July 25, 2025 • 31 mins
What does it take to serve faithfully for 27 years in politics while maintaining your Christian convictions? John McKay's remarkable journey through nine successful elections as a Liberal Member of Parliament provides a masterclass in navigating the often turbulent waters where faith and politics intersect.
McKay's career demonstrates the delicate balance of standing firm on core principles while engaging constructively with colleagues across the political spectrum. When asked what sustained him through nearly three decades in Parliament, he points to the opportunity to directly influence pressing issues: "If you open the front page of any newspaper, you're likely going to be involved in whatever that discussion might be." For those drawn to public discourse and policy formation, this connection to current affairs provides powerful motivation.
Throughout the conversation, McKay tackles the challenging question of being a Christian in an increasingly secular political environment. Rather than forcing "Christian ideals" or conflating faith with nationalism, he advocates making space in the marketplace of ideas for religious expression of all kinds. This approach stands in stark contrast to what he calls "the pernicious influence of secularism," which attempts to relegate faith exclusively to worship spaces rather than allowing it to inform public discourse.
Perhaps most compelling is McKay's willingness to stand for his pro-life convictions within a party that explicitly requires a pro-choice stance from its members. "Mr. Trudeau and I do not see eye to eye on this issue," he acknowledges, but rather than abandoning his principles or his party, he accepted the political consequences of his position. The result? "At the end of the day, people respect you for how you stood up and said whatever it is you said." His successful passage of five private member's bills—addressing issues from preventing house fires to combating modern slavery in supply chains—demonstrates how faith-informed values can be translated into effective policy that benefits society broadly.
For those contemplating their own journey into public service, McKay offers both encouragement and caution: "I don't expect it to be easy... but do get yourself involved." His story reminds us that Christian engagement in politics isn't about imposing religious doctrine, but rather allowing faith-informed wisdom to contribute thoughtfully to the common good.
You can learn more about John McKay's public service through Facebook, Instagram and the Modern Slavery Act website.
And you can share this episode using hashtag #Evangelical360 and join the conversation online!
____________________
▶ Watch Interviews on YouTube
▶ Sign Up for FREE Dispatches From the Global Village
▶ Free Downloadable eBook "Here's Hope"
▶ More Info: evangelical360.com
#evangelical360
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Brian Stiller (00:10):
Hello and welcome to Evangelical 360.
I'm your host, brian Stiller,and I'm pleased to share with
you another conversation withleaders, changemakers and
influencers those impactingChristian life around the world.
We'd love for you to be a partof the podcast by sharing this
episode using hashtagEvangelical360 and by joining
(00:31):
the conversation on YouTube inthe comments below.
My guest today is HonorableJohn McKay, a politician with
the Liberal Party of Canada andelected member of Parliament for
over 27 years.
As a follower of Jesus and apublic figure, john has sought
to serve his country andconstituency while speaking his
(00:54):
mind with candor, clarity andconviction.
Evangelicals have lived throughdecades of uncertainty,
confusion and chaos when itcomes to combining our faith
with public service, which iswhat makes the life and legacy
of John McKay so veryinteresting.
John has served hisconstituency in East Toronto
(01:15):
with great integrity and hasremained clear through all his
years of service about hisintent to serve his Lord and Sav
within the wild and woollyworld of national politics.
Join me as we learn from JohnMcKay.
John McKay, thank you forjoining us on Evangelical 360.
John McKay (01:40):
Well, thanks for the invitation, Brian, it's good to
see you,
Brian Stiller (01:43):
john.
You have served as Member ofParliament for 27 years in the
Canadian federal system.
That's remarkable, but how didthis come about?
What were the driving factors,the motivational issues that
brought you to the place whereyou say I'm going to run and
you've succeeded every election?
(02:05):
How many elections has it been?
John McKay (02:07):
A mere nine elections,
Brian Stiller (02:08):
and you've never lost one.
John McKay (02:10):
No, it came close.
A couple of times.
Brian Stiller (02:13):
How did that begin?
John McKay (02:15):
Well, I've always had an interest in politics and
political affairs and things ofthat nature.
Brian Stiller (02:21):
Where did that come from?
What was his family.
John McKay (02:24):
Probably my father.
My father was an opinionatedindividual, shall we say, and so
we followed politics and inuniversity I studied political
sociology, and then on to lawschool and I've always
maintained kind of a finger inthe pie.
I was in the local liberalassociation and became the
(02:45):
president and went all to thesetedious conferences et cetera,
et cetera.
And then the opportunity cameup in late 96, 1996.
And so I said to my wife it'snow or never.
And she says well, I guess it'snow, and bear in mind the
sacrifice by the family is quiteconsiderable, because none of
(03:07):
us actually know what we'regetting into.
So I won the nomination andthen won the election in 97 and
became part of the KretschensCaucus.
Brian Stiller (03:19):
You're a lawyer, that's how you were trained, and
it seems so many people inpolitics start out that way.
What is there about the studyof law, the practice of law that
lends itself to the work ofbeing a senior politician?
How do those match up, or dothey?
John McKay (03:40):
It's not a perfect match by any means, but it is a
useful training in two respects.
Well, three respects.
First of all, you're running asmall business.
So you've got a small businessin your constituency, you've got
a small business in Ottawa, andthey need to be run.
Second of all, law teaches youhow to think, and sorting out
(04:02):
the material and sorting what ismaterial, what is relevant and
what is not is a very usefulskill.
And thirdly, reading a statueis not intimidating because they
have a logical flow to them aswell.
So it is advantageous.
It is not a prerequisite, and Iguess maybe I'd just add one
more If you're going to be inthe public realm, it's better to
(04:26):
be able to speak with full,coherent sentences than not, and
to organize what it is you haveto say.
Brian Stiller (04:34):
So 27 years, that's a good part of a lifetime
.
You've had differentgovernments, you've been in
government, you've been out ofgovernment as a member of the
Liberal Party, but whatsustained, what has sustained
you during that those 27 years?
You and Carolyn have fivechildren, so you have that as a
(04:56):
part of your life.
