Canada's Acute Case of Tariffitis

FRANK MCKENNA: It was chaotic because the PMO did not seem to be prepared for this eventuality. The same thing happened 49 years ago.
PETER HAYNES: Welcome to the December episode of Geopolitics with the Honorable Frank McKenna. My name is Peter Haynes at TD Securities. And I host this podcast series each month, where we get to hear perspectives from Frank on global geopolitical issues. And I must admit, we're going to spend most of our time on issues that relate to Canada today for obvious reasons, because we're having some issues in Ottawa. Frank, just before we get to the meat of it, how are you doing?
FRANK MCKENNA: Really good.
PETER HAYNES: Excellent, OK. Well, we're going to test you on all aspects of the Liberal Party and goings on in Ottawa, relationship with Trump, tariffs, Syria. Lots of things to cover in this particular month. So let's get started.
I'm going to focus on, to start with, what I'm calling Canada's acute case of "tariffitis." It's an ailment without a known cure. And it seems to be spreading like wildfire in Ottawa currently. "Tariffitis" is clearly a concern to the Trudeau government, and rightly so. And this appears to be part of the reason for some changes to the Liberal Party's cabinet that were announced in the past couple days.
So I'm going to level set. First of all, Canada's minister of finance, Chrystia Freeland, was scheduled to deliver the fall economic statement on Monday at 4:00 PM. And at 9:00 AM on Monday, she resigned from cabinet, leaving Prime Minister Trudeau and the rest of the Liberal leadership scrambling.
No one knew who would deliver the economic statement. And meanwhile, reporters were in lockup waiting to review the 270-page document. Eventually, they started to get to work, and the statement was introduced into parliament. And I think that was a session that Prime Minister Trudeau was actually not in. And there was no accompanying commentary.
It turns out now, in hindsight, that the prime minister and Freeland were at odds over spending, as Trudeau was spending on what Freeland called, quote, political gimmicks aimed at staying in power. And she wanted to keep Canada's powder dry. In fact, it turns out that on the Friday before the economic statement, Trudeau had actually told her he was going to remove Freeland as finance minister after Monday. So Freeland front-runned that announcement with one of her own, and chaos ensued.
Meanwhile, also on Monday, another former rising star in Trudeau's orbit, Minister of Housing Sean Fraser, resigned from cabinet. And he plans not to run again in the next election. So with all that said, Frank, what do you make of the past few days in Ottawa? And where do we go from here?
FRANK MCKENNA: Peter, it's probably been as chaotic a day or two in Ottawa as I've ever seen. I was meeting with Canadian premiers. The Council of Federation was in Toronto on Monday. And I was briefing them on trade issues.
And in the course of the conversation, everybody's iPhone started blowing up. And people were running around and talking about events in Ottawa that were transpiring as we carried out our meeting. So it was dramatic. And I could tell from the stunned look on all the premiers' faces they found it dramatic and traumatic.
Bottom line, I guess the universe is unfolding as it should be in a democracy. The rule of law prevails. And the rules of parliamentary procedure prevail. And democracy emerges intact.
The minister clearly had a difference of opinion with the prime minister's office with respect to what we call the so-called "stocking stuffer pledge," which was to give a two-month holiday on certain items during Christmas to stimulate demand and address affordability issues. She thought that was excessive. My conversations with other ministers tell me that this was not out of Finance. This was out of the PMO. And it was a poorly thought-out scheme foisted on the Department of Finance, which the Department of Finance didn't like one little bit.
It was not widely discussed with provinces. Five provinces with harmonized sales taxes weren't even consulted on it in advance. It was poorly thought through. And of course, she didn't like it and made it clear in the media over a period of a week or two she didn't like it.
And then, on top of that, I think there was a concern which we now see-- [CHUCKLES] --in full bloom in the newspapers that she was not Trump's favorite person to be involved in negotiating on the tariff file. At any rate, the prime minister made a decision over Zoom call to take her out of her portfolio and offer her something that would have no resources and really no title. Appropriately enough, she said no, she wasn't going to accept that or the direction of the government, and she resigned.
