activists than journalists.
	And, you know, you have only 40 seconds to express your point of view when we are doing politics differently and we have a strong platform based on principles.
	And sometimes it will take more than 40 seconds to express your point of view.
	So I didn't have that opportunity to speak to Canadians.
	But, you know, I believe that Canadians were looking at that debate, watching that debate only for the first half hours.
	I believe that a lot of them were not following until the end.
	We have a challenge today.
	I hope that our people will stay with us until the end.
	I think whoever watched it to the end only watched it so they can capture the bites that they can run on Twitter for posts because it was a gong show, as we say.
	And the one thing that I think people who watch my channel know is the criteria to get into the debate.
	Nebulous is not the word.
	It's a formula.
	I've said it a dozen times.
	People still don't understand it.
	That in order to be invited to the federal leaders' debate, you have to be polling.
	At 4% or more, as determined by the group of selected pollsters, reputable pollsters, as measured in national polls from, I think it's nine days before the issuance of the writ, which is calling the election, to five days after.
	And when I discovered that they had the PPC at 3.27%, but then I saw that they had excluded six polls.
	So they had 15 pollsters that they could have selected from.
	They used nine, one of which had the PPC at 0.2%, Ipsos.
	So basically just the candidates are in support of the party.
	It doesn't even make any sense because the PPC got 1.6% last federal election, so that on its face is preposterous.
	But the rules were made so nebulous that you could literally pick and choose to arrive at whatever conclusion you wanted to arrive at.
	What's even more disconcerting, and it's something that I discovered recently, is that individual PPC candidates are being denied invitations to debates at the municipal local riding level.
	For any number of reasons, all of which are equally offensive.
	Some of them, they're not vaccinated, so they're using that as an excuse.
	Others are adopting the federal criteria that existed at the time.
	And others are just, you know, events occur without invitations being extended.
	But speaking about debate, I actually did a debate a day ago in my own writing in Bose, but the Conservative candidate...
	Double vaccinated.
	Good for him.
	I respect everybody.
	And as you know, I decided not to have the vaccine.
	So he was looking at a lot of excuses for me to not be there.
	And the last one was, oh, Bernie didn't have the vaccine.
	He's the only one.
	I don't want to debate with him.
	So what the radio station did, because it was a radio station, I was in one studio alone, and all the three others were in another studio.
	So segregation there.
	But I had fun.
	I think I won.
	And I have the opportunity to express my point of view, to speak about what I believe to people in both, and we'll see what will happen.
	But you have discrimination and segregation, and you're right, some of our candidates are telling us they don't want me to debate.
	I believe that the mainstream media is afraid of our message.
	They know that it's powerful, and they know if we have more opportunity, we'll be able to have more people on our side.
	Well, you've both mentioned the issue of vaccine segregation, and I think a lot of Canadians are very interested in that.
	But for the people who maybe aren't exposed to the PPC as of yet, and who missed out on that opportunity because you were not included in the debates, what would be, I guess, your elevator pitch of what the party stands for?
	We're not anti-vaccine.
	We're not anti-mask.
	We're for freedom.
	So we are for freedom of choice.
	Everybody must be able to decide what they want to do, if they want to have the vaccine or not.
	We respect everybody, the decision of everybody.
	And I can say, you know, the slogan that the feminists were using a couple of years ago, my body, my choice, that's a slogan that I like today.
	Our body, our choice, and everybody must be able to decide what they want to do.
	So that's our party.
	I was going to say, it's ironic.
	Kamala Harris was on Twitter today saying, the woman's right to choose what is done to her body is not negotiable.
	And then I, you know, tongue-in-cheek responded, I guess women can decide not to get vaccinated.
	But when people come to us and they say, elevator pitch, I think you guys are anti-vaxxers.
	I think you guys are anti-science.
	I think you guys are...
	I say, well, there's a difference between being anti-vax and anti-vaccine passports, and I'm double vaccinated, despite the fact that it did irk some of my viewers who said I succumbed to the pressure.
	Everyone's going to feel the way they want.
	I made my own decision.
	I thank you that you accept me around your table.
	The political cowardice to exploit, to weaponize the vaccination status to avoid debate as if...
	Even assuming you might be carrying something, Maxim, the asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic person poses such an existential threat that you can't sit in the same room not knowing that it's been weaponized and politicized for political purposes and for the individuals who try to get out of a debate for political cowardice purposes.
	But my three-line elevator pitch, we're not anti-vaccine, we're anti-vaccine passports, and that just means being pro-Constitution and respecting rights, not anti-science.
	We all agree pollution is bad, minimize pollution.
	But the Paris Accord...
	Ford doesn't do that.
	It actually probably does the exact opposite.
	So does carbon taxes.
	And anti-immigrant?
	It is not because you don't want to use immigration as cheap labour that makes you anti-immigrant or racist.
	I would actually dare say the exact opposite is true.
	We want to protect Canadians.
	Make sure that the Canadians of all races, creeds, ethnicities are being cared for properly before you start talking about having more kids.
	A responsible parent does not have more kids until they can take care properly of the ones they already have.
	I'll see you.
	Right.
	So right now, the issue of vaccine passports is huge, not on the provincial level only, but also the federal level.
	Justin Trudeau has announced that he intends to, if he remains in office, mandate vaccine passports for air travel, travel by train, and I think by sea as well.
	And he's also incentivizing provinces to develop their own vaccine passport programs to the tune of $1 billion, I think.
	What would you say to the Canadians out there who are concerned about COVID, that it's still a risk and they actually view the vaccine?
	It is not the case.
	Actually, in Quebec, they call the vaccine passport the freedom passport.
	That's the opposite.
	Your freedom papers.
	That's the opposite.
	It's like in 1984, you know, peace is war, war is peace.
	So I'm tired of all that.
	The reality is that that is happening right now in this country.
	It is discrimination.
	It is segregation.
	And actually, every Canadian.
	Every Canadian is in the same boat.
	Everybody can spread the virus.
	That's important.
	Yes, I understand that people decided to take the vaccine.
	Their risk to spread the virus is Minimum.
	But everybody can do that.
	So why doing that discrimination?
	And it's not based on science anymore.
	It's based on big government control.
	And I believe that now you'll have in Ontario, they will come with a vaccine passport before the end of this month.
