Breaking Down a Russian Coup Attempt

[MUSIC PLAYING]

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, I don't think the end is near for Putin. I think that we need to be careful in thinking that this is anything more than a daylong or two-daylong drama.

PETER HAYNES: Welcome to Episode 41 of our monthly TD Securities podcast on geopolitics with our guests the honorable Frank McKenna. My name is Peter Haynes. I'll be your host for today's episode like I have been for the previous 40. And I know Frank and I are always saying, we can't believe we've got to 41, and we're going to do 41 more and keep going. It's been a lot of fun learning myself from a geopolitical expert and great friend in Frank McKenna. And I really do look forward to today's discussion because we've got a lot of interesting things to talk about. We've entitled this particular episode, "Breaking down a Russian coup attempt." And that's certainly hot off the presses. Before we get started, I want to remind listeners that this TD Securities podcast is for informational purposes. The views described in today's podcast are of the individuals and may or may not represent the view of TD Bank or its subsidiaries. And these views should not be relied upon as investment, tax, or other advice. Well, Frank, they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. But someone must have taught you how to get on LinkedIn. I was impressed that you've now joined the so-called Facebook of the business world. It's amazing, frankly, as I'm now on there as well. So I'm kind of joking a bit that I'm also that old dog, but how easy it is to connect to friends and finance through the LinkedIn medium, and how powerful it is. So it's great to see you learning some new tricks.

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, no. Thanks, Peter. I'm learning from you. I just need to learn some balance.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah, no. That's absolutely correct. I think everybody that's active on social media would say the same thing. It's very difficult to find that proper balance. And, frankly, when I see people in the industry spending all their day tweeting, it just makes me wonder what they're doing at their day job.

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. [LAUGHS]

PETER HAYNES: So well, we need to start in Russia here, Frank. There was some startling developments over the weekend. What do you make of the mercenary army in Russia known as the Wagner Group? And it's apparently turning on Putin, marching towards Moscow in a coup attempt, and then abruptly stopping, apparently to avoid, quote, "bloodshed," according to Wagner's leader, Evgeny Prigozhin. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you saw this weekend play by play.

FRANK MCKENNA: This is really the latest chapter in the drama that's been playing out between Prigozhin, Putin, and some of his generals. For us who value law and order, especially when it comes to our armed forces, it's just a shocking way to manage things. Essentially, Putin seems to like to have a sea of rivals out there and so that he can set one off against the other. And so, he's got his own generals and he's got, of course, the Wagner Group headed by Prigozhin. And the whole idea that you would have a mercenary group within a regular conflict zone is pretty weird in itself. It's not something that Western armies would be used to at all. But Wagner is, in many ways, probably the most effective fighting force that Russia has. And we should know that Wagner is just not-- they just didn't show up in Ukraine. They've been fighting all over the world, and fighting in Syria, and fighting in Africa. And they're very, very capable, tough, but also cruel, and vicious, and mercenary, as the name would suggest. I've been watching the things that Prigozhin's saying, which would get him fired in 99 out of 100 organizations, openly defying his political masters. And I think, at some point, perhaps he went too far. He pulled out of Bakhmut, and now it looks as if the regular Russian army are losing some ground there. So he doesn't like that. And he doesn't like the fact that he's not being respected, et cetera, et cetera, by the Russian army. He doesn't like the way they're going about their business. But I think the real casus belli here was an attack on his forces from behind, whether it was intentional or not. At one point he said, 2,000 troops were killed from incoming friendly fire. I think that number is much lower. But there does seem to be a number. And I think that really antagonized him. So he marches across the Russian border right into Rostov, which you would think would be an armed fortress because it's the headquarters for the Russian effort against Ukraine. But he marched straight through there and they seem to have given him a bit of a hero's welcome with garlands in the street, and then announces they're marching to Moscow. And they came within probably two hours of Moscow, going totally unimpeded down the road. A few helicopters tried to stop them. I think they blew one of them up and some other equipment. So they probably would have been able to make it into Moscow. But so here's where I would unpack this in three or four different ways. One, this is definitely a sign of weakness for Putin. The fact that the entire world, including people he relies on for allies, would see this should be embarrassing to him. It definitely would be considered a morale-booster in the Ukraine. Any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine. And the unrest in Russia, they would see as good. But I think, Peter, that we need to be very cautious in interpreting these events in a positive way. Lukashenko, who is the head of Belarus, apparently negotiated a cease-fire, or come-down, in which Prigozhin has agreed to go to Belarus as an exile. First of all, that's suspicious. Why would anybody in their right mind want to go to Belarus in exile. This is a man who's traveling all over the world. He's got huge amounts of money. Why would-- nothing against Belarus. But why would he not want to go somewhere where he can flash his money and his influence? Secondly, the fact that he's going to Belarus, Belarus is a country that is on the edge of rebellion at any given moment in time. And if he wanted to, if he has 25,000 fighters go with him, he could take the government over very easily. So if I were Lukashenko, I'd be worried about that. Thirdly, is this a way for a good fighting force, like the Wagners, to be in Belarus and attack Ukraine from Belarus? That would be very bad news if that were the case. And then, fourthly and fifthly, what happens to him? Is everything OK? Are he and Putin best friends now? Or is he going to end up finding himself drunk one night and falling off of a 10-story building, which is quite common now with these rich friends of Putin. Or is he going to take some medicine that turns out to be poison? Or is he going to be assassinated in some other way? I would say that he's vulnerable. And I would say that we need to know what's happening to his army. He's got 25,000 men that are loyal to him. Are they going to be absorbed in the Russian army? Or are they going to become freelancers? Where are they going to go? So at the end of it, I would just say that we have a lot of questions, all of which concern me a great deal. And I would say this with some authority, from having watched Trump over a period of time, people with massive egos are simply unable to stay out of the news. And so, Prigozhin will be back in the news. And he will be back in the news in some way that will be dramatic. So stay tuned.

