The Paikin Podcast - Sergio Marchi: Cynicism, Distrust, and How to Survive Our Polarized Politics

Episode Date: January 1, 2026

Former federal Liberal cabinet minister Sergio Marchi joins Steve to discuss his book, Pursuing a Public Life: How to Succeed in the Political Arena, the fragile state of our democracy, the rise of polarization and cynicism, his 30 years in politics as a city councillor, MP, cabinet minister, and ambassador, and how to survive and succeed in a political climate that has become nastier and more divided. 

Hi, everybody, Steve Paken here. I know not everyone feels this way, but I got to say, I do love it when former politicians write their memoirs. First, they tend to be a lot more honest in their memoirs than they ever were when they were in office. That's number one. Second, if you're into politics, the stories are usually really good. You've got inspiring stories of people working together for the common good. Plus, you've got the other side of the coin. You've got great stories about backstabbing and internecine warfare, and it's usually fun to find out about that stuff. after the fact. Sergio Markey got into politics more than 40 years ago, and he's got a new book out about his time in public life, and I thought, let's have him on and find out more about how all of that went. So here we go. Former Federal Cabinet Minister Sergio Markey, coming right up

on the Paken podcast one-on-one. Delighted to welcome former Cabinet Minister Sergio Markey to the Pagan. Taken podcast. His new book is called Pursuing a Public Life, How to Succeed in the Political Arena. Sergio, really great to see you again. How you doing doing? It's great to be with you. I'm doing fine. Thank you. Excellent. I want to start with a bit of an overview on what you see happening in our democracy here in Canada, and then we'll get into more detail about your career. So I want to start with a quote from your book, and it goes like this. There are

unmistakable signs that our democracy is weakening and becoming more fragile. We can't deceive ourselves and take for granted that our politics is immune from the divisive forces plaguing so many other jurisdictions, we must therefore work at safeguarding and sustaining a healthier democratic system. Let's start there. What are you seeing right now in Canada that causes you so much concern? Well, I think there's a number of things. First of all, public cynicism is at a historic high. There's always been criticism against the political clause for one reason or another, but the cynicism is very concerning now. And that's because people are seeing that our politics is becoming polarized. Our politics is becoming more divisive. And frankly,

our politics is becoming nastier. And they would like something much better than what they're getting. So when you have public cynicism in reaction to the actions of the political class or lack thereof, you get people pulling out. They don't engage. a record number of people not voting, and so they become indifferent. And that's what worries me when I say a weakening of the democratic fabric and the fragility of it all. What would constitute a healthier democratic system as you see it? Well, certainly a healthier system would be when that cynicism comes down a notch. I'm not naive to pretend there's never going to be any public cynicism,

But it needs to be at a more healthy level as opposed to a record level. Secondly, I think politicians need to stop fighting with one another and using a highly charged rhetoric that turns off both the voters as well as inspires more negativity. So I think it's a combination, but it starts with the politicians. I think they need to know that what people are seeing is something far less than they. would want from their political leaders. So it's got to change at the top. So then the question becomes, can we get there from here?

What do you think? I'm always hopeful because if you lose hope, it's tough to get up in the morning. So I think we can. I think the politicians need to hear the message. They need to be serious. They can't put things off. And again, there's always going to be confrontation in a democracy.

I'm not arguing that. There's supposed to be. There could be confrontation with civility. with a decent respect, not only for each other, but also for the traditions of parliament. And right now, that's missing. And in my day, I'm not going to say it was the glory days, but there used to be a lot more engagement, a lot more collaboration. People would walk across the aisle to consult either a minister or opposition members.

And that rarely happens these days. They're really, really divided. And again, the cost is to our democracy. Okay. Let's dive in on your story now and tell the story of a guy who's of Italian background, but born in Argentina and eventually won his first election at the age of 26. It's a pretty improbable journey, so I want to start at the very beginning. How is it that you got to be born in Argentina in the first place? Yeah, my parents, Italian-born. My dad decided with two of his brothers to emigrate to Argentina after the Second World War. And in those days, Argentina was doing much better, relatively speaking, than they are today. The culture was closer to the Italian one. They had some friends there as well. He and his two brothers were trained as tool-and-dye makers, pretty good jobs back then and today as well.

So they set sail and they landed in Buenos Aires, got to work, and a few years later set up their own factory. And then my father brought over my mother because that's the way things used to happen with migrants. The men usually went on their own, found a house, found a job, created some savings, and then called over their spouse. And I came along a couple of years later. and then back in 59, we packed our bags again for Canada. While you were living in Argentina, do I assume the language of the home was Italian? Yes, it was. I was less than three years old when we came to Canada.

So my first language in the home because of my parents' birthplace was Italian. But I can understand Spanish. So if they speak slowly and I respond slowly in Italian, I get along with the Latinos. Gotcha. From Argentina, I mean, if you can imagine the culture shock of this, Argentina to Lethbridge, Alberta, and then eventually Toronto. Why the move to Canada? The move to Canada was initiated because my father lost faith in Argentina.

He had left Italy with zero. The factory and business that they had created had some great years, and then they had some miserable years. My father would describe it much later in my life as wine in a barrel, some years it was vintage and other years it was vinegar and he couldn't nail it except to say was very, very unstable. He tried to convince his two brothers to go to Canada because he had another brother that was working in Lethbridge and every time my father would receive a letter from my uncle in Canada, he was always impressed with what he was writing about Canada. But his two

brothers in Buenos Aires thought my dad was impatient. They said, relax. Argentina will turn the corner. Frankly, I don't think it ever did. And my father got tired of it. Left Argentina for Lethbridge because my uncle in Canada sponsored us. And they left with zero again. But Canada was the difference. He found out very quickly that Lethbridge was not the Toul and Die capital of the country. And so eight months after living in Lethbridge and having a few jobs to put food and drink on the table, he went to Toronto and immediately found a job and never looked back. You tell us that eventually you started to get interested in current affairs, and because of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, you became a liberal.