Your writing is in the Torontoarea and Ottawa, a few hours
away, is where the seat of thegovernment is, so you've got all
those factors at play, whatkeeps you at the task and
motivated to achieve.
John McKay (05:16):
Well, if you open the front page of the Globe and
Mail or the Toronto Star orwhatever newspaper you're
reading that day, you're likelygoing to be in some manner or
another involved in whateverthat discussion might be.
So for those of us who like toengage in the politics of the
day, this is the perfect job.
The interesting thing aboutbeing a sitting member of
(05:37):
parliament is that you can haveinfluence on whatever that issue
might be and you will know whothe players might be.
So if it's a, say it's abusiness issue on the front
pages of the report on businessin the Globe and Mail, well, you
know the ministers.
And if you're in government, youcan go to the finance minister
(05:59):
and say well, how is this one ofthe other example capital gains
tax going to affect myconstituents?
Well, that's going to affectthem quite dramatically and I
find that it's kind of useful tobe able to go to that minister
and say you realize that this isgoing to have x, y and z effect
.
Did you think about that whenyou proposed it in the budget?
(06:21):
And many times times it willhave.
But sometimes it won't, andthey certainly won't have
appreciated necessarily theblowback that you're going to
get, and so it's me, as a caucusmember, who's going to have to
face up and square up to thatblowback.
So that's the beauty of theposition.
It's also the curse.
Brian Stiller (06:42):
So you have this concern over how this might
affect your local constituency,but do politicians have a
grander view of their country,concern over where it's going or
where it's not going?
The issues that are at stake,that are being addressed or are
not being addressed, where wefit in the grand narrative of
(07:05):
the world, do those things takehold, or is it your constituent
issues that dominate?
John McKay (07:13):
Yeah, that's not an answerable question.
You basically have three jobsYou've got your local
constituency job, you've gotyour national job and you've got
your international job.
Constituency job you've gotyour national job and you've got
your international job.
My interest was more nationaland international, and so the
roles that I took on were, youknow, chair of the defense
(07:36):
committee and chair of theCanada-US parliamentary group,
etc.
Etc.
Which gave more of aninternational perspective.
So that's what was animating me, and I quite enjoyed those
opportunities.
Having said that, you betterkeep an eye on what's going on
back home, otherwise you won'thave this job for very long.
So I've been very fortunate tohave had people in my
(07:57):
constituency office who are justsuperb people, and I'm very
blessed that way.
Brian Stiller (08:04):
So you come to this as a Christian and
self-defined evangelical.
Was that a shaping of yourdesire and your ongoing activity
within politics, or was thereinterfacing between what you
believe and what you did?
Interfacing between what youbelieve and what you did?
John McKay (08:25):
Well, the word evangelical is a bit bad bad
word these days, and so I wouldprefer to style myself as a
Christian or follower of Jesus,things of that nature because
there's a politics to the wordthat have become toxic,
(08:46):
particularly south of the borderand toxic in my party became
with you because of theaggressiveness in some issues.
How does it affect you?
I, you know you get asked thatquestion quite a number of times
and I used to sit with myfriend Irwin Kotler, and Irwin
is Jewish, so how does you knowit affect him?
My, the MP next door is GaryAnand Sanghri, hindu.
(09:08):
How does it affect him?
My Muslim colleagues, how dothey?
So I think it's the samequestion orientated.
You will be affected in yourthinking and in your actions by
what you believe to be the coreelements of your faith, and I
(09:31):
would put myself as no exceptionto that understanding.
So when you get down to it,what is it I believe and how are
my actions motivated by thosebeliefs?
And so I kind of track to thecore beliefs of choose life and
thou shalt love the Lord, thyGod, and love thy neighbor as
thyself, and those sorts of coreprinciples of the faith.
(09:54):
And if you stay somewhat closeto those core principles then
you'll probably have an easierlife in politics.
Brian Stiller (10:04):
Was there some overarching biblical text that
gave you gravity in the variousissues and debates that you?
John McKay (10:13):
I like Jesus' summary.
You know Thou shalt love theLord, thy God, with all thy
heart and all thy soul and allthy mind and thy neighbor is
like unto it, and thereon hangall the law and the prophets,
and that's good enough for me.
It kind of covers thewaterfront.
Brian Stiller (10:29):
There has been discussion, not just in the US
but in Canada and globally,where one would wish and hope
for that their country be muchmore Christian in its policy and
its orientation than beingsecular.
How do you come to that and howdo you deal with the issue of
secularity as a Christian?
(10:50):
And probably, if I could assume, you would have some aspiration
that this country wouldmanifest Christian ideals as
well.
John McKay (10:59):
Yeah, I would, but I don't know, forcing Christian
ideals or conflating it withnationalism is actually useful
or helpful.
It has been kind of in yourface Christianity in the country
that we're talking about andsurprise, surprise, there's been
pushback on that to the pointwhere you're seeing gross
infractions of core elements ofthe society belief in the
(11:23):
Constitution, belief in the ruleof law.
You know, treat your neighboras yourself, and so I think when
you push that kind of stuffdown the throats of people who
might believe differently thanyou do, you're actually being
counterproductive.
So I'm actually influenced bythe legendary Brian Stiller on
this file, because prior to mytimes in politics I would
(11:46):
occasionally read a BrianStiller book, and your argument,
your core argument, was to makespace in the marketplace of
ideas for Christian expression,which I think was, if you will
pre-my political life,influential on me, and I think
that's the way you go about it.
You try to make sure that thereis space available for the
(12:08):
expression of Christianity, justas for others who may wish to
express their faith, because, asis fairly said, you know,
rights are not exclusive to youand I and the Christian faith,
but our rights are only asstrong as the rights for other
groups as well.
Having said that, I think thepernicious influence of
(12:35):
secularism is, I think,particularly devastating to
religious communities Because inits core, it believes that
religious expression should nottake place in the marketplace of
ideas.
You know, do whatever you'regoing to do on Friday, saturday
(12:58):
or Sunday.
Expression should not takeplace in the marketplace of
ideas.
