The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- It's a Bob Rae Day

Episode Date: December 19, 2025

With both Chantal and Bruce away this week, a special program for our final Good Talk of 2025. Bob Rae, fresh from his five years at the United Nations as Canada's Ambassador, and with his wealth of political experience, joins us to talk Canada and politics. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Welcome to Friday, welcome to Good Talk. Last one of the season, last one of the year, last one of 2025. Both Chantelle and Bruce are away this week. But that's okay. because we got Bob Ray with us, the great Bob Ray, who we've watched over many years.

I've watched over many years because he's actually a one-month younger than I am. Both of us graduates of the 1948 birthing school. Good to have you with us. Peter, thank you. It's great to see you. It's been too long since we've chatted. It's great. It has been a while. You know, you've faced a lot of difficult challenges over the year. in different jobs, different positions.

But I'm guessing that filling in for Chantelle-A-Bear is probably the toughest job you're ever going to have. Yeah, I would agree. I've known Chantelle and Bruce, but Chantel's particularly for, well, about the same time I've known you. Yeah. And in my view, she's really one of the great journalists of Canadian history, and she's certainly one of the top analysts of just about everything going.

And, yeah, she used to give me a hard time as the Radcam reporter from Queens Park. That's right. So that goes back away. It goes back away. Well, you know, when I travel the country, as I still do, one of the most common questions I get is, it doesn't matter where I am in the country, the most common question is, what Chantelle-A-Bair really like? They love her out there and that's good and good for her

and she's well-earned. As is her vacation right now, I think she's bicycling in Japan or somewhere. It sounds about right. Yeah. Okay, I've got a number of things I want to talk to you about. And I want to start, given the current political climate in Ottawa, I want to dial it back to, I guess when we first, first met, which would be late 70s and early 80s.

In the, you want to, in a by-election federally in 78. So you were there, then again in 79, you were there for the Joe Clark minority government. Now, it was a strong minority, as they say. You know, it was like, well, three or four seats away from a majority. So it was close. It was tight. somewhat similar to what it was like here after the election in the spring.

So my first question is trying to understand what was it like in those initial months of the Clark government? Was there an attempt by conservatives to try and get people to cross the floor, whether they were NDP like yourself at that time or liberals? Was there any attempt at that?

Were you aware of anything like that going on? No. I certainly, they didn't. I didn't ask me, but that's no, I was an obnoxious 30-year-old at the time, so I'm not sure. And I was the finance critic, but, you know, you make a comment, you said it was a strong minority. Dalton McGinty was the guy who first used that phrase when he talked to me after his third election. He said, we've got a strong minority. And I said, Dalton, there really isn't any such thing because, you know, it's 50% plus one.

and you've got to get that number and if you don't have a relationship with somebody in opposition and it's not easy to do that then it's hard to get going so the Clark experience Joe made the famous by the way Joe Clark and I see each other

and I have the highest admiration for him as a person and I think he's a really wonderful guy And it's people say, you know, you must never see Joe Clark. I bet you Joe Clark really ate, so I said, no, not at all. You know, life isn't like that. At least it wasn't like that in politics. I mean, certainly, you know, it wasn't happy about losing, but, you know, it didn't affect our long-term relationship. But he had a, his career went on after that, to, as you know, to become a Minister of Foreign Affairs, a very successful one.

And then, and then the Minister of Constitutional Affairs. And that's when we did the Charlottetown discussions. And so I got to know Joe very well then. Anyway. But I guess one of the reasons people would assume that there would be a long-term problem between the two of you, it was your sub-amendment to the Crosby budget that ended up defeating the Clark government in December of 79. Exactly. But to that point of, and I accept what you say about, you know, strong minorities just like

we talk about at times a majority is a majority is a majority even if it's by one which is obviously what Carney is trying to get to now but what my question is interesting given the current climate that there was no you were aware of there was no attempt

during those months of 79 by the Tories to try and get encouraged somebody to cross the floor no I don't think I don't think there was, and I think, in fact, you may remember the first press conference that Mr. Clark gave was the famous one where he said, we're going to govern as if we have a majority. And I can remember saying to someone at the time, it's sort of like jumping out of a plane, as if you have a parachute. You better have a parachute.

