Bob Rae: How Canada Must Respond to this Age of Tyranny

Ajouté : 2026-05-13

[00:00:00]Hi everybody, Steve Pacin here. Not too long ago, we did a one-on-one interview with a guest who has hands-on experience in civic affairs, provincial affairs, national affairs, international affairs, arts and culture, diplomacy. He's written books. He's hooked up in the postsecary world. He loves baseball. And more than 60 years ago, he was Richard Nixon's paper boy. The interview was quite wellreceived. So, we are having him back several times, in fact. Stay tuned for the most difficult man to introduce in Canada, Bob Ray, one-on-one coming right up on the Pagan podcast.

[00:00:43]Well, as I say, he is the most difficult man to introduce in Canada because he is currently the visitor at Massie College.

[00:00:49]He is the Matthews Fellow at Queens University. He just finished his stint as the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations. He is the former interim leader of the Federal Liberals. He was in fact twice a member of parliament. Once for the NDP in the 1970s and 80s, once for the Liberals in this century. He is the 21st premier of Ontario. And that only scratches the surface of the list, but we should really get on with the show.

[00:01:13]There's Bob Ray, uh, premier, leader, ambassador, professor. I'm not sure what to call you, but I'm delighted to see you again. How you doing?

[00:01:20]>> I'm just doing fine. Steve, you call me Bob. That you took you took too much mic time there. It was, you know, when do I get a word in?

[00:01:29]>> You get a word in after I clarify for you that I have actually known you for 43 years. That's right.

[00:01:36]>> And I've never once called you Bob and I never will. I just can't do it.

[00:01:42]>> Okay.

[00:01:42]>> Is that okay?

[00:01:43]>> Fine.

[00:01:44]>> Okay. Uh where do we find you today?

[00:01:46]Incidentally, >> I'm at Queens University. I'm teaching uh an intensive course here on uh Canada US relations which is uh fun cuz I I'm I I I did the same thing last week at the at the Mud School. So um it's it's fun to go over the material and and you know get a get a fresh look from a different group of students. A lot of fun.

[00:02:08]>> How diplomatic do you have to be or can you let it rip?

[00:02:12]>> Oh no, let's let it rip. the students.

[00:02:14]Absolutely. They'll they get the full the full uh the full experience.

[00:02:19]>> Gotcha. And the last time we spoke, you mentioned that you thought we were entering into an Orwellian kind of world that was far more dangerous uh than what we say experienced 30 or 40 years ago during the Cold War. That was 5 months ago. You sticking with that today or are things different?

[00:02:37]>> I I would say that I was uh I was wiser beyond what I usually am. I think that was a good sense of of how um uh risky the world is because of the unpredictability of several actors uh and because of the way in which uh people who think of themselves as being great powers uh think they can get away with it and think that they can do things without having serious consequences. And I think we've seen that on an ongoing basis in Ukraine with uh with what the Russians have been doing. I think the continuing threats that the Chinese pose to their own population in terms of the discrimination against the weaguers and the ongoing discrimination against Tibetans and other dissenters in China plus their uh continuing to fulminate against uh uh what's going on in Taiwan uh and of course what President Trump has been doing uh you know with with Venezuela with the so-called nonroe doctrine uh which we discussed the last time and uh obviously what's been happening in Iran. So yeah, I I think it's a very difficult moment. Uh and I think the the moment that we're in will will have serious consequences that go well beyond what I think people are today factoring in. Uh we can talk about that. Well, I I do want to tell you I read your Substack columns rather faithfully and I want to take you back to one you wrote I guess I don't know two weeks ago maybe on in which you quoted Bla1 Pascal the philosopher and you quoted him saying justice without force is powerless force without justice is tyrannical. Can I get you to amplify on that principle in general and then we'll get specific?

[00:04:21]>> Well, I think it's just an insight that's true and I think we're experiencing it every day. Uh we know that, you know, we one of the reasons we obey traffic laws is because we think there's a chance they're going to be enforced. And one of the reasons we we we don't commit a lot of crimes is because we know we have a legal system where we're we're there's a reasonable chance we're going to get caught and that the law gets us will be enforced and we go to jail or, you know, face serious punishment of one what one kind and another. Um and that's when you can talk credibly about a justice system.

