The Paikin Podcast - Bob Rae: USMCA, Trump’s Bluff, and Dealing with Chaos

Episode Date: June 16, 2026

In our second edition of a monthly segment, Steve is joined by “the most difficult man to introduce in Canada,” Bob Rae, to discuss Trump’s negotiating style, how we’ve “seen this movie before,” and if America First doesn’t mean America alone. They then discuss the deal with Iran, how it is not a victory for Trump, the diverging interests of Israel and America, the possibility that Netanyahu may step down and not run for another term, and the expansion of the Billy Bishop Airport. 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] 

With a July 1st deadline for reviewing the Canada-US Mexico Free Trade Agreement looming, Donald Trump has said he's okay with letting the deal expire. Does he mean it? Or is this evidence of the president's vaunted negotiating brilliance at play? And in Canada's biggest city, the spotlight moves to Mark Carney's government and what he intends to do about the Billy Bishop Airport on Toronto's waterfront. All that and more with Bob Ray, coming right up on the Paken podcast. Always delighted to welcome our former ambassador to the United Nations,

the former leader of the Federal Liberal Party, Ontario's 21st Premier, now a guy who hangs out at Massey College and Queens University. There is Ambassador, Premier, Professor Bob Ray. Welcome back to the show. Mr. Ray. How's things today? Things are good today, Steve. If you were still our man in New York, and you heard what President Trump was saying about pulling the plug on Kusma or USMCA,

how would you be advising the Prime Minister of the day to respond to those kinds of comments? Well, first of all, I don't think he should be responding to every tweet or twitch of the president. And he's not. I mean, he knows way better than anybody else that this is a long game. And the president will say all sorts of things. He has a negotiator at the table who's somebody that Canada knows well and had good

relationships with. And he's getting all kinds of other voices in his ear and other things that are on his mind. And you've got, I think I've said this to you before, but to me, the best, you know, the best guide to Mr. Trump is to remember the conversation that he had in the movie The Apprentice with Roy Kahn, where Roy Kahn told him, there are three things you do. You attack, attack, attack. And the second thing you do is you never apologize, ever, ever. And the third is whatever happens and a deal is made, you're the winner and you declare victory. And ever since I saw that clip in the movie, I felt that's about as good a guy to Donald Trump's you're going to get. And he's following the playbook.

That's his playbook. So he's going to say things. He's even going to do things. I mean, look at the ridiculous delays in the Ambassador Bridge. Which, by the way, Canada paid for. I mean, it's... The Gordy-Halebridge, I mean. Yeah, the Gordy Halebridge.

And the, you know, the new bridge is necessary for the billions of dollars that go across that border every day. The guy who owns the Ambassador Bridge doesn't want to have any competition. So he's close to some many of the people in the Trump administration, including Mr. Lucknick. And so you just have to go with the flow, whatever. ridiculousness happens, it was supposed to open this week, and then it was delayed again. And it's not delayed for any technical reason. The bridge is ready to go. It's delayed because there's something else that Mr. Trump and his team want to extract from Canada.

And so you just have to downplay it and just stick with it. And that's the approach that we're taking. I think we'll see what happens. The question is not what is the political short-term logic for Mr. Trump. The question really is, what is the long-term interests of our two countries? And in fact, our three countries, Mexico, United States, and Canada. And it's clearly in our interest to get stability in the relationships. Whatever the deal is, it's got to be predictable and it's got to be sustainable on all sides. And that is so logical that you find it difficult to understand how that can be avoided.

Well, you say it's logical, but then on the other hand, I hear the president saying one thing. I hear his ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, saying this is the president's way of saying he's open to a deal by saying things like, you have nothing we want and we may just let this agreement run out. I'm not really very fussed about it one way or the other. How do you follow the bouncing ball in that case? You don't. You don't follow the bench down. You play your own game. And you just keep persisting and you keep talking with people in the United States, governors, senators, congressmen, people in business who have an interest in making sure there are stable relationships. I mean, the one thing that all of us have in common is that we've seen this movie before with President Trump. And we all know. that this is just the way he, this is just the way he operates. This is his MO. And there's no getting around the MO. It can be very distracting. It can be very discouraging. It can be infuriating from time to time. But you have to really, as Archie Bunker would say, stifle it a bit and just face up to

you have to face up to the fact that this is who we're dealing with. And we're not going to change him. and he has to learn and he's not going to change us either. We're going to be steady, Eddie, and that's the way we are. And the prime minister plays that role very, very well. They will be at the G7 meeting this weekend. There will no doubt be some opportunity for a brief discussion of some kind or another. We're certainly negotiating in good faith. We put a tremendous national effort into this across the board.