So it was chaotic because the PMO did not seem to be prepared for this eventuality, much to my shock. It's the first thing one should have found predictable, that the minister would resign under those circumstances. The same thing happened 49 years ago when Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, was the prime minister, and John Turner and he had a very significant policy difference, and John Turner resigned. So, like father, like son. It was all very predictable.
And the prime minister seemed totally shocked, didn't have a plan B. And as a result of that, of course, they summoned into service Dominic LeBlanc, a very faithful and loyal friend of the prime minister's, who, at some point during the afternoon, was sworn in-- was asked and then sworn in as the Minister of Finance.
PETER HAYNES: Frank, how can Dominic LeBlanc have three platforms to be focused on, or three files to be focused on, and actually give the attention necessary to the budget? I think we've seen the Canadian dollar fall a cent since then. It's below $0.70.
FRANK MCKENNA: Yes.
PETER HAYNES: They overshot on the budget nine months after Freeland said the guardrails would be, what, $40 billion. And they came in over $60 billion. These are big misses. And it would seem to me that the person that's responsible for that file going forward needs to be doing it full time. What can you tell us about how much time he'll be able to devote to that file?
FRANK MCKENNA: It's a great question. It gives me a chance to talk about Dominic LeBlanc because he wouldn't be as well known to a lot of our listeners. Dominic is an extraordinarily capable minister and member. I would say the closest comparison I would make is Jean Chrétien in terms of the breadth of his knowledge. He's been in numerous government departments. He's been around government for most of his life.
His father, of course, was a former governor general. He's fluently bilingual, effortlessly bilingual, has a Harvard LLM. I would say close to encyclopedic knowledge of government, highly retentive memory. And all of those are gifts which are extraordinarily important, but not the greatest gift of all.
His superpower really is his charm and his humility and his communication skills. He is really well liked across partisan lines. When I talked to the premiers this week, they all talked about Dominic LeBlanc as somebody they'd love to have actively involved in negotiating for Canada because he has got a wicked sense of humor. And he's very charming, very sociable, and very respectful.
He's a good person. Can he handle all of that? I don't think that he'll have to. A cabinet shuffle will be taking place. That could happen this week, although that's a little less likely. But it could certainly happen over the next two weeks. So some of those responsibilities will be moved elsewhere.
He does have the bandwidth to be minister of finance. And he's a quick enough study, I can assure you, that he can do what he needs to do with respect to finance and also take on the role of negotiating for Canada with the United States, if that is what the prime minister wants.
PETER HAYNES: Notwithstanding Prime Minister Trudeau's closest allies in cabinet, it seemed to me that it was as close to a cabinet revolt as I've seen. And he already was facing a bit of a caucus revolt. My question for you, Frank, was were you surprised that he did not resign yesterday? And are you expecting him to go for a walk in the snow sometime in the next little while?
FRANK MCKENNA: The answer is yes. I do think that he'll do a walk in the snow. And yes, I was surprised he didn't resign. I had texts in from two ministers who said they expected him to resign before the day was over. And I think what he's done is bought some time because the House will be adjourning. And presumably everybody will be off on holidays for the next couple of weeks. But I think that it's quite inevitable that he will end up resigning.
He didn't end up pulling off the coup that he was trying to pull off, which was to swap out Chrystia Freeland for Mark Carney. He has Dominic LeBlanc as the finance minister and a gaping hole in his credibility. So I think it's going to be very hard for him to sustain himself. Now, as you know, I've counseled that he should have resigned some time ago. And unfortunately, this is late in the game. But I think that is the likely result of all of this.
PETER HAYNES: I know Americans like to refer to politics as civics. And I took a civics 101 course. And we don't necessarily use that term in Canada. But I admit, I'm sure a lot of people were doing what I was doing yesterday-- was trying to figure out what people can and can't do going forward.
In theory, you can have a cabinet minister that is not an elected official. In theory, you can have a prime minister that's not an elected official. But they would have to run in a riding in order to be able to speak to parliament and the like.
You mentioned Mark Carney's name. And obviously that's a name that's been in the press a lot. In theory, Trudeau could have brought Carney in to be his finance minister even though he wasn't an elected official, at least temporarily. Is that correct, Frank, just in theory?
FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, that is correct. It's a great question. And it is correct. And in fact, that ask was made of Carney. And he was offered that position for a period of five months, at which time it was expected that there would be a general election or he'd be expected to run in a by election.