[00:04:55]The problem with with the with the global scene is that we don't actually have an international justice system that actually can enforce effectively the laws that everybody talks about.

[00:05:07]People talk about the Geneva Conventions, people talk about uh the conventions on torture, on genocide to on the rights of children. uh people are constantly referring to all of the architecture of international uh international law including international humanitarian law and human rights law. But the weakness of that structure is that there's a tremendous difficulty in getting it enforced. Uh it's certainly a problem getting it enforced quickly and effectively.

[00:05:39]And actually it was Winston Churchill who pointed out the risks of this in the famous speech that he gave at Fulton Missouri uh in 1946 where he talked about the iron curtain. That's the speech that everybody remembers as the iron curtain speech but what Churchill was actually talking about in that speech was not just the iron curtain. He was talking about how we we've gone through this war. We've he was talking at the middle of the Durburgg trials and those trials have had a a sense that you know justice was being done that the people the guilty parties are being brought to brought to bear. But uh what we've seen happen now is uh that guilty parties are not even brought to court let alone you know let alone brought to jail. And so we we have a serious question around how international law can actually function effectively.

[00:06:35]But the second point that Pascal is making is yeah, that's true.

[00:06:40]But the other problem is is that those people who think they're above the law are behaving increasingly like tyrants.

[00:06:47]And if they think the law doesn't apply to them, if they think there are no rules of engagement, as uh PEX Seth said, although he referred to them as stupid rules of engagement, >> when people think they're above those rules of engagement, we end up with behavior that is increasingly tyrannical. And that's the challenge of the world we're in right now. That sums it up. I mean, Bla1 Pascal wrote these words uh several hundred years ago, but they they still are very true. They're they're very apt description in a very short couple of sentences that describes the dilemma of the world we're in at the moment.

[00:07:27]I am betting that you could probably name every Secretary of Defense over the last I was going to say 70 years, but probably more than that. And I wonder if you've ever seen anything the likes of Pete Hegsith in any of them.

[00:07:40]>> I don't think we have. I think the only comparison I can think of is uh George Patton uh in in and certainly in real life and also in movies who was incredibly profane, outspoken and said whatever he wanted and uh eventually had to be brought to heal by uh by Eisenhower for various for various reasons. Uh but I think of the great American secretaries of defense particularly think of George Marshall who from everything that I've read about him. He was the secretary of defense and of secretary of state uh in the in the 1940s and 50s under Harry Truman. And I think everybody recognizes it was one of the one of the finest people in public life that you could think of who never expressed any glee at the pain he was inflicting on an enemy and understood full well that the civilian power was supreme and also understood uh that war is war is a hugely uh costly and difficult human event that you try and avoid at all costs instead of you know celebrating the loss of life and that mocking of everybody else who's out there. It's I think Pet Hexath goes way beyond anything that one would normally expect to somebody who holds such a high and such a responsible office. Maybe you could explain to me how this happened since you have been in government. Pete Hexith gave a speech the other day in which it sounded like he was quoting from a biblical passage to explain what American foreign policy was all about.

[00:09:12]Turns out it actually was a passage from a movie called Pulp Fiction. How does that happen?

[00:09:20]>> Well, I think what happened in his case was that he was reading something that had been provided to him by somebody else. Uh I don't think I mean I'm not here to defend Pete Nex, but I would be surprised if he decided to go out and invent a a quote from the Bible. I don't think he knew where it was from. I think somebody told him this is from the Bible and he read it and uh luckily somebody else was doing their research and found that it wasn't. I mean, this has happened before. People forget Joe Biden when he was running for the presidency in the primaries years and years ago.

[00:09:54]Uh, he ended up quoting an entire speech from Neil Kinnick, uh, the the labor leader at the time without knowing it.

[00:10:02]But Joe Biden resigned or retired from the field uh because he was shown to have given a speech that uh, somebody else gave. He had no idea. his speech writer may not even don't I don't know whether he knew where he got it from.

