The Paikin Podcast - Bob Rae: Is Canada Entering an Orwellian World?

Episode Date: December 16, 2025

Bob Rae recently stepped down as Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations. He joins Steve to discuss his five years at the UN, how America has left “the democracy club,” the Orwellian world Canada is entering, and the danger and uncertainty of this geopolitical era.They also consider the Israel-Gaza war, Canada’s decision to recognize Palestine, the Russia-Ukraine War, dealing with the Trump administration, his dispute with China over their persecution of ethnic Muslim Uighurs, and what’s next for the former Ontario Premier, Liberal Party of Canada leader, and ambassador to the UN. Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastX: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.socialEmail us at: [e-mail]

When talking to friends about the impending end of his time as Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Ray would joke, I'm looking forward to Liberation Day when I can truly speak my mind. Well, truth be told, Ambassador Ray often spoke his mind, not always to the delight of the government of Canada, but that gave him an extra credibility in many circles around the world. Bob Ray just stepped down as our country's ambassador after a tumultuous five-year term in which issues around war in Russia, Ukraine, and the Middle East were constantly front and center. We talked about this and so much more in this one-on-one edition of the Pagan podcast. Mr. Ray, first of all, great to see you.

Thank you for coming here. Great to see you. I want to start, I want to dive right into something that you said on social media. not long after stepping down as ambassador, because I thought it was very stark and sort of indicated the times in which we live. You wrote, remember Orwell's power blocks in 1984? This is how the P3, China, Russia, and the U.S., increasingly see the world. We have to clear our heads from how things were to how they are. Marshall McLuhan pointed out how we make the mistake of viewing life through a rearview mirror.

And I want to unpack that. That sounds like a call for us to do something different to deal with what appeared to be three increasingly authoritarian countries in our world. What did you have in mind? Well, first of all, I'm glad you're still reading my social media account, which is a good thing at Bobray 48, just in case anyone still looks. I still call it Twitter. I don't, for some reason, the word X doesn't really jive with me. But the big point is, it's, you know, in the person, you can see it in the person, very clear when you get to the UN where you, that's a intensely hierarchical place, you can see kind of where you fit and where you have to learn to move and maneuver. But the key point is that these countries see themselves increasingly as having relationships between themselves, which are unique to them.

Look at the way the Americans have dealt with Ukraine and with Europe and with us. I mean, anybody else who supports Ukraine, you know, we're not part of some group that the Americans are leading. They're doing it themselves. They're on their own. They're making the deals or not. They don't seem to care that they're not in the democracy club anymore. They have left that club. The departure from that club was marked for me personally the moment that the United States voted against.

a resolution that they had always supported on Ukraine, naming Russia as the aggressor, citing the importance of territorial integrity, insisting on the principles of the charter as being critically important in protecting Ukraine's interests. And they voted against that resolution in the General Assembly. They voted with North Korea, Belarus, Russia, you name it. Did you know that vote was coming? Iran? No, it came very quick.

We knew it was coming in about four days, but it came very quickly. No, but did you know that they were not going to vote the way they traditionally had? It became very clear that that was probably what they were going to do. They signaled to us a few hours before. They said, by the way, we're voting against this resolution. How'd you react to that? Badly. I said, I can't believe that this is what's happening.

But then you have to suspend your frustration with the vote with the person who's giving you the news because they had nothing to do with the decision. It's not being made by them. It's being made in Washington. But that was part of a pattern that you can see, and it's much bigger than that now. We look at the conversations that take place between Trump and President Xi did one a couple of weeks ago, where basically President Xi said, we want to reestablish our relationship with you as a war power, as a victor of 1945. And that means treating Japan as a country that we defeated.

And so, you know, this is after the prime minister of Japan had said publicly that she would consider an attack on Taiwan as affecting Japan's security interest directly, not obliquely, but directly. And President Xi got on the phone with Trump and said, that's not going to happen. Trump said nothing. In the transcript of the conversation, he said nothing to discourage any attack on Taiwan. And he said nothing that would indicate that he understood the significance of the relationship that she was trying to reestablish. And with Putin, we see it. I mean, we see it in terms of the conversations on Ukraine, how others have been left aside. So we have to see these three.

And it's just as, you know, Oceania, East Asia, Eurasia. This is 1984. This is 1984. And you see it coming. You see it expressing itself. and which proves that Orwell was incredibly prescient about the risks of the world that we were moving into. But I think we, and then we see how our relationship with the Americans on a bilateral basis, how difficult that has become.

And then you see some of the statements that the leaders of each of the countries makes about their territorial interests or about their concern about international law, which is nil, or they're concerned about, you know, how any standards apply to them. No, they don't. So it's pointless to yearn for a day when democracies acted together as a club. And like the U.S. is not part of that group anymore. No, it's not.

It's not part of that group. And it, even in the wording of the agreement on proposal, the proposed Ukraine solution, which is not a solution. The Americans talked about how they would act as a go-between between NATO and Russia. They're a member of NATO. I mean, NATO used to be their baby. I mean, theoretically, they're the most important member of NATO.

