More of the Same

[MUSIC PLAYING]

PETER HAYNES: Welcome to episode 43 of our monthly TD Securities podcast on geopolitics with our guest, the Honorable Frank McKenna. My name is Peter Haynes. And I'll be your host for today's episode, which we're entitling "More of the Same." Before we get started, I want to remind listeners that this is a TD Securities podcast that is for informational purposes only. 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, the title of this particular episode, "More of the Same," is really based on the fact that the themes we're going to be discussing this month have been discussed in previous episodes. But they all remain the talk of geopolitics globally. And these topics include war, climate, immigration, Canadian government issues, and, of course, President Trump. So let's start with climate. Personally, I'm really struggling to come to grips with the awful state of affairs across the northern hemisphere. Since we last spoke, just in North America, we've had the terrible fire in Maui that literally came from nowhere. We've had Yellowknife completely evacuated and fire just on the outskirts of beautiful Kelowna, BC. And, of course, the late breaking news is Hurricane Hilary is off the coast of California and now inland-- not Florida, but California. Frank, how much of our sensitivity to the weather issues that we're seeing today is our access to real-time play-by-play through Facebook and other social media platforms? And really, is that what's driving our view of things? Or are things really way worse today from a climate perspective than they were in the past?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, so it's a great question, Peter. I don't think there's any doubt that there's an amplification of what's taking place because of the availability of media to cover events all over the world. You could have had a horrific battle with thousands of people dead 20 or 30 years ago, and it would take days, sometimes even weeks for all of that to reach home. But now you've got microbloggers right on the battlefield. You've got the large networks carrying the news almost daily. In the case of Ukraine, you've got Zelenskyy offering an evening recap of the events every single day again. And so there's no doubt that we know much more and much more graphically about what's going on. But having said that, that simply represents a small piece of the puzzle. I think the real question is, is there something really going on? And I think the answer to that is yes. I think the evidence is incontrovertible. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe in fake science or any of that stuff. I do believe in science, however. And I think the empirical evidence shows that-- could be water temperature. They've had readings off of Miami of 100 degrees water. Well, we all know what that means. When the water heats up, means the hurricanes pick up energy, and they become more violent. And we saw one. I'm just looking out my window here, New Brunswick, and we just finished about a week ago, mopping up from Fiona. We lost part of our lawn. And we're 30, 40 feet above the ocean, massive rock barrier in front. And everything got turned. up. Everybody lost their steps along here. And this is a hundred-year event, but we're getting them every two or three years now. So we know that's going on. We know water temperature is heating up. We know the glaciers are melting, and ice caps are melting. We know that. We know the Northwest Passage is becoming available for shipping. So this is not fake science. The ice tell us that's happening. And I think we do know that we've got more fires and more floods and more hurricanes. And we just have to look at the news every night. The floods in Nova Scotia were unprecedented-- lives lost. The fires in British Columbia are unprecedented. What happened in Hawaii was unprecedented. We're seeing famine in some parts of the world, floods in other parts of the world. So I don't think it's just because we're getting more news. I think it's because some serious things are happening.

PETER HAYNES: So let's pick up on the forest fires, which, really, in Canada, where we're living right now, is probably topic number one from a climate perspective. There was, in an earlier episode-- I'm going to pick up on a comment you made. And that was that as Canada grows, the urban centers are naturally converging with forests, which pose new risks. How should governments across Canada think about climate risk as urban centers expand?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, simultaneously, you have an avowed public policy that's generally supported by the public of increasing our population in the country by up to 500,000 people a year. So these things are all happening simultaneously. But there's no doubt that urban expansion is encroaching on the countryside. And Kelowna, BC, would be an example. I bet that whole community of communities has exploded dozens of percents just over the last 10 or 20 years. Yellowknife, bigger community as well. Those are two examples where wildfires are encroaching. And I think we have to-- I don't want to be seen as a pure tree hugger or Bambi adorer, but we do have to remember that we're here as guests on this planet. And we need to think about flora and fauna. And we need to think about carbon sequestration, what happens when we dig up peat moss or when we cut forest or when we allow Arctic tundra to heat up. We need to think about that. We need to think about the deforestation of the Amazon, which is one of the great carbon sinks in the world. And I think that we need to-- very, very careful about encroaching on nature and practice good habits. Even in terms of forest management, we can practice good habits. The more we leave fuel on the floor, the more violent the fires are going to be. So forest husbandry, just like animal husbandry, leads to good results.

