The Paikin Podcast - Bob Rae: Is Canada Entering an Age of Tyranny?

Episode Date: May 12, 2026

In our first edition of a monthly segment, Steve is joined by “the most difficult man to introduce in Canada,” Bob Rae, to discuss how we are increasingly seeing behaviour in the world that is “tyrannical,” the fallout from the Iran War, why it has achieved nothing, why Canada must be more than just a bystander, and why Blaise Pascal’s maxim from the 17th century helps us understand the world today: “Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical.” They also discuss Canada’s new Governor General, Louise Arbour, the rising separatist sentiments in Canada, the dilemma Pierre Poilievre is facing, and the state of the Toronto Blue Jays. Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcast Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznCIUEA11lZGcNIM4h?si=b5d73bc7c3a041b7X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social Email us at: [e-mail] 

Hi, everybody. Steve Paken 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 post-secondary world, he loves baseball, and more than 60 years ago, he was Richard Nixon's paper boy. The interview was quite well received, 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 Paken podcast. Well, as I say, he is the most difficult man to introduce in Canada because he is currently

the visitor at Massey College. He is the Matthews Fellow at Queen's 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. There's Bob Ray, premier, leader, ambassador, professor, I'm not sure what to call you, but I'm delighted to see you again. How you doing? I'm just doing fine, that, Steve. You call me, Bob?

You took too much mic time there. It was, you know, when do I get a word in? You get a word in after I clarify for you that I have actually known, you for 43 years. That's right. And I've never once called you Bob. And I never will. I just can't do it. Okay. Is that okay? Fine. Okay. Where do we find you today, incidentally? I'm at Queens University. I'm teaching an intensive course here on Canada, U.S. relations, which is fun because I did the same thing last week at the month school. So it's fun to go over the material and get a fresh look from a

different group of students. A lot of fun. How diplomatic do you have to be or can you let it rip? Oh, no. Let it let it rip with the students. Absolutely. They get the full experience. 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 than what we say experienced 30 or 40 years ago during the Cold War. That was five months ago. You sticking with that today or are things different? I would say that I was wiser beyond what I usually am.

I think that was a good sense of how risky the world is because of the unpredictability of several actors and because of the way in which... people who think of themselves as being great powers, 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 what the Russians have been doing. I think the continuing threats that the Chinese pose do their own population in terms of the discrimination against the Uyghurs and the ongoing discrimination against Tibetans and other dissenters in China, plus their continuing. to fulminate against what's going on in Taiwan. And of course what President Trump has been doing, you know, with Venezuela, with the so-called Don Roe Doctrine,

which we discussed the last time, and obviously what's been happening in Iran. So, yeah, I think it's a very difficult moment. And I think the moment that we're in will have serious consequences that go well beyond what I think people are today, actoring in, we can talk about that. Well, 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, in which you quoted Blaise 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?

Well, I think it's just an insight that's true, and I think we're experiencing it every day. 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 don't commit a lot of crimes is because we know we have a legal system where there's a reasonable chance we're going to get caught. And that the law gets us will be enforced and we can go to jail or, you know, face serious punishment of what kind of another. And that's when you can talk credibly about a justice system. The problem 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. People talk about the Geneva Conventions, people talk about the conventions on torture,

on genocide, on the rights of children. People are constantly referring to all of the architecture of 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. It's certainly a problem of getting it enforced quickly and effectively. And actually it was Winston Churchill who pointed out the risks of this in the famous speech that he gave in Fulton, Missouri, in 1946, where he talked about the iron curtain. That's the speech that everybody remembers is 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've gone through this war. He was talking at the middle of the Duraberg trials, and those trials have had a sense that justice was being done, that the people, the guilty parties were being brought to bear. But what we've seen happen now is that guilty parties are not even brought to court, let alone brought to jail. And so we have a serious question around how international law can actually function effectively. But the second point that Pascal's making is, yeah, that's true. But the other problem is that those people who think they're above the law are behaving increasingly, like tyrants. And if they think the law doesn't apply to them, if they think there are no