I think the conservative assumption was, as the budget was being presented in the winter, in December of 79, I think the assumption was, well, Mr. Trudeau just like three weeks, two weeks before, three weeks before had announced that he was stepping down. Liberals were, people were jockeying who was going to run, the expectation that Don McDonnellandle and John Turner would run and many other candidates possibly. And I think the assumption was, well, it's winter, we're coming up to the winter break and to Christmas. And, you know, it's not going to happen. I mean, it's not going to happen. But I think that people, they just miscalculated. And also, frankly, I think they probably underestimated the, well, I think the underestimated a bunch of things.

But one of them was the Liberals' capacity for innovation in the face of potential defeat. And secondly, they underestimated the creditee's. It's important, remember, the people who actually held the balance of power with the social credit party out of Quebec at the time. And that's where I think they should have gone hunting, and they didn't. I mean, not just gone hunting, but at least had an understanding about the budget, say, if we do this, what will the response be? But at the time, from a populist point of view, the gas tax made it very difficult for any party to endorse the budget, as well as some other cuts that they made. And, I mean, it's an irony of history that what John Crosby kept saying, why, this was the fairest tax we could have introduced.

It was, you know, environmentally the most positive, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And it was just the wrong time to do that because the climate change issue was not in the forefront of anyone's mind, certainly not in our mind, although there were critics of ours in the party who were. urged us to support the budget and not to defeat the government. I mean, there was a wing of people who wanted to do that. But the vast majority of New Democrats wanted to vote against the budget. And I think it's fair to say that we also miscalculated in the sense or didn't even calculate

what the liberals would do. We just assume the liberals would find a way to stay home or enough of them would stay home or they'd do some deal with the creditiste or something else would happen. So even though we were a larger number than we'd been in the recent past, where we had a lot of new members elected, like 26 or 27 members, it didn't occur to the new Democrats to say, well, we're not going to support it. There were some people who wanted us to put forward what was called a Regina manifesto, some amendment, which would be impossible for the liberals to support.

but I think that at Broadbent felt and I certainly felt and the number of us felt that that would be so obvious that we were not really playing we were not prepared to go all the way that it would mean that we were just kind of giving

the government a free seat actually after that happened Peter just to finish it's interesting Lowell Murray who was very involved with the conservative party as a senator and had been a you know,

wonderful advisor to Dick Hatfield, a whole bunch of other people. Lowell said to me afterwards, when we were looking at the next experience, you know, we should really have a much clearer line of communication between us and between, you know,

to help us get through whatever is coming up. And I said, yeah, you should have done. that. I don't know it would have changed anything, but they didn't do. And the setup was different. The number of seats and different combinations was different. So it'll be interesting to see what happens now. Well, I guess that's why I'm asking the question, because I'm wondering where you stand or how you feel about this idea of going out and trying to encourage people

to cross the floor, literally within, you know, days of the election. that had voted them in now months later, but still, the game of trying to encourage people across the floor continues, as we hear the constant rumors and rumors again today, that there may be another floor crossing in the offing. And I'm wondering how you feel about that. You know, the opposition leader, the conservative leader, Mr. Poliev has suggested it's anti-democratic and a few other things he said about it. Of course, he's the one who's falling victim to this

more than anyone else, but nevertheless, how do you feel about it? Do you think it's fair game in the months immediately following an election to try and encourage people to leave the commitment they made to their constituency

by the things they said about what they'd support or not support to join the opposition party? I mean, in this case, the governing party? Yeah, I do. And the reason, well, I do generally. I mean, it's politics.