	And for me personally, I won't be able to travel after this election because Trudeau said it will be enforced maybe in the beginning of October or something like that.
	But I can tell I will travel and I will fight that.
	You know, I went into jail because I did a political gathering in a park.
	It was unconstitutional, illegal, unfair, everything.
	And I will travel in Canada and that's my right.
	That's my constitutional right.
	You're a lawyer, David.
	You know it.
	I know what I believe the law says and I know what I believe about these measures.
	But imagine also just the utter hypocrisy.
	You are put in jail.
	For hosting a rally of a few dozen people in a park in Alberta.
	Eight.
	Literally, it was either three days before or three days after.
	Trudeau, Ford have a massive thousand-person rally in Ontario as a result of that terrible incident that occurred.
	The individual who drove his car into the family.
	So, you know, it's a political opportunism where, you know, they'll make exceptions when they want to and then they will come down with the full fist of fury when they want to.
	But the vaccine passport, I mean, I haven't used it.
	It's like Jerry Maguire.
	Show me the science.
	Show me the science that says that a vaccine passport does anything other than create a new limit from which the government is going to start taking your rights.
	We are in Canada, it's over 81% people over 12 fully vaccinated.
	And we were told from the beginning, two weeks to flatten the curve, never going to be mask mandates, never going to be compelled vaccinations.
	If we just reach 70%, things go back to normal.
	At some point, we've said this before and I'll say it again, we're going to have to learn to live with the virus before we learn to live with injustice because, for all intents and purposes, the virus is never going to go away in as much as any virus has ever gone away.
	And so you're going to have to learn to live with it, take the measures to protect the actual vulnerable, not just to penalize everyone, and also learn to live with a virus, learn to live with a situation without crushing the very civil liberties that make life worth living in the first place.
	And you said that they were telling us two weeks to flatten the curve.
	Now I'm telling people two weeks to flatten the lies.
	That would be important to vote the 20th of September.
	Imagine, it's a moving target to the point where now people think that the vaccine passport is going to help us get back to normal.
	How does it...
	Do that.
	When you're dealing with the levels of vaccination that you have now, you don't want to have a public debate.
	I call him supreme leader, sunset thief, and now I'm calling him the childhood thief.
	Francois Legault says, I don't want to have a public debate on this because I don't want citizens being exposed to misinformation.
	And so no debate, edict, fiat, one after the other.
	And no debate yesterday also about that.
	They were on the same page, like usual, on COVID-19.
	That's an interesting thing when we'll get into it, but like the journalists?
	Their questions presuppose the premises which are at issue here.
	Is the vaccine passport good for anything?
	But their presupposition is, it's good for something.
	The only question is, is more of it better?
	And no one was attacking the underlying actual issues because they all agreed with each other.
	And it's great to have a debate when you all agree.
	It's just a question of how much?
	How much vaccine passport?
	How much?
	A billion dollars on an app.
	That's what I also can't get over.
	Don't put the billion dollars into the healthcare system.
	Put it into an app fund.
	You've got to have your head examined to think that that makes sense.
	Well, I've heard a lot of PPC supporters say that they oppose the vaccine passport system because it is...
	To which people like Justin Trudeau actually recently replied, what about my freedom to travel safely with my children?
	I believe he implied that those people referring to vaccinated people were putting us all at risk, specifically children who are currently not able to get the vaccine.
	I think it's anyone below the age of 12. For now.
	Yeah, for now.
	What would you say to his assertion that by being unvaccinated or by allowing the unvax into these spaces, we are actually putting children's lives...
	I'm telling him, you know, do you believe in your own vaccine?
	The vaccine is supposed to be good for you.
	And I believe that it's good.
	If you have COVID-19, you'll have mild symptoms.
	We know that.
	So we're not putting anybody at risk.
	And when he said that, you know, we are putting our own kids at risk and other kids.
	It's a lie, it's propaganda, it's divisive, and that's Justin Trudeau.
	Justin Trudeau is the most divisive prime minister in the history of our country, by race, by gender, and now by vaccination status.
	I'm fed up of that, and I believe that I'm not the only one.
	We are Canadians, and everybody must unite, and that's our goal.
	We want to unite.
	All Canadians under the freedom umbrella.
	For me, maybe I'm one step further.
	It's disgusting to invoke children as the tools of political propaganda.
	Chris Kalitza on Twitter, he writes for CNN, said the same thing today.
	When are these people just going to get vaccinated so my nine-year-old's not at risk?
	And I sent him the statistics.
	You either trust the science or you don't.
	You either trust the statistics or you don't.
	And for the people saying trust the science...
	I flipped him the statistics of hospitalization rates of children under 12. I mean, it's insignificant, not to say that when it happens, it's not serious, but it happens more with the ordinary flu.
	The deaths from COVID, it was anywhere between 0.00% and 0.003%, or 0.03%.
	I said, these are the stats, so you either trust the science or you don't, but to use your nine-year-old as a political pawn to promote fear porn propaganda, it's par for the course in politics, but it makes everybody panic, it triggers that part of the brain where people stop thinking rationally, and they start looking at everyone like, unless you're vaccinated, you are an existential threat to my nine-year-old, and that is, it's unscientific, it's just panic.
	And it's not based on the statistic, because now we know.
	Younger people under 20 years old, only 15, 15 of them, yeah, it's too much, but only 15 of them died from COVID and the majority of them had comorbidities.
	15 on 27,000 people who died from COVID here in Canada.
	So there's more young people below 20 years old that are dying every year.
	65 every year are dying from...
	What is the disease?
	I don't remember the name of the disease, but there's more people who are dying than other diseases than COVID-19.
	As far as kids go, I mean, any parent knows from experience, the ordinary flu lands kids in the hospital.
	So you say, like, get the vaccine and then it'll be back to normal.
	But if this is the new threshold, if this virus with these statistics is the new threshold, that is one heck of a new starting point for the government to say, well...
	And we've heard Justin Trudeau, you pointed it out, invoking the pandemic response language to climate change.
	It's only a question as to where they springboard from here into.
	And actually, that's a great transition into maybe another good topic, which is climate change.
	The other leaders, it seemed to be a competition as who could out-regulate the Canadian economy when it comes to things like a carbon tax or carbon caps.