It's been used rarely, but it has been used. The last time it was used was by Prime Minister Harper, who, after his election, ended up being short of seats and, in fact, having no seats in Montreal. So he appointed Michael Fortier, who was a senator, into his cabinet. And that was roundly criticized by Liberals and others as not being democratic, although, by convention, it can be done in this country-- rare, but it can be done.
PETER HAYNES: Is it too soon to speculate on who would run for a Liberal Party leadership in the event that Trudeau resigned? Or should we save that conversation for down the road when we actually know when that's going to happen?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I have a pretty good idea of who would be running just based on my mailbox-- [CHUCKLES] --in the last day or two. And I think it's fair to say there is interest from the usual suspects, which would include Chrystia Freeland, Anita Anand, Francois-Philippe Champagne, Mélanie Joly, Sean Fraser even, Dominic LeBlanc, Mark Carney.
And I'm not sure who I haven't named, but these are all people that are extraordinarily talented and have expressed varying degrees of interest. But when all is said and done, Peter, I can assure you a lot of those names will fall away. People can read the room. They realize that this is a very difficult time to be the leader of a political party, either in Canada or, in fact, anywhere in the world. A number of them opt to be the second owner of the hotel rather than the first owner.
So when it's all said and done, we'll have a smaller cast than the ones I've talked about. And of course, Christy Clark has made it clear that she's going to be running, former premier of BC. And there will be lots of other names.
Steve MacKinnon has done very well in his portfolio as labor minister in the short time he's been there. He's fluently bilingual, represents the Quebec riding but is an anglophone from Prince Edward Island. A lot of people will probably consider it. But at the end of the day, it's not a great prize at the present time.
PETER HAYNES: It gives us something to talk about, that's for sure. We'll have some fun in 2025, handicapping that race as it unfolds. OK, so let's just park that for a moment. And let's also park the "tariffitis" jokes which I started with.
At the end of the day, I think most Canadians believe that the government in Canada is in a no-win situation. It wouldn't matter who our government was, as we're dealing with the potential tariffs that President Trump has been musing about, and in particular the 25% tariff that he would place on January 21 on both Canada and Mexico unless we figure out how to control migration of illegal immigrants as well as the movement of fentanyl into the United States.
So this is obviously-- I think we all know in Canada, it's not a northern-border problem, which puts Canada in a really awkward situation. Yet this uncertain outcome makes business investment decisions for Canadian companies very difficult. And it is going to start to show up in the numbers. Frank, let me start by asking you if you think that Prime Minister Trudeau made the correct decision in proactively visiting Mar-a-Lago to kiss President-elect Trump's ring.
FRANK MCKENNA: I do. It was humiliating. But sometimes it's a mark of leadership when you're prepared to do something which is humiliating for the good of your country. And I thought, on this one, Trudeau did what was right for his country.
PETER HAYNES: Yeah, and is it-- in hindsight, should we have been thinking, why is Chrystia Freeland not there? In hindsight, do you think back to why she was not part of that dinner? Was that done on purpose, do you think?
FRANK MCKENNA: Yes. Yeah. I'm not sure I want to pursue that much further, but I know why she wasn't there. It was not a mistake.
PETER HAYNES: President-elect Trump made some comments on social media yesterday suggesting that he was quite happy that she was gone. And as a Canadian negotiating that, I actually think I wish she was still there in the sense that if he didn't like her, that means she did good things for Canada in the negotiations in 2018.
FRANK MCKENNA: What you're saying is totally accurate. But the question I think our government would have to answer is, do they really want to put up as their major negotiator somebody who is viscerally disliked by the counterparty? It's an interesting question. You could argue it either way. But the decision was made that she would not be going to Mar-a-Lago, knowing the disdain that President Trump had for her.
PETER HAYNES: Really, really interesting. You're right. That would be one the pundits could talk about forever. OK, so after Trump's first term in office, I think Canadians really learned a lesson that it would be a mistake to dismiss any of his rhetoric as idle chatter. With that said, it has been kind of interesting to listen to various provincial government leaders that you just spoke to in the last couple of days across the country who are weighing in with what Canada should do to counter any of these potential US tariffs.