Do whatever you're going to doon Friday, saturday or Sunday,
but for the rest of the time youhave to express yourself in a
secular sort of way, which wesee playing out in real time in
Quebec, and my correctcolleagues are puzzled by why
that is even an issue, and I'mpuzzled that they should think
(13:24):
that their particular religiousbelief and I'm using religion in
quotes should be the prevailingethos for the decision with
respect to everything, ethos forthe decision with respect to
everything.
And so we have probably, if Ihave conflict, intellectual
conflict, at least it's morewith the non-religious, militant
(13:46):
secularism than it is with mypeople who actually express
themselves and their faith.
Brian Stiller (13:52):
How do you serve in the political enterprise when
you have this predisposition ofthe political enterprise to
secularity or the diminishing offaith in the marketplace of
ideas?
You're sitting there, you'reworking with your colleagues,
you're writing your speeches,you're pushing back or you're
(14:14):
advocating some particularpolicy.
How do you fit into that?
John McKay (14:20):
Not comfortably.
It's never a comfortable day tobe candid about it, but I have
to on behalf of my faith.
And my faith, colleagues, isassert ourselves that we have
every right, every right toexpress ourselves in whatever
(14:41):
way we wish to in order toadvance, whatever the idea might
be, and that's easier toarticulate than it is to
practice.
But having said that, I thinkwe have.
You know, I don't know, have wehad some successes?
I don't really know.
But you know, you're called tobe faithful.
(15:02):
You're not necessarily calledto success.
Brian Stiller (15:07):
Let me raise the issue of the pro-life,
pro-choice issue.
You are a member of the LiberalParty of Canada and the prime
Minister under whom yougenerally served through your
time, at least for 10 years, waspretty articulate that no
member of the House in theLiberal Party could be anything
(15:28):
other but pro-choice, but youstood out as remarkably as one
that didn't hew the party line.
How did that come about and howdid you survive and make your
point?
John McKay (15:44):
Yes, and I have the political career to show for it.
Mr Trudeau and I have knowneach other for prior to his
becoming the prime minister.
We do not see eye to eye onthis issue, I think essentially
I was grandfathered into theLiberal Party notwithstanding
that everyone knew where I stoodon the issue.
But that also had itslimitations.
(16:07):
But I adopt the Martin LutherKing approach, which is that you
know, if you're going todisobey the law, be prepared to
suffer the consequences and Iwould not analogize myself to
Martin Luther King by any means.
But you have to suffer theconsequences, and there were
consequences.
That's life.
Having said that, there's alsowonderful opportunities that you
(16:31):
continue to have in a caucusthat, and as particularly in the
government caucus.
I've done a complete circuit ofthe House of Commons, from
government caucus to oppositioncaucus, to third party status
caucus, back to governmentcaucus and, as the late Herb
Bray used to say, there's no badseats in the House of Commons.
And the interesting thing isthat at the end of the day which
(16:57):
is where we all arrive at minecoming very quickly people
respect you for how you stood upand said whatever it is you
said and how you said it.
I have not had a happy run,necessarily in terms of you
would see a regular career flowin the Liberal Party, but on the
(17:18):
other hand I've been treatedvery generously and we've had a
few successes along the way.
Brian Stiller (17:24):
OK, but this is a very contentious issue.
Yeah, and you've got a Canadiangovernment and we have no bill
with respect to the unborn, theMorgenthaler Supreme Court
decision, the attempt in 1990,bill C-43, to try and bring some
kind of amelioration to theissue by way of policy, that
(17:45):
died in the Senate.
So we live in a country thathas nothing on its books
respecting the protection of theunborn.
You serve for 27 years in aliberal party that espouses that
same kind of.
For 27 years you lived in aliberal party that espouses a
(18:05):
full pro-choice Right.
So all of that, how did you goabout living with that group,
living with the contentiousideas?
Can you be specific aboutthings that you would do or say?
John McKay (18:20):
Well, my first.
As you say, I'm going back to97.
In 1997, I had a good friendnamed Jerry Van De Zandt you may
or may not know him fromCitizens for Public Justice and
Jerry was in that.
One of my prime mentors thereyou are, and Jerry was in that
One of my prime mentors.
There you are, and Jerry, tothe day he died, said the
evangelical community is sostupid as to have not managed
(18:43):
the Senate vote.
Well, they could have made acompromise which would have
provided there would have been alaw about abortion in this
country, probably having to dowith trimester, and I always
kind of kept that in the back ofthe mind that we could have had
something.
But that ship sailed and thereis no possibility in the current
(19:12):
configuration of Parliament, orprobably the previous five or
six configurations of Parliament, of ever getting any law passed
with respect to abortion.
And so it speaks to an issue asto when you decide that I've
got as much as I can possiblyget.
And there I would track toWilberforce again.
So Wilberforce, as you know,was adamant about slavery in the
(19:35):
British Commonwealth, britishEmpire, for years, 30 odd years.
But at the end of the day hecompromised and he said OK,
we'll go with an abolition ofthe British slave.
Trade was abolished, then thevalue of slaves became worthless
(19:56):
and then for slavery, theabolition of slavery happened
after that.
So you have to make somestrategic compromises in
politics You're not always goingto get your way, and you have
to be wise Take what you can get, because you may not get
(20:17):
anything at all.
Brian Stiller (20:19):
Let me just bring clarification to 1990 Bill C-43
, the attempt by the Mulroneygovernment to bring forth a bill
.
That was a third way.
The Evangelical Fellowship ofCanada supported that as an
approach.
But it was campaign life, afundamentalist Christian
grouping, that persuaded acouple of senators to vote no
(20:41):
and we lost it on the basis ofone vote.
But the evangelical communityby and large supported that
third way.
It was this fundamentalism thatwas driven mainly within the
Roman Catholic church thatbrought the, the, the bill down.
So just just for clarification.
You were there, you were there.
John McKay (21:01):
Yeah, and and so so you can appreciate, jerry's
position was, I take it largelyyour position as well, that it
was there for the, for thetaking, and we got blown, we got
blown.