I've had a chance to have a very good chat with our incredibly competent team that's working on this. And I'm confident that everybody knows how tough it's going to be, but also the logic of our position. And I think underneath all of this, there are things the President wants and the United States wants, and there always have been. and I know that in the government of Canada is saying, well, what can we do, but also what can't we do? And how do we get to where we need to get to? So I don't think anything is possible. I mean, you have to understand that, you know, there have been so many times when things, you know, look like they're predictable.

But I think the biggest mistake we make is, frankly, taking at face value or whatever value it is, you know, by wrote, just repeating what he said and said, the president says this. And you say, yeah, and so what's he going to say in the next five minutes? You know, what's the next true social message going to be? And you sort of have to stop treating it as if it's news. This is not news. This is just all noise. And then you're trying to figure out what is the signal inside that noise and how do we stick with the signals?

And that's the hardest thing in dealing with American diplomacy at the present time. What his real objective is is not entirely clear. I don't think it's even entirely clear to himself. But he enjoys the process of putting everybody on the edge of their chair. And I think that's why we have to say, well, he's taken this position. We'll see what else happens and what else we can do. There'll be many people, I think, making the case for maintaining. the logic of a strong trading relationship between the three countries.

Well, I love your reference to all in the family, which for our younger viewers and listeners, was a great sitcom 50 years ago or so, in which, yes, indeed, Archie Bunker used to tell his wife Edith to stifle, but he also called her a dingbat. And I'm wondering whether you think the Prime Minister of Canada should at some point call out Mr. Trump with similar language? Not at all. No. No.

No, that's not. That shouldn't be the style of the Prime Minister of Canada. He should leave that to others who have no aspirations for public office. And we'll be back right after this. Our new man in Washington said something the other day, and I wanted to get your view on it, because, of course, Trump has ushered in what he calls an American First style of leadership. But our guy in Washington says, America first doesn't mean America alone. Maybe Trump thinks it does.

I don't know. What do you think? Well, what the president has actually said is only America first, which is if you actually look at the clip of what he's said in different speeches, that's what he says, only America first. So I think the president would prefer in circumstances not to be alone because he wants to have people doing what he wants and being with him. but he's not a team player so he's not looking at you know he's not looking at things from that

perspective but on the other hand he is looking for transactional wins and where he can claim a transactional advantage and that I think has to be the singular focus of our efforts and if he comes out of this saying I won fine you know that's not a the point. And he will not be, you know, running around saying, you know, everybody wins and we're all winners and it's great. Maybe he will. I mean, I don't know. Who knows what he'll say? But I do think we have to take the only America first line seriously because it's a huge problem. You know, you know, I've wrote this book years ago called The Three Questions. The first question, if I'm not for myself, then what am I?

But then there is a second question. And if I'm only for myself, then what am I? And if you're only for yourself, you've got a problem in life. And the fact is, Mr. Trump is a transactional businessman. There's got to be somebody on the other side, and he understands that. He may not want to admit it, but it's true. And there is a substantial advantage to the United States from having a strong trading relationship with Canada and Mexico.

It's a huge advantage for the Americans. He may not want to admit it, but if you talk to any rational American businessperson or a politician, they are quite prepared to admit it. And so I see no benefit to the United States from creating chaos in its home market, its own base of North America. I see no advantage to the Americans to do that. But you're assuming rationality is at play here. It is, but that's where I think it's the rationality of the system, the rationality of the overall interest of this, the American state, if you like, and the American economy. And at some point, that begins to weigh heavily on any negotiation. What is the long-term interest and the short-term interest of the United States? And I think, given all the other uncertainties in the world, which we may be discussing,

It's in the president's interest, interest. Not anything to do with values. The values don't enter into it. Morals don't enter into it. Forget that. Look at the question of interest. And that's where I think our singular focus has to be in convincing him and the administration why a deal makes sense. And then the deal may be more difficult for Canada.