	I think Aaron O'Toole got the most flack for not having, you know, a no target.
	What would you say to Canadians who care about the environment because no one enjoys seeing, for example, filthy air or polluted streams, but there are still many Canadians who worry that these regulations will have an impact on the economy, on, for example, their ability to heat their homes.
	How do we balance those two issues?
	Yeah, we can do it, you know, easily, because when you look at climate change, people will say, oh, the People's Party, they don't believe in their denier of the climate change.
	No, the climate is always changing, and we understand that.
	But, you know, look at the facts.
	Canada represents less than 1.6% of all the global emissions on the planet, so we cannot save the planet first.
	Trudeau and O'Toole and all these other leaders are speaking like, we must do something in Canada because we will save the planet.
	And there's no climate emergency.
	That's being said, a carbon tax won't solve the problem.
	And it will be worse for Canadians.
	It will hurt our economy.
	It will hurt our way of life.
	And it's happening right now in this country.
	So, yes, all these three leaders were the same on that.
	What we are saying, you know...
	The good news on that, we won't do anything on carbon tax, and the Paris Accord, we won't sign that.
	But yes, we still have in Canada lakes that are polluted, rivers that are not clean, so we must do something there.
	We will take concrete actions for the environment, but we won't impose a tax to fight climate change.
	And we won't give money to African countries under dictatorship to fight climate change.
	Because I believe that these dictators, I'm pretty sure that they don't put the money over there to fight climate change.
	It's the easy demonizing, like anti-vax, because nobody wants to understand the nuance between vaccine passports and vax.
	Anti-climate.
	First of all, I told this to Maxime when we first met, if the party were anti-climate, I wouldn't be here.
	I love fishing, I love camping, I love Canada for that very reason.
	To go from there to say, well, if you don't support the Paris Accord and if you don't support carbon taxes, you're anti-environment.
	You're out in left field because we know this.
	Canada represents, what, 1.5%, 1.6% of global emissions.
	Operating on the basis that emissions are the ultimate pollution.
	Some people disagree, but let's operate on that basis.
	You could shut down the Canadian, you could shut down Canada.
	It will not have any impact on global emissions.
	It will actually only increase them because everything will get outsourced as it's been doing right now to China and India, the number one polluters both overall and objectively.
	And the way that politicians dishonestly get out of that argument, China, I think, produces more pollution or more emissions than...
	the developed world combined.
	And so what do they do?
	They say, oh, well, per capita, Australia is bad.
	Per capita, Canada is bad.
	So, I mean, that's a double whammy right there, because China gets to pollute everything, and they get to amortize their pollution per capita, because they're also massively overpopulated.
	So they get to pollute and contribute to global overpopulation, and somehow Canadians are expected to cripple manufacturing, become utterly dependent on foreign countries for certain things that we could otherwise be manufacturing here, and You end up outsourcing the pollution so you feel good about what you're doing because, you know, it's virtue signaling at a political level, but the impact is actually worse than if you just did nothing at all, or it's even worse than if you just did something actually practical.
	Like, hypothetically, impose a carbon tariff on stuff coming in from the polluting countries so you can bring back manufacturing.
	We do it well here.
	We do it very responsibly here.
	Probably, I think we could all agree, more responsibly than in China and in India.
	And bring back manufacturing, stop being dependent on foreign countries, and build our economy and protect our economy.
	And speaking of stopping being dependent on foreign countries, Canada, as we all know, is a resource-rich nation.
	We're very, very fortunate in that regard.
	But an increasingly divisive issue when we look at Canadians, I guess, geographically, is the issue of oil.
	You have a lot of Western Canadians who see this anti-oil Trudeau government, and I don't think it would be, I think even they would agree with that designation.
	And they feel like their economic opportunities are being stifled.
	What do you think the federal government's role should be in monitoring?
	First of all, I think it's important to have the discussion.
	It's too bad that during the debate yesterday, they didn't have the discussion.
	That's important because it's not only important for the prosperity of our country, but it's important for the unity of our country.
	You know, I'm traveling across the country.
	I know that in Alberta, there's about 30% of the population that are thinking to separate from Canada.
	When you have that, you must have an answer to that.
	But the mainstream politicians don't want to touch that because they don't want to give an answer.
	And it's okay for them.
	But no, that's why I believe that people understand that we need to have a national debate about pipelines, about the prosperity of this country.
	And when I'm saying that, that yes, our party is for pipelines, we can build pipelines that will be safe for the environment and safe for the population in 2021, and everybody on So let's have that discussion.
	And all the gas that is going to the Trudeau airport in Montreal on the ground, it's by pipeline from the port of Montreal.
	And so, you know, we have pipelines in Quebec and that's only the politician in Eastern Canada and in Quebec, our provincial government, that is against pipeline because Because they are listening to the radical environmentalists.
	So we need to have the discussion.
	We are open.
	And we can do that.
	It's a federal jurisdiction.
	We use the Constitution, Section 9210.
	And like that, the federal government will have the full authority, the full jurisdiction.
	And it will be able to approve pipelines projects.
	And I think we need that.
	When I'm speaking about that in Eastern Canada, in New Brunswick, they know that it will create jobs over there and in Montreal.
	But no, pipelines, the environmentalists, radical ones are...
	You know, it's bad, it's bad.
	But that's our position, and the other parties are the same on that.
	I want to say, everyone out there, if you want to have your minds blown the way my mind was blown when I first did a video on the pipeline, Google the oil pipelines in Canada, existing ones.
	You're going to see a network that you didn't know already exists.
	And so to pretend, again, like it's a new problem is politically disingenuous.
	The other issue is people like to say, okay, well, let's go green.
	Let's go electric.
	And don't do at least any actual discussion about the mechanics of this.
	Like, okay, lithium batteries are good, except you're mining these rare earth minerals somewhere else, so you don't see the pollution.
	You've got to charge the cars.
	So people don't really like to pay attention to the pollution that comes from hydro dams.
	Do you need to build new hydro dams?
	Or what damage did those cause in the first place?
	So there is a balance, and there's a discussion that has to be had.
	Between the risks and the pollution of one form of energy versus what we refer to as green energy without really stopping to think about what goes into getting those minerals for those batteries, what goes into disposing them afterwards, what goes into charging them when you have them, those all leave footprints.