Brian Stiller (21:14):
Yeah, it was a sad, sad day.
Yeah, yeah, it was as grievousa moment as I can remember,
jacob, who was a senior memberof the cabinet.
I think we were tearful as wetalked by phone when we your
vision and insistence and yourpolitical skills in managing the
(21:35):
House Talk to me about that asat least one of your moments of
(21:58):
good memory.
John McKay (21:59):
Well, basically, for the benefit of your listeners,
bills divide into two categoriesgovernment bills and private
members bills.
So people who are not ingovernment, like myself, they
can propose private membersbills.
So I propose five.
One on fire safe cigarettes sodon't burn the house down when
you fall asleep smoking.
(22:20):
One on better aid bill, whichmeant that you know you had to
actually put your aid money andgive it to poor people.
What an idea that was.
And then the one which was aglorious failure and you learn
more from your failures than youlearn from your successes was a
bill called C-300, the bettermining bill, which essentially
(22:41):
said that if you're going tomine in somebody else's country,
then you have to comply withinternational human rights law
and don't degrade theirenvironment.
Otherwise don't come to thegovernment for consular
financial support.
What an idea that was.
We're not going to pay you toabuse people's human rights.
And then a fourth one was youhave to disclose any bribes
(23:05):
you've given.
That went down to gloriousfailure but ended up in a year
later in an omnibus bill in theHarper government, which was
fine that's after they crushedme in a vote.
And then the final one was asupply chain slavery bill which
essentially requires companiesof a certain size to disclose
whether they feel that they haveany slave products in their
(23:28):
supply chains, which is ongoingright now and is actually still
quite controversial.
But I think we're well, it isthe law and so let's see how
that.
So those are successes.
I would say Even the failureswere successes, because the
mining bill ultimately ended upin the Canadian Office of
Responsible Enterprise, andthat's an office.
(23:48):
So they on the floor of thehouse.
You have these successes andbut you have to kind of keep
worrying the things to deathbecause they go back into the
bureaucracy.
And this is this great morassof of people who may not be
quite as motivated as you are tosee that the bills have some
success.
It's been quite an interestingjourney and I and you know you
(24:13):
said well, you know you weren'tin government, you never ended
up in cabinet.
Well, what other cabinetminister has five bills to their
credit?
administrators five bills totheir credit.
Brian Stiller (24:31):
What?
was the kernel idea or situationthat gave rise to this bill
respecting slavery.
John McKay (24:34):
So finger your garment here.
Yes, Do you know?
whether that garment is made bya slave?
Brian Stiller (24:41):
No,
John McKay (24:41):
no, nor does anybody else who's listening to this
podcast, and I think that whenno had a starter, if you will, a
starter bill, which I thoughtwas a good idea.
(25:03):
Why does it appeal to mespecifically?
Because you know all of theinjunctions in the Bible talk
about slavery and how you'resupposed to treat people, and
that you know there's an appealto freedom and things of that
nature, and so it's kind of likeit seeps into your pores in
(25:27):
church and elsewhere.
And it also matches up with myinterest in human rights.
And you have to be able tostate to a post-Christian
citizenry why this is good forthem citizenry, why this is good
(25:48):
for them, and you frame it inhuman rights rather than, if you
will, a biblical framing, andso whether it's in human rights
or just is it good for business,these are the kinds of
arguments that you have to makein order to be able to say to
people we shouldn't be buyingslave products from anywhere and
this is the way that we canpurge our supply chains of slave
(26:12):
products.
Brian Stiller (26:15):
Speaking to younger people, gen Z, others,
who look at their country, lookat the world, have concerns and
interests and wonder aboutpublic service in the political
realm, as you have had.
What would you say to them?
What advice would you ask themto consider as they look to this
(26:41):
as a possible future for them?
John McKay (26:46):
I don't expect it to be easy.
It is fraught with varioustwists and turns that you can
never otherwise anticipate, andit's startling to get involved.
You know I don't really pick it.
If it's going to be partisanpolitics, we'll pick your party.
Brian Stiller (27:06):
But how do you know at what stage the party is?
Is it because you havefriendship with people in that
party, or is it is anideological value based decision
?
John McKay (27:18):
For some people to be ideological, a value based
decision.
Some of them just got fall intoit.
Some it's electoralpracticality.
You know, if I run as a liberalin Alberta I'm going to have a
very frustrated political career.
So you know, it's all of theabove, but do get yourself
involved.
Knock on a few doors, seewhether you like this stuff.
(27:41):
You better be prepared tohandle what people will say to
you at the doors, but also beinvolved with the local
executive.
Most writing associations arevery keen on younger people.
I've got a few in my writingassociation and I swear one day.
Well, one I think, is going tobe the next prime minister of
Canada and the other, I think,is going to make a pretty fine
(28:05):
MP.
But they've picked up a lot ofseasoning over the last few
years that would not otherwisebe available to them.
And then be literate, keep upon what's going on around the
world.
So that would be my generaladvice.
Brian Stiller (28:22):
You've had a remarkable career, John, 27
years with high credibility.
People may not agree with yourpolicies, but the enormous
respect right across thepolitical spectrum and through
that time you've maintained amarriage with a family and a
faith with a family and a faith.
(28:43):
What are the kinds of thingsthat have nurtured you in your
relationship and familyrelationship and in your walk
with the Lord?
John McKay (28:51):
Well, I'm very fortunate to be married to a
woman who is an extraordinarywoman, and Carolyn is the love
of my life and she has kept ourfamily glue together.
It's tough at the best of timesand she's done a marvelous job
at keeping us together.
So I feel blessed.
(29:12):
I know that word gets kind ofbatted around a little too
frequently, but I do feelblessed.
It's interesting in terms offaith expression.
I chaired the National PrayerBreakfast for a couple of years
and had the good fortune ofmeeting Romeo Dallaire as one of
my guest speakers.
His expression of his faith wasthe kind of the National Bird
(29:35):
Breakfast when 9-11 happened andin the US.
So I got to know the USambassador quite well.