PETER HAYNES: How much do you think the Americans knew about what was going on inside Russia? I know there was some whispers that there was going to be a rebellion and that Prigozhin was a loose cannon. Do you think they had really good intelligence on this process as it was going along? Do you think they have a lot of boots on the ground in Russia right now?

FRANK MCKENNA: They knew about this before it's going to happen. They knew in mid-June that this was going to happen. I think they have a combination of human intelligence assets. Some of that would be inspired from Ukraine, who mix interchangeably because of their language facilities in Russia and Ukraine. They could very easily be a listening post. But there would also be signals intelligence. The most sophisticated listening programs in the entire world are run by the Americans. And virtually every telephone call, everything would be intercepted. We know that days before the Wagner Group even moved into Rostov, and then on to Moscow, thousands of them called home to tell their families that they would be seen in the news. Something big was up, that sort of thing. Let's talk about the submersible that sank. And three or four days were spent searching for it, as was appropriate, and it was tragic, and all of that. But we do know now, the Americans knew it sank the moment that it sank. Their acoustic devices are so sensitive and strong that they were aware that there had been an underwater anomaly the moment it happened.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah, it is impressive. I agree with you. When people talk about this being a chink in the armor and showing weakness for Putin, you hear, I guess, the British foreign minister had some comments similar to that today. I'm curious if you think this is wishful thinking for the Western world? Or should we truly believe that the end is near for Putin?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, I don't think the end is near for Putin. I think that we need to be careful in thinking that this is anything more than a daylong or two-daylong drama. He has all the levers of control of the Russian people. And he has the army at his disposal and their Secret Service. But, also, he's got a population that by every poll supports what he's doing, in large measure because they don't know the rationale from doing it and why the Ukrainians are fighting. So they're starved of information. And he has a very high degree of control over his population. So, no, I think that we're in this quandary for some time to come.

PETER HAYNES: Well, they got a little glimpse through social media and Prigozhin's influence locally there. We'll see whether or not that pervades. I'm always curious, Frank, when there's major developments around the world happening like this, where are you looking for your information? I'm curious where you turn to right away.

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, so I'm a total news junkie. And on something like this, I was basically absorbing, I guess you could say, just breathing news all day, all the time. I was watching the usual channels on TV, the CNNs and ABCs and everything. I find I tend to go to a little more esoteric sources. The Institution for War publishes real-time information about conflict zones. And they're excellent. The BBC is excellent too, I must say. We have a New Brunswicker, actually, who's their chief war correspondent, Lyse Doucet. I find their information very strong. The Guardian, I think, have done a good job. They've got about three or four reporters embedded in Ukraine. And Reuters seems to be up there. And Wall Street Journal, even though they lost a reporter there, they seem to have pretty current information as well. So I usually put together a variety of different sources. Sometimes you need to try to iron out some of the biases that we all have when we're reading this news. We want Ukraine to be doing well in these battles. And in some cases, they're not doing as well as we would like. And it's important that we know exactly what is going on there.