Some leaders are suggesting we should beef up security at the border and add resources to root out drug trafficking, which President Trump is looking for, while others believe counter-tariffs are the proper response. It seems, in my opinion, that each of the provincial leaders' position is based on what might be in the best interests of that particular province, even though they're all saying this is a Team Canada response.
So you were joined, I think, by some of the other former ambassadors to the US when you were speaking at the meeting of the provincial premiers. I'm curious, what advice did you give them? And what plan do you think Canada will actually do in the event that Trump moves ahead with tariffs?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, Peter, if you don't mind, I want to take some time on this because I think it's really, really important. First of all, we all indicated we didn't think the premiers should amplify the claims of the president or the United States about the border because they have very little credibility. And it doesn't help if we end up piling on.
Secondly, we urged premiers to try and think country first and not to be offside with the government of Canada. We have a national government for a reason. And it's because the provinces all have their own individual stakes and interest. And we need a national government to sort that out. And there has to be some respect for that legitimate role.
When I was in Washington fighting on softwood lumber negotiating, I used to get people always calling me up from the softwood lumber industry and saying, why don't you cut off their oil, Frank? Or, Ambassador, why don't you cut off their oil? And what I found very quickly is that people always want to play with somebody else's assets. And that's what's happening here.
Obviously, Quebec doesn't want dairy touched. Alberta doesn't want oil touched. Other provinces don't want certain commodities touched. So we have to be careful that that doesn't become more important than the national interest here, which is to protect all Canadians.
So simply put, all of us spoke to premiers and beseeched them to keep the Canadian and national interests first. But let me just talk to the issue for a minute, Peter, because what the president is alleging and proposing is outrageous. And if this were a court case, I'd be moving for summary judgment, saying there is no merit to it.
25% tariffs, if this went ahead-- and it's not going to-- if this went ahead, a 25% tariff against Canada and Mexico, the two biggest trading partners of the United States, would plunge the United States into an inflationary spiral, probably spike the dollar. It would crater our dollar and create economic havoc that would not be in the interest of any of our countries. You know how quickly a dollar can respond to certain provocation. And in this case, this would be highly provocative.
So here are the facts. The facts are, in 2023-- the last year we have information available-- 2 pounds of fentanyl were apprehended at the Northern border-- 2 pounds. In fact, the northern border was described by the customs services in this way-- said "minuscule and trending downwards" in terms of fentanyl at the northern border. Southern border-- 26,000 pounds were apprehended.
In terms of migrants on the Southern border-- 2.1 million. In the northern border, something like 21,000. Half of those were Indian nationals or Bangladeshi nationals as a result of some paperwork errors that were made by Canadians coming out of the pandemic-- easily remedied and will be.
Now, to tackle that problem, the government of Canada has voted $1.3 billion. We'll be buying Black Hawk helicopters and drones and surface vessels and doing all kinds of sensory oversight, as well, all designed to try to eliminate any provocation at the northern border at all. But you have to put this in context, Peter. It is minuscule, de minimis, compared to what the United States experiences on the Mexican border.
And furthermore, I have to stress this. Theoretically, it's the Americans who should be defending their border and making sure they stop either drugs going across or illegal immigrants going across because we have a problem that's even worse on the northern border involving the United States of America. There's more crystal meth coming across from south to north than there is fentanyl. We have guns coming across that are involved in 70% to 95% of our homicides, all being smuggled in from the United States of America.
When Trump lowers the boom on immigrants and does this mass deportation program, we'll have literally hundreds of thousands of migrants trying to cross that border. And so if the United States is taking the view that we're responsible for stopping all of these things on the border, then we appropriately can take the view, you are responsible for guarding that border against illegal immigration coming to Canada, guns, cetera.
So he's got a very weak hand there. And the trouble is it's a distraction from the real game, Peter. And the real game is to try to put tariffs up against countries that have large trade imbalances with the United States. If you read Lighthizer's book or listen to any of the rhetoric from Americans, they don't like the fact they got a $750 billion imbalance in trade. So that's the real game.
And on that, Canada looks extraordinarily good. China has got a $280 billion trade imbalance; Mexico, 152 billion; Vietnam, 104. And you go through the list. Canada's is only around $60 billion trade imbalance. And that is on the largest trade relationship. So as a percentage of the total trade, ours is in single digits. Whereas a country like China is at 50%, and Vietnam 80%, and so on.