I mean, it happens. But I think in the context of today, it's not at all surprising. Mr. Carney has deliberately tried to establish a set of policies and directions, which are quite compatible, I would argue, with many sort of progressive conservative traditions. So that's one thing that's very clear. I mean, there are people who say, well, is he a blue liberal? He's a red Tory. I said, no, he's a liberal, but he's also trying to govern from the center at a time when he feels

there has to be greater stability and unity in the Canadian Parliament so that he can get things done that need to get done in the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time. And I think there are a number of conservatives who are quite comfortable with the policies that he's introducing. and might feel that in the name of national unity, in the name of pragmatism, trying to get things done,

that they would feel quite comfortable in being part of a liberal caucus in those circumstances. And it's not just a one-way street. I mean, not that, you know, I've ever seen it happen in many occasions. I mean, when I was leader of the NDP in Ontario, lost a guy who I knew very well had campaigned for him I was extremely upset

when he decided to leave but I think if you're, I mean that was in a sense of younger me and I was a little more impulsive in my responses to that situation I think if I had to see it to do it all over again I'd say that's deeply regrettable but

these things happen in in politics and frequently and David Peterson by the way at that time in that situation called me up. I said, I know you're upset, but you need to understand something. He came to me.

I didn't, you know, and I don't know, I mean, I take David at his word when he says that. And I think that's the same thing that's being said about the two people who've done their own thing. They may have their own reasons for wanting to leave as individuals that have nothing to do with

the liberals going around and trolling or whatever they're doing. There are a lot of conversations. between and among MPs are a lot of friendships that are formed. There are people that signal different things at different times. But you have to be on the lookout for it. And I think it's fair to say that the liberals are looking and are open. I don't think that's immoral or undemocratic at all.

I think it's just partly how the system works. and Mr. Paul Yeff's style of leadership makes some people very happy and it makes some people a little less comfortable. And so it's not surprising that you've got a few people within the Conservative Caucus or other caucuses

who say, you know what? I think this is the thing to do at the moment and it's right for me and it's right for the country. And I think that's something what a lot of people think about. What about constituents? What should they think about something like this?

I mean, they just voted for this person and that party based on what they were saying. Well, I mean, I don't think what should assume that the constituents are, when you look at polls today, you look at the general state of public opinion, I don't, I don't. think the feeling of betrayal is shared by every constituent. I think there certainly will be some party members who are unhappy and very annoyed and very upset. But I don't think it's necessarily the case that your constituents are going to be very, very, very angry. I mean, in my own case, I never crossed the floor literally, the sense of leaving in the middle of a term to join another party.

I did present myself later as a liberal in 2006, and I was quite worried when I went to knock on doors in Toronto Center as to what some people would say to me. And I had one case of somebody who I knew very well, who was a strong New Democrat, who was upset, and let me know that. But I'd been 10 years in the wilderness, if you like, without a party. and most other people, many new Democrats, people who said, I'm voting for you because I've kind of changed too. You know, my opinion is, you know, evolved.

I see why you did it. I understand the reason for doing it. And, yeah, this is why I'm there. But it does, well, it's not going to be easy for whoever does it. And it creates discombobulation to some extent. But so do a lot of changes. of heart in life, you know, they're not easy to manage. And I think that's something that you have to go through.

But I don't regard it as a front to democracy. I think that's overstating it a lot. You know, overall, I think 40% of those who cross the floor end up losing their seat in the next election if they run. Which means 60 don't. Exactly. But, or maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it's only 40% win and 60% lose.

But nevertheless, it is what it is, the numbers stand that. But there's also been some very successful political careers of those who have changed their mind about what party they support. You know, you're an example, as you just stated, but even earlier in your career, you were a liberal, right? You were a liberal before you were NDP. Yes. And then you crossed or didn't cross, but you changed your beliefs to liberal beliefs later on. Churchill, how many times did he cross the floor back and forth? A lot.

And whether that was about policy or whether it was about personal gain, because he always seemed to end up on the front bench of whatever party he was running for or representing. What do you make of the current situation? You know, obviously you have some still support for the Liberal Party of Canada as a former interim leader, among other things. How do you see the positioning of the party? I mean, obviously, as you said earlier, there are those who describe this government as a progressive conservative government in disguise.

Do you see them as then? No. No, I don't. I think, I think first of all, I'd make two points. First one is the level of political allegiance is, the level of political partisanship among the general public is a complicated thing. The number of people who identify themselves as necessarily part of one party or another as in Canada has actually declined. And it's been very interesting to see this.