PETER HAYNES: Well, we'll see where we're at a month from now whether or not the story is totally died down or whether things continue to flare up locally in Russia. So let's switch gears here and talk about Trump, because he had a busy month as well. His legal woes continue. He's obviously now got a federal indictment against him for his mishandling of the classified documents, the so-called Mar a Lago documents. So legal experts might have suggested that the New York case against Trump for illegal campaign donations around the Stormy Daniels payoff by Michael Cohen, that was not a cut and dry case, or is not a cut and dry case. That said, most pundits suggest that the Federal case on documents is a very strong case for the plaintiff. And we know he's got another outstanding case in Georgia over election interference that will come to a head sometime in the next few months. So it really is looking more and more like Trump will be convicted. And one thing I'm personally starting to worry about is the risk of an uprising in the US. As we're talking about uprisings in Russia, it's amazing to think we might think about the same thing in the US. But in the event that Trump is convicted and sentenced to jail, I saw one comment made by a member of the NRA recently, I think after the Federal indictment, and it was, quote, "If you want to get to Trump, you're going to need to come through me." Am I fear-mongering, Frank?

FRANK MCKENNA: I don't think it's fear-mongering. I don't have as negative a final conclusion. But there are dozens, hundreds of militias training in forests all across America. And our hope is, of course, they never see fit to mobilize out of their secret hidings. But there are a lot of people who are ready to defend the country. So we just have to keep that in mind. That would be something that the Secret Services of various kinds, FBI and so on, would be monitoring all the time. I think your assessment is right. I think the Florida-- leave aside the legal. Let me talk about the political for a minute. New York was just dismissed as a liberal judge and a liberal jurisdiction, liberal jurors, et cetera. In Florida, you just can't say that. It's going to be a very conservative judge, a judge Trump appointed, in a very, very conservative district. The talking heads, Fox News, et cetera, they lose quite a bit of their outrage over that. And it's also, I think, a serious case. Increasingly, responsible Republicans are saying, look, if this is what he had-- nuclear defense options, of course, information about enemies and so on-- then this was wrong. And, of course, complicating it all, of course, the fact that he refused-- not only he refused to give the documents back when asked. But it would seem that he had moved them. So I think that he's losing some of his fig leaf of justification there. The Georgia ones will be difficult for him because they have his own voice in evidence. And they have some people that will be turning state's evidence in that case. But, also, because it's a Republican State. And so, if anything happens there, it will reflect quite badly on him. And, of course, the Washington case is serious just because of the gravity of it. We're basically talking almost sedition, overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. So I don't know what'll happen there. That'll be a complicated thing to prove, I'm sure. But all of this inevitably will affect his run for the roses. I've never seen any candidate with as much Teflon as he has. And, in many ways, it seems to strengthen him with his core constituency. What worries Republicans and, quite frankly, worries a lot of Americans, is can he ever break out of his base constituency with all of these attacks against him and actually start picking up suburban women, picking up educated populations, independents, et cetera, and many Republicans who are outraged by his behavior. So that will be the question. Certainly, he certainly has all the potential to win the primaries. He's well, well ahead in that. And if all of those delegates stay in the primary, he would easily win. I think what we'll see-- and we should watch in the coming weeks and months-- is more and more candidates dropping out, trying to get down to one or two top-drawing candidates who can actually beat him. I still have so much respect for America. It's a country of law and order. It's a country with a strong military who do follow orders, and an armed forces, and including the people who police the cities and so on. So I think, when all is said and done, that there will be lots of talk and lots of inflammatory comment but that people will accept the rule of law.