How did he turn you into a liberal? Well, I just thought he was a stellar leader. he had a personality. He was outgoing. He was athletic. He was intelligent. I thought he was a strong leader who didn't mince words and wasn't afraid of the shadow of U.S. presidents. And when I was young, he just made an incredible impression on me. And I said to myself, well, if Pierre Trudeau is a liberal, where do I sign up? And I wasn't alone because, you know, during those Trudeau mania years, he drove hundreds and hundreds of people to public service. Very similar, I think, to the JIFK movement in the United States.

I thought Trudeau was our camelon. At the age of 26, you decide to jump into the public arena. You run for what was then called North York City Council. It was a borough or a city, if you like, within the 416. I guess I got to ask, what made you think at the age of 26 you had something to offer? Yeah, I wasn't going to run initially because I was a political assistant to a member of parliament, to a minister on Parliament Hill. And after a couple of years, I thought I would go back to Toronto and pursue my master's in urban planning. And the moment I got to Toronto, a number of friends called a meeting and tried to convince me to run for a seat.

as you said, in the city of North York, in Ward 1, because the incumbent was not running again. And as you know, Steve, incumbency at the municipal level is very, very strong in terms of name recognition and re-election. So they thought it was an opportunity for a young person like me who enjoyed the community activism in the area,

as well as having had some political experience on Parliament Hill. So I thought, well, let me think about that because I wasn't sure, as you implied in your question, that I have enough experience to step into the municipal arena. But we ended up doing so, and I loved it. I only did two years before running federally, but I loved the municipal.

I love the fact that you rode your own horse and you lived or died by it. There was no party politics. You were on the ground 24-7. And you had one vote. That's as many votes as Mel Lastman. The mayor used to have. So you had some considerable power.

And people sought you out. And as well, of course, you had to work for your constituents and your community, which I did. Well, as I suggested in the introduction off the top, you know, there's some monkey business in politics. And I love one of the stories that you tell. I guess I love this mostly because I know all the players here. And, well, here we go. There was a big development company that was trying to get something built in North York. And despite the fact that you were a rookie, you pushed back against both the development and a senior member of council because the senior member of council essentially tried to strong arm you into voting his way without ever kind of seeking your vote.

He just sort of assumed you would be there. Tell that story, if you would. Yeah, it was one of our first votes in December. I was just elected in November as a rookie counselor. My neighboring counselor was also a first-timer, Claudio Pulsinelli, who went on to provincial politics later on. And it was Bremenly Limited, who was coming to the city council to get approval for assisted family housing.

And what happened, as you said, is one of the senior members of council took it upon him. to say to the Gramaly Limited president and their solicitor, don't bother with Markey and Pulsinelli, I'll get them to vote our way. And so when I saw the counselors all meeting individually with Gramaly Limited and I was bypassed together with Claudio, I said to Claudio, I got to figure out why they're not talking to us. Why not seek our two votes? And then I learned from the mayor's office that this senior politician had intervened. And so I said to Claudio, there's only one fix to this. We can't start this way. We've got to send him and the council

and the developer a message. So I said we have to vote against it, which we ended up doing. It was a good project, which both of us recognized. But the process involving us was awful. So we voted against it, and the vote tally lost by one vote, the vote tally lost by one vote, and Bramley Limited was just stunned. And that senior politician couldn't believe that we had the temerity to vote the way we did. But we did. We held our ground. And I think that was a pivotal message to send to the council and others that we're not going to play monkey business.

We're going to try to be good elected representatives and play by the rulebook. Well, I do have to ask you, where did you get the stones to stand up to a senior politician and a massive corporation as a 26-year-old with all of one-month's experience on council? I don't know where it came from, but I was, I think it came from the fact that I was absolutely pissed off, offended that someone was going to take our vote and assume that we were going to play their game. And the nice ending of this story, Steve, as you know, if you read the book, is that I went to the developer after the vote because Mel Lastman called a five-minute break. And I said, look, this was a very good project. But don't you dare do that again? If you want my vote, then you come in to see me like you've seen every other member of council. And it was Dick Schiff, was the CEO.

And Dick apologized to me. He said, you're absolutely right. We listened to that senior politician. We should not have Mayacolpa. And I said, notwithstanding how you did this, I'm willing to go to Ottawa where I do have some contact with the public works minister who provided the monies until the end of the calendar year. And that's why they were very worried because it was in December.

And I said, I'll try to get it extended, which in the end I did. I was able to get it extended until the new year. the first vote in the new year, Claudia and I reversed our votes and the building and the permit passed. But lesson learned by everybody. Well, I was going to say all's well that ends well, but it didn't end well for the senior politician

whom we so far have not named, but you do in the book. His name was Mario Gentilly. And do you want to tell us what happened to him eventually? Yeah, Mario intervened with Plotio and I inappropriately. And I thought he would have learned the lesson because unfortunately, Mario got caught in a scandal sometime later. He had taken and accepted a credit card from a developer who was doing business in City Hall.

And Mario would bill that credit card for his suits, for his dinners, for his lunches. Obviously, a big no-no. He was caught. He faced a prison time and a fine. And it was an awful ending to what was a promising career because I think he was one of the first Italian Canadians to have been elected in the North York jurisdiction. So I regret that he didn't learn the lesson.