Again, these are justremarkable experiences that you
don't otherwise have.
And then there's always thatkind of tingly, spider sense or
(29:57):
whatever, that you're kind ofdoing the right thing or spider
sense or whatever that you'rekind of doing the right thing.
It doesn't happen in my caseall that often, but every once
in a while you do have thatfeeling Okay, well, that was an
interesting thing.
And so, like a lot of faithjourneys, you don't know
actually where you're going, butwhen you look over your
shoulder.
You've probably been somewhereand maybe you actually did
(30:22):
something that was useful,
Brian Stiller (30:24):
john.
Thank you so much for joining ustoday on Evangelical 360.
John McKay (30:28):
Thank you, brian,
Brian Stiller (30:29):
and thank you for being a part of the podcast.
Be sure to share this episodeusing hashtag Evangelical360 and
join the conversation onYouTube.
If you'd like to learn moreabout today's guest, be sure to
check the show notes for linksand info, and if you haven't
(30:50):
already received my free ebookand newsletter, please go to
brianstillercom.
Thanks again, until next time.
Don't miss the next interview.
Be sure to subscribe toEvangelical 360 on YouTube.
Hello and welcome to Evangelical 360.
I'm your host, brian Stiller,and I'm pleased to share with
you another conversation withleaders, changemakers and
influencers those impactingChristian life around the world.
We'd love for you to be a partof the podcast by sharing this
episode using hashtagEvangelical360 and by joining
(00:31):
the conversation on YouTube inthe comments below.
My guest today is HonorableJohn McKay, a politician with
the Liberal Party of Canada andelected member of Parliament for
over 27 years.
As a follower of Jesus and apublic figure, john has sought
to serve his country andconstituency while speaking his
(00:54):
mind with candor, clarity andconviction.
Evangelicals have lived throughdecades of uncertainty,
confusion and chaos when itcomes to combining our faith
with public service, which iswhat makes the life and legacy
of John McKay so veryinteresting.
John has served hisconstituency in East Toronto
(01:15):
with great integrity and hasremained clear through all his
years of service about hisintent to serve his Lord and Sav
within the wild and woollyworld of national politics.
Join me as we learn from JohnMcKay.
John McKay, thank you forjoining us on Evangelical 360.
John McKay (01:40):
Well, thanks for the invitation, Brian, it's good to
see you,
Brian Stiller (01:43):
john.
You have served as Member ofParliament for 27 years in the
Canadian federal system.
That's remarkable, but how didthis come about?
What were the driving factors,the motivational issues that
brought you to the place whereyou say I'm going to run and
you've succeeded every election?
(02:05):
How many elections has it been?
John McKay (02:07):
A mere nine elections,
Brian Stiller (02:08):
and you've never lost one.
John McKay (02:10):
No, it came close.
A couple of times.
Brian Stiller (02:13):
How did that begin?
John McKay (02:15):
Well, I've always had an interest in politics and
political affairs and things ofthat nature.
Brian Stiller (02:21):
Where did that come from?
What was his family.
John McKay (02:24):
Probably my father.
My father was an opinionatedindividual, shall we say, and so
we followed politics and inuniversity I studied political
sociology, and then on to lawschool and I've always
maintained kind of a finger inthe pie.
I was in the local liberalassociation and became the
(02:45):
president and went all to thesetedious conferences et cetera,
et cetera.
And then the opportunity cameup in late 96, 1996.
And so I said to my wife it'snow or never.
And she says well, I guess it'snow, and bear in mind the
sacrifice by the family is quiteconsiderable, because none of
(03:07):
us actually know what we'regetting into.
So I won the nomination andthen won the election in 97 and
became part of the KretschensCaucus.
Brian Stiller (03:19):
You're a lawyer, that's how you were trained, and
it seems so many people inpolitics start out that way.
What is there about the studyof law, the practice of law that
lends itself to the work ofbeing a senior politician?
How do those match up, or dothey?
John McKay (03:40):
It's not a perfect match by any means, but it is a
useful training in two respects.
Well, three respects.
First of all, you're running asmall business.
So you've got a small businessin your constituency, you've got
a small business in Ottawa, andthey need to be run.
Second of all, law teaches youhow to think, and sorting out
(04:02):
the material and sorting what ismaterial, what is relevant and
what is not is a very usefulskill.
And thirdly, reading a statueis not intimidating because they
have a logical flow to them aswell.
So it is advantageous.
It is not a prerequisite, and Iguess maybe I'd just add one
more If you're going to be inthe public realm, it's better to
(04:26):
be able to speak with full,coherent sentences than not, and
to organize what it is you haveto say.
Brian Stiller (04:34):
So 27 years, that's a good part of a lifetime
.
You've had differentgovernments, you've been in
government, you've been out ofgovernment as a member of the
Liberal Party, but whatsustained, what has sustained
you during that those 27 years?
You and Carolyn have fivechildren, so you have that as a
(04:56):
part of your life.
Your writing is in the Torontoarea and Ottawa, a few hours
away, is where the seat of thegovernment is, so you've got all
those factors at play, whatkeeps you at the task and
motivated to achieve.
John McKay (05:16):
Well, if you open the front page of the Globe and
Mail or the Toronto Star orwhatever newspaper you're
reading that day, you're likelygoing to be in some manner or
another involved in whateverthat discussion might be.
So for those of us who like toengage in the politics of the
day, this is the perfect job.
The interesting thing aboutbeing a sitting member of
(05:37):
parliament is that you can haveinfluence on whatever that issue
might be and you will know whothe players might be.
So if it's a, say it's abusiness issue on the front
pages of the report on businessin the Globe and Mail, well, you
know the ministers.
And if you're in government, youcan go to the finance minister
(05:59):
and say well, how is this one ofthe other example capital gains
tax going to affect myconstituents?
Well, that's going to affectthem quite dramatically and I
find that it's kind of useful tobe able to go to that minister
and say you realize that this isgoing to have x, y and z effect
.
Did you think about that whenyou proposed it in the budget?
(06:21):
And many times times it willhave.