PETER HAYNES: Yes, I agree with you. I do believe that that will be the outcome. Let's stick to the US geopolitics for a second, Frank. I want to get your take on Antony Blinken's recent trip to China, where he met with his counterpart. And he also met with President Xi, which was not a certainty when the trip started. And it was described overall as productive talks. I know you're always of the opinion that adversaries speaking to each other is a positive thing. We need communication. Are you encouraged by this trip?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, very. I thought it was wonderful. The timing was good. Blinken was going to go over there before. But the so-called Chinese balloon that had come across made it difficult politically to do that. Remember what was here, not only did he have his meeting with the Chinese official who is his counterpart, but President Xi ended up joining the meeting. And that's a very big signal, because he's joining the meeting with lesser individuals, but he's signifying the importance of it. Biden made a slip in his use of words in a speech, which was unfortunate. But leave that aside, I think Biden is gearing up to have a one-on-one with Xi as well. And the other thing that I want you to notice is that there are some civilians who are going to China on business and who are going to be meeting with the president, which is good. The Bill Gates, for example, and I believe that Jamie Dimon was recently there, and Elon Musk. But this helps bridge some of the bridges as well. We just have to have more people engaged and talking. And talking is good. I think it was Winston Churchill said, I'd rather jaw, jaw, jaw, than war, war, war. And it's absolutely true. You need to talk. And we need to-- as our Minister of Global Affairs says, we need to isolate those issues where we can agree and work on the issues we can agree on, whether it's climate change issues or feeding nations and so on. There are always areas that we can agree. And we need to work hard on those, build relationships on those.

PETER HAYNES: So let's take a flip side here. Some recent comments from the now centenarian former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

FRANK: --Minister of Global Affairs says we need to isolate those issues where we can't agree and work on the issues we can agree on. Whether it's climate change issues or feeding nations and so on, there are always areas that we can agree. And we need to work hard on those, build relationships on those.

PETER: OK, so let's take a flip side here. Some recent comments from the now-centurion, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, were interesting with respect to being concerned about China and the China-US relationship. So a recent interview, or recent interviews, that Kissinger took part in referred to the relationship between the US and China as, quote, "the greatest dangers to peace right now." He's worried that these two countries are heading towards a major confrontation because both nations have, quote, "convinced themselves that the other represents a strategic danger." Do you put much stock into Kissinger's concerns? And I must add, as well, he's worried about a bit of a Frankenstein-type of a scenario involving AI contributing to a future confrontation.

FRANK: The alchemy of that is so complex that we could end up having any-- is he talking about AI creating some kind of a bot attack that brings on other attacks or ends up screwing up missile launches or whatever? There's so much there. But let's forget that. I have a lot of respect for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. But I hope that both sides will understand how important it is that they work together. China right now is going through an unprecedented recession type of scenario, a low-growth scenario. They really need investment. They probably really need Western investment. So they really need us. And quite frankly, we need them. When the Chinese economy goes in the tank, the whole world slows down. We need them. We just need to understand that there's room on the planet for both of these countries, that any friction they have should not be military, that it should be just legitimate competitive friction around the economy. That would be my hope. I'm hoping that Kissinger will also remember a comment he made. In fact, I was at the session that he did it at. I wrote it down. I'll never forget it. He asked Zhou Enlai about the impact of the French Revolution, which had happened two or centuries earlier. President Zhou said, well, it's still too early to tell. So I'm hoping that, as usual, the Chinese have a long, long view of the history and, if they're talking about a confrontation, that it's hundreds of years down the road.

PETER: Yeah, let's hope we can punt that issue. I want to pivot to Canada here, Frank. I was in New York a couple of weeks ago. Really, the only thing missing on the day I was there were the zombies. It was literally apocalyptic. It was the worst smog rating in the entire world. And it was caused by the smoke from the Canadian wildfires. It made it literally impossible to be outside. As you know, the New York Yankees canceled a game. And there's that now-famous picture of the Yankee Stadium on a normal day and on the day where the sky was orange. And I was there that day. And I admit it was quite a scene. And I will say the weekend I've just spent up here in Huntsville, yesterday got pretty close to what I saw in New York. And it's clear that the fires that we're dealing with and the smoke problems are not one-and-done issues. So I know that Prime Minister Trudeau is considering a cabinet shuffle over the summer. There's been some talk about that. And there has been some talk about adding some forces to dealing with the issue of climate change and its impact on our forests. What can the Trudeau government do, Frank, to deal with the wildfire issue? Because this is not something that's going away, and it is something we're going to have to learn to live with. I'm curious what you would like to see our government at the federal level do.