It may be that some things that we did not have to do before. we now, you know, will have to be in a position to pay for and figure out how to do that. That's possible. And then that question becomes for us, well, what, you know, we may, we may feel, well, that's, that's not as good the deal as we had before, but that may be the deal that's on the table. And that makes it, that's what makes us a difficult conversation for, for, for Canadians. But that's the reality of our situation. 70, over 70% of our trade is with the United States. And our whole of, whole of our GDP, is very dependent on trade overall.

We are a trade-dependent country. And we have made our bed in terms of the level of dependency with the United States. And we have to understand the consequences of that as we go forward. Well, you referenced in that answer the broader complications in the world today. And I want to move on to those right now because as we sit here taping this, I don't know what the situation is like as it relates to negotiations with Iran. We've heard the president say four different things over the last week or so where he was going to bomb Iran because things weren't moving fast enough. And then I guess they did move fast enough.

And he took that threat off the table. But then he put it back on. And, you know, the last thing I heard this morning was that he's taken it back off. And things are very close. And he expects a wonderful signing ceremony in Europe, which he may not go to because he's hosting the UFC, 250 event on the lawn of the White House, which is, I guess, different. What do we, I mean, if you're, again, maybe rationality doesn't come into it, but if you're a rational person trying to make sense of what's going on in the world in hopes of bringing a conflict that has had an impact far and wide on the world, what does one to make of all this? Well, first of all,

Donald Trump has said a deal is very close. I read this morning in my financial times. He told, CNN has added it up and it said this is the 39th time that he has declared that a deal is very close. So, you know, maybe it's 39, 39 times lucky, who knows? But everybody needs to understand, is it just as we're going through a referendum about a referendum in Canada, this is going to be a deal about a deal. This is not the deal. This is not the deal that includes a commitment on nuclear. This is not a deal that deals with the support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

and other difficult issues in the region. This is a deal that only deals with one thing, and that is the opening up of the Straits of Hormuz, so that all of the ships that are in the bay can finally get out and start delivering supplies to the world, particularly energy supplies. And so we all need to understand that this is, even when it's heralded as the deal,

this is not the deal. This is the deal that actually solves the immediate problem, but it only is scheduled to last for 30 days or 60 days or whatever it is. And as a result of it, Iran would never sign a deal that did not give them something in exchange for the ceasefire that wasn't a ceasefire. So he will again describe this as a huge victory for the, the United States. But what we need to understand is before the invasion of or the bombing of Iran and the killing of thousands of people in Iran as well as the leadership of the country,

the Straits of Hormuz were open. So to call this a victory, I mean, for Donald Trump, he can call it a victory, but it didn't victory on any rational sense of the term. This was a war that has been catastrophic in terms of its impact on the economies. of many countries, particularly in Asia. I mean, Steve, we need to understand, again, in a global economy, all of the energy supplies that are coming out of the Straits or Formos, the vast majority are going to Asia, to India, to China, to Southeast Asia in particular. These are big, serious economies with lots of people living in them, and they have been

living on the edge of their seats because they don't have access to energy. They're dealing with three-day weeks, two-day weeks. their manufacturing is down. Factories are closed. People are being laid off. It's impacting the world food prices tremendously. It's impacting access to fertilizer, which is going to create food shortages in Africa and in other places.

This is why I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it's been catastrophic. And it has not achieved the things that Mr. Trump wanted to achieve. We do not have regime change. We do not have a deal on nuclear. And we do not have an end to support for Hamas and Hezbollah. So anybody who'd say this is a victory, no. It's not what I would call a victory. It's simply an end to some of the pain,

which has been utterly and entirely self-inflicted by both the United States and Israel. But it will, you know, it had to happen. Why does there have to be a ceasefire? Well, it's been a political nightmare for the president. He's not been able to get out from under it. He's now one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. And losing his own people. And losing his own people and losing support left and right.