[00:10:16]The same thing happened with Mr. Mr. Harper uh gave a speech in which he quoted directly he didn't quote he just gave the same speech as as prime minister of Australia uh on on the subject of of war and and and you just look at it and say how could this have happened u many people don't read what they're about to what they're about to say and uh >> that's a bit spooky >> yeah it is there's a famous joke about it about speech writers a guy who didn't he hated his boss and and his boss was going to go out and give a speech. And so he had the speech writer have say, you know, well, how are we going to solve all these problems? What are we going to do to face the challenges of the next century? How can we pull all this thing together? And then he turns the page and and the speech writer says, okay, you son of a you're on your own.

[00:11:07]>> Do you remember who the speech writer was?

[00:11:10]>> No, but I know the story was told about a lot of different people, so I think it's probably an apocryphal story.

[00:11:16]>> That's a good one. That's a good one. If if we can get back to the Pascal observations from 300 years ago and as you look at the globe today, what's the number one example in this world where we need justice but we seem powerless to be able to make it happen?

[00:11:34]>> Well, I think there are a number. I don't think there's just one. I mean, I think the obvious one for me has been the war in Ukraine where we have a war of aggression that's apparent to anybody who can who understands what that term means and where the the structure of our you know the architecture of international law and the means of enforcing it. The only means of enforcement the Ukrainians have is is to defend themselves and we have chosen the rest of the world has chosen to either do nothing or support Ukraine uh but always with limitations always saying to Ukrainians well you can do this with what we give you you can't do that you and limiting you actually asking Ukraine to defend themselves with one arm tied behind their backs. So that's I think a classic example. I think the the the the challenge of what's happening in the Middle East u you know what the what the Iranians have done to their own population what the Israelis are facing with you know the accusations that I think are being leveled and are need to be need to get an answer somewhere to what happened in Gaza what what actually has taken place what's happening in Lebanon uh I think those all raise questions around how these things could be allowed to uh to go on without any recourse course anywhere else which means that the only recourse we have at the moment is war and you know the end of the first world war Wilson said we know we're fighting the war to end all wars well the first world war was not the war to end all wars it was just another brutal brutal war which I think is one of the tragedies that we're seeing unfold in the world today there are more conflicts today in Africa in Asia in Latin America in the Middle East more conflicts than we've ever had, adding them all up and looking at the number of people who are affected by them than we've ever had. And we really haven't learned much as a as a species, >> have we? I mean, we really haven't learned it as much as we should have learned.

[00:13:37]>> Let me ask you the flip side, and maybe the answer is the same, but we'll try.

[00:13:40]What What is the number one example in this world of where we have force, but no justice attached to it?

[00:13:48]>> Well, I think there are a lot of those.

[00:13:50]Uh I mean I think what's what what has taken place in Iran recently obviously what's taken place in Ukraine uh what what has taken place uh in Venezuela. I mean I I don't believe that the the justification for the uh basically the taking over of a country and the exploitation of their natural resources and seizing assets and basically throwing out people, getting them out of plane, putting them in jail and uh you know applying American justice to what is a clearly a matter of international law, not a matter of national law. I mean, I I don't think there's legal justification for any of those things. I I don't I don't believe that there was in terms of the Iranian situation, I I don't think that you could describe what Iran was doing uh with respect to the uh the development of nuclear technology in Iran was sufficient to justify the kind of attack on Iran that we've seen. I I don't think it meets the test of an of an imminent threat. I don't think it it meets that bar, which is not an insignificant bar in terms of justifying a preemptive attack which obviously took place. No one's doubting that it took place uh with consequences now that we're seeing for the entire global economy. And I don't think that either the Israelis or the Americans really thought through what the consequences would be uh sufficiently to understand why that was.

[00:15:30]And again, it's it's it's sometimes it was one some French diplomat or other in the past said it's it's not only that it's against the law, it's not only that it's immoral, it's also a mistake.

[00:15:43]>> And I think that's something you need to think about. I think that this current war in Iran is a mistake. It shouldn't.

[00:15:49]It wasn't necessary. It shouldn't have happened.

[00:15:52]>> Although, can you say it achieved nothing?

[00:15:55]>> Well, I think it's worse than that. Uh, I think it's I think it's emboldened the regime in Iran. I think it's consolidated their their power over their own people. Uh, and I I don't believe that it has achieved anything in terms of the security of either Israel or or the the region.