FRANK: Yeah. No, it's not going to go away. This is the worst year ever in the history of Canada. I think we've got something like 17.8 million acres that have burned down. And weather now is unpredictable. In fairness, we've had forest fires for hundreds of years. In many cases, they've been natural, and they just take place. But as civilization gets closer to the forest, of course, that becomes a big issue, as well. But when I was a teenager, I fought a forest fire. We were looking for volunteers. And it was a heck of a lesson for me. We got caught in behind the fire and came roaring out in the back of a gravel truck, going through the flames. It scared the, as we say back home, the bejesus out of me. But it gave me a taste of what fire is like. And it's horrible. It's terrible. And it's destructive. The trouble is it's seasonal and intensely seasonal. It might be every three or four years. It might be every year. How do you man up for something which is so asymmetric? BC has 1,000 people working. Ontario has 700, I think, full-time firefighters. But for a lot of provinces that rarely have this kind of an event, it's difficult to staff up. Nova Scotia got hit hard. We had a lot of our New Brunswick people went down there. And we would have more people on one base in New Brunswick than they would have in the entire province fighting forest fires because they don't have them very often. We've got a very sophisticated operation. We've had it ever since 1952. We've got a fleet of air tractors, AT-802S's the world's largest single-engine tanker. And so we take them into Nova Scotia or PI, wherever it's needed. But we've got bases set up all over New Brunswick because we're a large, forested province. And the forests are largely groomed forest. And so if you lose them, you lose a lot of money. So we've got bases set up with refueling facilities and all the rest of it. I think we would be at one end in terms, probably, of the sophistication because of the need. Nova Scotia right now may be at the other end because they haven't had much going on. But I think we do need some kind of national effort, a national coordination, some kind of a national command post. I don't know what the government of Canada has in mind. It could be that you designate some of your armed forces as being experts in forest fire fighting or some way of bringing together all of the forces. Now, a lot of this happens, you should know, automatically. We are out fighting forest fires in other countries all around the world all the time, as Canadians, because we're good at it. And we've got these big tankers, the C-130s, I think they call them, that swoop down and fill their belly with water just by skimming along a lake and then drop the whole thing-- amazing planes. We've had them over in Australia and around the world. And so it's not a surprise that right now, we have Australia and France and the US, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Chile, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, all represented in Canada. They're all coming here to work. But make no mistake. This is not charity. We are active in all of those countries, as well, whenever they have a forest fire situation. So to some extent, in an ad hoc way, there is a very coordinated response to these forest fires, with all countries throwing their resources into the country that needs it the most. But could we perfect that? I'm sure we could. And the other debate this opens, Peter, and I won't dwell on it because it's very controversial, is how you manage the forest. If you accept the view that old-growth forests should be just left as old-growth forests, as part of some respect for the heritage and so on, you can be sure that those old-growth forests do what forests do. When they reach a certain height, they become dead. They fall down. And then you've got a forest floor full of fuel. The other argument would be the people that run plantations say a very, very clean forest floor. And when the trees reach a certain level, they're cut. And it reduces the forest fire hazard. So that gets you into much more controversial territory about what is the best way to manage the forest. And you're running up against environmental issues, conservation issues. But it's a debate that we probably should have, as well, in trying to figure out how to tackle these forest fires.

PETER: Yeah, we need to have these debates. We can't hide behind the complexities around them and not also take them personally. We are coming up on Canada Day, Frank, so I thought I would hit you with a couple of trivia questions today. So let's see how you do. I think the first one should be a layup for you. I hope I'm not wrong here. What were the four provinces that were part of Confederation in 1867?

FRANK: Well, this is one that we almost always get wrong-- Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec were the four provinces. But some people think Prince Edward Island. But Prince Edward Island held out for a better bargain, so they came in later. And some people think Newfoundland, but Newfoundland didn't come in until 1949, I think it was. So it was the four-- it was what we call Upper and Lower Canada.

PETER: Yeah. OK, I'll give you a check mark there. But I was going to be upset if you didn't get that one right, given your background.

FRANK: [LAUGHS]

PETER: So let's start question number two. Canada hit 40 million citizens about 10 days ago. Within a range of three years, what year do you think we hit 30 million?

FRANK: Oh, I think we hit it around 1997, I think it was.

PETER: That is the exact year, so another check mark for you. Now, what are the forecasters suggesting when Canada will hit 50 million? FRANK: Obviously, it's more art than science, but I think around 2040, 2041, we should hit 50 million people at the rate that we're going on now.

PETER: Yeah. The number that the article I read was 2043. And there's a reason, of course, I'm asking these questions. And it comes down to a recent article in Bloomberg, where former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge was quite critical of the Trudeau government's immigration policies, suggesting that the current government had gone too far too fast with immigration and not giving the economy enough time to adjust to the added population. Further, the recent immigration push might have increased economic output but actually not improved living standards in Canada. What's your take on, first of all, David Dodge's view around this particular topic and whether or not you agree that Canada might be rushing immigration, not allowing things to settle in and allow for that transition to take place?