I mean, as somebody led two parties over the last 50 years, provincially and federally, of course, I follow these things very closely. But my election as Premier in 1990 showed us very clearly that there were a lot of people who were prepared to switch in order to cast their ballot and do something that they won't. wanted to do. And that's what happened in 1990 when I was elected. We, we, we, I can remember going into the election, the pollster that we had said to me, your, your ceiling is 30%. And that's, that's, you know, that's where you are. And when the first polls came in, uh, two weeks

into the election, we were 33%. I said, so what happened to the ceiling? He said, I guess the ceiling is moving because a lot of people who said, would you know, would you consider voting for the NDP, hadn't thought about it. Then they said, yeah, yeah, I can do that. In this election at this time for this moment, I can do that. So that's where I think the prime minister's style is different from Mr. Trudeau's. I mean, the prime minister is, you know, had a long career in, investment finance and in central banking, and was not, I mean, he was not necessarily a politically partisan figure. And I think that gives him a perspective to say, what's the right thing to do here in policy terms? Where do we need to be in terms of policy?

How do we need to move this forward? And I think it, you know, if somebody like, say, Jean-Cretier or Justin Trudeau, or Paul Martin, who were a career, you know, had been in politics for a long time and had a strong adherence of the party, knew the party well, knew how the party operated. And they would come at it with a slightly different perspective. How will the party feel about this? You know, can I do this? Even if I think it's the right thing, can, you know, will the party put up with it?

I don't think that's a big calculation for Mr. Carney. That's not my impression. My impression is he wants to do the right thing. I mean, I only really dealt with him on foreign policy issues. And on foreign policy issues, he was remarkably clear to me that you tell me what you think the right thing is to do in policy terms. And we'll, you know, leave us to worry about the political reaction within the party or elsewhere. I'm just going to do it because I think it's the right thing. And, I mean, that was refreshing for me.

It made things a little easier in terms of, you know, okay, okay, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the way we're doing it. Let's, let's, let's think it through. But I, I think Mr. Cardi's very, very committed to, first of all, he's very committed to the country. And I think everybody feels that, but he wants to do the right thing by Canada. And by Canada, he has a very broad vision. You know, he boarded the Northwest Territories, grew up in Alberta. He, you know, he, he sees the country in a very, from a very broad perspective. And he also has a long career in business and understanding public finance and understanding how international finance works. Again, when he came to New York, he was very interested in talking to people in New York who were key movers and shakers in finance and banking, but also in talking to leaders that he knew would share that kind of perspective of a broad sense of where the global economy is going. And I think people should not underestimate, you know, the value of having somebody as

our current prime minister who has that background and those instincts, which are really quite considerable. And he's proving to be, I think, quite adept politically. But he faces enormous challenges. And I think that's the reason, you know, your first questions about Florica, I think the reason why some MPs are thinking about it is they realize what's at stake here for the country. And there may be an element of personal advantage. But for Churchill, I mean, it was a similar thing when he switched parties.

He switched parties because he believed in something and he didn't believe in something else. And he saw that there had always been an element in the conservative party that it looked like this. And then he saw them moving away from it. And so he thought, well, I better go with liberals because that's where I can live with that group of people more effectively in this context than I could before. And I think there will be some conservatives who are thinking about that. Leaders get to define their party to a considerable extent. And there are always going to be people within that party who are not happy with how the party is being. defined, but they will decide to stick with it until that leader goes.

And when that leader goes, then there's another opportunity to redefine the direction of the party. But we do in Canada give quite a lot of sway to political leaders, to kind of be not just the coaches of the team, but to be the leaders of the team. And that I think is the way it works. Is that a good way for it to work? do leaders have too much sway? I think probably it's not

I probably think a little bit yeah I think it's I think power it can be too concentrated in the office of the leader of the office of the prime minister and I think there are a lot of people who would like to see

more consensual more cabinet government if you like but I don't know it doesn't seem to be heading in that direction no it certainly doesn't. It certainly doesn't right now.

We've got to take our first break here, but before I do, just a quick question. You talked about the challenges that are in front of the prime minister right now, and they are considerable. In your time and political life, which stretches back now, dare I say, more than half a century. It's okay, Peter. We're both older. I was there, so I saw it. It's okay. It's okay.