The formation of NATO would not have happened without the leadership of the United States in 1948, 49. Janice Stein's been on, she's on this podcast every other week, and she says that right now we are living in times that are more dangerous than even the height of the Cold War when there were tens of thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. Do you agree with that? I do. I think that, you know, there's a number of reasons why that's the case. First of all, there's a lot of countries that are outside any sense of nuclear agreement, like North Korea being the most notorious, but Indian Pakistan never for sure, except they seem to be confining themselves to worrying about their bilateral relationship in terms of how they see this,

see the balance of war, the balance of power. But Israel has a bomb which has never been publicly acknowledged. I don't think I'm revealing any secrets because I don't know the secrets, but all I know is Israel is widely known to have nuclear nuclear weaponry. And in the absence of any effective agreements on nuclear proliferation, you're going to have a continuing temptation on the part of a number of countries to say, in the Middle East, for example, it won't take a lot for one country to say, well, if Iran is developing what they're developing, we're, Saudis will say, well, we're, we have to do that to protect. Oh, and by the way, Israel has one as well. So instead of moving towards greater disarmament, we're moving towards greater rearment. And the other reason that things are so dangerous is a lot of people get killed today, nothing to do with nuclear war at all, just plain old-fashioned, brutal civil war or wars of aggression, as in Russia and Ukraine. I mean, look at the number of people who have been killed in Ukraine and Russia. Russia's lost as many as a million casualties, Ukraine slightly less. But Ukraine has lost a lot of population. They've lost a lot of people who've left the country. And unless things change, very. dramatically, very quickly, they won't be going back. And that's a huge, huge loss, a huge cost.

So the risks and dangers, I mean, the possibility of an Arctic confrontation are greater than they've been. The threats, continuing threats of climate change, which pose levels of risk for all countries in terms of people moving about, the level of conflict that's being created. Yes, it's a more dangerous world. Absolutely. I want to take a step back now, and I want to ask you about the job you just left after five years, which I know you loved immensely, but was not a delight 24-7. So let's start with this.

What's the best part about being the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations? Well, I mean, I can only say for me, the best part for me was that at a time of life when many people are doing a whole lot, lot less, I was able to kind of stretch the envelope a bit and to... Can I tell Pete? You're 77. Seventy-seven. You can tell people. I'll tell people. Born in 1948. That's why it's in your Twitter. That's why it's in my Twitter. Not very original. Try to take it out of my various passwords. Anyway, we won't go there. I was stretched in a way that was really important. You never knew quite what you were going to be facing every day. And it was a job that didn't take me very long to feel that I could do it and would enjoy it. And at many different

levels, at a very human level, I worked with wonderful people in the mission. We have a great team of Canadians of all backgrounds who are working together in a common cause in New York. And they're just a pleasure to lead, a great group of people to work with. And I think that as a person leading something or helping to manage something, I think having had a lot of experience, sometimes doing it well, sometimes doing it badly, learning on the job and every job that I've had when you've had a bunch of people working for you, I think I've gotten better at it. Easier, more encouraging, recognize that a lot of what I do is coaching. A lot of what you do is try to provide people with a sense of empowerment that they can do

the job, they can make decisions, they can move things forward. And that's been, that was very rewarding. And I miss it. I make no apologies from saying that part of the job, I miss. Okay, we got to look at the flip side now. What's the worst part of the job? Well, there's two tough parts. One is you're not just dealing with one bureaucracy, the UN, which is complicated enough and 193 countries, some of whom are, you know, going to be dead again. anything you want to do or say or believe in. But you're also dealing, I'm also dealing with the bureaucracy at home, with a complicated sort of political and bureaucratic structure that if you want to be an effective ambassador,

you have to work all sides of the street. You have to work respectfully with the people that you were reporting to, the UN division, the people who are working in that part of Global Affairs, Canada. So just be clear, you report to the foreign minister as opposed to the prime minister? I report to both because I'm a political appointee. But on the non-political side, you've got to work with the officials. You've got to, you can't annoy the officials too much because they're tried. No, I didn't try to annoy them, but I did things that I knew in the end might not make them thrilled.

But the fact is that you don't want to make enemies with anybody in that frame. You just can't afford to, in my opinion. Well, you know, you don't pick fights with people who you're going to be working with for a long period of time. That's never a good idea, you know, just not the way you function effectively. But at the same time, I dealt with the prime minister's office, the minister's office, and with the ministers and prime ministers themselves. And so that's not like, I'd say it's the worst part of the job. I'd say it's the most complicated part of the job because you have to think about

if I go, if I'm perceived to be going over the head of the minister, she or he won't be happy. And at the same time, if time is of the essence and we have to get an answer, have to convince the minister that neither she nor I are going to make the final decision is going to be made by the prime minister. So let's just go there. So let's just go there. And that's kind of, you know, how you got a role.

And it's complicated. I wouldn't say it's the worst part of the job. I mean, I don't think there are really terrible parts of the job. I guess some of the parts of the job that are no fun are when you have to say to somebody that they're not doing a very good job. That's always difficult as a manager of people. Luckily, I didn't have to do that very often. And the second part is when you have to have a difficult conversation with somebody at the United Nations or one of the agencies that you're dealing with because you're going to be giving them less money than you would like, I would have liked to been able to give.