FRANK: Well, I love David Dodge. He's one of my very, very favorite people. And I always listen when he speaks. But on this one, I would differ from him. I think our increased immigration has been good. I don't think it's finite. We have to constantly make sure we're absorbing immigrants, providing opportunities for them, and giving them the tools they need. The other thing we need to do is to deal with the issues of accreditation effectively. There's nothing more destructive to somebody's sense of self-worth than being underemployed in your country. I can tell you that the minister of immigration has seized with this. Because he told us an anecdote this weekend at a conference we were at. He said there's a running joke that the safest place to get a heart attack is in the back seat of a taxi in Toronto because you're almost certainly going to have a doctor in the front seat. That, in itself, is too revealing, the fact that you could even make a joke about something like that. Bottom line is I run into underemployed people all the time. I think this one is getting solved. I was really impressed when Nova Scotia just opened up the Commune and said anybody in Canada that is accredited as a doc is going to be a doc in Nova Scotia, and anybody in the United States. He might have even gone further afield. They're going to get a lot of doctors in as a result of that. And then a lot of doctors are going to come in and get accredited in Nova Scotia and then go backwards and get accredited in Canada. All of the government should open that up. They should open up accreditation for pharmacists, for doctors, for nurses. There should be, perhaps, the most minimum of testing and further work. But we should definitely do that. We should carry that on with engineers and tradespeople and other people. The professional associations, they have a role. But their role is to get to yes and not to get to no. And their role is not to try to protect their members from competition. And I think in Canada, we've got the tail wagging the dog. So I say, yes, continue with more immigration. But yes, let's do a better job of absorbing the people that are coming in and making sure that we address accreditation as quickly as possible. We need doctors, nurses. We need a lot of people. And look, the flip side of this is that we don't have this kind of immigration, we don't have this kind of population growth. And if you look around the world, even the United States is short thousands of workers at the present time, millions of workers at the present time. Italy's short workers. Japan's short workers. All kinds of countries are short workers because they do not have as much sophistication as we have around our immigration policy and as much social license around the immigration policy. So we should take advantage of that while we can. And they do bring growth, and growth is good. And look, you've had the pleasure in Upper Canada-- we call it, still, from down here, I'm down here today-- of having the most cranes in North America and all the rest of it. And across Canada, everybody's doing well. The last few years is the first time we've been tasting this fruit in Atlantic Canada, and we like it. We are short of workers in every industry in Atlantic Canada. But now we are getting a massive wave of immigration coming in here, a population increase that's made our cities the fastest-growing cities in Canada. And we like it.

PETER: So one of the other aspects of this debate is the fact that most of the immigrants are actually going into urban centers. And that's causing issues with respect to affordable housing, maybe crowding out others that want to get their-- want to buy their first house, and it's just simply too expensive. What can we do to get more people into rural territories?

FRANK: Well, it's interesting. For decades, immigrants were coming to Canada, and they were going to three places-- Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, highly disproportionately. And those cities all, quite frankly, blew the lid off in terms of growth. The Atlantic Immigration pilot is now shoving a band of immigrants towards Atlantic Canada. And they're sticking here. And it's making a huge difference. That same program has been considered so successful that it's now being taken and directed towards rural parts of the rest of Canada, specifically addressing your issue. And that is that we have the tools to push immigrants towards more rural parts of Canada, and we should do that. It would take the pressure off Toronto. It'd help a place like North Bay or Hornepayne or a place like Hamilton grow. It would be good for the country. And quite frankly, it would provide many immigrants with a great opportunity in an area that's underserved.

PETER: North Bay, according to FireSmoke.ca, I believe that was the epicenter yesterday of smoke in Ontario, not too far from where I am here. OK. So Frank, the other thing I should say just before we leave this topic, it's absolutely amazing, with the growth of population in Canada, that in my kids' lifetime, Canada will be the third-largest G7 country in terms of population, where today, we're seventh. We're going to pass France, Germany, and the UK in short order. It's unbelievable how our population is evolving. And we definitely have to use the space that we have available to us. So I'm going to finish up on baseball here, Frank. And I want to ask you another question. What do the Tampa Bay Rays, Minnesota Twins, Cincinnati Reds, and Arizona Diamondbacks have in common?

FRANK: Well, they're small markets.