PETER HAYNES: Well, you mentioned immigration. And Canada has a policy of, I think, 500,000 immigrants here in 2024, if I remember correctly, or 2023. And it's no secret that these immigrants are settling in Canada, and when they do so, settling disproportionately around urban centers. In order to facilitate development of up to 50,000 homes, which is just a drop in the bucket of what's needed, the Ontario government recently decided that it needed to rezone some Greenbelt lands for development. I believe, in total, the amount of land of all the 2 million acres currently designated as Greenbelt around Central Ontario, it was 0.3% of the land that was being rezoned for development. And yet every aspect of this project seems to have generated controversy, most notably the fact that according to the auditor general's report, most of the land that was rezoned was recently purchased by just a few developers, who appear to have then used Ontario housing minister's chief of staff to ensure that these properties were amongst the short list of properties for rezoning consideration. Critics of the auditor general's report will argue that the end result of rezoning of Greenbelt land was the problem, no matter the process. What's your take, Frank?

FRANK MCKENNA: The auditor general's report, I thought, was pretty devastating for the Ontario government. I've always found auditor generals to be very critical of public policy. They kind of sit up in the hills and come down and shoot the wounded after things get done. And they've got a particular lens that they look through. But even having said that, it was very controversial. And look, it's a volatile mixture, always-- developers and fundraisers and land. Doesn't seem to matter, the parties or the place. When you combine all of those things together, there's always controversy because there's a lot of big money that's changing hands. My impression is it doesn't seem to have changed anybody's minds very well, anybody's mind, particularly in Ontario. They may relook at it and so on. But the premier seems pretty entrenched in the view that he has. So is it right or is it wrong? What I would say is this. My bias, having had the good fortune of being around the world in 80 days, is to keep as much arable land as possible for agricultural development or for simply green spaces or for forestry. We're not getting any more. We're not getting any more agricultural land and production. In fact, around the world, with famine and blight and everything else, we're seeing a lot of agricultural land that's not available. And we're seeing massive, massive disruptions in world trade in important food products as a result of the Ukraine war. Belarusian potash deliveries have been curtailed. Russian wheat exports as well, Ukraine exports. There's about 30% in those countries. It's almost one of the world's major breadbaskets. So it means there's less of these important commodities available. And then you got a country like India putting an export control on rice. And you have all of the recipe for starvation facing a lot of the world. So countries like ours that are well, well, well, and truly blessed, not through anything other than just accident of geography, that have large amounts of arable land, I think we have an obligation to preserve that arable land and that agriculture-producing land and help to feed the world. So I think, whether it's as a carbon sink or whether it's to feed the world, my bias would be towards protecting arable land as much as possible. We should learn a lesson from the Europeans, who, because they have such a large population on such relatively small amounts of land, really learned the importance of land conservation practices. And in Europe, you'll notice the villages are the villages, and the towns, the towns. And they don't encroach on the countryside. And the countryside doesn't encroach on them. That would be my bias for Canada.

PETER HAYNES: Yes, we probably take our beautiful geography for granted from time to time and never should. When it comes to the process, Frank, and the accusations in the auditor general report that one chief of staff was at conferences, meeting with various people who were handing him documents or USB cards or whatever it is, and next thing you know, most of the lands that were chosen come from those few developers who ran into that chief of staff at a couple of conferences, it sounds definitely not good. But is there something in this process that you think might have been done differently that could have avoided this controversy?

FRANK MCKENNA: I think so. The process can always be tightened up. And you really have to keep land development and developers away from fundraisers and political cronyism. It's just a bad mix. But you know, Peter, I've been around long enough to know that when there's smoke, sometimes there's fire. Or as John F. Kennedy said, sometimes there's just smoke makers. And you have to really try to sift through the evidence to find out which is the case here. If it's just based on appearances, the appearances are not very good for the government on this one.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah, we'll see whether or not it has legs. But obviously, as you pointed out earlier, the government, current government, has said they're going to go forward. They're not changing any of their decisions with respect to the areas that they've rezoned or plan to rezone. It'll be interesting to see if that does change or if there's more pressure put on by the opposition parties. Let's switch over to Trump. I said I'd mention Trump again because we have another month gone by, and we have another indictment. This one's number four. I think everybody who's following Trump understands, and they've heard about it in the media, that this particular indictment is different than the others, and primarily different because it's in Georgia. It's at the state level. And neither Trump nor any other president might have the power to pardon Trump because it's a state-level offense. I'm curious, what angle of the Georgia case do you find most interesting? And who has the best take on all of the Trump indictments, or maybe even specifically, the Georgia one that you've read to date?