And so I draw that for the purposes of readers to know, look, ethics is important. Actions are important. If you want to make lots of money, that's fine. don't look to politics to do it because the only way you can do that you can make lots of money in politics is the wrong way and the wrong way usually ends your reputation which was the case unfortunately for Mario you know I think he's still alive sir Jude he's probably in his least 70s now have you ever have you ever seen him sort of more recently not more recently I I saw him

after he came out of doing his time and part of me said I I don't think I should meet because I was a minister at the time. The other part of me felt sorry for Mario. He had done his time. And he came to consult me because he wanted to run again. And I said, Mario, you've got to be crazy. You can't run again. I mean, you've got a rap sheet.

The moment you run, that's all going to come back. The media will be ruthless. Your wife and children will go through all of that tragedy again. Don't do it. just move on, put it behind you, and don't put your family through it. Well, unfortunately, he didn't take my advice. He thought he was much more popular than he thought. He ran and he did miserably because, again, the whole affair came out.

And it was a one campaign issue which he couldn't possibly win. Let me take you to another story that's in the book. And one of the lessons you tell us you learned over the years is that before you open your heart, it's a better idea first to open your eyes. And you learned that when you got behind a campaign that was designed to help somebody who had a real serious health problem. Tell that story.

Yeah. Yeah, it was, again, the message and the lesson for the young readers is to do your due diligence, which in this case I did not do. And this came very quickly after getting first elected. I was down at Chin Radio doing an interview. And during one of the commercial breaks, there was an ad that a young Italian, and Boar from Italy was in Toronto searching for a kidney because he was failing with his organ

and he was on organs and he was on dialysis. And so Johnny Lombardi, the owner of Chin Radio, who was a great guy with a big heart, was doing a telethon to raise money for this youngster. So I went to Johnny and I said, this sounds like a great cause. Let me help. I organized a huge dinner dance. I got most of the things donated so we can have more proceeds go towards this young man. But in the interim, I was downtown at a hospital cocktail, and didn't I bump into a kidney

specialist? And I told him the story of this young Italian boy looking for a kidney operation. And he was very silent and he turned serious. And I said, what's wrong? Did I say something that upset you? He said, I don't want to let you down and trouble you. but that young boy will never get a kidney. I said, what do you mean?

He said, well, the demand for kidneys by Canadians is so high that a foreigner will never, ever see the light of day to get a kidney. The only way that you can do so is that the person in question gets a kidney donated by his family or friends, and we, for a fee, will do the operation. But you won't get a kidney from an anonymous Canadian donor. And I was just, I was just beside myself because we had raised thousands of dollars from the dinner. Johnny had raised thousands of dollars through the telethon. And we both feared that this was going to amount to nothing and be a huge scandal.

So we moved very quickly. We pulled in the person's uncle, the young boy's uncle who was organizing this. And we said, listen, here's something you didn't tell us. You're trying to bully the Canadian system into getting a kidney and it'll never come. And now we're raising money for something that will never see the light of day. So we directed him to either because the doctorate said try to get his parents to come to Canada. We'll test them and maybe one of the two parents will be eligible in terms of compatibility of their organ. and we said to the uncle, bring the parents right away, or else we'll go on radio,

divulge everything and give our money back. He initially had the temerity to push back, but then he smelled the coffee. He brought the parents over it within a week. The father qualified, and he ended up donating one of his kidneys to his son via Canadian operation, and the monies we had raised went to pay for the operation. So it ended up all well, but we were both quite scared because we had a lot of money on the table. And we thought that we're going to be crucified if this ever gets out. Only two years into your three-year term as a North York City counselor,

you decide to try to become a member of parliament. Once again, pretty early in your political career. You're still just a kid in your 20s. Why would you make that decision at that time? Again, I was pulled into a meeting, Steve, basically by the same people that pulled me in municipally, and they said we'd love for you to run federally. There's now been a resignation by the Liberal MP three days into the 1984 campaign, and your ward is entirely in the district, and you've been on Parliament Hill, so we'd love for you to go and we'll support you. And I was very reticent because I said, look, I've only done two years of my first term, which was a three-year term back then. And I don't like the idea of running away when my mandate is not complete.

I don't want to do that to the ward one residence. And then we went back and forth, and they convinced me to say, look, because your ward is entirely in the federal writing, if people want you to stay as municipal counselor, you'll never get elected federally. But if you get elected federally, it's their decision. They want you to serve at a more senior level. And so that kind of logic appealed to me, and the way we went. It was a hell of a ride. We had one week to collect memberships. The nomination was badly rigged against us and in favor of the sitting MP's preferred choice.

But it was a real roller coaster nomination. And again, the message to readers is beware of nominations where the party has all the power. Don't panic, but just keep your eyes open. Well, in fact, here's what you say. And the outgoing member of parliament who actually in the writ period decided to stand down and not run again, his name was Don Fleming. And as you just reiterated, and as you said in the book and just reiterated, you think he tried to stack the meeting for. or the person you believed was his preferred candidate, whose name was Maria Mina.

And here's what you say in the book. Maria is a fine person who was active in a downtown Toronto Liberal Riding Association, but she was a curious choice for York West. Why choose an outsider when all the remaining candidates were from the riding, including two who had worked for Fleming? So I got a bunch of questions about this. Number one, did you ever confront Mr. Fleming about this? I only confronted Jim at the nomination meeting because for whatever reason, Jim went downtown to pick Maria to run uptown.

It was a curious choice. The message you was sending is that you guys locally aren't good enough. I'm going to get a better candidate and stack it against you. They canceled the first meeting. They wouldn't tell us where it was, where the new meeting was going to be. ended up being up in York University. They canceled it because we signed up too many members for their liking. But I never confronted him until we crossed on the floor of the York University Auditorium.