rules of engagement, as Pete Hickseth said, although he referred to them as stupid rules of engagement, but 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, Blaze Pascal wrote these words several hundred years ago, but they they still are very true. They're a very apt description in a very short couple of sentences that describes the dilemma of the world we're in at the moment. 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 Higgsith in any of them. I don't think we have. I think the only comparison I can think of is George Pant, in certainly in real life and also in movies who was incredibly profane, outspoken and said whenever he wanted and eventually had to be brought to heel by Eisenhower for various reasons. 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 the defense out of secretary of state in the 1940s. 50s under Harry Truman. And I think everybody recognizes it as one of the, one of the finest

people in public language that you could think of, who never expressed any glee at the pain, he was afflicting on an enemy and understood full well that the civilian power was supreme, and also understood that war is, war is a hugely and difficult human event that you try and avoid at all costs instead of, you know, celebrating the loss of life and mocking everybody else is out there. I think Pete Heggseth goes way beyond anything that one would normally expect to somebody who holds such a high in such a responsible office. Maybe you could explain to me how this happens since you have been in government. Pete Hegeseth gave a speech the other day in which it sounded like he was quoting from a biblical passage to explain what American foreign policy

he was all about. Turns out it actually was a passage from a movie called Pulp Fiction. How does that happen? Well, I think what happened in his case was that he was reading something that had been provided to it by somebody else. I don't think, I mean, I'm not here to defend Pete Hexon, but I would be surprised if he decided to go out and admit a quote from the Bible. I don't think he'd do 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. He ended up quoting an entire speech from Neil Kinnock, the labor leader at the time without knowing it. But Joe Biden resigned or retired from the field because he was shown to have given a speech that somebody else gave. He had no idea. His speechwriter may not even have done, I don't know whether he did where he got it from. The same thing happened with Mr. Harper gave a speech in which he quoted directly. He didn't quote. He just gave the same speech as the Prime Minister of Australia on the subject of work.

And you just look at it and say, how could this have happened? Many people don't read what they're about to say. and that's a bit spooky yeah it is there's a famous joke about it about speech writers a guy he hated his boss and his boss was going to go out and give a speech and so he had the speech writer have to 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 the speech writer says okay you son of a bitch you're on your own Do you remember who the speechwriter was?

No, but I know the story was told about a lot of different people. So I think it's probably an apocryphal story. That's a good one. That's a good one. And we'll be back right after this. 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 a lot?

it happened? Well, I think there are a number. I don't think there's just one. I mean, I think the obvious one for me is been the war in Ukraine, where we have a war of aggression that's compared to anybody who understands what that term beats, and where the structure of our, you know, the architecture of international law, the beads of enforcing it. The only means of enforcement the Ukrainians have is to defend themselves. And we have chosen, the rest of the world has chosen to either do nothing or support Ukraine, but always with limitations, always saying to the Ukrainians, well, you can do this with what we give you, you can't do that. 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 challenge of what's happening in the Middle East, what do Iranians have done to their own population, what the Israelis are facing with, you know, the accusations that I think are being leveled and need to be, we need to get an answer somewhere. So what happened in Gaza, what actually has taken place, what's happening in Lebanon. I think those all raise questions around how these things could be allowed to go on without any recourse anywhere else, which means that the only recourse we have at the moment is war. And, you know, at the end of the First World War,

Woodrow Wilson said, 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, the Middle East, more conflicts than we've ever had, adding the ball 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 species, have we? I mean, we really haven't learned as much as we should have learned. Let me ask you the flip side, and maybe the answer is the same, but we'll try. What is the number one example in this world of where we have force, but no justice attached to it? Well, I think there are a lot of those. I mean, I think what has taken place in Iran recently, obviously what's taken place in Ukraine, what has taken place in Venezuela. I mean, I don't believe that the justification for the basically the taking over of a country and the exploitation of their natural resources and seizing assets and basically throwing

out of people, getting them out of plane, putting them in jail. and applying American justice to what is clearly a matter of international law, not a matter of national law. I mean, I don't think there's legal justification for any of those things. I don't believe that there was, in terms of the Iranian situation, I don't think that you could describe what Iran was doing with respect to the development, but if nuclear technology in Iran was sufficient to justify the kind of attack on Iran that we've seen. I don't think it meets the test of an imminent threat.