	And so the question is finding the one that leaves the most efficient, or the combination that leaves the most efficient footprint.
	But again, demonized into not even having the discussion, because if you talk about oil, you are a radical...
	...person from out west to, you know, whatever stereotypes they have, which does lead to the disunity of the discussed Wexit where people are just fed up with...
	One portion of the country dictating policy for the other portion of the country.
	You mentioned green energy, and that was a huge topic of the debate last night.
	And it seems like most of the other parties are in favor of some sort of subsidy program for green energy, investing in green energy.
	What is your response to that?
	Do you think that the federal government should have a role in trying to develop these technologies?
	No, it would be the free market.
	I believe if you're an entrepreneur and you want to have support, you will try to please your consumers.
	More and more people are asking for green energy, yes.
	So, you know, we have more electric cars right now.
	They are moving their production to answer that request from their consumers.
	The free market can do that.
	Yes, there are some programs that can help to be able that these cars would be more affordable.
	But that's not the first thing that we must do in this country.
	We are broke.
	We are broke.
	And now they were saying spending money, money, money.
	Everything is about money.
	Let's be serious.
	Let's be fiscal responsible.
	Let's balance that budget.
	And maybe after that, the first priority would be to lower taxes to Canadians.
	But also, this is a shared jurisdiction with provinces.
	So there's programs at the provincial level that promote Canadians for buying green electric cars.
	Same thing in Ontario.
	So why does the federal government again put more programs on that?
	Let's clean the house.
	Be sure to balance the budget.
	And the free market will always try to answer the needs of their consumers.
	And that's becoming right now.
	You have more electric cars.
	Once you also start talking about the government collecting money to then divvy out to certain entities.
	From what I understand, it didn't work all that well when Obama did it.
	And it tends to lead to corruption.
	It tends to lead to everyone taking their cut of the investment.
	There could be cost-effective ways of subsidizing, like maybe tax credits, which already exist.
	But the idea of financing is one thing.
	It tends to lead to waste.
	But the flip side is, yes, they're already developing them in tandem.
	The thing is, you develop them in tandem, you don't choke one off until you're not dependent or more dependent or can get by with other means.
	And what they're trying to do is, you know, mother is the necessity of all invention, but...
	At some point, you have to be realistic, and if you want to phase into something else, you will let that exploit over time, and we're seeing it.
	I mean, Teslas are everywhere now.
	Solar panels.
	Solar panels are everywhere, but they don't come without their own problems.
	It's like, you know, people always talk about, we get rid of plastic bags, single-use plastic bags, so you get those recyclable bags.
	Nobody stops to think about the footprint that those bags make.
	How many plastic bags go into that bag?
	And then when that bag tears, you chuck it in the garbage, get another one.
	There's an equation, there's a balance that you have to talk about and figure out and calculate with all of these decisions.
	But when something's good, other things are bad, you can avoid all discussion altogether.
	Yeah, I saw an article not too long ago talking about because cotton is so resource-intensive when it comes to the use of water, how it's actually bad for the environment, all of these cotton bags.
	So I'm just like, I just want to buy my groceries.
	Just tell me what to do, I'll do it.
	I don't know.
	And we use something called loofah baskets.
	Free publicity.
	Lufa baskets, where they deliver it in plastic bins.
	Everything's in paper bags.
	If it has a bag, you take it out, you put the boxes back on your porch, and minimal waste, if any.
	And it works great.
	Those plastic bins, they don't break often, and they can be used forever.
	The market has a way of finding it out, figuring out the solution.
	But the idea that you just take money to start giving to companies to do some research, things always go sour.
	But people always make off with some good money in the process.
	So I'm listening to your responses here, and I know that people maybe watching this are somewhere screaming at the screens, but you're not treating this like an emergency, like a crisis.
	Where is that sense of urgency?
	And that is something we especially saw the NDP, the Green Party, and Trudeau himself really try to drive home in the big debate that these maybe extreme measures are necessary because we're dealing with an extreme situation.
	What's your position on that?
	Absolutely, you're right.
	There's no emergency there.
	There's no climate emergency, climate alarmism.
	No, they are using that to push some programs and in line with their socialist philosophy.
	That's what they want.
	And I'm saying no.
	The urgency right now is the inflation.
	We are paying.
	If you do your grocery, 5-6% inflation.
	And with all that spending that these leaders are telling you that they will spend, the conservative or the liberal, they will spend money for the next 10 years.
	They won't balance the budget.
	The inflation will be worse than that, than 5-6%.
	We are paying right now.
	Inflation is a hidden tax.
	You cannot buy the same amount of services or goods with your money because your purchasing power is going down.
	Your standard of living is going down.
	And all these establishment politicians were saying, oh, no, we can't spend more.
	And there's an urgency here for green technology.
	No, we don't have the money.
	And we are paying the emergency right now.
	It's the COVID-19 crisis, the vaccine passport that they impose on us, all these draconian measures and the inflation.
	And everybody is becoming poor right now.
	not tomorrow, right now.
	As he said, You get them to panic right before they make the decision.
	Get a timer over their heads and you see the red lights flash down.
	They'll make the wrong decision and they'll panic.
	Even if it is a serious issue, let's even say that some people think it's an emergency.
	That doesn't mean you make rash decisions based on panic, which is what they effectively want you to do.
	You have AOC saying we have 12 years left.
	Okay.
	When you have lived through the era, and it was a little bit before my time, but when you lived through the era where they were literally saying, we're going to head into another ice age if we don't stop certain emissions, and when you've lived through the age where you now don't just understand, but you fully recognize the media thrives off panic for their model, or industry, you then realize that, you know, maybe the panic is manufactured panic specifically so you can get people to stop thinking, just act reflexively and support whatever
	So even if it is a crisis, even if it is 12 years left, which I Maybe I'm an anti-climate denier.
	I think it would be like ten years by now.
	Maybe this makes me a climate denier because I think we have more than nine years.
	We might have some issues.
	We might see some forest fires, which might have some man-made causes and not just environmental problems, as in forest management.
	But if that makes me a climate denier, then people will run with that.
	But you get people to panic.
	You get them to make the wrong decision, not the right one.