And I said, Jim, what you're putting us through and what you're putting all these liberals through could have been salvaged, could have been saved. You could have called us and told us not to run for whatever reason. And to do this behind our back, you know, we were expecting much better. So we only confronted each other that night. And it wasn't a good night for Jim because he was being confronted by so many other liberals throughout the nomination because it started at seven and it finished at around three in the morning on the fourth ballot. And that was because the party was refusing most of our memberships and the memberships of the other local candidates. And it took hours to get it sorted out. So it was an awful start.

And again, another lesson learned. Sergio, I'm smiling because I actually, as a 24-year-old kid reporter, covered that nomination meeting. I was there that night. And yeah, you're right. It was a hell of a ride. And there was all sorts of, I alluded to this in the intro, great internecine warfare within the Liberal Party family. But I got, Mr. Fleming died 30 years ago, so it's too late to get further comment from him on this. However, Maria Mina, now Maria Mina would go on to win election as a member of parliament.

and down in the beaches, and therefore in the part of town where she was more familiarly known. But her husband, a guy named Robert McBain, who was a liberal staffer back in the day, sent out the following press release after he read about these allegations in your book. And here's what he says. Although Prime Minister John Turner endorsed Maria's candidacy, she had been his advisor on multiculturalism in the recent liberal leadership campaign, there was no effort by the party to ensure that she won the nomination. Mr. Markey's claims in that regard have no basis in fact.

In fact, Ms. Mina and her small team were taken by complete surprise and were quite upset when the party announced that the nomination meeting had been canceled. Some of them were in tears because they had no way of letting her supporters know in time that the meeting had been called off. Mr. Markey, who was a North York counselor at the time, was believed to be using lists. he had removed from Mr. Fleming's constituency office where he had worked as an assistant. Mr. Fleming, quite understandably, considered this to be an act of gross betrayal by a former

employee. So yes, there was bad blood between Mr. Markey and Mr. Fleming. However, Ms. Mina had no involvement whatsoever in how that came to be. That's their view. Comment, if you would. Yeah, just a non-starter. I've just learned about this as you were speaking. I had no prior. knowledge that Rob had sent out a press release. First of all, it's erroneous. I took no list whatsoever. The 1,500 people that we signed up came through the group that we have put together in terms of our supporters. We worked our hearts out, 1,500 between Monday and Friday, and we had to bring it into the party office over the weekend, and the meeting was on the Monday. So there was not a single name lifted from Jim Fleming's time as an MP.

Secondly, his lists were much, much more modest and small. So we didn't need Jim Fleming's list. We had our own list and we won with our list. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that Maria, who I said is a fine person, became a fine MP and ministered later in her career. but I thought she was the wrong candidate for York West, and the people in York West agreed with me on that because she failed to grab a nomination,

notwithstanding the fact that Jim Fleming and the party bent over backwards to help her. So I don't believe one word that Rob's saying. I guess he'll have to write his own book. Okay. It does raise a bigger question, which is to say, and you touched on this a second ago, there are so often irregularities, some might even say illegalities in the way these nomination meetings

are run. And it seems that, I mean, we've had everything from, you know, people bust in to who are not citizens, to dead people voting, to all kinds of craziness. Do you think there's anything that, well, I know you think there's something that should be done, but what can be done to clean these things up? Because they really put a bad taste in everybody's mouth. Absolutely. And I went, I went through that personally, I can tell you if I'd known that, I probably would not have ran as a candidate in that nomination because it was awful. There's also among the list of irregularities, the fact that many times candidates pay for the memberships, as opposed to members paying for their own commitment to join either a conservative or liberal or NDP party. But I said

the last number of years where you saw more and more irregularities, the party has too much control and they can play footsies with you. They control when it's called, where it's held. They control the membership list once it's submitted. They run the meeting. And I think with all these irregularities, it's time. One option that I put forward is that election Canada manages the election process. And they do a darn good job about it. And there's great criteria. There's a financial limit that if you win and pass that limit, you forfeit your riding. So no monkey business. I think elections Canada needs the love of the playing field when it comes to nominations. I think the power should rest with the voters, with the partisan members of a local district,

not the leader of a party, not the head of a party wing. It should be the people in control of who they would want to run for their riding. It's not the parties riding. So I think an entity like an elections candidate who would clean up the mess at the nomination would make it fair and more attractive for people entering politics. Of course, the only problem with that is you're asking the leader and the executive to give up power they now have to put their thumb on the scale for their favored candidate. And why would they want to do that?

Well, they should do it because it's the right thing to do. It's the democratic thing to do. there may be a compromise on how the leader may have a number of opportunities, cap the number of opportunities to put his thumb on the scale. But not every riding should be at the discretion of the party or the leader. That's just too much power, too much potential for abuse and vested interest. Give the power to the people where it belongs. Okay.

Let's do some more stories from this. This is your first federal campaign now, member of parliament. It's 1984. And you tell us at the very first door you knocked on in that campaign, the guy at the door said, quote, young man, my folks have been dead for a long time. And if they knew I'd consider voting for a whop, they'd both turn over in their graves. What indication did that give you about the kind of campaign it was going to be? I thought my wife and I, who was with me at the doorstep, we're going to die. because I said, this is literally my first federal door that I'm knocking.

And I've got thousands and thousands of other doors. What did I get myself into? Why did I run? Why couldn't I just kept quiet at municipal council and doing my municipal work? And I made the first mistake. Usually when you encounter people like that, you can't lose time because you do have hundreds and hundreds of other doors. So you put a smile on your face.

you thank the gentleman for his time, and you wish him well. And instead, I made a rookie mistake. I was stubborn. I was proud. And I said, well, who the hell are you going to vote for now? And he said, it's none of your business. And I said, well, it might not be none of my business, but why don't you stick the knife a little deeper and tell me who your favorite is?