But would you say that this prime minister, is faced with a greater challenge than any of his predecessors during that time? Pretty close to that, I would say, yes. I think that we must not underestimate the challenges of national unity that Prime Minister Kretchen faced. I think Prime Minister Kretchen felt at the moment of the Quebec referendum when things started really from the federal point of view, becoming very problematic and very difficult.

I know that there was a weight on his shoulders that he felt personally very strongly that this was an existential moment. And I think that I think for all Canadian prime ministers will always be the number one preoccupation that if there's a prospect of one part of the country or another actually deciding that they want to,

they want to leave. That is foundational. But the current political context with our southern neighbor is very, very challenging. And the overall global situation is challenging as well. Okay. And that's where we're going to pick up when we start our next segment. But first, a quick break. We'll be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening. to the Bridge Friday edition, which, of course, is good talk. No Chantel, no Bruce this week, but Bob Ray is sitting in as those two take an early start to the holiday season, and we're

glad to have Mr. Ray with us. You're listening on Series XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. All right, sir, you pointed us in... Peter, it's pretty good talk. Today's pretty good talk. Yeah, it's a very good talk. A very good topic. People love it. You know, there used to be a time in my CBC days when we started at issue back around 2000,

where the other producers in the area of the program said, this will never work. People don't want to talk about politics. That's never been true. It's always been the case. They love it, especially at times of heightened attention and tension, the people line up to listen to programs like this or to watch programs like this. And the interesting thing about podcasts, I don't know whether you've noticed this,

but as opposed to ordinary television, which I have nothing against, and obviously made a living out of it for many years. But with podcasts, you get a lot of reaction and it's thoughtful. You know, they don't agree with you all the time, far from it. but they make their case and they make it, you know, smartly. And I learn from the letters I get, and I think they learned from the, you know, the discussion and the conversations that we have. So I'm sure many people are hanging on many of your words here, if not all of them.

Well, I accept that. You know, I find that my new, and my new relatively liberated state, It's, people say, oh, you're free to say whatever you want. I said, well, yeah, of course, but you're also free to, you're also limited by the consequences of what you say. So if you say something really stupid, you still pay a price for it. I mean, it's free, yeah, it's free, but, you know, you still have an obligation to be thoughtful about what you're saying and think through, is that really what you meant to say, which is, I mean, it's one of the challenges of being a politician or being living your life in public is, is that it's sort of like being a high wire artist. I mean, you're putting one foot in front of the other,

hoping to get to somewhere at the end of a sentence. But you're not quite sure whether the foot's going to land exactly where you want it to land. What's the best way of describing what you're doing now? I mean, you're 77, which is not that old. That's what I keep telling myself. And there's still lots to offer. and I'm sure there's things you want to do. What's the current slate of Bob Ray assignments?

Well, I'm associated with the University of Toronto and with Queens. I've just been asked to become the visitor of Massey College, which is the graduate college at the University of Toronto. And I'm never quite clear what that role means, but it's been, you have to kind of hang around and to be helpful to the principal, the managers of the college and talk to the students a lot and engage with them. So I'm doing that.

I'm doing some writing on Substact. I'm hoping to start another book soon. And I'll be doing more teaching starting in September next year. But that's sort of the mix at the moment. and I'm doing some public speaking as well. I was down in Washington this week. I had a chance to say, you know, congratulate to thank our ambassador who's a good friend,

Curson Hillman, and spoke to the Oxford Society of Washington, D.C. And it was fun. And so I do a bit of that. And we'll see what else comes along. I mean, it's sort of like a moment of, I mean, it's every moment of change. is a moment of necessary humility because you don't know what's going to happen. But I feel very blessed to still have my health,

and I've got my children and grandchildren in town in Toronto and get to see them more often, which is great. Last week we did a swim meet. We did a break dance demonstration, and we did a violin recital. And the week before that, I spoke to a person, Avenue public school and the grade five class where my oldest grandson is a student. So it sounds like you're busy.