And so you say, of course he has to make a deal. I mean, he's not going to say I have to make a deal because I'm losing. He'll never use those words. But that's exactly what's happening. So, yeah, it could be that this is the moment, but what we do know is that there will have to be a moment sometime. And that for the very reasons that I've given. It's not in America's interest in the slightest to continue this war. And the question is, how do you persuade the president that it's not in his interests either? Because we're living in a time when the interests of the president of the United States are actually quite different from the interests of the United States as a whole. He has a very different agenda and different concerns. And I think that's something Americans are waking up to. Let me follow up on the references you made to Hamas and Hezbollah,

which of course are more problems for Israel than the United States right now. It seems to be the case that if Trump can get an agreement with Iran, he seems to think that Israel is automatically signing on to that as well. I'm not sure the government of Israel believes that. Can you help us understand that dynamic a little better? Well, I can try a little better. I do not think that the interest of the United States and Israel are the same. And this has been one of the, I think, one of the truly serious errors in judgment that the Israeli leadership has made,

Prime Minister Netanyahu, is to take for granted the support of the United States for Israel's strategic interest. I think that that's beginning to become a little bit more separated. And that has huge consequences for Israel as a country. And Prime Minister Netanyahu is in the middle of an election campaign that is going on until through the month, through the summer, into the month of September. And again, I think the Israeli people are going to be making judgments about who is best able to really protect our all of Israel's long-term interests in terms of security and its relationships with the neighborhood and its relationship with other allies. And I think all those relationships have been seriously fraid and damaged by what's taken place.

And I think Israel is going to go through a very difficult sort of reckoning about, well, what is in our best interests and how do we go forward. Those on the Israeli right who argue that, you know, just keep your foot on the accelerator and just keep pushing in the war against Hezbollah and in the war against Hamas and in the war on the West Bank, just keep pushing, pushing, pushing, and that's the way to maintain our security.

I think they're completely mistaken. I think that view is not good for Israel, and I don't think it's good for the world. But that view so far has had great influence on the current prime minister, and we'll see what happens as things unfold. But I think the pressure, obviously, from the president of the United States on Israel to agree to what's being proposed, it will be tremendous. But, I mean, there are comments coming out of the IDF even the last couple of days saying, well, you can't stop us from dealing with the increased level of conflict with Hezbollah. And so that's going to be a challenge for any Israeli government, because as soon as those wars get out of hand, it immediately has an impact on Hezbollah and on Hamas. but it also has impact on what I call their mother country, which is definitely Iran.

Iran is fueling, supporting, and has consistently provided cover for those two terrorist groups in the Middle East. Let me get you to react to a really quite fascinating rumor I heard the other day, and this rumor was based on a conversation I had with somebody who has excellent sources in the Israeli prime minister's office. and it goes something like this. Bibi Netanyahu is going to take the temperature of politics in Israel between now and election day in October. He's 75 years old. If he thinks there's any possibility he's not going to win, he might just decide to stand down and say, enough is enough over to somebody else to give it a whirl. Have you heard that before or does that make any sense to you?

I've not heard that before. but look, anything can happen. The other preoccupation that Mr. Netanyahu will have is what, well, what happens to his corruption charges and what happens to his trials. And as soon as he stops being in office, his political vulnerability, his legal liability increased dramatically. The thinking is that's all going to be plea bargained away and, you know, his stepping down might be a part of those negotiations.

Well, you know, that's what I would call interesting speculation. But I think ultimately the only one who knows the answer to that question is Mr. Netanyahu. And I have no idea what he's thinking. But is that part of what he's thinking? It's possible. But I wouldn't go to the bank on it. But on the other hand, I don't know who your sources are. And so we'll just have to see.

We'll be back right after this. Every story here starts with someone wanting a deeper understanding of the world. So should the AI you turn to. That's why Anthropic built Claude to be ad-free. No sponsored answers. No third-party deciding what Claude shows you. Claude is built to expand your thinking, not hold your attention. Try Claude for free at clod.a.ai slash Paken

and see why problem solvers choose Claude as their thinking partner. Let me bring you back to Canada now for our third segment here, which is to say one of the most controversial issues that the country's biggest city has been dealing with over the last many weeks is at the moment a hypothetical plan to increase the size of Billy Bishop Airport on Toronto's waterfront so that it could accommodate bigger jets to land there. And the thinking is it could be a significantly larger economic contributor to the wealth of the capital city of the province of Ontario. And the focus is now turned to, you know, there's 24 members of parliament in Toronto, and the Liberal Party has 23 of them. So these 23 are being lobbied to tell the prime minister that this expansion is not a good idea and that he should put a stop to it because, of course, the federal government is, I guess, ultimately, the most significant member of the tripartite group that controls what goes on down there. And I want to ask you for your view on this, because, of course, when you were in parliament, you represent. represented a downtown Toronto riding that was very close to the Billy Bishop Airport. So if you still had that job, what would you be advising Mark Carney to do?

