The Never-Ending Confidential Documents File

FRANK MCKENNA: This idea of having to raise the debt ceiling from time to time is a really stupid idea, and it just allows for a lot of drama and stress to take place.

PETER HAYNES: Welcome to episode 36 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. Episode number 36-- unbelievable-- entitled "The Never-Ending Confidential Documents File. 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 by Frank and myself will be of the individuals who 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. Well, Frank, I'm going to start here with the burgeoning documents scandal in US politics. In the world that I live in, market structure enthusiasts are referring to the 1,656 pages of proposed equity market structure reforms from the SEC as the Gensler files. In the world of geopolitics that you live in, you first had the Trump files, then you had the Biden files, and more recently you have the Pence files. From what we know so far, do you consider each of these purported violations of US security rules around classified documents as equal in severity, and what's next?

FRANK MCKENNA: OK. So let's unpack this piece by piece. First of all, there are the political implications, and secondly the legal implications, and the two are vastly different. And then, secondly, in terms of context, people should understand that there's some 50 million documents that are classified every year, and there's some 4 million people who have access to classified documents every year, and about 1.4 million people have access to ultra-classified documents. So you can see the magnitude of the issue. First of all, in terms of political consequences, I think that there's a big difference in materiality between the three different individuals involved here. But in the court of public opinion, I don't think that matters much anymore. I think Trump was on the ropes on this issue-- very much on the ropes in this issue. I don't think he really had a credible defense to it. But all of a sudden, having Biden in the ring and Pence in the ring on the same issue, I think, gets him off the hook. Quite frankly, people are probably not assessing the moral equivalence of the three different individuals. In my view, looking at it from a legal point of view, there is a very big difference in moral equivalence. In the case of Vice President Pence, in a way he served this up himself and made a very strong effort to go through his documentation. I suspect, being a former vice president, having been out of office for several years, most of what they found-- which doesn't seem to be very much-- would be stale data. But again, it technically probably violates some recordkeeping act. In the case of President Biden, I think the same is somewhat true. Some, or it seems a lot, of the documentation goes back to the time when he was vice president, which is some time ago. And I suspect those documents are very immaterial and stale data as well. We don't know the answer to that. I think that President Biden and his people are guilty of not handling this well. What they tried to do was to make the case, I think, that these documents were of de minimis consequence and not worth pursuing. And the alternative to that was transparency, which they didn't engage in. So it makes it look like they were trying to hide something. So I think they've lost ground in the court of public opinion on that. In the case of President Trump, clearly he had a mountain of documents, some of them that seem to be ultra classified. And more importantly, he resisted efforts-- repeated efforts-- to try and have them removed and sent back to the recordkeeping agencies and in one case even move the documents from one location to another. So in terms of legal culpability, I suspect his situation is of a much higher order. But in simply staying in the court of public opinion, I think that he's got himself off the hook a little bit. If I had to guess, I would guess that there's going to be a lot of difficulty in the authorities in trying to figure out what to do in these cases. In the case of President Trump, it may be that this is a situation where his greatest legal exposure is obstruction of justice. That was the offense that Conrad Black was charged with for moving documents. And in this case, it may be that after he was asked to bring give documents back, to instruct one of his people to actually move those documents into another location, maybe that represents the highest legal culpability that he might have. It's almost the Al Capone situation, where he ended up avoiding culpability on a host of serious matters but got caught on income tax evasion. So that's the way I would characterize it. Politically, I think they're all somewhat in the same situation. Now, legally, in terms of legal consequences, I suspect but don't know that Trump's exposure is of a much higher order.

PETER HAYNES: You mentioned stale data. I'm curious whether or not you think the FBI would be going back and looking at all of Obama's residences, and, for that matter Bush 45, or even, for that matter, exhuming President Lincoln's tomb to see whether or not he stored any documents. Do you think that they would be doing a more inclusive search? You mentioned there's 4 million people with access, but obviously, relatively speaking, you're focused on people with access to the most secure documents, and that would be former presidents. Do you think they're going back and not raiding, but just asking if they can look around?