But sometimes it won't, andthey certainly won't have
appreciated necessarily theblowback that you're going to
get, and so it's me, as a caucusmember, who's going to have to
face up and square up to thatblowback.
So that's the beauty of theposition.
It's also the curse.
Brian Stiller (06:42):
So you have this concern over how this might
affect your local constituency,but do politicians have a
grander view of their country,concern over where it's going or
where it's not going?
The issues that are at stake,that are being addressed or are
not being addressed, where wefit in the grand narrative of
(07:05):
the world, do those things takehold, or is it your constituent
issues that dominate?
John McKay (07:13):
Yeah, that's not an answerable question.
You basically have three jobsYou've got your local
constituency job, you've gotyour national job and you've got
your international job.
Constituency job you've gotyour national job and you've got
your international job.
My interest was more nationaland international, and so the
roles that I took on were, youknow, chair of the defense
(07:36):
committee and chair of theCanada-US parliamentary group,
etc.
Etc.
Which gave more of aninternational perspective.
So that's what was animating me, and I quite enjoyed those
opportunities.
Having said that, you betterkeep an eye on what's going on
back home, otherwise you won'thave this job for very long.
So I've been very fortunate tohave had people in my
(07:57):
constituency office who are justsuperb people, and I'm very
blessed that way.
Brian Stiller (08:04):
So you come to this as a Christian and
self-defined evangelical.
Was that a shaping of yourdesire and your ongoing activity
within politics, or was thereinterfacing between what you
believe and what you did?
Interfacing between what youbelieve and what you did?
John McKay (08:25):
Well, the word evangelical is a bit bad bad
word these days, and so I wouldprefer to style myself as a
Christian or follower of Jesus,things of that nature because
there's a politics to the wordthat have become toxic,
(08:46):
particularly south of the borderand toxic in my party became
with you because of theaggressiveness in some issues.
How does it affect you?
I, you know you get asked thatquestion quite a number of times
and I used to sit with myfriend Irwin Kotler, and Irwin
is Jewish, so how does you knowit affect him?
My, the MP next door is GaryAnand Sanghri, hindu.
(09:08):
How does it affect him?
My Muslim colleagues, how dothey?
So I think it's the samequestion orientated.
You will be affected in yourthinking and in your actions by
what you believe to be the coreelements of your faith, and I
(09:31):
would put myself as no exceptionto that understanding.
So when you get down to it,what is it I believe and how are
my actions motivated by thosebeliefs?
And so I kind of track to thecore beliefs of choose life and
thou shalt love the Lord, thyGod, and love thy neighbor as
thyself, and those sorts of coreprinciples of the faith.
(09:54):
And if you stay somewhat closeto those core principles then
you'll probably have an easierlife in politics.
Brian Stiller (10:04):
Was there some overarching biblical text that
gave you gravity in the variousissues and debates that you?
John McKay (10:13):
I like Jesus' summary.
You know Thou shalt love theLord, thy God, with all thy
heart and all thy soul and allthy mind and thy neighbor is
like unto it, and thereon hangall the law and the prophets,
and that's good enough for me.
It kind of covers thewaterfront.
Brian Stiller (10:29):
There has been discussion, not just in the US
but in Canada and globally,where one would wish and hope
for that their country be muchmore Christian in its policy and
its orientation than beingsecular.
How do you come to that and howdo you deal with the issue of
secularity as a Christian?
(10:50):
And probably, if I could assume, you would have some aspiration
that this country wouldmanifest Christian ideals as
well.
John McKay (10:59):
Yeah, I would, but I don't know, forcing Christian
ideals or conflating it withnationalism is actually useful
or helpful.
It has been kind of in yourface Christianity in the country
that we're talking about andsurprise, surprise, there's been
pushback on that to the pointwhere you're seeing gross
infractions of core elements ofthe society belief in the
(11:23):
Constitution, belief in the ruleof law.
You know, treat your neighboras yourself, and so I think when
you push that kind of stuffdown the throats of people who
might believe differently thanyou do, you're actually being
counterproductive.
So I'm actually influenced bythe legendary Brian Stiller on
this file, because prior to mytimes in politics I would
(11:46):
occasionally read a BrianStiller book, and your argument,
your core argument, was to makespace in the marketplace of
ideas for Christian expression,which I think was, if you will
pre-my political life,influential on me, and I think
that's the way you go about it.
You try to make sure that thereis space available for the
(12:08):
expression of Christianity, justas for others who may wish to
express their faith, because, asis fairly said, you know,
rights are not exclusive to youand I and the Christian faith,
but our rights are only asstrong as the rights for other
groups as well.
Having said that, I think thepernicious influence of
(12:35):
secularism is, I think,particularly devastating to
religious communities Because inits core, it believes that
religious expression should nottake place in the marketplace of
ideas.
You know, do whatever you'regoing to do on Friday, saturday
(12:58):
or Sunday.
Expression should not takeplace in the marketplace of
ideas.
Do whatever you're going to doon Friday, saturday or Sunday,
but for the rest of the time youhave to express yourself in a
secular sort of way, which wesee playing out in real time in
Quebec, and my correctcolleagues are puzzled by why
that is even an issue, and I'mpuzzled that they should think
(13:24):
that their particular religiousbelief and I'm using religion in
quotes should be the prevailingethos for the decision with
respect to everything, ethos forthe decision with respect to
everything.
And so we have probably, if Ihave conflict, intellectual
conflict, at least it's morewith the non-religious, militant
(13:46):
secularism than it is with mypeople who actually express
themselves and their faith.
Brian Stiller (13:52):
How do you serve in the political enterprise when
you have this predisposition ofthe political enterprise to
secularity or the diminishing offaith in the marketplace of
ideas?
You're sitting there, you'reworking with your colleagues,
you're writing your speeches,you're pushing back or you're
(14:14):
advocating some particularpolicy.
How do you fit into that?
John McKay (14:20):
Not comfortably.
It's never a comfortable day tobe candid about it, but I have
to on behalf of my faith.