And he said, well, I'm going to vote conservatives. I think, I think Mulroney's going to win the campaign anyway, so I'm going to vote for his man. And I said, do you know who that candidate is? And he said, no. And I said, well, you want me to tell you? And he said, sure. I said, well, his name is Frank DeGeorgio.

And he looked at me and he said, you think you're some smart ass. I said, no, I'm just giving you the facts. Your conservative candidate looks like is another Irishman, right? And then he said, well, the first time in my life, I'm going to vote socialist. I'm going to vote NDP. And I said, do you know who your candidate is? And he said, no, and I don't want to know. And I said, I don't give a hell.

I'm going to tell it to you anyway. His name is Bruno Pascal Antonio. And good sir, you can't get any more Italian than Bruno Pascal Antonio. So unless you want to vote for the communist candidate, which there was, Jack Sweet was a communist, a sweet man, pardon upon, great guy, but he's wrong political beliefs, I think. And I said, unless you're going to vote for him, why don't you give me a chance of proving my worth? And then he literally said, well, I think he got a lot of boss. And I like that. You stood up to me. Why don't you come in for a cup of coffee so we can discuss that. I made my second mistake. You never accept an invite to go inside. You always say, I'll come back for a coffee after the election campaign. But in we went, coffee and cookies. 30 minutes later, we'd leave. And he said, by the way, have someone put your lawn sign on my lawn. So Lorraine was going to the next door. And I grabbed her. And I said, we're in the wrong location because I was a little talky the day after my nomination. when, and I was campaigning in a highly conservative district of my writing, which I shouldn't

have done, because you always have to solidify your own vote first and your opposition last. So I told her, I said, okay, we're going to go to a liberal, a liberal poll enough of this. But it was funny, it's funny now looking back at it, but it was terrifying that first door. Well, let's do another story from 1984 because despite that, well, you won your writing, but the liberals, of course, got thrashed. John Turner was on the receiving end of the worst wipeout in the history of the Liberal Party at that point. And Brian Maruni won the biggest majority in Canadian history, 211 seats, which is still a record. And John Turner made you the shadow critic for fitness and amateur sport. And you're in the middle of a phone call with your father.

you told your dad how disappointed you were to get what you thought was a pretty insignificant post what'd your dad say yeah my dad was hounding me the turner call the turner call and finally i called them and i said look dad i'm i'm in the shadow cabinet that's the good use the bad use is fitness and amateur sport and there was a long silence and i said dad are you still there i thought he fell off his stool in in pity or something and uh he said i'm here but i don't get the bad use. Why is it bad use? And I said, well, dad, fitness and amateur sport. God bless the athletes, but it's the last on the totem pole. It's the most minor critic portfolio that exists. And I remember telling him, after me, there's the janitor who tells me, look, sir, we've got to

close the lights in the House of Commons and clean up. Can you please go home? And then he gave me a stern, a stern piece of advice. He said, don't you ever, we've done. We've done. We've that to anybody. Don't you dare think that way. You're all of 28. You're in a select club of members of parliament. You should be thankful for being in the House of Commons as the representative of the York West constituents. You take this critic portfolio, roll up the shirt sleeves, and do the best you can. And if you do well, the future will take care of itself. And it was the advice, Stephen, that only a good father or mother can give their son. It was absolutely honest. It was spot on because my dad called me into the fact that I had completely lost context

of the bigger picture. And the bigger picture was, as a young man, I was a member of parliament. I'd been given an assignment, stop complaining and get to work. I'm glad he gave that to me because I think it's, you know, when you think of doing that again in some other circumstance, you think twice. So you win your seat in 84, you won your seat again in 1988. The liberals, unfortunately, for you, lose the election again. John Turner leaves as a leader. Jean-Cretchen comes in and takes over and, of course, wins the 1993 election and you

are in government. And you describe the situation in the book a rather memorable exchange while knocking on doors for that 93 campaign, Mr. Cretchen's first as leader. And here's a, I'm going to quote from the book here, a guy who yells at you, he says, by the way, I'd never vote for that moron of a leader you have, not with that, and these are his words, not with that retarded, crooked-looking face of his. How'd you react to that? Yeah, it was just awful.

He said that after I had left his porch because he clearly wasn't going to vote for us. He had some nasty things to say about the party. So I thanked him for his time, walked away. And that's when he yelled the retarded quote that you just mentioned from the book, which was true. And as I was walking with my canvasser, I said to myself, I can't let this one go. Usually you have to let these things go. Otherwise, you'll be there all day. But I said, I can't take that.

So I walked right by. He closed the door because he thought I was going to. punch him in the face or something, which I felt like doing, frankly. And I said, what did you say? What did you just say about my leader? And he said, I didn't say anything. And I said, no, I think I heard you correctly. And I repeated what he said. And I said, sir, you should have more respect for individuals who through no fault of their own were born with this situation. And Mr. Kretchen, I think, will become the most important politician in the country in a matter of days. And you're going to regret that.

The only retarded person here is you for saying and thinking that of Jean Crechan. And he said, well, you can't talk to me. I've got a vote. And I said, well, you can put your vote. You know where. I don't need your vote. I'm not that desperate. I won't take your vote if that's what you feel about my leader.

And I walked away. And then, as you will recall, John Tory, who was the campaign chairman of the conservative campaign at that point for Ms. Campbell did an ad which really played on Mr. Kretchen's mouth, which again was as a result of a birth disease. I think he had Bell's palsy when he was 12 years old. I think that's what did it. And they ran this huge mugshot of Jean Crechin and said, do you trust this mind to speak for Canada?