[00:16:17]uh at all. In fact, I think it's made each situation I could describe to you why I think the situation of of the United States and of Israel and of and of the neighbors of Iran is actually born in secure as a result of the steps that have been taken.

[00:16:33]>> Mind you, I do remember George Will from the Washington Post, a guy you probably know, once saying, "The two most important words in foreign policy are too late." And is it possible to say that Donald Trump wanted to be a guy who wanted to get in there lest they act too late to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

[00:16:53]>> I think his I think his objectives were u first of all totally unclear and I think they're in part entirely delusional because the idea that that's how you achieve security with respect to nuclear capacity in Iran is not that way. It's by the way that frankly Obama did which was to say let's have a negotiation. Let's deal with it. Let's have monitoring. Let's have the active participation of the international agency that has been set up deliberately to do that and let's give it some teeth.

[00:17:26]And so no, I don't I don't buy that. I don't buy the premise behind your question. How's that?

[00:17:32]>> That's okay. Do we assume that his military advisers told him that this was not going to be another Venezuela? it's not going to be over in 24 hours. This will be a more protracted situation. And he said, "I don't care. Let's do it anyway." Is that what we think happened?

[00:17:47]>> Well, that's what the New York Times says. Uh so whether whether that's true or not, I don't know. I mean, they they are going by their sources. Uh it's certainly plausible to me uh based on my observations about how Trump acts and also how military advisers do have an obligation to tell you as any cabinet adviser would. Any any advising the provincial government or a mayor or anything says the first thing you say is well give me the pluses and minuses.

[00:18:18]Tell me why I should do this. Tell me what the consequences are. And I think that's that's not clear to me that that's actually what happened.

[00:18:25]I'd like to take you to another one of the comments you made in a recent Substack column in which you said, "This is the moment that requires Canada to be something more than a bystander." What'd you have in mind?

[00:18:36]>> Well, tell me the moment. I mean, there are so many of them I can't remember. I can't remember when I said that or what that was about.

[00:18:44]Well, I think it's related to the war uh in in the Middle East with Iran, which obviously Canada was um not asked to be part of and maybe after the fact was asked to be somewhat supportive of and we did not take part and we have not been supportive.

[00:19:00]>> Well, I think that's right. But my concern was and it still remains that I think one of the underlying narratives right now is we're you know despite what the prime minister said in Davos which I which I think you know from a conceptual point of view saying we we've got to understand we're in a different world the world we were in we have these hegimmonic powers who think they can do whatever they want and now there's an opportunity for middle powers to get together and try to reinforce the importance of rules, the importance of consequences, the importance of thinking more rationally about how we're going to go forward. And we're not powerless.

[00:19:39]We're not powerless. We can we can get together with others. That's a premise I I agree with entirely.

[00:19:46]Um where I where I think we we we need to match the words with the actions is when you actually look at Venezuela, when you actually look at what happened in Iran and say, "Okay, so what does that mean?

[00:20:01]Now, there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes. There always is.

[00:20:04]There's a lot of discussions that are underway. But I still think one of the problems that we have and and it's not exclusive to us, but we certainly have it is well, we have to be careful because we have this trade relationship and please don't rock the boat. So the words are always carefully chosen, but there are moments in time when you're looking at something happening and saying you have to say something together with others or else you're not having the impact that you think as a middle power you you should try to try to have and and I think this is something we have to be careful about obviously and pruned about obviously but we also have to be clear and I think you know on reflection Looking at the record overall, I think the prime minister has been pretty clear what he thinks. It's clear we don't agree with some of the assumptions that the president and the the prime minister of Israel have made.

[00:21:04]We certainly don't agree with the positions that are are taken with regard to, you know, the lack of applicability of international law. as Pete Xth has said, nobody buys into that argument.

[00:21:16]And I I just think we have to be continue to be quite confident in saying we're we're not going to simply watch this parade go by silently and say or do nothing, but what we do has to be effective. And the most effective thing that we can do is to work with others, which I think is the essence of what the prime minister's foreign policy is really all about.

[00:21:39]>> Is he enough evidence that he's doing that?