Yeah, I'm busy, but it's fun. It's all fun. It's all fun. Let me try and peel back your thoughts on where we stand with our southern neighbor, because obviously for the last five years, you've been back and forth a lot, and this last year you've witnessed something that I think is fair to say. most Canadians never thought they would witness in terms of the relationship between the two countries. And I have found that as, you know, in spite of some attempts to dial the anger, because that's

what it's being down, that's not really happened out there. People are really upset. And as somebody who was, you know, crossing the border fairly frequently, I don't imagine you had to take a burner phone and trade your laptop in. There's certain benefits to a diplomatic passport, I'm sure. But, I mean, what do you make of this situation that we're in with people who were, and still are in many individual cases, great friends?

But in terms of country to country, it's a mess. It's tough. And I think it's fair to say that Canadians are still angry and upset. And as I've said on many occasions, because a mutual friend of ours, Jack Rabinovich, always used to say to me, just remember, it's hard to be smart and angry at the same time. So if you're in business and you can't stand the guy you're negotiating with and you blow up and you're not going to make a smart decision. And I think it's true in life. I think that's a very true statement about our behavior. And so,

The challenge, I think, that governments face is, our government, the Canadian government, faces, is trying to maintain a steady keel in the face of provocation from the Trump administration and provocation from or anger and whatever emotions are expressed by Canadians and sort of say, look, we've got to. keep our eye on this relationship because it really is critically important to us, and it has been important to us for our whole lives as Canadians, and going back, you know, it's even more important now than ever before, simply because of the strength of the economic ties that are in play. And so the speech that I gave in Washington was really about this to say, let's not forget, and I was saying this both to Canadians and to the Trump administration, let's not forget the depth of these ties

and you can't dismiss them. You can't dismiss the fact that we've been allies. I mean, you were, you know, you've been a wonderful witness to many historic events, but in particular, I think what most Canadians really admire about the work that you've done, Peter, is the work that, you know, the broadcasts you've given from Normandy, in the broadcast you, the way in which you talked about our history and connected it to

what our patriotism was all about and why it was important. Well, we were allies of the United States, very close allies, not only in Korea and in the Second World War, but most recently in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we lost over 150 people, women and men who were dedicated in Afghanistan. The Americans lost over 1,500 people. So you look at this and say, how can you not understand that we don't just have a transactional relationship with the United States? We share common values. At least we thought we did.

And we think we still do. And I keep saying, well, we do. But we have to cope with the fact that the current administration doesn't. seem to have a profound feeling of empathy for Canada, or arguably for a lot of other countries that were and have been allies. And that makes it very, very difficult. And I think we have to continue to do what we're trying to do now, which is to say, for example, the government wanted, Canadian government has stated publicly, no secrets here, they said we'd like to settle the tariff issues that are affecting some

sectors like auto and aluminum and steel and lumber and, you know, deal with those because you've treated them as if they're outside of the free trade agreement that we have Kuzma, as we call it now. And that's, you didn't do that. So can we

try and settle those and then move into the Kuzma discussions which are coming up anyway for renewal. And basically the Americans said no. It now said That's not what we'd like to do. No, that can change. And the prime minister has said, okay, just this week, I heard him talking to an interviewer saying,

it's too bad. We would have liked that, but we're going to continue to say that it's a logical thing for us to do. We're not going to walk away from that discussion. But we have to prepare for the broader customer discussion. And it's really hard to deal with in a situation where the person you're negotiating with is unpredictable in terms of exactly what's going to be said on any given day. And also, and I keep coming back to this, seems to have very, very little sense of the emotion of the friendship between the two countries. And in the speech I gave in Oxford, I quoted both President Kennedy and President Reagan. And both President Reagan and Kennedy both spoke with great emotion about what it is that links the two countries.