FRANK MCKENNA: Just in terms of who, I think Maggie Haberman of The New York Times is by far and away the best journalist when it comes to covering Trump. But I also read Bret Stephens, who's a Republican, and Maureen Dowd, who write a column together, who have had really good insights. OK. There's a lot to unpack here, and I'll get right at it. The Georgia situation is important for a number of reasons. One, it's largely a Republican state. It can't be argued that this is a case of liberal cronyism leading to these charges. Secondly, it's being prosecuted under the RICO statutes, which are anti-racketeering statutes. And there are 18 co-conspirators named in the indictment as well. So it's a very, very wide brush and a very aggressive brush that's being put on this. So that's taking place under RICO. What Trump is doing is very simple. He's going to litigate and litigate and litigate as much as he can. He learned this strategy from his father, who had Judge Roy Cohn as one of his counselors. Accuse everybody else of what they're accusing you of. Delay. Litigate. So they'll want to delay. And that's part of the strategy. Secondly, and you'll see it now with Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff, try to move it into a federal venue. And that does two or three things. One, the Northern District, which a federal indictment would take place in, is tending to be much more red in Georgia, whereas the Fulton County district, where the jury panel is currently scheduled to be impaneled, is either blue or purple. So that makes a big difference. You get a different judge. There's some suggestion that judge shopping would be favorable to the president. I'm not sure that's the case. The judge he would get under a federal prosecution would probably be a judge who's been appointed by Obama and would not necessarily be somebody that he would want. What's at stake here? It's a really, really important question of law. This removal statute, allowing you to move prosecution from the state to the federal level goes all the way back to the Civil War. The whole purpose of it was to protect the operations of the federal law from Southern states who were arresting people trying to carry out federal functions. So the genesis is very interesting. The argument the president will make, and Mark Meadows and others-- they were simply doing their job. The president would say, I'm simply doing my job as protecting the integrity of the election process. His prosecutors will argue, you were doing exactly the opposite of your job. You were trying to basically steal the election by subverting the rule of law. That is a legitimate argument to be heard in court. But delay will be the inevitable outcome of some of these motions and procedural arguments. The stakes are very high, just in terms of conviction. Having a different jury panel could be important-- but also in terms of the pardon process. In many of the other indictments against Trump, he has access to the federal pardon process, meaning that if he's the president again, he could pardon himself. I think there would be great outrage over that. He may not care, but I think there'd be huge outrage. When Ford pardoned Nixon, even though it was a different president, there was still considerable outrage. He did it, in my view and his view, because he thought it was good for the country. But it destroyed him politically as a result of that. What we have to understand is that if this goes ahead as a state prosecution, even though the governor has some pardon room, it's largely in the hands of parties outside of the governor. And it requires a five-year waiting period. In other words, you have to show good behavior through some five years before you can be pardoned at the state level. That's a long time for a 79-year-old to be behind bars. So the stakes are very, very high. And I think that Trump and his team will join forces here and do everything in their power to delay and to obstruct the process of this prosecution.

PETER HAYNES: You mentioned the Civil War, which I believe was the genesis for Article 14 of the Constitution. And just recently, some conservative judges have weighed in. I think there's an article in The Atlantic suggesting that Trump's behavior around January 6 should disqualify him from office, regardless of the outcome of his trial. It appears that this legal position will be pressed forward and only ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court. Do you agree that Trump's eligibility for office will ultimately end up in the hands of a Supreme Court that he, himself, tilted to the right?

FRANK MCKENNA: We'll cut to the chase. I don't think Article 14 will ultimately prevail here. It's a qualitative question as to whether or not his conduct was such that it was seditious and should disqualify him. And it could end up in the hands of the Supreme Court. But it would take a long time to get to that level. And I'd say an election would be well and truly be behind us. Having said that, I suspect some of the issues that are extant here will end up before the Supreme Court. And that could be the question of state or federal jurisdiction. Or presidential ability to pardon himself could end up there. Probably just the immunity that a president might claim for himself might end up in a Supreme Court. So I think the Supreme Court will probably end up weighing in on different aspects of the prosecutions against Trump. But I don't think that Article 14 will be persuasive in terms of stopping him.