[00:21:40]>> Well, yeah. I I don't think a lot of it happens in public and I don't think I don't think by by by definition a lot of diplomacy doesn't happen in public but do I think there are conversations well for example prime minister's been at a European uh conference for for 3 days in Armenia.

[00:22:01]So, do I think that a lot of conversations have been taking place in Armenia about what's going on in Iran, what's going on elsewhere, what the consequences of that act not acting are going to be? Absolutely they have.

[00:22:16]Absolutely. Of course, they have. That's what goes on.

[00:22:20]>> The Insurance Brokers Association of Canada is all about protection. This spring, they will be in Ottawa to advocate for a consumer first approach to federal initiatives around natural disasters, cyber security, and other risks that Canadians face every day.

[00:22:36]Insurance protects families, homes, and businesses when the unexpected happens.

[00:22:41]Brokers are your trusted advisers, helping you choose the right insurance to safeguard what you value most.

[00:22:48]Canada's Insurance Brokers. Their slogan is, "We know what's worth protecting.

[00:22:54]one of the biggest developments in Canada over the last week or so and that is the appointment of a new governor general. I presume you know Luis Arburur and I wonder what your impressions are of her as our new vice regal.

[00:23:05]>> She's a great person. I know her very well. Uh I've known her for over 40 years. Um her uh first husband or hus that horse husband at that time. Larry Larry Tamman was my uh was my deputy attorney general and uh somebody that I I relied on heavily for advice. So naturally got to know both him and uh and Louise very very well. I I've been a huge admirer of her. And you want to talk about somebody who's difficult to introduce now you just you know in a few days you'll just be able to call her governor general.

[00:23:40]But the reality is that over a long period of time, she's done an enormous number of fascinating jobs. She has a terrific sense of humor. She's a great communicator.

[00:23:51]Uh she's articulate and uh passionate in uh in both English and French. Um she has a lot of experience uh not only nationally but internationally.

[00:24:04]Um she's a she's hugely intelligent.

[00:24:08]She's very humane. She's a lovely person. Uh, and it's a fantastic appointment.

[00:24:14]>> Okay, if we're going to let it rip here, since uh I'll be considered one of your students for a little while, how much do you think it handcuffed Mary Simon who's finishing out her term because of the fact that Justin Trudeau appointed her and she was unable to speak French?

[00:24:28]>> Right.

[00:24:29]>> Well, you know, I I' think that's the wrong focus about Barry Simon. I mean, I've also known Mary Simon for I mean, I know a lot of people over a long period.

[00:24:38]I've >> She's a lovely woman. I know her, too.

[00:24:41]Mary Barry Simon was was part of the whole process around Charlotte Town uh when we were trying to uh add to the uh the patronation of the Constitution with some amendments u including uh important amendments on uh on indigenous issues.

[00:24:58]uh and uh the governor general uh she still is was very very heavily involved with uh uh with those issues uh involving her own people. She's originally from from a community called Kuwak which I worked at as a summer student when it was called Fort Chibbo so many many years many summers ago. Um she's uh Mary's a a wonderful person and uh she's obviously uh very very uh eloquent in her own language and duck to duck uh and she had difficulty learning French which uh which happens. Um I I don't think given the fact that she was the first indigenous governor general is something that we should hold against her. Um although I know by some people it was um she's also um I wouldn't say she's shy but she's she's u u reserved >> more introverted yeah >> who are more reserved as a person uh very thoughtful uh extremely knowledgeable um and I as opposed to some who look for reasons to criticize people in public office I I try to make a fair assessment of them while they're living and also after they've gone. And that probably makes me a little less interesting than some others you might have on your program, but I still think uh Mary's been an excellent Governor General and she's a very fine person.

[00:26:27]>> Well, your friend of mine, John Fraser, was on this show a few weeks ago and he did not have great things to say about her, but you and I both know John can be that way.

[00:26:35]>> I thought John's comments were completely uncalled for. I would even say gratuitous. and uh I didn't I don't share them at all even though he is somebody that uh is also a friend of mine. I know him quite well but he does sometimes say things that uh I I just don't agree with.