I would be advising the Prime Minister what I've already advised them. And that is that he has to create a process that allows for a scientific, environmental review of whatever it is that's being proposed. Mr. Ford, well, parenthetically, I would say that, you know, Mr. Ford can't decide whether he's in charge of all the school boards or he's the mayor of Toronto or he's the premier or even sometimes talks like a prime minister. I mean, I think all of the above on some days. I think all the above. Well, that's not healthy. You know, it's really, this is about constitutional power and recognizing there are limits. to power. You may want something, but you can't always have what you want. And that's what our governments are supposed to be all about. That's what our, you know, we live in a constitutional

democracy in which no, no one party has all the, has all the marbles and has all the power. You used that line once before, you know, sorry to interrupt here, but I just, you, you just sent me back 36 years, because I remember when you took over as Premier of Ontario, I think at your first press conference. I think you had asked, boy, this is really going into the recesses of my memory. I think you asked David Peterson to stay on and do something for you, and he declined. And when somebody asked you how you felt about it, you said, well, you can't always get what you want, as a famous Rolling Stone once said. Does this ring any bells, or am I just crazy here? Yeah, no, I'd asked him to go to Japan, I think it was Japan, yeah, Japan for a meeting about the Olympic Games,

because it was not our bid. It was his bid. Right. And I said, you know, why don't you do that? He said, no, I don't want to do that. So that's, that was fine. And I said, yeah, I would quote the Rolling Stones or something like words to that effect. That sounds like, sounds like something I would say.

Well, you did. I remember it. Yeah. But I think, I think it's, it's, this is an important principle. I mean, I take, I use Billy Bishop Airport. And I also was the premier when we passed laws on. protecting housing on Toronto Island. So I'm not opposed to Billy Bishop Airport,

and I'm not opposed to people living in housing on Toronto Island and in favor of both of them. I think that's also important park space and natural space. And the whole ecology of that part of the city is pretty important. And you've got to make sure that you're getting the balance right. It's all about balance. Well, I don't know. There's a lot of people that you and I both know.

who think this is a moment for either people or planes, but not both? No, I think that's wrong. I mean, I don't think that's wise. We're not going to shut down the airport. I think it's important to stress that, yes, there always has been a lobby group that says people, not planes, which is, to me, kind of a cliche. I mean, maybe it's because I use the airport, and it's usually convenient, and it's important to have an alternative to an airport that's getting very crowded at Pearson.

and I think that's a reality. And it's also from a business and a commuter point of view, it's people going to Ottawa and elsewhere. You know, the Billy Bishop Airport is a good thing to have in my view. And maybe that'll lose some support for saying that. But even as the member for Toronto Center, I argued that. And as the member for Toronto Center, I took the plane to Ottawa because it was very convenient as an alternative to having to go up to Pearson.

But the point is that it's not about everybody gets everything they, want. It's about we have to find out what is the balance and how much can we challenge the what I've called the ecology of this part of the of the city. We've got rivers flowing in to the lake. We've got you know expansion of other kinds. It's taking pace for those who are not from Toronto to find all this incomprehensible. But you know the Toronto Islands have had been a remarkable success story for the city and we want to make sure we keep it that way. And we want to make sure we don't, we don't damage the ecology and that what we do is sustainable.

Sustainability is the watchword. And no one government, the whole basis upon the setting up the airport and dealing with the islands generally was there would be tripartite. It would be all levels of government would be involved because it involves the environment. It involves the business. It involves planning. and involves local interests as well as well as provincial and federal interests. So it should be balanced. And on all anybody's, I think so far, the suggestions to the prime minister are is it's not about blocking anything.