And my faith, colleagues, isassert ourselves that we have
every right, every right toexpress ourselves in whatever
(14:41):
way we wish to in order toadvance, whatever the idea might
be, and that's easier toarticulate than it is to
practice.
But having said that, I thinkwe have.
You know, I don't know, have wehad some successes?
I don't really know.
But you know, you're called tobe faithful.
(15:02):
You're not necessarily calledto success.
Brian Stiller (15:07):
Let me raise the issue of the pro-life,
pro-choice issue.
You are a member of the LiberalParty of Canada and the prime
Minister under whom yougenerally served through your
time, at least for 10 years, waspretty articulate that no
member of the House in theLiberal Party could be anything
(15:28):
other but pro-choice, but youstood out as remarkably as one
that didn't hew the party line.
How did that come about and howdid you survive and make your
point?
John McKay (15:44):
Yes, and I have the political career to show for it.
Mr Trudeau and I have knowneach other for prior to his
becoming the prime minister.
We do not see eye to eye onthis issue, I think essentially
I was grandfathered into theLiberal Party notwithstanding
that everyone knew where I stoodon the issue.
But that also had itslimitations.
(16:07):
But I adopt the Martin LutherKing approach, which is that you
know, if you're going todisobey the law, be prepared to
suffer the consequences and Iwould not analogize myself to
Martin Luther King by any means.
But you have to suffer theconsequences, and there were
consequences.
That's life.
Having said that, there's alsowonderful opportunities that you
(16:31):
continue to have in a caucusthat, and as particularly in the
government caucus.
I've done a complete circuit ofthe House of Commons, from
government caucus to oppositioncaucus, to third party status
caucus, back to governmentcaucus and, as the late Herb
Bray used to say, there's no badseats in the House of Commons.
And the interesting thing isthat at the end of the day which
(16:57):
is where we all arrive at minecoming very quickly people
respect you for how you stood upand said whatever it is you
said and how you said it.
I have not had a happy run,necessarily in terms of you
would see a regular career flowin the Liberal Party, but on the
(17:18):
other hand I've been treatedvery generously and we've had a
few successes along the way.
Brian Stiller (17:24):
OK, but this is a very contentious issue.
Yeah, and you've got a Canadiangovernment and we have no bill
with respect to the unborn, theMorgenthaler Supreme Court
decision, the attempt in 1990,bill C-43, to try and bring some
kind of amelioration to theissue by way of policy, that
(17:45):
died in the Senate.
So we live in a country thathas nothing on its books
respecting the protection of theunborn.
You serve for 27 years in aliberal party that espouses that
same kind of.
For 27 years you lived in aliberal party that espouses a
(18:05):
full pro-choice Right.
So all of that, how did you goabout living with that group,
living with the contentiousideas?
Can you be specific aboutthings that you would do or say?
John McKay (18:20):
Well, my first.
As you say, I'm going back to97.
In 1997, I had a good friendnamed Jerry Van De Zandt you may
or may not know him fromCitizens for Public Justice and
Jerry was in that.
One of my prime mentors thereyou are, and Jerry was in that
One of my prime mentors.
There you are, and Jerry, tothe day he died, said the
evangelical community is sostupid as to have not managed
(18:43):
the Senate vote.
Well, they could have made acompromise which would have
provided there would have been alaw about abortion in this
country, probably having to dowith trimester, and I always
kind of kept that in the back ofthe mind that we could have had
something.
But that ship sailed and thereis no possibility in the current
(19:12):
configuration of Parliament, orprobably the previous five or
six configurations of Parliament, of ever getting any law passed
with respect to abortion.
And so it speaks to an issue asto when you decide that I've
got as much as I can possiblyget.
And there I would track toWilberforce again.
So Wilberforce, as you know,was adamant about slavery in the
(19:35):
British Commonwealth, britishEmpire, for years, 30 odd years.
But at the end of the day hecompromised and he said OK,
we'll go with an abolition ofthe British slave.
Trade was abolished, then thevalue of slaves became worthless
(19:56):
and then for slavery, theabolition of slavery happened
after that.
So you have to make somestrategic compromises in
politics You're not always goingto get your way, and you have
to be wise Take what you can get, because you may not get
(20:17):
anything at all.
Brian Stiller (20:19):
Let me just bring clarification to 1990 Bill C-43
, the attempt by the Mulroneygovernment to bring forth a bill
.
That was a third way.
The Evangelical Fellowship ofCanada supported that as an
approach.
But it was campaign life, afundamentalist Christian
grouping, that persuaded acouple of senators to vote no
(20:41):
and we lost it on the basis ofone vote.
But the evangelical communityby and large supported that
third way.
It was this fundamentalism thatwas driven mainly within the
Roman Catholic church thatbrought the, the, the bill down.
So just just for clarification.
You were there, you were there.
John McKay (21:01):
Yeah, and and so so you can appreciate, jerry's
position was, I take it largelyyour position as well, that it
was there for the, for thetaking, and we got blown, we got
blown.
Brian Stiller (21:14):
Yeah, it was a sad, sad day.
Yeah, yeah, it was as grievousa moment as I can remember,
jacob, who was a senior memberof the cabinet.
I think we were tearful as wetalked by phone when we your
vision and insistence and yourpolitical skills in managing the
(21:35):
House Talk to me about that asat least one of your moments of
(21:58):
good memory.
John McKay (21:59):
Well, basically, for the benefit of your listeners,
bills divide into two categoriesgovernment bills and private
members bills.
So people who are not ingovernment, like myself, they
can propose private membersbills.
So I propose five.
One on fire safe cigarettes sodon't burn the house down when
you fall asleep smoking.
(22:20):
One on better aid bill, whichmeant that you know you had to
actually put your aid money andgive it to poor people.
What an idea that was.
And then the one which was aglorious failure and you learn
more from your failures than youlearn from your successes was a
bill called C-300, the bettermining bill, which essentially
(22:41):
said that if you're going tomine in somebody else's country,
then you have to comply withinternational human rights law
and don't degrade theirenvironment.
Otherwise don't come to thegovernment for consular
financial support.