I don't think 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 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 sufficiently to understand why that war is it. And again, it's sometimes it was once some French diplomat or other in the past said it's not only that it's against the law, it's not only that it's immoral, it's also a mistake. 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, it wasn't necessary, it shouldn't have happened.

Although, can you say it achieved nothing? Well, it's worse than that. I think it's, I think it's emboldened the regime in Iran. I think it's consolidated their power over their own people. And I don't believe that it has achieved anything in terms of the security of either Israel or the region. at all. In fact, I think it's made each situation. I could describe you why I think the situation of the United States out of Israel and of

the neighbors of Iran is actually boring and secure as a result of the steps that have been taken. 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? I think his objectives were, first of all, totally unclear, and I think they're in part entirely delusional, because the idea 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. And so, no, I don't buy that, I don't buy the premise behind your question. How's that? That's okay. Do we assume that his military advisors 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? Well, that's what the New York Times says. So whether that's true or not, I don't know.

I mean, they are going by their sources. It's certainly plausible to me, based on my observations, about how Trump acts and also how military advisors do have an obligation to tell you, as any cabinet advisor would, any advising the provincial government or a mayor or anything to say, but he says, the first thing you say is, well, give me the pluses and minuses. Tell me why I should do this. Tell me what the consequences are. And I think that's not clear

to me that that's actually what happened. 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? Well, tell me the moment. There are so many though I can't remember. I can't remember when I said that or what that was about.

Well, I think it's related to the war in the Middle East with Iran, which obviously Canada was 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. Well, I think that's right, but my concern was that it still remains that I think one of the underlying narratives right now is, despite what the prime minister said at Davos, which I, which I think, you know, from a conceptual point of view, saying we've got to understand we're in a different world that we were in. We have these hegemonic 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. We're not powerless. We can get together with others. That's a premise I agree with entirely. Where I think 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? Now, there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes.

There always is. there's a lot of discussions that are underway, but I still think one of the problems that we have, 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 should try to have. 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 deputies. the Prime Minister of Israel have made. We certainly don't agree with the positions that are taken with regard to, you know, the lack of applicability of international law, as Pete X-F has said, nobody buys into that argument. And I just think we have to continue to be quite confident to say, 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.

Do you see enough evidence that he's doing that? Well, yeah, I don't think a lot of it happens in public. And I don't think, I don't think by definition, a lot of diplomacy doesn't happen in public. But do I think there are conversations? Well, for example, Prime Minister has been at a European conference for three days in Armenia. So do I think that a lot of conversations have been taking place in our media about what's going on in Iran, what's going on elsewhere, what the consequences of not acting are going to be?

Absolutely they have. Absolutely, of course, they have. That's what goes on. 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. Insurance protects families, homes, and businesses when the unexpected happens. Brokers are your trusted advisors,

helping you choose the right insurance to safeguard what you value most. Canada's insurance, brokers. Their slogan is, we know what's worth protecting. 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 Louise Arbor, and I wonder what your impressions are of her as our new vice regal. She's a great person. I know her very well. I've known her for over 40 years. Her first husband or husband at that time, Larry Taman was my, was by Deputy Attorney General and somebody that I relied on heavily for advice. So naturally got to know both him and and Louise very, very well.

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, they'll just be able to call her a governor general. 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.

She's articulate and passionate in both English and French. She has a lot of experience not only nationally but internationally. She's hugely intelligent. She's very humane. She's a lovely person. And it's a fantastic appointment. Okay. If we're going to let a rip here, since 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 pointed her and she was unable to speak French? Right. Well, you know, I think that's the wrong focus about Barry Simon. I mean, I've also known Barry Simon for, I mean, I know a lot of people for a lot of people. She's a lovely woman. I know her too a little bit and she's lovely. Barry Simon was part of the whole process around Charlotte Town when we were trying to add to the, the patronage of the Constitution with some amendments, including important amendments on indigenous issues. And the governor general, she still is, was very, very heavily involved with those issues involving her own people. She's originally from the community called Kujuaq, which I worked at as a summer student, what it was called Fort Chival. So many, many years, many summers ago. She's a, Mary's a wonderful person.

and she's obviously very, very eloquent in her own language of duct-to-tuck, and she had difficulty learning French, which happens. I don't think, given the fact that she was the first indigenous governor general, is something that we should hold against her, although I know by some people it was. she's also I wouldn't say she's shy but she's she's a reserved. It's more introverted, yeah.