And that's the decision that governments make. And they've just made another big one right now in terms of taking over, over $500 billion out this year. And so I'm going to work its way up to over $2 billion in the next three years. So those are going to be a bunch of very difficult conversations that are going to need to be had. Knowing you as long as I have, I know that you would have wanted this job because you thought you could go to New York and make a difference and look at the world. in 2020 when you got the job and look at the world in 2025 when you left the job and you could point to something somewhere on the globe and say because of the efforts of me and my team and other colleagues this is better and my hunch is I'm not sure you can do that and I bet that

pisses you off um I wouldn't I wouldn't put it exactly that way I think first of all you you can make a difference in a variety of ways um you know can you actually change the way, you know, Canada's aid program operates, it's a slow process. And I was, I don't mind saying, I was very disappointed that in the budget, it confirmed what I knew was going to happen, or pretty certain was going to happen, a significant reduction in foreign assistance, which I thought, and I still think is a bad idea and not a great approach to public policy. Do you tell them that? Yes. And I don't think it was, it was, you know, it wasn't embraced,

but it's fine. We hear you. Many, many would say they'd rather not have had to do it either, but the fact is that that was the conclusion they, they reached. I think there's a number of other areas where, for example, in the Middle East, the way in which Canada was able to show a understanding of really the basic needs of both sides of that terrible conflict, which has been going on for a long time. I think I helped to do that. I didn't make it happen. It wasn't just me, but I think that I was able to kind of articulate in the discussions with our government why a move was essential and the kind of things that... Which move? What are you talking about? The shift to a recognition of Palestine. I thought that was important. You had an influence on that?

I do. I think I did. I just got back from a week in Israel. having met with a lot of officials, and you know they can't stand Canada now because of that. I know. It's been difficult. It's not easy. But I would defend completely the direction of that decision. And I think that to have failed to do that would have been a terrible, terrible mistake. Does it matter that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Israel have not spoken once since Mark Carney became PM? Because they won't take our call. Right. Well, whose fault is that? Well, they're, if you want to get into this, who do you think is responsible for that? They're putting us on notice.

It's not Mr. Carney. Well, in the sense, we've also indicated what our position is. And at some point, they will talk. At some point, that will break through. We've seen it before, every dispute that happens between countries. But Israel's isolation and its rejection of our position is frankly not Canada's fault. It's not something that Canada needs to be embarrassed about. It's something that I think Canada needed to do because we need to clearly express to the Israelis

the need for a political shift that will deal with the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. And you think the current Likud government was capable of hearing that message from us? Well, it doesn't matter whether they were capable of hearing it. It was important that the Palestinians were capable of hearing it and that others would hear it as well. and we're not going to let Likud dictate what our policies are going to be. I mean, that's quite simple. You know, I may be overstating this, but I think Canada has always seen itself as being an ally of Israel's,

and I think they have also wanted to play a kind of a moderating slash mediating role in the Middle East, having good relations with the other side as well. What my takeaway from the trip to Israel was, we don't have that kind of position of purpose in Israel anymore. They are not interested in anything we have to say anymore, and they are mad at us. So, have, you know, has this been constructive then, I guess is the question? The answer is yes, it's been necessary. Has the destruction of Gaza been constructive?

No. I mean, let's really talk this through, because it isn't as if it's nothing happened between 2022, 23 and today. You had the terrible attack on Israel by Hamas, and then you had a response which has totally destroyed the entire infrastructure of Gaza and killed tens of thousands of people. Now, is Canada expected to do nothing

or say nothing about that? No other country said nothing except for the United States. The U.S. I was just going to say. Except for the United States. And it was a big day. between us and them. And we don't want to be in that camp. We don't, we don't, we want to take a position that we think is respectful of the facts and of the law. And that's a position that we have to take as a country. And the fact, and the fact that the Trump administration takes a completely

different view is, um, not for us to say, well, that's what we want to just join along and say, ready I ready. I mean, we, we can't, we can't do that in the world today. It's not possible. Have you, this is such a tricky issue, but have you come to a conclusion in your own mind as to whether or not what Israel has done in Gaza constitutes genocide? I deliberately taken the position that as a decision maker in my government, my advice to the government consistently was to say whatever it's called, it's wrong. It's also not in Israel's self-interest.

And whether or not it's a genocide is something that's going to be considered by the International Court of Justice. And our obligation is to respect that process of the International Court of Justice. That's a tough position to take because, of course, there are many people, many of whom are protesting in the streets of Canada on a daily basis, who just want you to come out and say, yes, it is. But I had the same, when I was doing a report on the Rohingya crisis, it was the same situation. And I gave the same advice to the government.

And Parliament can say it's a genocide. You say Parliament can express that opinion if Parliament wants to express that opinion. But genocide in the convention has become a matter of law and a matter of law that is to be interpreted by the International Court of Justice. What we need to say, and what we have said, is it's an issue that should be decided by the international court. It's not, we're not one of those countries that says there's no chance that it is. It shouldn't be in front of any other tribunal. Of course, it's an affront to the state of Israel to suggest that it's even possible.

I wouldn't take that position. I just think you've got to be clear that we're no longer. no longer in a position of just being sort of freelancers saying, this is a genocide, that's not, this is one that's not. We're not, the judges are going to determine this question. And I think that's the way we should see it. It's not like we're neutral or we're not calling for all of the actions that need to be taken to prevent a genocide and to make sure that it doesn't happen or that there were war crimes committed. There may well have been. They need to be investigated and that people need to be charged if that's, in fact, what the conclusion is. But the problem

is that if you run around saying this is this, this is that, this is this, it prevents the processes from being allowed and able to work the way they're supposed to work. It hasn't stopped Canada from taking clear positions about the need for a ceasefire when there wasn't one, and the one that's there now is very imperfect, let's be clear, and also dealing with the provision of humanitarian aid. And you can't block humanitarian assistance, which is one of the challenges that we're facing right now. Okay. I don't want to put this here.

If Benjamin Netanyahu showed up on Canadian soil and you were the Prime Minister of Canada, would you allow him to be arrested? I would, like Franklin Roosevelt, you say, I don't answer if he questions. I'm not the Prime Minister of Canada. Prime Minister of Canada has already stated his position. And he said yes. Right. You think that's the right position?