[00:26:52]>> Um I you are not the only one who is able to say that as much as we adore him that is the case. How about one more thing on Luis Arbor and that is I do remember back when she was in her previous incarnation um as working for the International Criminal Court and then on the Supreme Court. There's a former politician in the Harper government named Vic Taves who had some extremely critical things to say about her. In fact, I think he used the word disgusting in talking about some of her work. And I wonder what your views are on that.

[00:27:22]>> Incomprehensible. Uh I mean, first of all, it wasn't she wasn't at the ICC.

[00:27:27]She was at the UN uh high commission on human rights in Judea. Uh although she did argue as a prosecutor with the uh as a prosecutor at the ICC where in fact she was uh involved in some of the most difficult cases in front of the international criminal court involving the uh people involved in the atrocities of the Balkans. Uh I I can't I mean big taves is you know can explain itself why he said it but I can't imagine why anybody would say such a thing or think such a thing.

[00:27:57]>> When you were a parliamentarian back in the late '7s early 1980s you had a front row seat on what was then a burgeoning separation crisis in Quebec and ultimately a referendum which the the stay in Canada side actually won rather handily. Uh you're also um not far out of office uh as premier of Ontario when the second referendum happened in 1995 and no doubt went to Quebec and tried to make the case that they should stay and that one was a lot closer. We now find ourselves, Mr. Ray, at a time when there are, you know, some musings of separatism in Quebec in as much as if there's a change in power later this year. The new government has promised a referendum on separation imminently and we are also seeing in Western Canada now in Alberta um some sentiments for separation and enough signatures apparently to get it on the ballot this October and I wonder as one of the signatories of the Charlotte Accord back in the early 1990s how worried you are about the future of your country right now.

[00:29:02]>> Uh I can't afford to be worried but I I I would say that I'm doing stuff. I mean, I'm speaking up as much as I can about the unity of the country. I continue to talk with uh with folks and particularly talking with indigenous communities in Alberta who are expressing strong concern about the legality of the process that's been set in play because it it doesn't doesn't deal with the treaty relationship between the government of Alberta and indigenous people and and indigenous relationship with the federal government which I I think the federal government should be actively concerned about to to say you you know you can't bring in legislation which ignores everything that we've done with the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people and with the treaty relationships that are now becoming so important to uh to public policy and everything that we do. The idea that you would go forward and allow for a referendum that could break up country or lead to the secession of a province without consulting with indigenous people is not sensical to me. And now it's in front of the court. So I I'll let the court decide that question. But I I do think it's important for us to to be aware of what's at stake. I also think it's important for us to express enormous confidence in the good judgment of the people of Quebec and the people of Alberta when it will come. If it does come to the ultimate question, uh I don't think that either the population of either province would choose to go down that road uh at all. I I'm not I don't I'm not quarless or doubtful about what the result would be. I'm just saying we shouldn't be we shouldn't be playing fast and loose with holding referenda that are entirely unnecessarily entirely unnecessary and really amount the process itself amounts to a self-inflicted wound because it it it it creates a a very false sense of what the real issues of the country are either in Quebec or or in Alberta. And I I am concerned. The one mistake in your question uh Steve was when you mentioned that I had a front row seat uh when I was a member of the New Democratic Party caucus in the late 1970s. My initial seat was actually far in the back row very some somebody said if I was any further in the back row my rear end would have been deep in the Ottawa River. So I and I was far from the front row, but I I was there and I did get to vote in favor and my last vote before I left Parliament in 1982, I did get to vote in favor of the of the rep repatriation of the Constitution, which I was very proud to be able to to uh cast that vote.

[00:31:46]Well, let me use an analogy here, and you tell me if you think this is appropriate, because I'm sure David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister, thought he was doing a smart thing politically by having a referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union. And because he had this sort of very right-wing flank of his party that he felt he needed to deal with, and of course, it blew up in his face. And I wonder if you think Premier Danielle Smith of Alberta is doing the same thing in as much as she has a very far-right flank in her party that she is trying to mllify and she figures putting a referendum on sovereignty on the ballot in October may be a good way to do that. What do you think?

[00:32:25]>> I think there is an analogy. I think it's that, you know, politicians make a mistake if they think they can control the future or if they think they can sort of experiment. Let's try this. This might work. this might take the steam out. No, it doesn't take the steam out.