And it was a play more subtle than my encounter at the doorstep with my voter, but it was the same message. And it hugely backfired because as I was offended by my voter, Canadians were offended by this ad. And they had to withdraw it and apologize for what they had intended to voters in terms of characterizing Mr. Cretchen. And when the media went to Kretchen, he was brilliant, right? They asked you, how do you feel? He said, well, the good Lord made me the way he did, and I did the best I can. What can I say? So another knife through the heart of the conservative party, and they sank to, what, two seats that election.

They did indeed. And I think Alan Gregg has spoken about this. Alan, of course, having run the conservative campaign, said the dirty little secret that people don't want to acknowledge is that commercial worked. and the liberal numbers started to sink when that ad first went out but it was only when conservative candidates came forward

and said ooh this really we should not be doing this then it became a problem and then Mr. Kretchenz said what he said and then the election was over but anyway I want to ask you about Canadians Canadians are a decent bunch I mean I always say to new candidates

don't fear people don't fear your constituents don't fear canvassing because you're afraid of people you're in the wrong business but canadians uh rise to the occasion typically and they know a wrong when they see it now under mr cratchan you had three cabinet jobs in six years you had citizenship and immigration you had environment and you had international trade which one did you like the most and why that's a tough question i think emotionally immigration was an unbelievable portfolio emotionally because i was a a son of an immigrant, and to think that a son of an immigrant can also be the Minister

of Immigration speaks to how great this country is by giving me the chance to do that portfolio. In terms of pure adrenaline, I think it was international trade, because trade back then was still a very positive responsibility. It's become much more political, much more negative of in today's era, but back then leading missions of talented Canadian businessmen and women selling their services and goods, helping them to bring down barriers, which translated into more investment and more jobs in Canada. That was high adrenaline. You were pumped. You were proud to lead these fine Canadians. So I think trade for the excitement and the immigration portfolio for the emotional significance that it had had for me and my family.

Well, let me ask you one question about each of your portfolios. And I noticed with interest when I was reading the book that you said you wanted to get rid of the citizenship oath, which we swore then to the queen and now to the king, and you almost got to the finish line of getting rid of it. But then at the last minute, Jean-Cretchen told you to drop it. Why did he do that? That's a great question. And I asked him when he called, he said, look, Marquis, I understand.

your bill has passed committee and it's coming to cabinet and I think it would have been approved because Jean was not a fan of replaying committee discussions in the cabinet. What he wanted to do when a committee report came to cabinet was asked if anyone is opposed seriously to the recommendation. So I think it would have passed. And I said, boss, why are you asking me to do this? We're almost there. You had supported this. He said, I know, but it was in the middle of the 1995 Quebec referendum. And he told me that he didn't want to fight monarchists and separatists at the same time, to which I said, look, you don't have to worry about that because in Quebec,

Queen Elizabeth, God bless her, she's not very popular, nor is the monarchy. So you don't have to worry about that. Plus, I think the majority of Canadians are ready to do what you and Pierre Trudeau did with the Constitution, what we did with our own flag, what we did with our own anthem. Let's have our own citizenship, a simple, powerful oath to country rather than to the monarchy. And he said, well, trust me, we'll get back to it later. But one of the lessons I learned in politics very quickly is that when you part something in politics, oftentimes you lose it. And that's exactly what happened.

I was then moved to the environment portfolio and my successor, Luciano Robillard, had other priorities. didn't put forward the new or the proposed oath that I had worked on, and we lost it. And I hope one day dearly, hope one day that someone is successful. I was very, very close, and it's one of my regrets from politics. Well, and here we are 30 years later, and it still hasn't changed. It's interesting, eh? And I got that from the other side of the immigration portfolio, because I had both immigration and citizenship in my portfolio.

And when I would go to citizenship ceremony, Steve, you can see people's eyes glaze over when they have to say, we pledge allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors. They had no idea what that meant. And most of the time, they would make a pronunciation error in he, which I'm doing right now. Rather than saying heirs, they would say her hairs. And I had to bite my tongue from laughing, but I remember going back to my department one day, and I said, this is nonsense.

Not only am I not a monarchist, but all these new Canadians swearing an oath have no idea what they're swearing to. Let's do an oath in English again and one to the country. And that's where it started. And I had received the prime minister's blessing before starting it. So I was very surprised. But as I also say in the book, when Queen Elizabeth died, there was a. huge outpouring of affection because whatever you thought of the monarchy, she did her job and she did a fine job and she was a fine person. And Mr. Kretchen had a great relationship with her

and I knew that, but I had no idea the extent to which he really was a good friend to the queen beyond the whole queen and prime ministerial roles when he would speak about her. And then the light went on and I said, I wonder if it was really the Quebec referendum, the reason for the pause. I then shifted my thought and said, I bet you he asked me to pause because he got cold feet and he didn't want to slight the queen. I never raised that with John. I could have, but I said, let sleeping dogs lie. But I bet you a Canadian dollar that that was the reason rather than the separatists. Let's ask about your time and environment.

And you say in the book that you think that the finance minister of the day, who of course was Paul Martin, future prime minister, was not very generous to you and your budgets when you were in environment and you allege that you think that's because you supported Jean Crechein

at the 1990 liberal leadership. How do you know? You know, there's something called an intuition. There's something called a feeling when you're in the room and you're eyeballing each other and he's giving you the reasons for not granting you the monies. And then you hear the same intuition from a number of other ministers who felt that Paul,

Wally is a good person and Wally was an excellent minister of finance, was somewhat insecure, if I can say that, with people who had voted democratically for Jean Crechan or Sheila Copse or John Nunciata or Tom Wapel, the other the other candidates. I voted both in the 84-90 leadership for Jean, never, never, you know, regretted it, never apologized for it. But I think he held that over me. Can I prove it? Of course not.