I think that Canada as a signatory to the role. statute has no alternative, but to state clearly that we would enforce the law. Hmm. Okay. Let's talk about Donald Trump a little bit here. Do you ever have a conversation with your American counterpart during the time that Donald Trump has been president, where you say to that ambassador, could you tell your president to lay off this 51st state crap? I wouldn't have put it, I didn't put it that way, but I have said to people as publicly as I can, and as clearly as I can, to individual members of the administration, it's hurtful, it is counterproductive, it makes Canadians furious, and it doesn't achieve.

many results which are in the interests of Canada and the United States, and he should stop doing it. And I still believe that's true. As a private citizen, I believe in all the things that I've just said. I wasn't told by my government, you know, we should make that clear, but I did, I've made it very clear that I even stated it from the podium of the United Nations to say that we, we are a sovereign country and we're proud of our sovereignty, and we expect to be treated with the same level of respect that every sovereign country is being treated. We're not the only country to be singled out for offensive comments by Donald Trump. But the idea that you would ignore the sovereignty of your closest neighbor

as a routine matter to be brought up in joking conversation is deeply offensive. And I think everybody knows that. this may be another Rooseveltian, iffy question. So if you're going to punt, let me know now and I'll save some time. But you know, you as a former National Party leader, you as a former Premier of Ontario, I'm sure have it various times over the past year, thought to yourself, if I were at 24 Sussex or if I were in the Premier's office again at the province of Ontario and Trump did X, Y, and Z while I was in the chair, here's how I would have reacted. would you have done anything differently than what you have seen unfold? Well, I don't know all the, we don't know, I don't know all the conversations that Mr. Carney's had with Donald Trump. I expect they've been very clear. And I think the prime minister is trying to deal with an almost, with a very, very difficult situation in terms of discussion. You're going to say something else.

You're going to say almost impossible. Okay. You know, I mean, very, very difficult. we're in a very tough corner, not just because of the fact that we've become very reliant on the Americans and we have assumed clearly a wrong assumption that we could rely on their goodwill to get through difficult discussions. But it's also very clear to me that you never, it's very unpredictable as to what and how the president will respond to a particular issue. I don't think Doug Ford said,

I got a great idea with this ad, and nothing bad will happen. I don't think it occurred to him that this was going to produce the reaction that it did from the president. Did you like the ad? Yeah, I thought the ad was very factual. I thought it was absolutely fine. using Ronald Reagan to make a point to Republicans? I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, it's not as if we can't have candid conversations with each other.

They're commenting on our politics all the time. I mean, their ambassador makes it a, you know, that's his job, apparently. Trump said, if I were in Ford's position, I'd be doing the same thing. Well, exactly. So, you know, I don't think it's something that, nothing wrong with it. But I think the key thing in life, I make a broader comment, is that there's a difference between what you want to do, the impulse to do something or to say something, and then understanding what the consequences of that might be. So you've got a microphone right here. Do it now. What's the one thing you wanted to say from the podium at the United Nations that you couldn't say because you can't just pop off, but you can say now? I'm not going to go. I'm not even going to go there.

I'm not going to go. Testing one, no, no, no, no. I'm not going to go. I'm not going to be. That's a good example where you say you're being goaded into making an impulsive comment without knowing what the consequences of it might be. I'm not going to do that. But you're a private citizen. Now you can say whatever you want. But becoming a private citizen doesn't mean you become stupid. I mean, you have to think about that. I mean, you have to think about what you're going to say. I mean, and also one of the realities of my life is, yeah, I'm a private citizen. But I'm not. I'm not. I'm a private citizen who gets quoted or somebody says the prime minister, you know, Bob Ray just said this. What do you think? I don't want to get into that kind of a conversation. I remember they tried, you were on Fox News once, I think with Brett Baer and he tried to nail you on something you'd said as a private citizen before you got appointed to the UN. Right. So your comments never disappear, do they? No. I mean, the trouble is most of what I've said is either in print or it's still somewhere and somebody said, why don't you get rid of that tweet? And you say, it doesn't matter. Somebody's got a.

written down somewhere. So don't worry about it. Can you, again, now that you're out of office, I think maybe I'm hoping you can be a little more candid about these things. Can you tell us a moment where either prime minister you served, Justin Trudeau or Mark Carney, may have in a private moment taken you aside or called you and said, Ambassador, we really need you to dial that back 10 or 20 percent. They usually, they, neither one of them said that to me directly. They have people do it for them. Yes. Who does it? Depends. Sometimes it's, uh, would be ministers would say it. Or sometimes it would be their chiefs of staff would say it or people who are passing on a very clear message from the prime minister. And when you get that message, how do you react? Uh, well, first of all, I'm, I'm,

I'm not thrilled. Uh, but at the same time, you say, okay, uh, that's, I work for you. Uh, That's the name of the game. And you do it. Can you give us it, for instance? Well, there's a couple that are fairly well known. I mean, there was one point during the negotiations, or what were private negotiations I was told. You know, at one point I was told by a member of the staff were very close to a deal.

With the U.S. Yeah, so don't say anything, please. And sometimes it would be preemptive. It wouldn't be after. It would be, we know what you're, capable of. Bob, we're worried about you. We're worried about you. Stand down, please. Please, please. This whole, you know, zip your lip.

And did you? Yes. You did. Okay. But I also said to them, I don't think you're close to anything, but, you know, that's, you've got the... Turns out you were right. That's your prerogative. You can say that. But it's one of the risks, I guess, of being a political appointee and of feeling that not only do I have the right, but sometimes I even feel a sense of obligation to point out to people some of the wider implications of our policies, why they're important, and why we're doing what we're doing. And when I do that freely, relatively freely on Twitter or in some other communication, it's very interesting to see the reaction.