It's about making sure that there is, in fact, a process that has integrity and is independent of any one level of government in stating out, setting out, what are the pluses and minuses and the issues that have to be dealt. with. And I think that's pretty reasonable. It's not just about one level of government saying, this is what we want, we're going to get it right away, and people making bold statements about, well, this can happen, that can happen. It's got to be done in a way that's consultative. And above all, it's got to be done in a way that's consultative with public opinion. And that matters too. The opinion of people matters. And I think that's something that has to be thought through by the prime minister. And when you're dealing with, with a headstrong government of Ontario,

and who's already assumed powers and taken them away from the city, you have to sort of say, well, somebody else has got to step in here and say, wait a minute, this goes beyond one set of interest, it goes much further than that. And that's not easy given the politics of the day when the prime minister is trying to say,

you know, we wanna build things and we wanna do things without two, much delay and we want to get on with projects. And I'm sure those words will be pushed back at them. And you say, yeah, that's true. But we also want to have processes that actually can be made to work. I'm not talking about infinite delay. Ultimately, there will have to be a decision about how this, how, what can go forward and under what conditions do we set for anything to be done. And that shouldn't take forever. It's not about money for lawyers or just money for delay, but it's about finding solutions. And that I think is something we need to keep on looking for.

Well, let me do something I've enjoyed doing with you over the last many decades, and that is putting you on the spot a little bit here, which is to say the Toronto Port Authority has sort of the governance of this area under its purview, and the federal government at the moment has five spots on that authority that, in its wisdom, it has decided not to fill. I don't know why, but there are five empty seats there that are unfilled. If the prime minister called you up and said, look, Bob, I, uh, you know, I want you on one of those five spots. You're a moderate on this issue. You're not ideological one way or the other. Would you answer the call and take it? That's a helpful question, isn't it? It is. I mean, I mean, it's, but it's not about me. I mean,

you know, you want to turn this into, I mean, I always worry whenever I get a question like that, or I used to, you know, in press conferences, I say, what's the, if I answer this question, you know, emphatically yes or no, what's the headline going to be? And it's not about me. I mean, you know, if I felt there was a, there was a plan of what that would make it useful, something useful for me to do, of course, I'd think about it very carefully. But I don't think that's the issue. And I don't think that's what the prime minister's thinking about either. I think what he's, what he's got to deal with is the need, he has to allow for the fact that caucus members have opinions. From my experience, caucus members have opinions. And this notion that, you know,

it's all going to be the Red Army chorus just singing one tune all the time. And it doesn't work that way. Caucus has got to be a little bit raucous. People not completely out of control, but you want them to be able to say that, you know, we are concerned about this. And here's a plan that we think can come forward. And so, yes, I've signed a letter with a number of other people saying, you know, let's create a process here that we can have confidence in. And we want to urge the members of Parliament to think about that as well, because that's where the political pressures were come. What I was concerned about before the letter went out,

and we've seen some response, and our mutual friend Greg Sorbara has written a very strong op-ed. I think what needs to happen is there needs to be an understanding there's still some politics left here that needs to be resolved. And you can't just rely on conformed silence to kind of let the thing go. Because it goes beyond that. It's only sensible to find a solution. And I would suspect that the Premier might see the wisdom of that as well as we go forward

and talking about it. I should not ask you about private conversations or correspondence that you have with the prime minister, so of course I will. When you suggested to him that he ought to create this process, as you've described it here, what was his reaction to that? Not going to describe that at all, but I know my comments to the prime minister were the ones I made in that letter. And just made that very clear. But I don't, I don't think it, I don't think it helps to, you know, go any further than that. I mean, I think he himself has said some things publicly that indicate that he is reflecting on it because he's aware of the varieties of

perspectives on this. And so I think we need to continue with that process. Okay. Let's move to our fourth and final segment here, which I'm just calling odds and ends, because I got a bunch of different things I want to put to you here. And just so the people watching this know, I don't give you a heads up on any of this stuff, actually. What I'm about to tell you, this is, you're going to hear fresh. in real time. And okay, here's the first thing in our odds and ed segment. I was at an event last week and had occasion to have a nice chat for about, I don't know, 10 minutes with Stephen Harper after the event was over. And he told me something that surprised me. He said that you too

actually have quite a good, respectful, even friendly relationship. Is that true? Yes. How can that be true. Because I've always made a point of engaging respectfully with just about anybody that I meet in politics. There's nothing to be gained by being personally unpleasant. But substantively, we've agreed on a couple of major things. One, we agreed very strongly about national unity. and he and I both participated in when we were not, neither one of us was in any position. I was out of politics. In the 95 referendum, we did a number of TV shows together where we talked about national unity together. So, yeah, that was the beginning of a respectful conversation.