	Well, I mean, speaking of panic, it did seem like a lot of the responses that were given at the debates, and I don't think this is me being uncharitable, is the idea of government just giving more.
	And we saw this when it came to the issue of childcare affordability.
	Some of the answers were to just give Canadians more money from the government.
	I have it on good authority from a very wise man that budgets balance themselves.
	But what would your approach be to actually trying to reduce spending?
	the Canadian federal government because that involves cuts and I think that's an issue that Usually politicians don't want to touch.
	Yeah, they don't want to.
	Actually, I was not at the last debate, but I was in the election in 2019, and I was at the debate, and they have a question from Canadians.
	And we had a lady, and she asked a question to everybody, you know, what will you do with my pension?
	That was at the debate in 2019.
	The same kind of questions at the last debate.
	And I was really happy because I was speaking the last one.
	And everybody, I will give you more money.
	Yes, your pension.
	It's important.
	We'll be more generous.
	And I look at the lady, I say, nothing.
	I cannot.
	We are broke.
	I won't do anything for you.
	I won't pender to your votes.
	We need to have serious conversation.
	And now the goal is to balance the budget.
	But the politicians...
	Usually doesn't like to speak like that, tell the truth.
	But when you're saying that, I think you gain more credibility.
	And yesterday, they were saying, everybody was saying, we're going to give you more money to housing and all these problems.
	But that's not the solution.
	Our thing, the solution is we have the Bank of Canada.
	That is the Bank of Canada as a target inflation of 3%.
	That's why also that's an impact why the houses are costly.
	But also immigration, you need to look at it globally.
	We have more immigrants, 400,000 people a year.
	41% of them are going to big cities, Toronto and Vancouver.
	So that's put pressure on the price of houses over there.
	So we need to look at it globally.
	And the solution is not to build more affordable housing.
	We need to look at, because we are doing that for the last...
	I don't know how many years, and we still have the same problem.
	So we must look at another solution, more in line with free markets.
	So that's why I was not surprised.
	It's a politician telling you that I can give you something today, but everybody will pay for that.
	Right now or tomorrow.
	That was not responsible.
	And O'Toole actually said the same thing, because in the French debate, and he didn't say the same thing in English, but in the French debate, when he had the question about how will you balance the budget, he said, I'll do that in 10 years.
	Yeah, but tell us how you...
	And after, you know, he was speaking like a politician, answering the question, but you don't have the answer.
	But just at the end, he said, without cuts.
	So, what he said is the budget balance itself, like to you.
	No, it probably can't add much.
	The bigger the state gets, the more dependent people get on it, and then the more frightened they get when you talk about cuts, because you have people who become dependent on the state, but the state, the government is not a money-making industry.
	They get their money from taxpayers.
	So, you have three choices.
	You get people to make more money, to pay more taxes.
	Or you get the government to spend less money.
	Or you get the government to make money through other means than selling weapons to Saudi Arabia type thing.
	It's one of those three options.
	But there is...
	I mean, you've been in the government.
	I haven't.
	I just know what I see in terms of a billion dollars to CBC, 600 million dollars to the media.
	That buys a lot of favorable coverage.
	You've got to grease the wheels.
	The punchline was that he was showing unfavorable headlines, people, so no one accuses me of misinformation.
	There's a lot of fat to be trimmed from that government stake without even getting to essential stuff.
	And at some point, people might have to realize to their own benefit that they can probably do better for themselves than they can by being dependent on government for certain government jobs, which are, you know, jobs that might not necessarily be value added to the overall economy when they come at a cost from taxpayers who are financing them.
	So when some people lose their jobs or at least are phased out of one job, it forces evolution in another, and it might not be to the detriment of society as a whole or even those individuals.
	But, man, when you find out where the government's wasting money, $150 million a year on...
	There's fat to trim that would not take away from the quality of the meal.
	Don't forget foreign aid.
	We can save $5 billion there by cutting foreign aid and bringing back that money home.
	That's intolerant, Maxime.
	So that's the answer from the left.
	And I always said, you know, we are generous Canadians, but we are able to help other countries if there's...
	Environmental disaster or humanitarian crisis.
	Yes, we'll be there.
	But it's not our role to give money to China in a development bank over there to help China to have more influence in Africa.
	That's not our job.
	That's not our job to give money to build roads in Africa.
	So yes, we will be there if there's a crisis.
	But we must be realistic that we cannot save the world.
	Just from the same sort of welfare ideology is that, first of all, these foreign countries to which Canada gives have their own governments.
	And when you just give money to foreign governments that are sometimes corrupt, sometimes not spending that money properly, it doesn't cause them to be responsible.
	So you are actually only exacerbating the very same problems you think you're solving by...
	You know, giving money away to certain countries, to certain governments, you're actually exacerbating the problem.
	So, again, it makes you feel good while you do it, but it doesn't even solve the very problem that you want to solve.
	And sometimes, call it tough love or just call it economic realities, if you don't give your money to certain corrupt regimes that are not even going to spend it properly, you're going to do good for both.
	Canada and the world.
	Well, we've seen from the Trudeau government that foreign aid has been a staple of his time in office.
	Canada is back.
	Spreading the wealth everywhere, except for maybe Canada.
	But something else that I suppose relates to foreign development the same way is that the Trudeau government has also made it a priority to let in, like you said, many refugees.
	Or not even refugees, but migrants in general.
	We're not even talking specifically people who are fleeing war-torn or dangerous.
	Now, you know, you have mentioned immigration in relation to the housing crisis driving up costs.
	There are people out there who will argue that actually on the flip side, all of these immigration numbers increasing is actually good for the Canadian economy because these are workers, these are purchasers, and therefore we're actually growing our economy.
	Do you think there's any merit to that argument?
	No, because if you look at the statistic right now in the 400,000 people, immigrants that will come next year, 76% of them are refugees or people coming on the reunification of family.
	Reunification of family is when a skilled immigrant is coming here because that person has a job in Canada and a Canadian entrepreneur wasn't able to find a Canadian for that job.
	He or she has the right to have another person coming from another country to help.
	And so we call them skilled immigrants or economic immigrants.
	And only 25%, 24% of them are economic immigrants that are participating in our society right now, that are able to contribute to our society.