I mean, I'll give you an example. But when I was first in the UN, I had a public disagreement with the representatives, representatives from Syria and China about human rights. And it was in a context where I was the only person at the desk and where they, I asked, you know, can I respond to these things that they're saying about us? And they said, yes, of course. And I said, okay, so I put my name down. So we put my name down.

Then I responded. And it was a vigorous exchange. It went on for about five or six minutes between them. And people afterwards came over to me and said, does your government, let you do that? I said, well, apparently, I just did it. So we'll see what happens. And when I came out, the word from the foreign minister's office at that time was, please do not amplify these comments. Like, you've made them. Don't go on social media. They're a public record. Don't go on social media. So I said, fine. Two days later, a liberal MP got a hold of the tape

of the UN debates, which are all public. And it's like Hansard, they're there and the public debate. And he tweeted them out and said, these are great. We're so proud of point on Pastor Bob Ray. And so I didn't retweet that. I just left it. And the next day, I got a call from the guy who told me not to amplify. He said, go ahead and amplify.

You know, the minister likes it and prime minister likes it. Go ahead. Do it. So it's fine. I mean, so you never know, right? And so one of the things that I, the life that I've led in New York was, it was a bit of a high wire act sometimes because you say, I want to say something about this. You may not believe this. Others may not believe it. But there are actually a number of things that I kind of thought I should say something. And then I would say, not a good idea. Like, don't do that. For example? Well, I mean, I can't remember. But I mean, lots of examples where you self-censor yourself and say, I'm not going to do that. But the fact is, is that a lot of, one MP told me, says, one of the things when we watch your tweets, we wait and see how long it's going to be before people say either, very few of the things

that I did were disowned, saying that's not our position or that's not where we're going. They were, sometimes they were just too early, or you were pushing too hard publicly on something that everybody knew ultimately had to be, had to be done. We're not there yet, but we're getting there. were risks, but I did say to the prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, after the first few months, I said, look, if you're ever unhappy with what I'm doing or saying, let me know right away, you just tell me. And he said, of course, but I'm not. So go ahead. And was he ever? No, he never, he never, I mean, he, I'm sure his team might have said, you know, we don't really

want to know. He said, well, you can talk to him if you want, but I mean, he was never that troubled by it. Do you think you ever got close to being fired? No. Did you ever come close to resigning over something? No. Well, that's disappointing. I thought I could break some news there.

No, not at all. In fact, I mean, I knew when I got into the job that there were going to be two or three issues, we mentioned the Middle East that were going to be tricky and difficult, and there would be moments when I might have to hold my nose and vote and went away or make somebody else would vote in our seat and I would have preferred another vote. But the fact is,

is that I was there for my term and I wanted to stay. And I wanted to continue to have an effect and I felt if I went around, I never threatened to resign. I never said, if you do this, I'll quit. I never even came close to doing that. Because, I mean, frankly, as a former premier,

if somebody ever did that to me, I was always singularly unimpressed. And I said, you know, that's the most likely way to get shuffled. You know, that's just don't threaten. Just if you're going to do something, go ahead and do it. But don't make threats. Let me raise another tricky issue that you have had a lot of experience with. And that is in 2020, you called on the United Nations to investigate whether China's persecution of ethnic Muslim Uighurs was genocide.

And the Chinese fired back at you saying, you know, your country's history was indebted. That's the argument I was talking about. Yeah. Oh, okay. All right. So how did that all resolve itself or did it? Well, I mean, it has never really resolved itself. There have been a number of investigations that have been, you know, gone somewhere,

the sense of people recognize the way in which the Uyghurs have been treated. I mean, many, many, many experts have pointed out that it's, It's an appalling attack on a population, a limitation of their right to express themselves and their right to be who they are. But the challenge that we face in China, this is not a sort of a new thing for me. I mean, when we first went, started going to China, and I say we, you know, the governments I was in, and provincially and federally, parliament would have delegations and so on. We'd go and people would say, well, did you raise?

human rights with the Chinese, say, of course. I mean, I was in the first team Canada mission with Mr. Kretchen. He talked about human rights, the rule of law, and et cetera. And you were there as Premier of Ontario? Yeah. And he, you know, the, the prime minister or president of whichever it was of China would say, well, yeah, we understand you have serious issues with your indigenous people as well. So we, you know, every time you raise what we do, we're going to raise what you do. they've been true to their word. I mean, you can't say anything about China without them coming back and saying something about the way in which, you know, we have treated indigenous people or the way

in which, you know, other situations they consider to be abuses of human rights. So it's not like it's a draw because the fact is that, and as I said in this commentary at the UN, I said, well, there's a difference between us and you is that we recognize when things go wrong and we try to make them right. And we've, we know, we have a truth and reconciliation process that is still ongoing in Canada. And tell me, tell me what your truth, tell me how your truth and reconciliation process is going, because I don't think you have one. And what do they say to that? That's a good shot. That's a good shot. Yeah. Yeah. Well, they come back and just go back to their first point. It's not, it's not, it's not far.

But I mean, I do think the, we have to get used as Canadians to, being able to say, look, the human rights abuses in countries around the world are significant. Human rights remain important. I think it's very important for us not to back away from that approach. I think it's very important for us to continue to express our support for basic principles like the rule of law and what we mean by that and how human dignity is at the core of our definition and concept of the rule of law. And that's why we should never back away from it. I mean, we should never back away from investigations or we should never back away from saying this is something that needs to be dealt with.