But I wrote it because I had the intuition that that's exactly what was happening. I couldn't get a nickel from Paul, even if I stood on my head and spit out loonies for him. Okay, let's go on to international trade. Did you ever have to deal with a situation when you were the international trade minister as perplexing, problematic, you might even say appalling, as what Canada is trying to go through right now with Donald Trump? Never did I experience it and never did I think this day would come. It's completely unprecedented. He's turned trade upside down.

He's one of the reasons why the WTO, where we invested heavily in multilateral rules, is basically paralyzed. I described it in the book as a stationary bicycle where the ambassadors are pedaling fast, maybe even sweating and losing a pound. But as a stationary bicycle, everybody knows it's stationary. It doesn't move. It goes nowhere fast. And that's exactly in part because the Americans were always the locomotive in the Gat. and then its successor, the WTO, in putting forward an agenda and leading the troops. And under Trump, they have now become the caboose.

In other words, they are a drag. They are a weight on the system. And we see how unreasonable that his positions are with Canada, where we have argued so far unsuccessfully that we're his closest and best allies and partners. but it doesn't matter because Donald Trump cares only about Donald Trump. I'm not even sure he cares about the American voters, quite frankly, but he cares about himself and has no loyalty to anyone else or any other country, regardless of the fact that our men and women fought alongside the Americans for every battle

and we shared the blood for it. So no, never did I see that. and never did. I think we'd be here today. I never thought I'd read a story as funny as the one that you tell about the free trade summit in Chile. And while the opening speeches are happening, Sergio, what was President Bill Clinton doing during those speeches? Yeah, after one coffee break, they put Jean Cretton's chair next to Bill Clinton, and each leader had two chairs behind them for their ministers. And I was behind Jean with Lloyd Axworthy, the then minister of

Foreign Affairs. And next to me was the national security advisor to the president. And at one point, the president turns around in his swivel chair and asks for the red file. And so the national security advisor pulls his briefcase, takes a red file. I kind of sit up and on my chair so that I can see this. And I actually managed to see the cover of this red file. It said for the for the for the eyes of the president only. So I said, well, this is interesting. So Berger, the then national security advice, Sandy Berger gave him the file, and I looked over Clinton's shoulder.

When he opened the file, there were three New York time crossword puzzles. And I say, you've got to be kidding me, right? Here's a very important meeting with 33 other leaders. And Clinton, every, you know, he'd be using his left hand. do the words. And every two minutes, he'd look up as Clinton did famously. And he would look at the speaker and kind of say, I feel the pain that you're talking about, and then go back to his New York Times word puzzle. It was a moment that was quite surreal and quite funny to say the least. Now, lest we think that he was the only one doing it, your cabinet colleague, Lloyd Axworthy,

then did what? Yeah, I said to Lloyd, did you see the red file? I said, no, and I explained what was in the Redfowl, and he pulls out under his paper one crossword puzzle from the New York Times as all. He says, I'm doing one as well. And I said to him, am I the only damn person that has taken this meeting seriously and not brought any word puzzles? And we got talking because Lloyd got stuck on who the first governor of Tennessee was. And I said, geez, I don't even know all my premiers, let alone the governor of Tennessee. So I asked Sandy Berger, and he didn't know. So Berger said, let me ask the president. He said, don't bother the president.

And Berger said, what do you mean, bother me? Just doing your time crossword puzzle. Meanwhile, Pratchen, who's deaf in his right ear, is trying to figure out why are these, why are my two ministers talking to Berger and Clinton when I'm not involved? And doesn't Clinton turnaround gives us a lecture of Georgian history? But he says, damn it, I can't remember the first governor. He says, call Vice President Al Gore. born in Tennessee, so he'll probably know it. Again, it was one of those moments that I'm sure

all the other 32 leaders probably were saying, what are the Americans and Canadians cooking up if they only knew? This is what really goes on at these summits. Okay, I get it. I get it. Not all the time, hopefully. Right. Amen. Amen to that. You know, there's a part of your book where I got to hand it to you. You're very candid about something that is very serious. And, you know, you did some introspection clearly when you asked yourself at a certain point in the book, was I as good a father to my kids as I could have or should have been given how much time I took away from them to do these jobs in politics? And of course, time away from the family is a reason many people's sight for not wanting to go into politics. What conclusions did you

come to about whether or not you were as good at dad as you could have or should have been? I regret that I overdid it. And I think it was a function, as I explained in the book, of being, you know, a federal member of parliament at 28. I wanted to do well. I wanted to be seen to be doing well. I was ambitious as a young politician. I wanted to cover my riding and do as good a job as possible. So I was in the district every single weekend.

And I missed unteen birthdays and anniversaries of both my wife, Lurie. and my two children. So I say in the book that looking back, I did overdo it. I had no semblance of a family, work-life balance, as the current lingo suggests, today. And you can't get those years back. And that's why, Steve, I loved politics, and I would have continued. But in 1999, I knew Jean was thinking about calling another election. and Maureen and I had a serious discussion and we thought it was time for me to prioritize the kids and the family and step out of politics, which is what I did in 1999.

And the only reason I did that was because I wasn't seeing the kids. In fact, thank God I did because then we have some great years where I was able to play the role of all of the way it should be played. So it's not an easy balance to achieve. It is achievable if you're able to say no. And for me, no was probably the worst word in the political dictionary. Well, I like the quote you give to Bob Ray in the book who said, you have to decide on the priority you give to family life. It's that simple.