What an idea that was.
We're not going to pay you toabuse people's human rights.
And then a fourth one was youhave to disclose any bribes
(23:05):
you've given.
That went down to gloriousfailure but ended up in a year
later in an omnibus bill in theHarper government, which was
fine that's after they crushedme in a vote.
And then the final one was asupply chain slavery bill which
essentially requires companiesof a certain size to disclose
whether they feel that they haveany slave products in their
(23:28):
supply chains, which is ongoingright now and is actually still
quite controversial.
But I think we're well, it isthe law and so let's see how
that.
So those are successes.
I would say Even the failureswere successes, because the
mining bill ultimately ended upin the Canadian Office of
Responsible Enterprise, andthat's an office.
(23:48):
So they on the floor of thehouse.
You have these successes andbut you have to kind of keep
worrying the things to deathbecause they go back into the
bureaucracy.
And this is this great morassof of people who may not be
quite as motivated as you are tosee that the bills have some
success.
It's been quite an interestingjourney and I and you know you
(24:13):
said well, you know you weren'tin government, you never ended
up in cabinet.
Well, what other cabinetminister has five bills to their
credit?
administrators five bills totheir credit.
Brian Stiller (24:31):
What?
was the kernel idea or situationthat gave rise to this bill
respecting slavery.
John McKay (24:34):
So finger your garment here.
Yes, Do you know?
whether that garment is made bya slave?
Brian Stiller (24:41):
No,
John McKay (24:41):
no, nor does anybody else who's listening to this
podcast, and I think that whenno had a starter, if you will, a
starter bill, which I thoughtwas a good idea.
(25:03):
Why does it appeal to mespecifically?
Because you know all of theinjunctions in the Bible talk
about slavery and how you'resupposed to treat people, and
that you know there's an appealto freedom and things of that
nature, and so it's kind of likeit seeps into your pores in
(25:27):
church and elsewhere.
And it also matches up with myinterest in human rights.
And you have to be able tostate to a post-Christian
citizenry why this is good forthem citizenry, why this is good
(25:48):
for them, and you frame it inhuman rights rather than, if you
will, a biblical framing, andso whether it's in human rights
or just is it good for business,these are the kinds of
arguments that you have to makein order to be able to say to
people we shouldn't be buyingslave products from anywhere and
this is the way that we canpurge our supply chains of slave
(26:12):
products.
Brian Stiller (26:15):
Speaking to younger people, gen Z, others,
who look at their country, lookat the world, have concerns and
interests and wonder aboutpublic service in the political
realm, as you have had.
What would you say to them?
What advice would you ask themto consider as they look to this
(26:41):
as a possible future for them?
John McKay (26:46):
I don't expect it to be easy.
It is fraught with varioustwists and turns that you can
never otherwise anticipate, andit's startling to get involved.
You know I don't really pick it.
If it's going to be partisanpolitics, we'll pick your party.
Brian Stiller (27:06):
But how do you know at what stage the party is?
Is it because you havefriendship with people in that
party, or is it is anideological value based decision
?
John McKay (27:18):
For some people to be ideological, a value based
decision.
Some of them just got fall intoit.
Some it's electoralpracticality.
You know, if I run as a liberalin Alberta I'm going to have a
very frustrated political career.
So you know, it's all of theabove, but do get yourself
involved.
Knock on a few doors, seewhether you like this stuff.
(27:41):
You better be prepared tohandle what people will say to
you at the doors, but also beinvolved with the local
executive.
Most writing associations arevery keen on younger people.
I've got a few in my writingassociation and I swear one day.
Well, one I think, is going tobe the next prime minister of
Canada and the other, I think,is going to make a pretty fine
(28:05):
MP.
But they've picked up a lot ofseasoning over the last few
years that would not otherwisebe available to them.
And then be literate, keep upon what's going on around the
world.
So that would be my generaladvice.
Brian Stiller (28:22):
You've had a remarkable career, John, 27
years with high credibility.
People may not agree with yourpolicies, but the enormous
respect right across thepolitical spectrum and through
that time you've maintained amarriage with a family and a
faith with a family and a faith.
(28:43):
What are the kinds of thingsthat have nurtured you in your
relationship and familyrelationship and in your walk
with the Lord?
John McKay (28:51):
Well, I'm very fortunate to be married to a
woman who is an extraordinarywoman, and Carolyn is the love
of my life and she has kept ourfamily glue together.
It's tough at the best of timesand she's done a marvelous job
at keeping us together.
So I feel blessed.
(29:12):
I know that word gets kind ofbatted around a little too
frequently, but I do feelblessed.
It's interesting in terms offaith expression.
I chaired the National PrayerBreakfast for a couple of years
and had the good fortune ofmeeting Romeo Dallaire as one of
my guest speakers.
His expression of his faith wasthe kind of the National Bird
(29:35):
Breakfast when 9-11 happened andin the US.
So I got to know the USambassador quite well.
Again, these are justremarkable experiences that you
don't otherwise have.
And then there's always thatkind of tingly, spider sense or
(29:57):
whatever, that you're kind ofdoing the right thing or spider
sense or whatever that you'rekind of doing the right thing.
It doesn't happen in my caseall that often, but every once
in a while you do have thatfeeling Okay, well, that was an
interesting thing.
And so, like a lot of faithjourneys, you don't know
actually where you're going, butwhen you look over your
shoulder.
You've probably been somewhereand maybe you actually did
(30:22):
something that was useful,
Brian Stiller (30:24):
john.
Thank you so much for joining ustoday on Evangelical 360.
John McKay (30:28):
Thank you, brian,
Brian Stiller (30:29):
and thank you for being a part of the podcast.
Be sure to share this episodeusing hashtag Evangelical360 and
join the conversation onYouTube.
If you'd like to learn moreabout today's guest, be sure to
check the show notes for linksand info, and if you haven't
(30:50):
already received my free ebookand newsletter, please go to
brianstillercom.
Thanks again, until next time.
Don't miss the next interview.
Be sure to subscribe toEvangelical 360 on YouTube.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!