Who are more reserved as a person very thoughtful, extremely knowledgeable. And I, as opposed to some who look for reasons to criticize people in public office, 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 that some others you might have on your program. But I still think Barry's been an excellent governor general and she's a very fine person. Well, your friend in mind, 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. I thought John's comments were completely uncalled for. I would even say gratuitous. And I don't share them at all.

Even though he has somebody that is also a friend of mine, I know quite well. but he does sometimes say things that I just don't agree with. 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 Louisa Arbor, and that is, I do remember back when she was in her previous incarnation, 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, in talking about some of her work. And I wonder what your views are on that. Incorprehensible. I mean, first of all, she wasn't at the ICC. She was at the UN High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, although she did argue as a prosecutor as a prosecutor at the ICC,

where in fact she was involved in some of the most difficult cases at front of the international criminal court involving the people involved in the atrocity, of the Balkans. I can't, I mean, Big Taves, you know, can't explain itself why he said it, but I can't imagine why anybody would say such a thing or think such a thing. When you were a parliamentarian back in the late 70s, early 1980s, you had a front row seat on what was then a burgeoning separation crisis in Quebec and ultimately a referendum, which the stay-in Canada side actually won rather handily.

You're also not far out of office 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, 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 Charlottetown Accord

back in the early 1990s, how worried you are about the future of your country right now? I can't afford to be worried, but 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 folks, particularly talking with indigenous communities at Alberta who are expressing strong concern about the legality of the processes but set in play because it doesn't deal with the treaty relationship between the government of Alberta and indigenous people and indigenous relationship with the federal government,

which I think the federal government should be actively concerned about, to say, you know, you can't bring in legislation which ignore. everything that we've done with the U.S. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and when the treaty relationships that are now becoming so important 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 sensible to me. And now it's in front of the court, so I'll let the court decide that question. But I do think it's important for us to be aware of why.

it'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. I don't think that either the population of either province would choose to go down that road at all. I'm not I don't I'm not querulous 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, the process itself amounts to a self-inflicted wound because it creates a very false sense of what the real issues of the country are, either in Quebec or in Alberta.

And I am concerned. One mistake in your question, Steve, was when you mentioned that I had a front row seat when I was a member of the due Democratic Party caucus in the late 1970s, my initial seat was actually far in the back row. Somebody said if I was any further in the back row, my rear end would have been deep in the Ottawa River. So I was far from the front row. But 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, the repatriation of the Constitution, which I was very proud to be able to cast that vote. 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 Daniel 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 mollify. And she figures putting a referendum on sovereignty on the ballot in October maybe a good way to do that. What do you think? 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 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. It just makes the poison, it spreads the poison wider and makes it harder to deal with the disinformation, the misinformation, the misinformation, the propaganda, all the nonsense that goes on. You know, have the Russians involved, the Chinese involved, the Americans involved. You know, people say they're not going to be involved to say, no, of course they are. They already are in terms of disinformation on the Internet. The Internet, Alberta is full of nonsense as it is in Quebec, about, you know, what?

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. It's certainly not thinking that this is a short-term solution to my personal political problem. That's the worst calculus you can make. And I honestly don't believe it's going to work, but I also believe that it's a profound waste of time, and also has an element of danger to it that nobody should play around with. Yeah, like somebody could say one off thing to just ignite a spark, right?

And even, you know, you never know what's going to happen in an election. That's how I became premier. I remember, I'm trying to remember now, September 6, 1990, I think was the date. There we go. There we go. I want you, if you wouldn't mind, to resist the temptation to put. 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 Pauliev, 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 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 an opposition for potentially three more years. If you had to write the speech for Pierre Pauliev that he's going to give at this conference in order to try to keep people loyal and juiced up, what would you say?