If the bright flame of political ambition burns too bright and leads you astray, you will get burned by it. And he has, I think we can say, one of the great marriages that has sustained many different levels of political involvement. And I wanted to ask you, you and Lurine have been married how many years? Forty-two years now. And I mean, we know the divorce rate among parliamentarians is higher than the general average in the rest of the country. Why do you think you're still together? That's a good question, because maybe Lurine could have and should have left when I was more attentive to politics than perhaps the family. But I guess it was.

It was a shared understanding, a love between two people, wanting also to raise two kids without the pressures of a divorce. And then she had the final say, quite frankly, in 1999 to say, okay, we've got to turn the page. So I think she accepted her role. I think it was burdensome to say the least. And I'd like to think that when I did leave, that I was able to be the father and be the husband. been that they expected. So I was fortunate because you're right. The number of separations and divorces in public life is frightening. And sometimes, you know, when politics is over, the phone goes dead. The emails don't come in. And if you don't have a family, you don't have anything.

Right. You left politics, as you point out, undefeated in the year 2000, 1999, 2000. You moved to the World Trade Organization. And the story I want to raise with you now is, I mean, my goodness, this was pretty brazen. Somebody passed you an envelope across your desk filled with money in an attempt to bribe you. And you talk about it in the book. And I know the, look, I don't know this. I suspect there are many, many Canadians who think that this kind of thing happens all the time, both in politics and in agencies, boards, and commissions adjacent to politics. You were in the game for a long time. It happened to you. You didn't take the money. Let's just put that on the record. But how much of this actually goes on.

Very rarely at the WTO. No one has ever talked about, you know, being offered monies for the purpose of this meeting. I didn't know this guy. I was the chairman of the WTO council as a WTO doing meetings. And my assistant called me that this gentleman wanted to see me urgently. So I gave him 15 minutes. He was asking me, do I know the Chinese ambassador? do I know Chinese trade policy, would they be able to meet with a group of business leaders if you were to set it up?

And I said, listen, I thought it was an odd kind of set of questions to be asking. And I said, of course, I know the Chinese ambassador. Of course, he meets with business leaders. But for you to meet him, you would have to say, what are the reasons for the meeting? What are the issues you want to raise? And who's going to be present at the meeting? And then you'll get an answer, either an affirmative one or a negative one. one. And at the end of the 15, 20 minutes, he pulled out an envelope. And I thought, and he passed it

along across the boardroom table to me. And I thought it was a letter for a meeting. I thought it may have been a list of business delegates that he wanted to bring to this meeting. Instead, when I took up the envelope, I saw that $100 bills, US. And there must have been no idea, but 2025 of them. And I said, what's this? And he said, well, that's a thank you for meeting with me. So I slid the envelope back and I said, I get paid by the Canadian government to meet with people like you. I don't need nor want your money. So take it back. Then he pushed the envelope back again. He said, I insist. I really appreciate your last minute time and I want to compensate you for it. And I pushed the envelope back and I said, listen, I'm insisting them.

If you don't take this envelope, put it in your pocket and leave, I'm going to call security. And then he smelled the coffee, turned red, put the envelope in his pocket, and I never saw him again. And after he left the room, Steve, I was kind of feeling, well, what the hell was that about? China, Chinese ambassador, $25,000, $3,000 U.S. So then I picked up the phone to my deputy ambassador at the Canadian mission, Terry Collins-Williams, and I said, Terry, I'm going to dictate a note to you, and I want you to type it and put it in the file. And I dictated exactly what happened because I said, look, if I'm on the take, no one's going to tell their deputy ambassador to write a note to the file. They're just going to shut up and take the money.

So he typed it, he showed it to me, he signed it, he put it in his files. we never heard from the guy again. I want to finish up with this. You write in the book, by far, my time in public office represented the highlight of my different professional pursuits. Nothing else I did came close in regard to its purpose, its significance, and its far-reaching bottom line. I'm unquestionably confident that you, the reader, can have a similar experience. And I guess the question I want to ask is, you really still believe that politics can be a noble calling in this age of political toxicity, anti-social media, and Donald Trump?

The answer is yes. I get it. Politics is becoming nastier. Politics is turning many people off. We know about the negatives about politics and sometimes how difficult and faxing it could be. But what is less known, Steve, is the upside of politics. The great satisfaction that rests with this public vocation. I thought there was no job like it. The responsibility of being handed the votes of your fellow citizens to vote for them and decide for them on the future of the country is an enormous. The satisfaction of winning your first campaign, the satisfaction of entering cabinet, the satisfaction of passing legislation that is going to be helpful to Canada, The satisfaction that comes from helping constituents solve out their federal related challenges and problems, working with incredible people, traveling the country and understanding and loving it even more as a result of that and meeting Canadians from one side to the other.

And then finally also traveling the world and working on international issues. I mean, those are great upsides. Of course, politics has hard knocks. but it has many, many satisfactions. And I try to share those satisfactions with the readers so that they can at least balance both the negatives and the positives while they make the decision. I don't only want them to have a handle on the negatives.

I want them to have both sides and have the confidence that the satisfaction does allow you to overcome the hard dogs. I have to say, I really enjoyed reading the book. that's number one number two though i will make a small confession to you and that is i thought page 230 was the best page in the whole book you want to know why recorded yeah you mentioned me that's true that's true and you know what and i i agreed to interview you before i even read the book and uh it was a pleasant surprise to see my name in there so there you go no you're in there because

i talk about sometimes the role of the media and i talked about during my time the great reporters and the great journalist that did an honorable job, and certainly you were in that group and continued to be. Very kind of you to say. Let's remind everybody, the name of the book is pursuing a public life, how to succeed in the political arena. Sergio Markey has been our guest. Ladies and gentlemen, share this with your friends and family. Like and subscribe, as they say, and peace and love until next time. Thanks so much, Sergio. Thank you.