But I don't think that should stop you from engaging diplomatically and even economically with countries because if we don't do that, then we're frankly limiting dramatically the universe with which we can engage. Well, let me see if I can follow up in terms of an issue that is very current, that the current Prime Minister has made a decision about that's quite different from his predecessor, and it relates to the situation with India. He's pretty clearly, Mr. Carney, that is, he's pretty clearly trying to restart our relationship with India and has very much, it appears to be, backburnered the whole issue of a Canadian citizen, possibly having been murdered on our soil at the behest of the Indian government. That was a big deal for Justin Trudeau. It appears to be much less so for Mark Carney. Is that okay with you? Well, I think if I may say so, Steve, there's a whole lot of editorial

content in your question. Okay. With which I don't agree. Fire away. Well, first of all, I don't think anybody, either Mr. Carney or Mr. Trudeau or any serious Canadian public figure would say it's okay for countries to be involved in the shooting of a Canadian citizen. Fair, right. That's not okay. And we've made that, that's been made very, very clear. But we're moving on. No, we're not moving.

So you say we're moving on. What that happens is you have to have a police investigation. And there is an RCMP investigation that, to the best of my knowledge, is ongoing. from that ongoing police investigation, there may be criminal charges, and there may be conclusions about criminal responsibility that go beyond what is diplomatically okay, well beyond it. And so what I think Mr. Carney is saying is that issue is an issue for us, and it will be dealt with in the right way. We don't run the police investigation in Canada.

Maybe other countries do. We don't do that. Prime Minister doesn't say, I want this to be investigated. There are countries where the president or the prime minister says, I want this person charged. I want that. We don't do that. I think that happens south of us, actually, right now.

That seems to be happening on a regular basis. But we don't do that. We regard it as a breach of the principle of the rule of law that says the political side of the equation doesn't direct the criminal side of the equation. That's a pretty fundamental principle. As Premier, I can tell you, I would ask many times by people, do you think so-and-so should be charged? Or do you think this?

And I would say, forget it. I'm not having anything to do with that. Let the police and the Attorney General deal with it. And that's the way it should be. And we're not going to get politically involved. So I don't believe that the contrast. between the two is as great as you're describing it between Mr. Carney and Mr. Trudeau's approach. I don't think it is. I think what Mr. Carney is now saying is because of all the other events

that are taking place in the world, particularly our relationship with the United States, we have to broaden our trade horizon to look at a whole bunch of countries that are actually economically moving forward and we need to engage with them. Including India. And I think he's right. I think he's absolutely right. We've been through this with India before. People have with short memories, don't remember. When India used Canadian uranium to build their first nuclear bomb, we went into deep, you know, deep, deep, deep sort of, oh, we reject that. We won't, we're not going to do anything.

We're not going to, so we were, we were, until Mr. Kretchen came back in as the prime minister and said that we have to engage with the Indians and we need Team Canada missions to go and we need to engage with them because that engagement is important. We tended to take what I would call slightly more absolutist positions that we've done the same thing with Saudi Arabia for a while. He said, no, no, we're not going to talk to them. And now we're engaging with them, which is what we should be doing. We should have ambassadors. We should be engaging.

And I think that approach to life is the right one. And it doesn't mean that you drop criminal investigations. It doesn't mean that you, as you put it on the back burner. on a back burner. It's not a burner. It's a different burner. But it's not, we're not saying we're never going to talk to the Indian government. I mean, that's not sensible. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We have to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's exactly right. Have you ever met Donald Trump? I've shaken his hand once, twice. I've shaken his hand twice. Once he was, I was at a, I was at a dinner for the mayor's, Mel Lastman's dinner for a fundraiser,

the TSO. Now, the story behind that is amusing in itself because I was helping to restructure the TSO so they could survive. Because they were on the verge of bankruptcy. They were on the verge of bankruptcy and I was brought in to try to help them out. So I did. Which you did. Successfully. Yes. And Bell last one called me up and says, you know, I had this dinner every year. Was he the mayor at the time? Meritron.

So I had the dinner every year and I'm going to give the funds to the TSO. I said, great. He said, as only one condition. I said, what's that? He says, I don't want to go to the symphony. I don't want to go it. It's not my kind of music. But the listeners who don't remember and know Mel asked, but that to me was a great one. So he said, but you have to come to the banquet. I said, okay, I'll come to the banquet. So I was at the head table. Donald Trump came in because he was putting his name up. Remember the hotel downtown? Oh, yes, yeah. He was involved in that. He licensed his name for you. So I gave a little talk and he shook my hand, and that was the end of that. You never got to talk to him.

No. And the second time. was actually in church. What? Yes. Which church? The Episcopal church in Palm Beach, Florida, where my brother and I were going to services. I don't know which is more unlikely. At Easter time.

At Easter time, I was visiting my brother at the time. Okay. And we went to church and Donald Trump was there. And in the Anglican service, Episcopal service, there's a moment where you turn around and shake hands with other people. Peace be with you. So, total disclosure, I have shaken hands with him twice. So he was the guy you turned around and you saw him and you shook his hand. He was sitting in a higher row than I was.

But he just, it was just a routine thing. You know, thank you, thank you. So I can't say that otherwise we've had any encounters. But I wanted to be accurate in responding to the question. Appreciate the accuracy. We want to get things right. But I assume at some time during your ambassadorship, you thought to yourself, if I ever did get a chance to buttonhole him for a minute, here's what I'd tell him.