It is a unique partner. It had been, it was a unique partnership, which both sides seem to understand and appreciated. And I think that it's really hard when the administration says, well, that's not really what we're looking at these days. you know, what have you done for me this week? And that makes it tougher. And it's interesting you mentioned Kennedy and Reagan because you're absolutely right about the things they said about the partnership and the alliance between Canada and the U.S.,

but they both had difficult moments with Canada. You know, Kennedy on the Beaumarch missiles and that with Pearson and it was a testy relationship at times. Reagan in his first term with Trudeau, that was at times a difficult relationship but they always managed to kind of work it out and it didn't interfere with the way they saw each other's country which is the important fact that you're putting forward

have you ever dealt face to face with Trump no never by shaking his hand in church that must have been an experience you'll never that's as far as far as it goes Because, you know, you talk about his shifting positions and his administration's shifting positions and being, at times, that challenge of trying to deal with somebody who is totally unpredictable. The Prime Minister Carney has seemed to change his position over the last six months, not his basic positions about the country and what it wants to achieve out of this, but the way they're going. about the process.

He's sort of saying, you know, we're going to just back off. They've got their issues. We'll move on with ours. It's almost as if he sees that the Trump administration is having difficulties right now

internally, domestically. You know, in good part because of the economy, part of which may well have been because of tariffs or may well be because of tariffs. Is this sort of backing off, letting them, through their thing, we're going to do our thing? Is that a good strategy?

Compared with what it looked like four or five months ago, where it seemed to be peddled with a medal where you've got to get a deal? Well, it takes two to tango. I mean, I don't think he's changed his position. I mean, he's made it clear he'd still like to do a deal on the sectoral issues, which are really hurting many Canadian communities.

But if the Americans are not prepared to have that conversation or don't really want to deal with it, outside a longer term negotiation, then that's, that's, I mean, you say, is he changing? Well, he's changing because, you know, we tried to get a deal, and depending on your point of view, it was either very close or not, I don't know, I wasn't in the room, but didn't come together. So I think he's doing what any sensible person does, which is you don't go through life with your hand on the horn. you put your hand on the horn when it's necessary if you're a sensible person

but you don't drive just blaring through whatever you can't be oblivious to what we're being told by our partners in the United States and I think the Prime Minister has another instinct which I think is actually on balance correct and that is that no matter what the provocation is

you don't have the luxury of being a running commentator on what's going on. You try to treat people respectfully, and you try to dial it down because you understand that this deal gets done when people are thinking, first of all, more empathetically to each other, understanding what we have in common, and secondly, are dealing with issues in a pragmatic way. And with the Trump administration, I think it's fair to say, that's difficult. And we have to understand as well as something else,

which is painful for Canadians to say. The Americans, I think, feel, have always felt that there are aspects of what we do that annoy them. and, you know, our failure to, or reluctance, to spend more on defense, which is now gone, that's over, that era is over, was very annoying to them. Whether it was Biden or whether it was any Democratic administration or not, it was saying, some sectoral issues like marketing boards, the Americans say, well, that's all fine for you. you want to do a marketing board

you're going to cost people more to buy eggs and other stuff that's your business but you're stopping us from being able to export into your country so effectively that's really what happens and they don't like that and they say look we've got

people in dairy and in all of the industries that are covered all the sectors of farm economy they'd like they'd like to get more of their product into your country and we say sorry it can't be done We've made this decision and we're not going to move off it. And that's, you know, for some, that creates a set people saying, well, no, no.

They, on the other hand, they have the Buy America Act, which means that if, I remember famously, there's several big Canadian companies that had to establish factories in the United States so they would be able to qualify for large infrastructure projects in the United States. And that's not free trade. we can't trade our lumber freely into the United States. That's not free trade. And so there's a little bit of doing and throwing on both sides, where each side can point to the other and say,

you're not doing this, and you'd say, well, we're not doing this. So you kind of have to say, yeah, there are some commercial challenges. But dealing with a highly protectionist administration, which is really rolling back American public policy, to the 1920s. You know, this famous, I always love this Smoot-Hawley, you know, the Smoot-Hawley bills on high tariffs.

Disaster. It was a disaster. They were a global disaster. And, you know, again, at the UN, I used to say this, the Americans are, what's happening here is global trade is going back to where it was in the 20s and 30s. And you say, how did that work out for everybody? Not very well. In the end?