FRANK MCKENNA: I suspect that the former presidents like Obama and Bush, and probably Bush's vice president, are probably doing their own sweep to see if there's anything there. And they may be even inviting the FBI in voluntarily. In the case of Mike Pence, I believe that he invaded the FBI. And I think in the case of Joe Biden as well. So yeah, I think all of that is taking place. Everybody's worried about a smoking gun being out there.

PETER HAYNES: So Frank, we live in a different world today. Obviously, information is with us all the time in our phones. And with new work from home tools-- computers at home, et cetera-- you're essentially online all the time. I know there's been a few situations in the past about secure information not being secure, and I believe there was a fairly infamous case involving a general in the United States who had exposed his mistress to certain documents that were not kept in a secure location. I guess what I'm getting out here, Frank, obviously, that's a bad situation, but do you think the media is making too big of a deal of these documents slippages?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. I think they probably are. But again, it depends on how the facts emerge. If it turns out that some of these documents are mission-critical documents-- an assessment of Russia's nuclear threat or some psychological profile on the leaderboard of North Korea-- I think that's a pretty high level of culpability. But my experience in dealing with classified documents, and I would have had thousands over my lifetime, was that most of the information was on the front page of the newspaper the week before or the week after. You have to realize that classified documents don't classify themselves. People classify them. And the people who classify them really have no incentive to try and be judicious in the use of the classification stamp. So you get a lot of junk that's classified quite frankly. I thought that the media made too much of the Hillary Clinton BlackBerry situation. It cost her the presidency when Jim Comey came out and talked about her using the BlackBerry at home and the damaging information on it and then kind of came back a week later and said just joking, there's nothing to see here. It turns out it's not that serious after all. I was told by people in that camp that their polls plummeted-- absolutely plummeted-- after that public revelation by Comey. And most assuredly, it would have cost her the presidential election. So I think sometimes these things take on too much of a life. You might recall in Canada, where, in a prime ministerial election, the RCMP commissioner, to everybody's consternation, made a public statement accusing the then finance minister Ralph Goodale of some breach of ethics involving income trust. It turned out not to be true, but it sent the polls plummeting as well. So we have to, I think, sometimes take with a grain of salt with the public and pundits expose during times of great stress.

PETER HAYNES: Well, you mentioned the Goodale situation. I do recall that, obviously, income trusts are a big part of the equity market at the time-- literally a lightning rod every time. As you may recall, it was actually Halloween evening. I think it was 2005 when the finance minister changed the rules and the sector went down 20% the next day. At any rate, I'm curious, Frank, do you think actually that what we're seeing in the United States, that there would be a review of security practices on document retention and access in Canada? Would your colleagues in Ottawa be saying that there's an increased focus on that topic right now?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, I think so. In fact, I'm sure that's the case. And there should be. It's reaching a ridiculous level, and I have no doubt, from having lived that life, that more documents are classified than necessary. And probably, the retention practices are going to be scrutinized more carefully as well, to make sure that any really, really important documents are not left in careless locations. And by the way, we've had not dissimilar situations in Canada, going all the way back to 1985 when then defense minister Robert Coates was simply in a strip club with several of his aides in Germany-- a club with questionable provenance-- and he was forced to resign. And then, in 1998, Solicitor General Andy Scott was overheard by an NDP member speaking on an airplane about some confidential matters to a seatmate, and he was forced to resign. And then, probably, in terms of the biggest single comparitor, you may recall that a cabinet minister Max Bernier, in Harper's government, left a classified document at the home of a mistress, and she ended up turning it in to the government, and he was forced to resign by Prime Minister Harper at that time. So we're not immune from that, but people should, I think, take all of this with a grain of salt. There's millions of classified documents out there, lots of confidential information. And in large measure, I think that officials do a pretty good job of maintaining the confidentiality of the information that they have.