	And also it's easier for that person to be part of our society when you have a job.
	And so 76 of them are people, it can be grandmom, the uncle and all these people that are coming.
	And they will participate in the society, but not now, maybe in five years, in 10 years.
	And we have to pay for that.
	So let's build immigration in line with our economic needs.
	And that's not what we are doing.
	It's mass immigration.
	We believe in sustainable immigration.
	And we are the only party on that subject also.
	But we want to have the discussion because we love this country.
	We don't want our country to be like in France, where there's no go zone over there and the integration is not perfect.
	We want people that will come here, share our values, participate in our society.
	That's generous.
	That's not selfish.
	And help us to build this country, not build back better.
	Yeah.
	I just noticed that we've gotten to a point possibly where housing prices are so high and Canadian purchasing power is so low that it seems that a substantial or meaningful portion of people who have the money to invest in Canadian real estate are not Canadian.
	And so that effectively It takes the houses out of the market for Canadians.
	The price continually goes up because our purchasing power goes down because of certain government decisions, and it exacerbates the problem.
	What the solution is and what they're proposing now, it's interesting because, again, it's almost as though they have not been in power for six years knowing this to implement the very same solutions they're promising on the eve of an election.
	We've known about this for a long time.
	I've known about it since the last time I went to British Columbia.
	I got family in Toronto.
	We've known about this.
	But, you know, the government only finds solutions to their own government-created problems on the eve of an election.
	It's amazing.
	It's an amazing phenomenon.
	But to play devil's advocate for people who I know are going to be saying this doesn't talk of...
	Limiting or lowering immigration levels sort of paint Canada as a less than welcoming country.
	Isn't it our duty as people in a prosperous nation to open up our arms and take in people who are seeking a better life for themselves?
	Yeah, we are.
	But we are.
	But, you know, not everybody can be Canadians.
	We cannot save the world.
	And our immigration policy, when I unveiled that policy at the last election in 2019, A lot of immigrants were there in the room.
	I did that in Toronto.
	They agree with that because they came here by following the rules.
	And now it's an open bar.
	Everybody can come.
	And they don't like that.
	They came here and they had to follow the rules.
	Now it's not the same thing.
	And a lot of these people are not part of our society right now.
	We are not anti-immigration.
	We like the diversity of this country.
	We want this country to be like that.
	We're not like Justin Trudeau, believing in diversity and always more and more diversity.
	Trudeau is the guy that believes in the cult of diversity.
	Everybody must be different and promoting every ethnicity, every race, and having a program.
	You know, you're a black entrepreneur, you need a program.
	You know, we will abolish that.
	If we have a program for entrepreneurs, it would be for every entrepreneur, not only black entrepreneurs.
	That racial politics extreme Multiculturalism, mass immigration.
	It is destroying our country.
	And so, I'm telling, yes, we'll be generous.
	Right now, like I said, 76% are the reunification of family and refugees.
	But we are not helping the real refugees.
	If you want to be generous and open your arms, you must help the real refugees where they're waiting, where their life is in danger in a camp somewhere in another country.
	Now what we're doing, people crossing the border in Quebec and coming from the state of New York, their life is not in danger over there.
	So it's not fair.
	These people are jumping the queue and the real ones are all in danger in a camp somewhere.
	I'll push back on your pushback, Lauren.
	I'll suggest that people look at Canada and say it's a prosperous nation, it's a rich country.
	If people knew the statistics of children living in poverty in Canada...
	And I think it's one in five children are living in poverty or one in five children don't have enough to eat.
	In my area, near Saint-Michel, something like one in three kids are on one meal a day.
	They're given backpacks of food when they go home for the weekend because they don't have enough to eat.
	And the indigenous populations don't have clean drinking water.
	I mean, you have homelessness, you have drug addiction, you have problems everywhere in Canada.
	And the idea that...
	I mean, imagine just being one of these kids who doesn't have enough to eat, or the indigenous population which has been waiting for clean drinking water for decades, and you're saying, well, things are so well here, you're all rich, you may not be able to drink clean water, you might have some of the most awful living conditions, objectively, not just by Canadian standards.
	It's a rich country.
	Deal with it.
	We're going to take other people in before we actually solve our own problems.
	I mean, that does a disservice not just to Canada as a whole.
	I mean, that does a disservice to Canadian values.
	I mean, get your own problems under control.
	Make sure that we have no, not no, it'll never be realistic, but get the hungry children, people living in poverty under control, get clean drinking water to our indigenous populations.
	Before you start trying to play savior for the world while you're ignoring your own kids.
	Yeah, you're speaking like Jordan Peterson.
	Do your bed first in the morning, and after that, you'll be able to help yourself, and after that, you'll be able to help others.
	That's what you're saying.
	You say Jordan Peterson, you know what people are going to accuse us of.
	But it's an amazing thing.
	Responsible values have been demonized at the altar of the appearance of generosity when it is, in fact, just penalizing everyone in the long run.
	Well, I mean, since there's no liberal representation here, NDP or Green or Bloc Quebecois, I guess my question to you both is, you talk about the fact, and it's not just an assertion, it is a fact that there are Canadians who are struggling, no running water on far too many reserves in Canada.
	You have drug problems, homelessness, general poverty, especially exacerbated over the past two years, yet you are both talking about cuts and spending reductions.
	Do you honestly believe that the way to help these people is actually...
	By decreasing government spending?
	And if so, would you mind laying out exactly for people how less government spending equals more prosperity for Canadians?
	First of all, we must say that all these spending are not going to people.
	It's not going to people.
	It's going to corporations and they try to create jobs.
	We must believe in the free markets.
	To help the people first is to be I wish I can tell you and I can tell Canadians that yes, you'll be richer tomorrow, I'll be elected and I'll give you $1,000 more.
	We cannot.
	I don't have.
	You need to work and after that you have your salary and you produce something for the society.
	The government is the problem.
	The government is not the solution.
	And everything that the government is doing, clean water on reserve.
	That's not new.
	But the government is not able to solve that.
	Give that responsibility to people that are living there.
	Give them the resources.
	And we have policy for that, for First Nations, having a new relationship with them.
	But that being said...
	I wish I can tell them, but you'll be Richard.
	But when you cut $1.2 billion to CBC, that will help everybody.