Tell us what you'd tell him. No, you see, the thing that where you're wrong is because I wouldn't do that because there's no point. Because, you know, some guy who thinks he's going to make an impact on the president, you know, who's this ambassador from another country, says, you know, says, I'm going to tell you exactly me. That's not the way it operates. That's not the way it works. Well, I didn't say you had to be sort of nasty and aggressive. Maybe you'd take it a different approach. But I think you'd, I mean, you'd appreciate a chance to talk. Just given who you are, your curiosity about the world, your love of politics, I presume you'd love a chance to talk to him at some point.

Well, I think my, what I would, what I think I would probably say to him if I could put, you know, if I thought about it for two seconds before talking to him would be to say this is to say, please don't forget the extent to which our two countries are linked together and our two peoples are linked together and don't create a situation where that becomes more and more difficult for both of us and don't think there aren't Americans who aren't affected by what's happening because there are there are American companies that are losing markets there are tourist operators that aren't seeing any Canadians there are lots of people

that are suffering because of the way in which this thing has been allowed to fester and it shouldn't be allowed to fester. It's not in your interest and certainly not in our interest. Ready for a touchy-feely question? Some people will know, but I bet a lot will not, that you just finished a job that your father once had. Your dad was UN ambassador in the 60s and in the 70s. And I wonder how often when you were either standing at that podium or sitting in the Canada chair at the UN. You thought about him. I thought about him a lot. My dad was a big influence on my life and on all, you know, my brothers and sisters and sisters as well, and in our whole family.

And, you know, his going to the UN in Geneva and then in New York was sort of the pinnacle of his career, which he knew and felt. It was very, very happy to be there. And so, yeah, I, I, you know, I, I, I thought about him a lot. And I think about him a lot. Did it ever get to the point where you thought, I wonder what Saul would do right now? Well, I kind of know what he, how he felt about things. And the first thing I know for a fact is he would have said, you know, for God's sake, don't tweet. Like, that's not, that's not what we, that's not what diplomats do. That's not a sole rate thing to do.

So you disregarded that advice. Yeah, yeah, but I mean, that was a difference between us. He was, he was old school. I mean, he was a classic, you know, careful diplomat. And he was also, but he also had a whole other side to his life where he was, he was extremely funny and irreverent and very musical, which was, I mean, he had all of that part in his makeup. So he would not have disagreed with me expressing frustration at, you know, why we were doing this and not doing that.

He would have said, well, that's just suck it up. That's just the way it is. But I think there's a couple of things that he said to me when I was going with him to the UN in Geneva when I was a teenager. And it was the time when so many new countries were entering the UN, so many African countries were turning up. And my dad really, really made a point of talking to everybody and getting to know everybody and embracing them, bringing them over to our house, and having people come and engaging with people regardless of where they came from.

He was in that way, he was a wonderful person. He was very welcoming and he was very, very warm. and he would have said to me, that's the way you've got to be. That's, you know, this is the new world. This is the new UN. And actually, in his records, there's a report on a conversation that he had with Pat Moynihan, who was the American ambassador, who was complaining about, you know, the number of, you know, dictatorships and the way in which the newly arrived countries were, you know, were having

too much influence and we need a bit of time for the, you know, the old democracies to stand together. And my father was saying, you've got to, everyone has to come to terms of the fact the world is changing. And there's a process going on inside every country about how they will take their place in the world. And there's a lot of resentments about the way they've been treated in the past. So we have to go through this. And it was a really interesting report because it always stuck with me that that was something he felt very, very strongly about how it was important to connect with everybody and not just with the small group of kind. When they're weak, sometimes the phrase is the like-minded. Well, the like-minded can change

all the time. And he was exceptionally open in that way. We're into the home stretch, you'll be glad to know. Of what? Of our conversation here. I'm talking about my life. No, no, no. You've got a long way to go, and I'm going to get to a question on that still. This is an obituary?

Not at all. Not at all. You've basically had kind of big public jobs since 1978, since you got elected to parliament. I think. I mean, you know, you've been a member of parliament. You've been an opposition leader in Ontario. You've been a premier of Ontario. You've been a national party leader for the liberals.

you've been a United Nations ambassador. You're now 77, and I know you got this new appointment at Queen's University where you're going to be the Matthews Fellow and try to inculcate some of what you've learned with the next generation. But this may be the first time in, well, you know, almost 50 years that you don't have kind of like a very big public job. And I wonder how you are coming to terms with that. Well, that is a tough question. I mean, the answer is, it's a process. I mean, I have, in 2013, I left parliament, but I knew that I was going to be the negotiator for the Matawa. So I was moving into that space. I had a, you're right, I had a defined job. When I left part, when I left the legislature, I was talking to Goodman's and they were ready to take me on. So I knew that I was going to be doing work.

work in a big law firm in Toronto. So you're right. This is the first time that I left and people say, what are you going to be doing? I said, I'm not actually, don't really know. I know I'll be doing some teaching. And not only at Queens, but at other universities, the UFTs, been talking to me and I'll be talking to some others.

So there'll be ways of finding it. I do want to write a book about my experiences in the last 10 years, including the indigenous negotiations I was involved in and also my work at the UN. And some of the lessons learned and some of the, you know, some of the overall assessment of where we are in the world today. I'd like to get that book done. So that's a sort of self-discipline as opposed to somebody saying, you know,

here's your job. You know, just what you're writing a book is, you know, you know what it's like. Can I say something? I've always remembered your advice because I asked you before I wrote my first book what the advice is. And the answer you gave me was not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but it was the same initials. Yes. Which were?