PETER HAYNES: So Frank, I've read a few times that Biden or any other president, even if Democratic, would likely pardon Trump. Do you agree with that?

FRANK MCKENNA: Look, I think that if he is convicted of a fairly minor technical offense--

PETER HAYNES: Like the first one.

FRANK MCKENNA: Like the first one, out of all of the offenses. It's possible that another president of another party would pardon him. Yes. Usually, that's done in order to restore social peace, quite frankly, in the country. And so that's possible. In this case, the offenses are of such a magnitude, and there are so many of them, and the blood is boiling so hot, it would be hard today to see a circumstance under which a future president could pardon somebody like Trump. I think there'd be massive outrage within the body, public, as well as the political-- the constituency of the president. So it gets down to a qualitative situation, how minor the offense might end up being out of all of the offenses in which he's charged. But at this stage, I think that's a very unlikely result.

PETER HAYNES: It's mind-boggling how many qualitative decisions are being made based on Constitution that's supposed to be upheld and straightforward. But it's obviously not. OK. So you mentioned conspiracy theories. You're not a believer. We don't normally talk about conspiracy theorists on this podcast. But I do want to talk about a rather famous person who, or at least a person with a famous last name, who we can put firmly in the camp of a conspiracy theorist. And he is running for the Democratic nomination. His name is Robert Kennedy Jr. He's known, I think, as RFK Jr. And he's also known to be one of the leading US environmental lawyers. He's had some success in trying big cases. Kennedy is also-- Robert Kennedy, RFK, is also known for other conspiracies, particularly around the CIA's involvement in his own uncle's, JFK's, death, where the origins of COVID were from, vaccines in general, and some pretty strong conspiracy theories with respect to the war in Ukraine and how it started and why. What are your thoughts on RFK, and does he have a chance at all to disrupt the Democratic nomination?

FRANK MCKENNA: He's not a serious candidate. He doesn't have a chance. He's trading on his name. He wants to be relevant. We all do. He wants to be relevant. He wants to have some platform on which to stand. The only reason why he's become an object of some considerable curiosity is because of his name, number one, because there's a marketplace for conspiracy theories, number two. And number three, a large number of the public aren't satisfied with either of the presidential candidates and would really like to have another choice. So he's polling at up to 20% within the Democratic party. And it just shows there's a thirst there to try to have fresh blood. But I think there's no chance that he could proceed further and get the nomination. His entire family, en masse, have repudiated his views and he as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, as have many others. All profess love for him as a family member but profoundly disagree with his views on any of the conspiracies that you've mentioned before.

PETER HAYNES: I guess, at the end of the day, the real disruptor in the election in 2024-- and I'm sure we'll spend more time on this. I know our colleague, Chris Krueger, from Washington Research Group, a division of Cowen, certainly has been spending a lot more time talking about Cornel West.

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. A third and fourth party candidate, for that matter, could swing the election. Al Gore lost the election because of the Green Party. Hillary Clinton lost the election because of the Green Party. I can just state that empirically, categorically. You just have to look at the numbers. And categorically, I think one could say that Ross Perot ended up costing the Republicans an election. So a third and fourth party candidate here, either the No Names Party or the Green Party, could definitely take a lot of votes away, probably from the Democratic Party because a lot of independent voters and/or soft Republicans who could not tolerate voting for Trump would like to find a landing spot. So yeah, it could be quite influential in the election, no doubt about it.

PETER HAYNES: So speaking of the Republican Party, I've got a question for you, Frank. Wednesday night is the first Republican debate. Jays versus Orioles or the debate? What are you going to be watching?

FRANK MCKENNA: I'm going to watch the Jays. And I'll watch the replays on the debate.

PETER HAYNES: OK, Frank. Let me try a second question. If Trump was on the stage, would that change your mind? Would you be watching in real time? FRANK MCKENNA: I'd flip back and forth if that were the case. I do like my Jays. And the political debates-- look, I've gone through half a dozen of them. They're very stressful when you're in them. And they're almost as stressful watching. I'd prefer to see the replays. But if Trump were there, I would probably flip back and forth, trying to see if I could catch some grenade going off.

PETER HAYNES: OK, so you would favor Republicans in 30 over Jays in 30. I get it. I like that. So speaking of events that are happening this week, the Liberal Party, Trudeau, has a cabinet retreat taking place in PEI. And the headlines today reflect the growing sentiment in Canada that the government, between the government's fiscal policies as well as the Bank of Canada, are the reason for inflation. So we know that Trudeau has told all his cabinet ministers, you got to find a way to cut, cut, cut. And we need to cut $14 billion out of the budget. I'm curious, in your view, do you blame the Canadian federal government for the state of inflation in Canada right now? Or is this something that is beyond their control, given it's a global phenomenon?