[00:32:41]It just makes the poison and spreads the poison wider and makes it harder to deal with the disinformation, the misinformation, the propaganda, all the nonsense that goes on. You know, have the Russians involved, the Chinese involved, you have the Americans involved. You know, people say they're not going to be involved. No, of course they are. They already are in terms of disinformation on the internet. The internet in Alberta is full of nonsense as it is in Quebec about, you know, what this will mean, what the advantages will be. It's all fantasy land stuff. And I don't know why you would put your people through that for no good reason. Uh it's certainly not thinking that if this is a short-term solution to my personal political problem. That's the worst calculus you can make. And uh I I I honestly don't believe it's going to work. But I also believe that it's a profound waste of time. It also has an element of danger to it that nobody should play around with.

[00:33:41]>> Yeah. Like somebody could say one off thing to just ignite a spark, right?

[00:33:46]>> Yeah. And even, you know, you never know what's going to happen in an election.

[00:33:49]That's how I became premier.

[00:33:54]>> I remember I'm trying to remember now.

[00:33:56]September 6th, 1990. I think the date was 90. That was true.

[00:34:00]>> Here we go. There we go. Um, I I want you, if you wouldn't mind, to resist the temptation to punt on this next question, but your political experience on this, I think, would be very instructive right now. And that is to say, as we speak right now, there are conservatives gathering in Ottawa for an annual conference. I think it's called the True North Strong and Free Conference, at which Pierre Polyv, the opposition leader, you know, has a really tough mission. He's got to try to rev up troops that are extremely disillusioned and frustrated and and miserable right now because they certainly thought they'd be in power at this point. And not only are they not in power, but they're anywhere from 10 to 15 points behind the governing liberals and they've just had four floor crossers and now it looks like they're going to be in opposition for potentially three more years. If you had to write the speech for Pierre Polyv that he's going to give at this conference in order to try to keep people loyal and juiced up.

[00:35:03]What would you say?

[00:35:06]>> Uh well, I don't mind answering that question. I mean, I'll try to answer it.

[00:35:09]Um I I think I mean I mean I know Pierre Paul. I was you know I was in parliament with him. I I've seen him I've seen him I know person I don't know personally well but I mean if if I saw him walking down the corner we'd shake hands and tell a few jokes and then move on. Um I I think I think his problem is this that he in a way he's sort of become a different he's a he's like all of us he has different sides to him. Uh at some level he's a very practical politician and a very tough politician. At another level, he's he can be quite kind and thoughtful and very funny. U but I'm afraid that he's kind of given into uh apparently a side of his personality that I don't I I don't I don't think helps him in the end. uh very partisan uh you know prone to just you know stupid cliches and short little bumper stickers for for thoughts that you know he thinks will mobilize opinion and I don't think Canadians are looking for that right now. I think Canadians know that he's got a tough job. He's leader of the opposition which I also have been and I know it's one of the most difficult jobs you you you can have.

[00:36:26]It's it's it's not great. But one of the things you need to try to do as leader of the opposition is keep thinking about what's it going to be like when I become prime minister. He has to present himself as an alternative prime minister. And in order to do that, he has to bring people together and he has to bring together under a a much bigger tent than he has. you these he's constantly dividing and chopping and and you know launching into these personal attacks which make no sense and don't do him any favors. He doesn't need to do that. What he needs to do is look at what he thinks are the shortcomings of the government and then what his alternatives are. And he started to do that the last few months. He you saw some signs of that. And I thought, well, okay, he sort of tried to do his best to get to get there, but then he falls back uh because that's doesn't appear to be his natural fallback. Uh and and I think that's his problem. So I would be crafting a speech that would constantly be understanding a simple rule, and that is the the the you you're a sports fan.

[00:37:34]Those goals are come from the center.

[00:37:37]You got to be close to the net to get there. And if you're behind the net or you're way over next to the boards, you're not going to have much of a chance to score. And I think he's got to be constantly trying to galvanize folks into a place where he can attract more people to come to him who are going to come because they eventually become unhappy with the government, which they will become. The honeymoon will end. and at that point have to say, well, are they going to turn to this guy or are they going to just say, "Well, I'm going to park my vote somewhere else or I'm just going to continue to support the government even though they're not doing the perfect job that I wanted them to do." So, I I think he's got to think longer term and try to think about how he can build that and build the language that allows him to do it.