As on chair. AOC. Ass on chair. That's right. There's nothing like just the discipline of sitting down and writing it. Yeah. You have to do that. So that's a new thing for me.

It's, you know, it's a, like I said, it's a process. And I don't mind saying it's sometimes it's, I think it's a bit of a challenge. this time because of age. At some point, you know, the age issue becomes, you imbibe it, even though I don't feel it. I don't, you know, somebody's you're 77, I don't know what that means. I don't feel like really old. I don't feel like I'm... You've obviously got a lot of gas left in the tank. There's some left anyway. And, and so it's, but there is their thing in society where people are defined by their work. You know, what are you doing? What, what job do you have? And I know this, you know, women go through this much more than men, you know,

because many women are working at home, or they're doing other things. I mean, and as you get older, you get, you know, people say, well, what's your job? He doesn't, you know, who's, and so, and I, you know, I know I'm not supposed to read the comment section on, on Twitter, but there's a lot of comments about saying, for God's sake, you know, can't you just shut up and go away, you know, you're too old for this. So, I don't mind saying it's, it's a, it's a process. And so, But I'll find things that will keep me, keep me busy and make things worthwhile. And I also do have to spend time reflecting more and also spending time with my immediate family and friends that I've never abandoned, but nevertheless, haven't spent as much time with them as I like. I mean, you know, we had a dinner party the other night with friends in Ottawa.

And it was so much fun just to be able to sit around and talk about stuff without, you know, knowing that I had to get up the next morning at 6 o'clock and do this or that, you know, that I was, people were watching what I was saying because, you know, they, they identified me with this, a particular job or other. So it's, it's a change. But, but it's, it's not a bad change. I mean, occasionally, you can find yourself feeling sorry for yourself, but I have people around me who make sure that doesn't happen for one in particular for very long, which is good. Would her name be Arlene? Yeah, it would be. Yeah, that's what I thought. Have you, I read your substack.

You're writing a substack column, which are, I got to say, absolutely fascinating and well worth reading. Have you ever looked at what it says at the bottom of your substack columns? because there is a reference that Substack, I presume, puts at the bottom of every column. I thought it was something that I'd done. No, no, no, no. This is something Substack puts at the bottom of every column, and I presume it is a reminder that you don't have to pay anything to read this column at the moment, but if that changes, we'll let you know. And the line is, Bob Ray is free today, but if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Bob Ray that their writing is valuable by play. alleging a future subscription. And every time I read that, I read, Bob Ray is free today. And my

inference is, you know, the guy finally can say whatever the hell he wants, whenever he wants, and he doesn't have to worry about what a prime minister thinks or a premier thinks or that kind of thing. Is that, do you feel free today in a way that you have not? Yes and no. I mean, of course I feel that, you know, if somebody called from the prime minister's office says, you know, please don't say this because I'd say, excuse me, like, you know, I'm, but then I'd say, I'd hear them out, and they'd say, why? Because they'll say, well, you're a person of consequence, and it would be better if, you know, you didn't. So, in fact, you never stop being Bob Ray.

So that's the, the reality is, yes, I'm freer, but I'm never going to, I think I said this before, but I'm never not going to be responsible for what I say and what I say and what we say and do as consequences. So, I mean, freedom is a great thing, but it's also about linking it to other values like humility and service and what you owe other people and making sure that what you say isn't hurtful. You know, some people think, well, I'm free to say whatever the hell I want. You say, yeah, but you're also free to be intelligent and you're also free to be responsible. So don't go crazy, you know, because you've got a life and a reputation to live.

live up to. And that's true for everybody. I mean, you're, you know, Barbara is free today. Yes. And Barbara is also responsible today. And Barbara is also, hopefully it's still got something of a reputation for something. I don't know what, you know. I look forward to seeing what your next act is going to be. Because, you know, knowing as I do, I'm sure it's going to be worth the price of admission. Well, the thing that's fun is I don't really know what it's going to be, except that I do it. It's going to happen in stages. I know what I don't want to do. I don't want to work at the moment. I don't want to work full time at some new thing. And I think that's probably best for everybody. But I do continue to want to make a contribution. And I think that's true of just about all of us all

the time. And so, yeah, there'll be a lot of things that I'll want to comment on publicly and engage with people on and not just comment, but work on stuff. I'm interested in what happens in my own community now in Toronto. I worry about the city and I worry about a lot of issues that when I was in provincial politics, I was very concerned about housing and building up a city and building up communities. I think we still have to do that. And I remain very attached to Canada. I'm concerned about various talk about separation in one province or another. I'm very concerned about the state of the world, and having been at the UN gives me sort of an insight into some of the things that are being discussed and worked on. So there's lots to do, and I don't tend to stop

being active and engaged. I have an idea for you. You've been a member of Parliament. You've been a member of the Ontario legislature. You've never been elected mayor of Toronto when there's an election next year. I think I can see the signs. Ray in 2026. Ambassador? You can wait for that. No, that'll never, I would safely say, you know, Mr. Crutchy, you say, never say never, never, never. No, I would say that, no, that won't happen. Okay. Ambassador Ray, Premier Ray, all the other titles.

I've never called you, Bob. Well, you can. You can, you should. I appreciate that, you know, I just, I, my parents raised me to the point where, you know, when a guy's. But, I mean, we all break loose from that at some point. I call you Steve, you call me Bob. I'm, I am younger and junior than you and have not achieved as much.

So, of course, you can call me by my first name. But I never have, and I don't think I ever will. Anyway, but I will shake your hand and thank you for coming here. Shake hands. Thank you. Good to talk to you. Thank you.