Well, I don't mind answering that question. I mean, I'll try to answer it. I think, I mean, I know here, Pauline. I was, you know, he was in parliament with him. I've seen him. I've seen him. I don't know personally well, but, I mean, if I saw him walking down the corner, we'd shake hands and tell a few jokes and then move on.

I think, I think his problem is this, that he, in a way, he's sort of become a different, He's like all of us, he's different sides to him. In some level, he's a very practical politician and a very tough politician. At another level, he can be quite kind and thoughtful and very funny. But I'm afraid that he's kind of given into, apparently a side of his personality, that I don't think helps him at the end. a very partisan, you know, pro to just, you know, stupid cliches and short little bumper stickers 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 can have. 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 much bigger tent that he has. He's constantly dividing and chopping and 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 in the last few months.

You saw some signs of that. And I thought, well, okay, he sort of tried to do his best to get there. But then he falls back because that doesn't appear to be his natural fallback. And I think that's this problem. So I would be crafting a speech that would constantly be understanding a simple rule. And that is you're a sports fan. Most goals

come from the center. You've got to be close to the net to get there. 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 could 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, they have to say, well, are they going to turn to this guy? Or are they going to just say, well, I'm going to part 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 think he's got to think longer term. And for I to think about how he can build that and build the language that allows him to do it. Self-deprecating humor, always a good idea. Don't make fun of other people. make fun of yourself.

Those kinds of things that humanize you and make a big difference. And I think that's the kind of thing he needs to be thinking about in order to get to a point where he can present himself as an alternative to the government. 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 tendency of people is to take the present bad numbers and say, that's it for you.

And you've got to have a sense as a place. leader that, you know what, 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 whether or not the party's going to let him do it or he's going to really see that that's the way he should go. But we'll see him. 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.

That was my, that was my father's line. And Steve, 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 he finished writing a thesis, and wrote a book with George Gallup. And obviously, the war happened. and he joined the diplomatic service. But he used to say, when I asked him, why didn't you go back to polling?

He said, well, I concluded after all my time, during the war, I concluded that turning heads was more important than counting heads. Your job as a leader of the opposition is to turn heads. And don't worry about the counting, let other people do that. Gotcha. Sure. 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 Canadiens to win the Stanley Cup? Absolutely. I've always been supporting the last Canadian team, wherever they are, whatever level they are. Yeah, sure. I mean, you can support the Maple Leafs without hating the Habs.

The Habs have been a great team. My brother and I've been arguing about Maple Leafs versus Abbs since we used to watch. the Hockey Night and Canada games in black and white in our living room in 1954. That's a long time ago, okay. A long time ago. And the second sports question is, your favorite baseball team stinks right now. Are the Blue Jays finished this year? No, I don't think so. I think they've shown, I mean, they've got these injuries, which has really been tough.

And it really made it very difficult. I still think they've got a great team. What 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 at the dugout. They are a team. They like each other.

They like the game. They love to play as a team. And they also support each other in very real ways. And I think that's what makes me so proud to be a Blue Jays fan. They gave us a hell of a ride last year. That's for sure. It was wonderful. And, you know, you don't have the only premier to presided over two World Series victories.

I guess that's right. And if you say, if you say that's a coincidence, preview, I would say, well, yeah, but, you know, so are all the other things that I get trained for. So what the hell? I'm sure there was a direct correlation between your becoming Premier and the World Series of 92 and 93. And I haven't happened. Okay, you stick with that. That's good. Okay, Premier Emeritus, let me just finish up with 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 forward slash the Paken podcast in case people want to support

what we're doing. And all of these shows are archived at stevepaken.com. Thanks a lot, Bob Ray, for joining us. And I gather we're going to do this again next month and the month after. And I look forward to these future conversations very much. So you told me. We'll just see whether you deliver on your promise. You watch. Here we go. Peace and love, everybody. Until next time. See you later.