[00:38:22]Self-deprecating humor, always a good idea. Don't make fun of other people.

[00:38:26]Make fun of yourself. those are the kinds of things that humanize you and make a big difference. And I I think that's the kind of thing he needs to be thinking about in order to get to a point where he he can present himself as an alternative to the to the government.

[00:38:40]Right now it's hard and we all know that. I mean the numbers are bad, but you know your job is or frequently the the tendency of of people is to take the president bad numbers and say that's it for you. M uh and you got to have a sense as a political leader that you know what these these numbers move around a lot and things are going to happen events will take over something will happen and when that starts to happen he's got to be in a position to take advantage of that if he wants to succeed I'm not sure he whether or not the party's going to let him do it or he's got to really see that that's the way he should go but we'll see >> I always remember you saying in the past when you were in elective politics my job as a politician is to change polling numbers. So, and not be captive by them.

[00:39:28]>> That was my that was my father's line, Stephen. The the the line that I that I used to use to quote it myself entirely accurately was I asked my father why he never went back to being a pollster, which he'd been after his after he finished writing a thesis and wrote a book with George Gallup. uh and obviously the war happened uh and he he uh joined joined uh the diplomatic service uh but he used to say to I asked him why didn't you go back to polling he said well I I concluded after all my time during the war I concluded that turning heads was more important than counting heads and your job as a leader of the opposition is to turn heads uh and don't worry about the counting let other people do that >> gotcha Yeah. Uh, since you pointed out we are both sports fans, we're going to end with two quick sports questions. The first one is, as a Toronto Maple Leaf fan, can you really cheer for the Montreal Canadians to win the Stanley Cup?

[00:40:27]>> Absolutely. Uh, I've always been supporting the last Canadian team at what wherever they are, whatever level they are. Yeah, sure. I mean, you you can support the Maple Leafs without hating the Habs. I I the Havs have been a great team and my brother and I have been arguing about Maple Leafs versus Habs since we used to watch the Hockey Night in Canada games in black and white in our living room in 1954.

[00:40:54]>> That's a long time ago. Okay.

[00:40:56]>> Long time ago.

[00:40:57]>> And the second sports question is your favorite baseball team stinks right now.

[00:41:01]Uh are the Blue Jays finished this year?

[00:41:04]>> No, I don't think so. I think they've shown I mean they've got these injuries which has really been tough uh and and and really made it very difficult. Um, I I still think they've got they've got a they've got a great team. What I most impresses me about the Blue Jays is that they're a team. You can see it in their body language. You can see it when one of them gets hurt. You can see it when one of them tells a joke in the dugout.

[00:41:29]They are a team. They like each other.

[00:41:31]They like the game. They love to play as a team. And they and they also support each other in in very real ways. And I think that's what what makes me so proud to be a a Blue Jays fan.

[00:41:45]>> They gave us a hell of a ride last year.

[00:41:46]That's for sure.

[00:41:47]>> They did. It was wonderful. And and uh you know, you know, I'm the only premier to preided over two World Series victories.

[00:41:54]>> I guess that's right.

[00:41:57]>> If you say if you say that's a coincidence, Premier, I would say, well, yeah, but you know, so are all the other things that I get blamed for, so what the hell? I'm sure there was a direct correlation between your becoming premier and the Jes winning the World Series in ' 92 and 93.

[00:42:13]>> Okay, you stick with that. That's good.

[00:42:16]Um, okay, Premier, let me just finish up with a little housekeeping here. We do love when people support what we're up to here because we want to keep this show free forever. patreon.com/thepagen podcast in case people want to support what we're doing. And all of these shows are archived at stevepacin.com.

[00:42:32]Uh, thanks a lot, Bob Ray, for joining us. And I gather we're going to do this again next month and the month after.

[00:42:37]And I I look forward to these future conversations.

[00:42:40]>> So you told me. We'll just see whether you deliver on your promise.

[00:42:44]>> You watch. Here we go. Peace and love everybody. Until next time.

[00:42:48]>> See you later.