So it's a minuscule trade imbalance between Canada and the United States. And then if you go further into the qualitative nature of that trade imbalance, China has a $300 billion trade imbalance, largely for manufactured goods that are going into America and, quite frankly, displacing American jobs. Mexico, similarly, their massive trade imbalance is manufactured goods. Ours is all around oil.
Our trade imbalance involves $120 billion associated with oil going to the United States, which they use to create jobs in the United States in their refineries and in secondary industries. So if you stripped out oil, the United States has got a huge imbalance with us going the other way. We should be the ones looking for tariff protection.
So the United States doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to Canada. And it makes me angry that we're even in the same conversation as some of these other countries.
PETER HAYNES: I can sense your blood boiling, actually, Frank. And I happened to be listening to the premiers when they were doing their summary of the meeting. And Premier Smith made a specific comment about, I liked what Frank McKenna said about being front-footed with respect to how we approach the Americans. What did she mean by that?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think we need to be more assertive. We need to marshal the facts. The facts are strongly in our favor. And we have to get these facts in the editorial pages in the United States and with senators and congressmen and governors and right up to the presidential level because, based on the facts, there is no case, zero case.
If we were to turn around and say, OK, we'll stop sending oil to the United States, well, the United States would revolt over that. They'd say, well, we need your oil. All of our refineries in the Midwest and the Gulf are geared for heavy American crude. We provide 25% of the refining capacity in those refineries in the United States. 60% of American energy exports are from Canada, and they need them.
So we did make a mistake, Peter. And it wasn't a mistake we knew we were making. The Trans Mountain Pipeline that we built cost, I don't know, $35 billion. And you know the reason why we built it. And that was to divert oil out of the US into the Pacific Basin so that we could end up attracting world prices. So we've got almost a million barrels of oil a day headed to the Pacific Ocean, the Trans Mountain Pipeline. And guess what.
PETER HAYNES: Hard left.
FRANK MCKENNA: Hard left.
PETER HAYNES: Yep.
FRANK MCKENNA: Most of it is headed right back to the United States of America-- California, Washington, even up to Anchorage, Alaska. 60% of the cargoes as of last Friday were headed to the United States of America. I mean, if we could divert all of those cargoes to Pacific destinations, that in itself would dramatically impact the trade imbalance.
So America's got to be careful what it wishes for here when it comes to Canada because we are a breadbasket for that country, sending our raw materials in-- potash and oil and gas and electricity-- to create opportunity and jobs in the United States of America. That's why we need to be front-footed.
PETER HAYNES: The chaos in Ottawa is not helpful right now, obviously, in terms of being able to properly message our response to the United States. Frank, I'm going to move on. We've definitely cut up enough of the issues with respect to the issues in Ottawa and against the United States. So I want to move to, just as we're nearing the end of our podcast, towards some international issues. I'm going to talk about South Korea. And then we're going to go to Syria.
So let's just talk about South Korea for a second. I know that there's been a lot of countries, including Canada, which are having budgetary problems. We're seeing that in France and Germany and even the UK, where Starmer had some problems when he handed out his original budget.
But in South Korea, President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law followed by his decision to recant. And it created a massive aura of uncertainty over a country that desperately wants to be considered a developed country by the rest of the world and seems to be constantly stubbing its toes. People will say democracy won in the end in South Korea. Do you agree?
FRANK MCKENNA: Yes, democracy won in South Korea. President Yoon didn't like the opposition being too aggressive on a couple of matters involving his ministers and even his wife. And so he ended up declaring martial law. And in a democracy, that, of course, is just about the most unthinkable thing.
And all of the opposition parties combined after that and voted non-confidence in him and ended up impeaching him. And the end result of that is very democratic. His powers are suspended. A new prime minister, Han, was appointed. And the case is referred to the Constitutional Court. So process was followed. And I think the end result is a very democratic result.
PETER HAYNES: Well, OK, let's hope that, should we see-- just some of the rhetoric that we hear in other governments around the world seems to be more geared towards fighting with citizens within the country, particularly around freedom of the press. Do you have any concerns in the United States with respect to some of the actions of President Trump with respect to threats on the media and the like?
FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, we don't have a long enough time in this podcast for me to tell you about all of the concerns I have with the appointments, with the attack on the FBI, with the attack on the press, with retribution that is going to be taking place. I don't think it's going to be pleasant to watch.
And by the way, you mentioned a lot of other countries. And so Canada should understand we're not alone in going through some turmoil. France has just had it over budget matters. Germany has just seen its government fall over budget matters. The UK government is already in some trouble over budget matters.
Let's face it, we went through a pandemic, two years of isolation and anger, but also two years of big spending in order to keep the economy stimulated. And the end result of that is that countries all over the world have a big hangover. And political leaders are paying a price for that.
PETER HAYNES: Well, in one country in the world, they're rejoicing right now, and that's Syria. And the question is going to be whether or not that ability to rejoice continues. So let's just talk about the warp-speed changes that we're seeing in the Middle East.
So geopolitical experts believe that the reason why the Assad regime in Syria fell, and it happened in such a short period of time, was that its two main allies, Russia and Iran, were preoccupied and they told Assad that he was on his own. And this gave the HTS rebels an opening. And they quickly moved into Damascus and toppled the government.
So there's been some school of thought traveling around social media that the US government had a hand in this regime change. But President Trump said in his comments recently that he suggested it was actually Turkey that executed a, quote, "unfriendly takeover." What do you think happened, Frank? Was the CIA involved? And what do you think developments in Syria mean for the two flank wars in Israel and overall stability in the Middle East?
FRANK MCKENNA: So, Peter, I can be quite categorical on this. But I can't disclose my information. Suffice to say that I feel like I've got really strong insider information. And based on that information, I would say that Turkey was not involved, had nothing to do with it. The CIA had nothing to do with it. Israel had nothing to do with it. The United States had nothing to do with it.
What happened was a shock, even to the rebels themselves. The rebels set out to take back part of Aleppo. This rebel group actually ruled a small part of Syria with about four million people and did it quite successfully. So they're not strangers to governance. They controlled a province of Syria before.
They set out to overtake a part of Aleppo. And they ended up rolling right through the city, and they just kept on rolling. And the Syrian forces simply collapsed. And Russia, of course, and Iran were not available to help out. So they rolled all the way into Damascus. And it was just a case of-- a shocking case, really-- where all of the opposition collapsed like a house of cards.
The Saudis are very happy about the result, of course. And Israel would be happy about it. And the United States would be happy about the results because no longer will Syria be able to be basically a passageway for weapons to go from Iran to Hezbollah and Lebanon.
So I would say that this severely weakens Iran, together with the attack on Hezbollah and Hamas and their Houthis and their other proxies. It weakens Russia, who are now pulling out of their both naval base and their air force base in Syria. We will find out in the fullness of time whether democracy, or not even democracy, but whether stability will return to Syria.
There's no doubt that Assad was a bad, bad leader. Not only was he brutal to his people, but he was responsible for a drug empire of tens of billions of dollars-- a source of great instability in the Middle East. So all of a sudden, Syria, in the space of a week and a half, has gone from being the problem child of the Middle East to possibly a poster child for reform. We shall see. But a lot of what people think is behind this is not true. This was simply an organic development that took place, much to the surprise even of the rebels who organized it.
PETER HAYNES: If you compare that to how easily Afghanistan changed power after the Americans pulled out, is it similar? They just kind of laid down their arms.
FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. In fact, that is a terrific analogy. People did not expect the total collapse of Afghanistan after the Americans pulled out. And that's exactly what happened. And again, a lot of these are fairly poorly trained and probably poorly paid troops. When they had big Russian Air Force planes behind them bombing the heck out of the opponents, that was one thing. But when they had to fight all on their own and had no confidence in the leadership of their country, they just collapsed.
That's what the Ukrainians are hoping, as well, in Kursk. They're hoping the North Koreans who are fighting there will just get tired of being cannon fodder for the Russians and collapse. That hasn't happened yet, but I know that's the hope. They're giving propaganda material to the North Koreans, telling them that if they surrender, they'll be able to not only save their life on the battlefield but get out of North Korea. So-- [CHUCKLES] --it is a rather enticing offer.