	When we cut foreign aid, that will help everybody.
	The money will come back here.
	So the cuts that I'm speaking about, it's something that is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
	I won't cut their pension.
	We won't cut employment insurance.
	We will cut extra spending that are not in line We're not the richest country on the planet.
	So we need to do this difficult decision.
	And, you know, it's not so difficult to cut $1.2 billion to CBC and to cut foreign aid or to cut corporate welfare.
	We can save $5 to $10 billion by cutting corporate welfare.
	And balancing the budget...
	If you're looking at the data coming from the Trudeau government, the last year of the first mandate, the deficit would be around $15 billion.
	And I think at that time...
	That's enough for 15 different VAX passport apps.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And Lauren, I appreciate the question because the question again presupposes...
	A certain supposition that's baked into the question, like when everyone talks about cuts, it's the big bad boogeyman who's literally going to the orphanage and saying, we're cutting your funding this year.
	That's not what the cuts mean.
	And the funny thing is, a family tries to save nickels and dimes and then they don't realize that a $400 charge has been going through their credit card for the last month.
	When you're talking about where you make the cuts, there's massive areas where it will have...
	Tremendous impacts in terms of how that could be otherwise redistributed to the actual people who are in need.
	It's not a question of cutting the funding to the institutions that need it the most.
	It's just cutting the fat so that you can actually save some money and then even look at redistributing or spending it properly.
	I was talking with the daycare professionals in my neighborhood.
	And knowing what they make in a year, and then knowing what other government officials make in a year, knowing what the chief medical officers of certain cities are making, $400,000 a year.
	Wow.
	The COVID ads are the easiest one, just to think of offhand.
	Half a million dollars for an ad while these schools don't have proper air circulation and while the government doesn't want to put in air quality tests because they don't have the money, but they sure do cash their checks every day of the week.
	But they have the money for the ad propaganda, COVID-19 propaganda.
	They have money, 150 million on ads.
	They have 600 million for media.
	Imagine what that money could go to and imagine how much you could save and then properly spend it and then work with private partnerships to get the services to the people who need them.
	Sometimes it's not a question of money.
	I mean, there are ways to work private partnerships so that people who need it get it and not just so that government entities, government corporations get this money in amounts that would flabbergast the average person once they find out where it goes and how much goes there.
	But what you just said about cutting money that is going to Canadians, that can be, you know...
	An argument from the left and telling you, oh, you're bad, you're going to do that.
	But in reality, that's why we need to have a discussion.
	It's easy to say, oh, the PPC, you know, they're not Canadians, they want to cut poor people.
	No.
	If you look at our platform and all the cuts, we are able to achieve what we said without, you know, cutting the money that is going to the people.
	But you need to explain that.
	And it's easy to put you in a corner, you know, bad Bernier and PPC, and you won't help everybody.
	We will help them because we will do what we need to do to be sure to have a smarter government in Ottawa, more freedom, and if you have more freedom, you'll have more prosperity.
	All right.
	Now, I'm not sure how much time we have left, but I definitely do want to ask you both at least one more question, and that is about splitting the vote.
	I've got a well-formulated answer to this.
	Okay, well, let's hear it because a lot of times, you know, I talk about how I voted PPC last time and I'll be voting PPC this time.
	You cannot help but have at least several people, you know, in a comment, a thread, in a conversation talking about, isn't that just another vote for Justin Trudeau?
	Aren't you just going to ensure that any, you know, center-right libertarian vote in Canada is split?
	Go ahead.
	When nothing distinguishes the main three parties, you're not splitting a vote with them, they're splitting the vote with each other.
	I mean, if you're anti-vaccine passport and you don't want to see it, if you're anti-lockdown and you never want to see it again, if you are anti-carbon tax and you don't ever want to see it...
	You're not splitting your vote by voting PPC.
	You're splitting your vote by voting among either of those three.
	Because it's only going to be a question of lockdowns or more lockdowns.
	Vaccine passport or more stringent vaccine passport.
	Carbon taxes or higher carbon taxes.
	I genuinely think O'Toole has made a political calculated decision to try to split as many votes from the liberals.
	And it's not the PPC stealing votes from the conservatives that's going to affect anything here.
	My own observation...
	PPC is actually taking votes from the Liberals, because they see now, A, a leader who's fundamentally corrupt, through and through, demonstrably true over the last six years, they want out, and they don't necessarily want to go further to the left of the NDP, and they might realize that PPC is not quite what it was painted out to be.
	But my bottom line answer, PPC is not splitting the Conservative vote now.
	Conservatives are splitting the Liberal vote, NDP is splitting the Liberal vote, and there's going to be a cannibalizing among those three parties.
	And my answer of principle?
	If you vote for the lesser of the evils, you're always going to end up with evil, and you never split your vote if you vote with the entirety of your conscience.
	Yeah, and thank you, David.
	I spent a lot of time thinking about that.
	But what I can add also, you know, if you're a conservative and you cannot split the vote because we are the only conservative party in this country, conservative and fiscal conservative, and, you know, I'm asking you, vote for the real one.
	Don't vote for the Conservative Party of Canada.
	We are conservative only in Maine.
	That's it.
	That's all.
	On all the platforms.
	And I'm telling also people that we are able to attract people from the left, like David just said, because of that COVID hysteria, because of the COVID passport, they know, like us, that this country is going in the wrong direction.
	More socialism, more communism.
	We don't want that.
	And so we don't split any vote.
	We are there.
	We are doing politics differently.
	And all the others, yeah, they are splitting the vote in between themselves.
	It's a big thing.
	Split the vote, vote conservative.
	You're going to end up with vaccine passports, like O'Toole has flip-flopped.
	But these are conservative vaccine passports.
	What's going on in everybody's mind who's thinking of voting conservative just to get Trudeau out?
	They're actually hoping that they're voting for someone who's being politically dishonest now, and they're hoping that O'Toole's going to flip-flop once he gets elected and say, okay, maybe I'm going to come back on this, maybe I'm going to come back on that.
	They're actually banking in their own minds that O'Toole is not quite as liberal as he is publicly espousing his beliefs to be now.
	But it's like, vote Conservative.
	Great.
	You'll end up with everything you'll end up with with the Liberals.