I had very good conversations with him about the Air India bombing when he became prime minister. and I took the opportunity to talk to him about what was in the report that I'd written and what was in the report of the judge who'd come after me and why I thought it was important that he should be aware of the issues that I saw as still being important. And by the way, those issues are still important about not just about how we as Canadians have to come together and understand that terrorism and violence, are not somebody else's problem, there are a problem, and we need to deal with them. And I continue to believe that.

And finally, on Afghanistan, I've felt very strongly that Canada's, you know, his decision, the government's decisions to have the mission evolve as opinion changed in Canada and as the realities on the ground changed, those things that should be done in a nonpartisan way. And while there were strong debates in Parliament about the war in Afghanistan and about Canadian participation, I said once the decision is made, we're all supporters of those Canadian troops who are putting their lives at risk and the families that are supporting them. And I had several conversations with him and his team about some of the ways in which the mission could be improved and also ways in which the changes that we were, that we eventually made to shift. to go to a training mission should be done consensually with our American partners and not in a way that simply said, we're out of here tomorrow. That's not the way we should do things. And I think he was a little taken

aback by my directness with him. And when I left office, he described me as a patriot, which nobody could understand why would he say such a thing. And I said, well, there's a little bit of history here that might explain that. I mean, I'm not a neocon. I'm not, I didn't like a lot of his policies. I, I was, was, was, uh, campaigned in 2015 on behalf of Justin Trudeau when he won. Uh, so it's, nobody should think that, uh, I'm, I'm looking for a hat trick in terms of number of political parties of which I've been a member. Two's enough, right? Two's enough. Two's enough. Okay. Well, Okay, I find that fascinating because, and now you're going to correct me if I'm wrong here, but my recollection is that in the early 1990s, when you were the Premier of Ontario and were

part of that unified group of first ministers that negotiated the Charlottetown Accord, which was a, you know, huge, potentially huge nation-building exercise, I think he was against that. And I think you two would have probably crossed swords on that at the time. I'm not sure he was elected at that point yet, but he might. No, he wasn't. I don't think he was in part. I mean, they were, I mean, Preston Manning was opposed to it because it was a good idea. But Harper may have joined him on that. I don't know. I think so. Yeah. Anyway, okay, good to know. Here's the next thing. I'm now going to read you an email. And again, I have not given you a heads up on this because I want your authentic reaction in real time to this. So here goes, this is from someone who once organized a church fundraiser that you attended and you did. a reading at. And I should say this is not a partisan person. She doesn't have a stake in politics. She was actually a producer on a TVO show that she and I worked on together. I think she's probably in her 60s right now. And she sent me this email a couple of weeks ago. And it goes like this.

Bob Ray is the biggest crush I've had my entire adult life. When he read in that fundraiser, I ran in the church, I introduced him to my son as, quote, the prime minister we should have had. I fell in love with him the day he stopped on the steps of the Ontario legislature to talk to a woman who was begging for his help. He sat down beside her, put his arm around her, and listened to her. There were no cameras around. When he became Ontario's Premier, I opened champagne and danced in my living room. When he was on TVO, after his announcement that he was leaving politics in 1996,

I walked out on the Young Street with him with tears streaming down my cheeks. I was filled with gratitude when he went to the United Nations. This country owes him so much. Reaction, please, Mr. Ray. Astonishment. Astonishment. I'm very grateful for that comment. The only thing I disagree with is the last statement where she says the country owes me something.