FRANK MCKENNA: I believe it's a global phenomenon. I believe that disruption in supply chains, deglobalization, nearshoring, war in Ukraine, pandemic, all of those things have been major contributors and that we are only one of-- every country in the world is experiencing inflation. Having said that, that does not mean that people do not blame their government for inflation. That's true in the United States, where Biden, in spite of quite an impressive legislative agenda, is running at very, very low levels, and in Canada, and in the UK, I might add, and other places. And our government in Canada is wearing it. There's no doubt about it. I had dinner with some ministers last night here. And I just had a minister at my house for the last couple of hours. So we've talked a lot of politics. Inflation is clearly a headline risk for this government. They know it. And they know that they have their fingers on some of the things that people blame for inflation. One is immigration. You mentioned 500,000 figure, which is up from 420, let's say. That, in some people's minds, is making it more difficult for them to get access to a job or to get access to housing. Then you've got the housing crisis. And people would say that's, again, the responsibility of government. And then, of course, you've got fuel prices, which people would blame and point the finger at carbon pricing. So the government knows it. The ministers talked to me at length about it over the last day or two. They know that they're squarely on the hook with Canadians and that Canadians right now are in a very anxious frame of mind. And they know they have to give the appearance of caring about the issue and of trying to introduce some measures that could attenuate the issue. And there have been some tax credits for food that have been introduced. I know they're looking at other possibilities. But it's really hard, Peter, I might say, to try to tame inflation in one country unless similar efforts are taking place around the globe. Very hard to be the only country that gets control of inflation.

PETER HAYNES: Let me just ask you, Frank. Are there any other key themes that you're hearing from some of the ministers as they're approaching the meeting in Cornwall, PEI?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, well, we've talked about one of the key themes is inflation. Another key theme is immigration. For the first time in a long time, we're starting to see less social license to continue the immigration numbers. I don't think there's outright hostility, but I sense everywhere that there are more questions being raised, more eyebrows being raised about immigration. At the same time, a lot of our employers are still having trouble getting workforce. Housing is a big issue. It's a headline issue. People in a certain demographic-- let's say 25 to 40-- ministers tell me they're really getting a lot of blast back from them regarding access to housing. So those would be some of the headline issues. An interesting question is defense spending. The world has become a more dangerous place. Some of the cabinet believes that Canada has to step up and spend more on defense, whereas others would sooner choose better in that guns are better economic question. So those would be some of the issues. And then there's personality issues. There's no doubt that the government believes its major opponent, Poilievre, as being further right-wing than the Canadian average would be on that. And so the question is whether or not they actively get out there and try to define him or simply let nature take its course. So that's tactical. It's not a public policy issue, per se. It's tactical. But that'll be one of the things discussed as well.

PETER HAYNES: So as we finish up, Frank, in the "More of the Same" category, we'll talk about two summits that are taking place, one this weekend and one next week. The summit that took place this past weekend at Camp David was involving the leaders of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. And the allies came out of this meeting agreeing to strengthen military ties-- and some have now described this agreement as a NATO for the Pacific-- and, of course, to condemn China's dangerous and aggressive behavior in the South China Sea. And, of course, meanwhile, China's engaged in some war-game testing in the area while this summit goes on. Do you think it was a smart move to hold this summit and poke the Chinese?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think the way you've phrased the question, there is an element of provoking the Chinese with the summit. But having said that, it's precisely for that reason I think the summit was important. And I would come down on the side of holding it. What it does is show solidarity. It shows solidarity between countries that have not been in solidarity, powerful economic countries. But South Korea and Japan have not been BFFs. There's been a long record of antagonism there, going back to Japan's colonial occupation of Korea. There's been efforts made at rapprochement in 1965 and in 2015, but they didn't go very far. So these Camp David principles that were developed out of this last session are about the furthest we've seen the relationship go. And the commitment to a common security strategy will be a clear, a very clear message to China that you cannot count on Western allies being split on this issue. The same way that NATO turned out to have a high degree of solidarity in dealing with Russia, the United States wants to make sure that we project the same solidarity in dealing with the Chinese, in the hope that that, in addition to some other things, will help stand the Chinese down when it comes to invading Taiwan.