PETER: That's correct. They're small markets. But they're also small markets that are in first place in their division, which is, frankly, unbelievable when you have the Yankees and the Blue Jays in the American League East, Chicago White Sox in the Central, the Saint Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs in the National League Central, and you have the Dodgers and the Giants and the Padres in the National League West. And those four teams are winning. And you're right. They're all small-market teams. So I was listening to an interesting interview on the weekend with Hall of Fame pitcher John Smoltz. And his take was that the new rules are promoting athleticism and are becoming an equalizer. So historically, you buy home runs. You pay Aaron Judge whatever, $350 million, because he hits home runs. The reality is the game's becoming more athletic. It's not just about home runs. There's lots of stolen bases happening. And I love that aspect of the game. It's really cool to see. I'm curious, what's your take, Frank? We're coming near the halfway point of the 2023 baseball season. Are you happy with the brand of baseball you're seeing played each and every day?

FRANK: As a general proposition, I am. I like the fact the game's been speeded up. I'm probably not the only one in this world that just feels that we have less time. And so I like the game to go quicker. I like that. I like some of the other rules that I think have worked very, very effectively. And I do believe that we are seeing more athletic players. And whether it's the rules or the way the athletes are trained or something, it's amazing. And I love watching really great athletes playing baseball. They just do things differently. You know what? A Kevin Kiermaier catch now is just maybe more exciting to watch than a big home run from Matt Chapman. And the fans go crazy when they see some of these great plays, although sometimes, I think Toronto is a big market that thinks it's a small market. But I'm generally happy with some of the-- with the composition of the team, the Whit Merrifields of the world, Kevin Kiermaiers, Daulton Varsho. They're really athletic players, and they look good out there. And guys like Springer are, as well, and Bichette. And Guerrero, for a big guy, is amazingly aggressive and quick and Espinal, as well. Cavan Biggio can steal bases. So I think they're generally-- with the exception of Kirk, they're generally built for that kind of baseball. And I think the fans love it. They love the sensational fielding, and they love the aggressive base running, and they like stolen bases and the bunts from time to time. So I think, generally, it's good. And look, when you see the New York Mets with their payroll languishing, you know that it's more than about payroll. It's got to be about something else, as well. And there's so many new players coming into the league, I can hardly keep up with them. They're hitting for the cycle or they're stealing home base-- young, brash kids that are really setting the place on fire.

PETER: Yeah. You just watch the College World Series that's finishing up today to see LSU with the top two picks likely and then Florida with the third pick. And just they come in with a lot of confidence, Frank. And we have to accept we might not like it from an old-school perspective, but it's good for the game. It really is. So I'm going to ask you to do some homework in the next month. July 31 is the trade deadline. I'd like you to come at our present-- our discussion towards the end of July prepared with your list of trades that you'd like to see the Jays make, assuming they haven't made any blockbusters by the time we speak, which will be around this time next month. You'll have a few days ahead of the trade deadline. I'd like you to come and propose a couple of trades you'd like to see the Jays make to make us better.

FRANK: Yeah. Well, I think if a couple of people would play to their potential, we'd be a lot better, anyway. We've got some talent.

PETER: We do. And we do have some players coming back from injury, too, with Hyun-jin Ryu and Chad Green coming in July, potentially. So that'll help. I'm looking for you to do some homework. And I figured you'll be armed. I'll come with a trade proposal, as well, and we can debate that next month. So hopefully, you enjoy your time in Cap-Pele this summer. And hopefully, for all of us, we can get some weather improvements and get some of these fires doused here. As they do say, it's going to be a long, hot, and dry summer, which is concerning. So with that, Frank, I'll look forward to speaking to you again next month.

FRANK: OK. Thank you.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

This podcast should not be copied, distributed, published or reproduced, in whole or in part. The information contained in this recording was obtained from publicly available sources, has not been independently verified by TD Securities, may not be current, and TD Securities has no obligation to provide any updates or changes. All price references and market forecasts are as of the date of recording. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are not necessarily those of TD Securities and may differ from the views and opinions of other departments or divisions of TD Securities and its affiliates. TD Securities is not providing any financial, economic, legal, accounting, or tax advice or recommendations in this podcast. The information contained in this podcast does not constitute investment advice or an offer to buy or sell securities or any other product and should not be relied upon to evaluate any potential transaction. Neither TD Securities nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or any information contained in this podcast and any liability therefore (including in respect of direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage) is expressly disclaimed.