	And I can hear the crowd out there going crazy when Maxime says, you know, we're the only conservative party.
	I'll say it until I'm blue in the face.
	I don't consider myself to be conservative.
	I don't even know what it means.
	Fiscal conservative, I can understand.
	And if respecting the constitution of this country, the Charter of Rights, makes me conservative, I may have to live with the label.
	But there's nothing conservative about the conservatives.
	There's nothing liberal about the liberals.
	It's the ultimate irony.
	When I'm saying that, you're right, because I said that actually in New Brunswick, and people said, Maxime, I'm voting for you, and it's not because you're conservative, it's because of your values.
	So we are real, you know, on the economy, you can call us libertarian, on the culture side, more maybe conservative, and we are the real liberals in the classical term, but classical liberal.
	So that can be the description.
	But the best thing is, if you believe in our four principles, individual freedom, personal responsibility, respect, and fairness, look at our policies.
	They are in line with our principle.
	You will come.
	Now, I do want to give you both time to maybe address anything that I haven't brought up.
	But one last thing that I just, I cannot...
	Not ask about is that we have seen in the Trudeau government an increasing interest in regulating the speech of Canadians.
	We have seen that there is a push now to perhaps monitor what they are calling a hate speech on the internet, even with something like Bill C-10.
	We're talking about maybe regulating independent journalists, independent people online as if they were actual broadcasters.
	There is an appetite for this among some people.
	What is the PPC's position?
	It's very clear.
	You're speaking about two bills, Bill C-10 and Bill C-36.
	These bills are not enforced, but they will be enforced if we have a liberal government or maybe a conservative one, and they are very dangerous for our freedom.
	And they are targeting YouTubers, and they are targeting us on YouTube also.
	And this is really the worst type of law, and that is the one that perhaps affects me.
	Oh, yeah.
	So I'm glad that we're addressing it.
	I got...
	I discovered it, but it goes back to when I say that liberals, and I mean the political party, not individuals.
	The liberal party is not liberal.
	It's your body, your choice, unless I say otherwise.
	It's freedom of speech, unless I say it or I don't like what you have to say.
	I've come to the realization that we do have very interesting speech laws in Canada as to what is considered hate speech, whereas other countries don't even recognize hate speech.
	It is in a criminal code.
	And that's exactly the thing.
	We already have laws that deal with this.
	More laws, less justice.
	We have provisions of law to deal with incitement, to deal with threats of violence, which is not protected speech.
	What they got into with Bill C-10...
	Was nothing other than they bailed out the CBC with a billion dollars on legacy media.
	It's nothing else than the digital protection of the CBC because they are losing their voice to independent creators like you, like me, like Maxime's voice on the internet, like Rebel.
	They're losing their voice and they're losing control of the narrative and so they want to turn anything and everything willy-nilly into alleged hate speech so they can shut it down.
	And, you know, they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that dastardly election that they called.
	And that Bill C-10 will come back depending on who the government is.
	But it's objectively dangerous in the political sense.
	It's patently obvious what they're going for.
	And it is to control the free dissemination of information, the democratization of the information that the Internet has brought.
	But we said also before that politicians are creating problems to try to push their solutions.
	There's no problem about hate speech.
	If you look at the data, less than 1% of all the crimes in this country are related to hate speech.
	And 65% of them are graffiti on a wall.
	So they are not violent.
	It's not a problem in our society, hate speech or hate crimes.
	But for Trudeau, he created a new problem for him to be able to impose his point of view and to be sure that he will censor us.
	We are against that.
	We'll repeal all this bill.
	And I want you to be successful on social media.
	And I want our Canadians to be We're not able to listen to you and look at your shows.
	You're doing a good job.
	But actually, you're right about that.
	These two bills are very dangerous for us, for our freedom of speech, for free expression on social media.
	All right.
	Now, is there anything else that the two of you would like to say to Canadians before they head out to the polls?
	Please, look at our platform.
	If you like what we are saying, vote for your values, vote for yourself, and by doing that, I believe you'll vote for the PPC.
	I'll say, read the platform.
	People tend to be politically disinterested.
	The platform's online.
	If you're going to vote, take the five minutes to make sure you know what you're voting for.
	But more in general, listen, discourse, discuss things with everybody.
	at the end of the day the more i've discussed the more i realize we are in agreement as all canadians are on a lot more than we think we are but when you have politicians who are out there just to sow discord just to divide and conquer on a on a daily basis as a strategy to victory you wouldn't think that uh and these are divisive times so be tolerant but listen um don't deface other people's posters people it's not funny and you have to tolerate those are expensive when you have to buy them i've been on the campaign side of things those are expensive i don't
	I've been pretty fortunate.
	That is not protected speech either.
	And don't throw stones.
	There's no room for violence anywhere here.
	And just respectful discourse and at some point agree to disagree, but go to the voting booth and vote because...
	Do not be defeatist.
	And don't believe the CBC.
	Turn off your TV.
	Alright, so where can people go to follow you both, to keep up with your campaigns and what you're doing in the future?
	Well, people know where to follow me.
	You're on the channel right now, either on Rumble or YouTube, but I dedicated a specific channel, Viva PPC, which is specific messaging for the party, and website, vivappc.ca.
	And for me, they can go on the website of the party, peoplespartyofcanada.ca.
	They can follow me on Twitter.
	They can follow me also on Facebook, Maxime Bernier.
	And they can also, on YouTube, we have a channel over there, People's Party of Canada.
	And so, you know, there's always a way to find us on social media.
	And I want to thank you because that was interesting.
	I think that was, I hope that we still have our people until the end.
	This has been a more insightful discussion on the substance of the issues than what we saw yesterday because I think the consensus was that that debate last night was a gong show.
	But Lauren, before you go.
	Yes.
	Where can people find you?
	Well, you can find me if you're not on my channel at Lauren Chen on YouTube, Rumble, Bitchute Minds, as well as at the Lauren Chen on Twitter and Instagram.
	I may or may not be streaming on Twitter live right now.
	I've never done it before.
	I don't know if it ended up working out.
	But yeah, thank you all so much for tuning in.
	Thank you for both of you all your time.
	I know you're going to be busy for the next 10 days and got an exciting election ahead of us.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.

▲