PETER HAYNES: So meanwhile, there's another summit that's taking place, and it's coming up in a few days. And that's in Johannesburg, South Africa. And that's known as the BRICS summit of emerging market countries, which is held annually. One of the themes of this year's event is finding ways to reduce dependence on the US dollar, including, in particular, on trade between two BRIC countries. Also, they're talking about expanding the BRIC alliance. So as BRICS GDP crosses over G7 GDP, does this make you think about a world where the US dollar is no longer the default currency? And what does that world look like to you?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, it makes me think about it, but don't think that's going to happen. The idea that the US buck would be displaced has waxed and waned for dozens of years, and nothing has come of it, and I don't think anything will come of it this time. I can understand why nations would want to talk about it. And I can even understand why there's some very antagonistic nations to the US that would want to lead the charge, but I think that it's highly unlikely. A lot of the participants have their own share of problems. If you look at Latin America, Argentina now is circling the drain. Brazil has got a huge amount of infighting taking place. South Africa's got its share of problems around scandal. India has got all kinds of issues that it has to deal with-- the domestic Khalistan issue. And China has got growth that's heading south at an alarming rate with lots and lots of problems. And Russia-- Russia, you've seen the ruble in freefall in Russia. And we know that the general economic trajectory in Russia is straight down. It's depopulating at an alarming rate. And it's going to turn up an awful lot of its national wealth, prosecuting this war. So I don't think the players are particularly credible to bring this up. And I don't think it's going to happen.

PETER HAYNES: And it is interesting, the fights that go on within those entities. China and India don't seem to agree on too many things. You have the other countries, like Brazil and South America-- South Africa, I should say, that are careful. They want to be on a line there. They don't want to totally alienate the Western world but maybe not rely on it as well. So it is an interesting tightrope walk that the various countries are playing in this summit. So we'll continue to watch that part of the world. Let's finish up on talking about the Blue Jays. So we won 2 of 3 over the weekend in Cincinnati. And now we're enjoying another day off here on Monday. And we're about to head to Baltimore, where we're 2 and 8 on the season against the Orioles. And they just don't look like they are a team that anybody's going to catch in the East. We are currently 1/2 of a game out of the Wild Card. And it looks like Seattle might never lose again. But keep in mind that Houston is now only one game ahead of us. It is quite unbelievable, this AL Wild Card chase. 35 games left in the season, Frank. Are we going to make it?

FRANK MCKENNA: I think we'll make it. It'll be a lot of shifting of positions. And just looking at baseball Sunday, look how the Yankees have fallen. And look at the New York Mets. So people, they catch a star, and they take off. I think we'll make it. And I think we'll make it for one reason. Our pitching is superlative. We were worried at the beginning of the year. And I still worry about Manoah. But Manoah would be a bonus. Then we'd have six quality starters. Ryu's last outing, I thought, was very impressive. So we got five quality starters and maybe a sixth. Bullpen is very deep and very talented. And we're starting to see the bats coming back. So I'll just lay it out there. In my view, it can all rest on the shoulders of one Blue Jay, and that's Vladimir Guerrero. You've got Merrifield carrying his weight. And you certainly have Bichette carrying his weight, some of the other players starting to assert themselves. Belt's carrying his weight. But Guerrero is having a poor year by his standards. He should be at 40 home runs instead of 17. He should be batting .300 instead of in the .260s. If he catches fire, we're going to win. We're going to get in the playoffs with ease. If he stays as cold as he is, we're going to be struggling right up to the end.

PETER HAYNES: I was going to accuse you of recency bias because we scored 10 runs or whatever it was against Cincy on Sunday. But then I listened to your entire argument, and I will buy it. You are right. Our entire season is going to rely on Vladdy being Vladdy and not being what we've seen, which is a shell of himself over the last, really, month. His highlight of the season was winning the Home Run Derby, and yet he's not hitting for power. There's something there, Frank. I can't figure it out. Maybe there's too many voices in his ears. I don't know. But his performance is below par. So let's hope that everyone else can pick it up and carry on. And so a month from now, we're going to be down to about the last week of the season. That's going to be a fun discussion. Hopefully, we're in the driver's seat at that point and not chasing because it is going to be a fun month of baseball. As always, I appreciate your time, Frank. Enjoy the rest of your summer on the East Coast. And we'll see you soon in Toronto.

FRANK MCKENNA: 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.