Look at my book. I don't know whether you've read Sork on. book, but it's great. It's great. I've got to stop you here because we're running rapidly out of time. And I've got one big question left, but we're going to take our final break. We'll be back right after this. And welcome back. A final segment of Good Talk for this week with Bob Ray filling in for not just Chantilly

Bear, but Bruce Anderson as well. and it's been a fascinating conversation here. I want to ask you this, and once again, I only got a couple of minutes left, and it's a big question. It's tough to answer it short, so I better get to the question. You've been at the UN for the last five years,

so you've heard a lot of international talk. You've heard from a lot of your colleagues at high levels from different countries. in the last certainly in the last year and perhaps more in the last month than ever before we're hearing more talk from our European allies

about we've got to be ready for war we just have to be ready for war the British or hawks on this the French, the Germans the Poles they're all saying the same thing are we on the edge of war well I'm very aware that

I have what I call a quote a quote sort of signal in the back of my brain don't say anything that's going to immediately become the headline you don't want hey you're independent now you're a free agent you can go for it also has to worry about being quoted and then people say if you lost your I would say that I would just be much more diplomatic

I guess it's my training and say Well, first of all, I mean, we've talked a lot about the United States being erratic and, et cetera, the administration, you know, et cetera. But let's never forget. I mean, we're dealing with a number of superpowers that are very, well, superpowers, for starters, and then a lot of autocratic countries where one person can kind of say, this is what I'm doing. And I don't care what anybody says. And that creates a very, very dangerous situation for the world. You can't, I mean, we have many new countries with nukes. We have other countries that want to get nukes just this week.

The Japanese prime minister, which would have been unheard of before, said, you know, we may have to develop a nuclear weapon. Why would Japan say that? Well, because the Americans have been very critical of Japan, and because the situation with China is difficult, and the situation with Taiwan, in particular, is very, very difficult. And if a country says, I can't rely on the United States to protect me, I can't rely on the United States to be my guide, then that means I need to protect myself. And it leads to that. And so at a purely factual level, ever since World War II and ever since the invention and the use of the atomic bomb and atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs, et cetera, et cetera, we, we always. are on the edge of war. That's where we are.

And we sometimes just whistle past the graveyard and pretend that it's not there, but it's what President Kennedy, again, in one of his famous speeches described as the Sword of Damocles, which was hanging over. That's why he decided to take as much risk out of the nuclear

situation as he could by having a series of conversations with the Russians after the Cuban missile crisis. And so yeah, yes, factually speaking, that's the case. And let's not forget, Putin is the aggressor in Ukraine. And when you listen to what he says and what his advisors say

and the rhetoric in which they engage, it's very bad. They talk about Finland, they talk about the Baltic countries. There are things that, you know, from an old Russian perspective, they see this as their sphere of influence and nobody else has any business, you know, dealing with it. And the Poles don't like that, because they don't feel that's true. The Eastern European countries that found their freedom and now have their freedom that they are desperately determined to defend. And the Scandinavian countries, like particularly Finland, which is another border country, have joined NATO.

So, yeah, they are determined to protect themselves. So the situation we're in right now is very bad. We also face regional wars which have been devastating to human life. Gaza, Sudan, the Congo, what's happening in Myanmar and in Bangladesh. I thought Trump had solved all those. They're all done. They're not so good, Peter. I realize that.

I realize that. I'm the annoying guy who raises his head in the back of the room. Excuse me, sir. Yeah, that's right. Look, I hate to stop you because you're on a rule. but we're out of time. We'll do it again. It's been great to have you with us,

and we know we're going to be hearing from you from whatever venue again in the future, so don't rest too easy on the... Over the holidays, you'll be back at it. Thanks for doing this. Thank you. Merry Christmas, and happy onica to everyone. Thank you so much, Peter.

For a chance to be with you. It's been great. You take care. Yeah, you take care too. And the same to all our listeners across the system. We'll be taking a break for the next two weeks. Some great encore shows playing out over the next little while over the next two weeks. But we'll be back on January 5th. That's the Monday.

At this moment, scheduled, as always on Mondays, is Janice Stein. We'll see how that works out because Janice and Bob have had their moments too in the past, of going back and forth on various issues. So it's great always to hear from her and from him. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for joining us today on this special edition of Good Talk with Bob Ray. Enjoy the holidays. We'll talk again in two weeks' time.