[BOTH LAUGH]
PETER HAYNES: That's very interesting. So, OK, well, we'll check the conversation on Ukraine until next month, where we'll do our annual forecast on geopolitical issues for 2025. And I'm guessing now in advance, Frank, we might have one or two about Canada, which we don't normally have that much on. So I'm going to finish up here on the Blue Jays. So--
[BOTH CHUCKLE]
--yeah, is this a good topic or not? I don't think either of us should be surprised that Juan Soto chose another team to play for. And it's probably a good miss for the Jays. I think most people would agree that.
However, there are a few concerning developments that came out of the Soto pursuit. And namely, that is the fact that the Jays did not utilize Soto's good friend from the Dominican, Vlad Guerrero, Jr., who was not present, it seemed, in this pursuit at all. This is leading Jays fans to believe that we're not going to be able to sign Guerrero to an extension at the end of this year. And we may lose him to free agency after the 2025 season. How does that make you feel?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, look, I'm not happy about anything that I see with the Blue Jays. They made a tentative move with Andrés Giménez, who brings great speed to our team. Although, it's kind of wasted on the Blue Jays because we don't run even when we have speedsters. Brings great defense.
But we gave up Spencer Horwitz, who I think will be a non-base machine for a long time. He's got a great eye, and he gets on base a lot. So we gave up a lot to get a high salary and reasonably poor bat. So that seems to be the extent of our involvement, except for getting Garcia back, which was good.
But I don't like the rhetoric I hear at all about Guerrero. I don't like any of it. And I can just tell you categorically, if Guerrero's gone, I'm gone.
PETER HAYNES: I do not believe you. You're going to go away on strike for a little while. You're going to come back, though. You can't help it. But I feel the same way as you.
FRANK MCKENNA: [CHUCKLES] Well, I think you're right. I won't be able to stay away from it. But I loved watching Bo and Guerrero. Bo's had a little bit of a reverse. I still think he's a really, really strong player and asset-- and Guerrero. And what did the team do? They stripped them of all their buddies, the people they love to play with. And they don't have any supporting cast behind them.
So I don't know what they'll end up doing. But the Blue Jays have to realize that they still need to earn their right to be Canada's baseball team every day. And they haven't been doing a very good job of it lately.
PETER HAYNES: Yeah, I agree with you. Let's just hope that Bo Bichette is not Samson, by the way, because he cut his hair. It's a brand-new look. You'll see that when spring training comes in a little while. I will say, though, Frank, that what I hear in the baseball circles, which I read about, is that the Blue Jays have an open checkbook right now and that they are, in fact, favored to be the one to sign Corbin Burnes to be that one in our rotation.
So we definitely will pitch. We may not be able to steal first base and get on. If we do have him as our anchor, we're going to spend a lot of money on him. But at the end of the day, that would definitely make us have a formidable rotation. Again, we're going to need to be able to hit our way to win a game 2-1. And I'm worried about our bullpen, Frank. They just let Romano walk. I don't like that at all. So--
FRANK MCKENNA: They let Romano walk. And again, I repeat, a baseball team's not that dissimilar to a bank. You do need culture. And Guerrero was the center of the culture of the Blue Jays. He was the joyful warrior there that people actually came out to a game to watch. And if we make the mistake of letting that go, I think-- and putting just a bunch of paid players on the roster, I think we've lost something. I think we've lost a lot.
PETER HAYNES: Yeah, I couldn't agree more with you. So, well, it's been really interesting, Frank. Obviously, you have a lot of people that you know well in cabinet in Ottawa. And it's a time of turmoil. But we do appreciate having you spend some time with us today and give us your perspective on these very interesting issues.
And look forward to chatting again in January. Probably not going to be any further along in terms of stability, but will be interesting because we're going to be talking, I think, actually on the inauguration day or right around it. So I'm sure that the rhetoric will be a little high at that time. So on behalf of TD Securities, Frank, thank you very much. And I hope you and your family have a great holidays.
FRANK MCKENNA: Thank you. Happy holidays.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PETER HAYNES: Thank you for listening to Geopolitics. 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 views of TD Bank or its subsidiaries. And these views should not be relied upon as investment, tax, or other advice.

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.