The country doesn't owe me anything. I'm I've everything I've done I've done with great pleasure and not always with delight because it involved admitting defeat and accepting the judgment of people that they wanted me to do something else but yeah I've I've I've constantly enjoyed my public service and I never felt that you know that it was a a transactional deal that I was going to somebody owed me something nobody owes me anything I'm just very happy to have been able to do it. it. But maybe I could ask you something if you'd care to just read that letter just on every session that you have with anybody. You could say, well, the reason I decided to read it was because, you know, I've known a lot of politicians in my life and I can assure you, you've, I think disproportionately you have taken your share of shots over the years, given some good shots too, but certainly taken a lot. So I figured, let's put this on the record as well. Do you remember the incident she's talking about where you sort of gave the time of day to something?

somebody who was in distress outside the legislature? Not the specific one, but to be honest, that's something that I just do. And I learned that from my father and mother. You know, my father, you know, my parents were really very caring people. And my father in particular had a way of just connecting with people. And I can remember his grandmother, his mother, my grandmother, telling me a story about how when in the Depression he was looking for work.

in Toronto as a kid who was sort of finished high school and was going to be another little while before he went to university. And he was looking for work anywhere and everywhere, and people wouldn't give him the time of day, wouldn't give him a job. And I can remember him saying to me, her telling me this story and her saying, he came home from that experience and he said, if ever I'm in a position to talk to people and give them a helping hand, I will do it. And he did. I mean, he helped lots of. of people, but he helped them little bits and pieces of advice. Sometimes he'd help somebody financially.

Sometimes he'd help somebody emotionally. He'd always connect with people. He always knew how to talk to people. And I don't think I inherited that because there was a time in my life where I wasn't necessarily the best person in the world to do that. But the more I went on, the more I remembered that story about him from my grandmother. And I felt, yeah, I can do that. I can help people and respond individually.

And it actually, it's not only good for the person who's receiving the message, it's good for you, too, because it grounds you in the reality that life is a struggle for a lot of people. Life is a struggle for all of us in a way, not all the time. But you can't, you know, you gain nothing by ignoring it. And you've got to constantly be thinking about, well, what is the best way to help? And certainly spending time and just listening. In the constituency office, I used to call it that those are my days of prayer. You go to the constituency office and you listen to people complaining. Many times there's nothing you can do.

Sometimes there is. And you just try to respond to that. Nice. I've got one more for you here. And this one admittedly is just a bit of a wildcard. But I was thinking the other day, we've just passed earlier this month, the 100th anniversary of Maryland Monroe's birth. and she would have been a major Hollywood star and sex symbol when you were growing up. And I wonder whether you were as Gaga over her as so many other people of your generation were and are.

Yeah, there are two things. I mean, one is the movie Bus Stop, you may remember, which is a movie in the 50s. And I, that would have been, I would have been about, well, maybe 11. 10 or 11. So, yeah, that, you know, and I went to see with my parents and my father was, and he said, but you think I said, I said, man, she was just incredible. She's beautiful. I said, yeah.

That's true. And of course, like everyone else, I did, you know, the, the Merrill Monroe, a rendition of happy birthday and President Kennedy's response to that was always, always something that struck me. But more than anything else, I have to say, the more I've read about her, in the last, you know, the last several years, the more her life takes on a, you know, a truly tragic dimension. And it speaks to, I mean, this is going to sound, you know,

pretty preachy, but it speaks to the way in which, you know, she was, she became a symbol. She became a, she wasn't, I mean, I didn't know her. I mean, she wasn't, I mean, she wasn't a person. And the way we create, we objectify people, and particularly women, a man objectifying women. And not only in terms of popular opinion and everything else, but even in personal relationships that, you know, that don't work out because you're not dealing with the real person. You're dealing with some kind of an extension of your own fantasies. And I've always felt that was a sad part about her, terribly sad part about her life.

and led to her death. Well, I must say, I do enjoy these conversations with you because any conversation that can go from Trump to Iran to Marilyn Monroe, I think that's different. I don't see that everywhere. So, I mean, I'm happy that you indulge me in these sometimes odd questions that I ask you. No, no, I don't mind. As long as they don't get too odd, that's okay. I mean, I don't.

Are we within the bounds of okay so far? Yeah, so far it's fine. Okay, good. Let me do a little housekeeping before we sign off here, and that is to say we have created a little community online for people who like to follow this show and maybe even throw a few bucks our way to keep the lights on. Patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. You can pitch show ideas.

We've got web exclusive video there. And as we say, we're happy to take your dollars if you want to help us out a little bit. All of our previous shows and interviews are archived at Steve Paken. com. Mr. Ray, until next time, peace and love to you and yours, and we'll see again. Good to talk to Steve. Thank you so much.