PETER HAYNES: And as you say, Frank, not all information is created equal and not every document that's marked classified is of the same level of classification. As we move over to the World Economic Forum, an event that I know you're quite familiar with, Frank, it tends to be viewed internationally as a time for navel gazing. And I know at this year's event, which was back in person after the pandemic, for the first time in a few years, one of the key themes was so-called, quote, "policy-driven geoeconomics fragmentation." Obviously, a mouthful. But as business leaders say they are increasingly concerned about fragmentation in the global economy, they're citing developments such as US-Chines decoupling, the energy crisis sparked by the war in Russia or war in Ukraine, and tensions between the United States and Europe over electric vehicle subsidies. Geoeconomic fragmentation is clearly becoming a big deal, and that is, again, the idea that we're decoupling from the rest of the world and looking inward rather than outward. Can you talk about the risks associated with geoeconomic fragmentation and what can be done to reverse this trend, when really politicians continue to play off the nationalistic sentiments of citizens, such as the MAGA movement?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. Just before I even get to that, I need to stop for one minute and reference the passing of Hazel McCallion, the former mayor of Mississauga, at age one 101. She was one of the finest politicians that I ever had the pleasure of knowing, and she was a conviction politician. And she was highly popular, mainly because she said what she thought and stuck by it. So that's not a bad backdrop to talk about the subject matter. What's interesting that the WEF have been saying this for years. They've been more on the globalist side. And now they are in the crosshairs and being attacked by groups all across the world as being the authors of some massive conspiracy almost to globalize the entire world. And I tell you, from having been a participant at the WEF, that it would be almost impossible for that group to run a one-car funeral, not to speak of maintaining a conspiracy to organize the world. But it is a sign of the times that we're going through, and we saw it-- I think, it probably began with Trump, who really shocked a lot of people in taking the Republicans down a path which is totally contrary to their history. And his attack on NAFTA, his attack on the WTO, WHO, the threat to NATO, pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership-- he really was the most ultra-nativist that we've seen, and took his party in that direction, and appealed obviously to enough Americans to be elected. But that really gave license to the rest of the world, as well, to roll up the curtains around their country. And we saw, of course, Brexit, and I thought that was a colossal mistake-- the UK pulling away from the European Union. And then, of course, all of this was compounded with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which resulted in countries being worried about their energy security, and microchip security, and being worried about food security, et cetera, et cetera. And then, of course, compounded again by the pandemic, which left countries worried about their vaccine security and protection of supply lines. So all of these factors came together, I think, to create a huge attack on the globalization. I think, before going further, I'm going to offer, I think-- I hope it is-- a stout defense of globalization. What it has done, increased massively, I think, the prosperity across the planet. Would everybody have prospered? Not everybody in any situation, but hundreds of millions of people, maybe billions, were lifted out of poverty into higher levels of prosperity. We saw the entire world have a peace dividend as a result of a lot of this globalization money able to be directed from defense to other issues. And we saw, for example, in China, they created wealth for hundreds of millions of people, produced products which would go into the United States more cheaply than it would be produced in the United States, giving United States money in their jeans to buy other products and having the ability to sell to the Chinese services of a higher value. So I think it was a rising tide that lifted all boats, and I fear that what we're having now is a destruction of wealth and equality across the planet. Many poor and struggling countries will not have access to richer markets, and that will simply compound their poverty. So I think it's the wrong direction to go in. How do we reverse it? Well, there's always an inevitable swinging of the pendulum, but I think, in this case, we need leaders. We need really strong leaders in the world who are anti-nativist, who see the world in a bigger way than simply in their own country, who think globally, and who can make the argument as to how we all prosper when we open our borders and expose yourself to a bigger world. And we can always start locally. In Canada, we don't really even have free trade between provinces. So that would be a good beginning. But at the World level, we need leaders who are fearless and have conviction, as I said about Hazel McCallion, about speaking up for globalization and the wealth that it's created.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah. 30 years as mayor of Mississauga. She was unbelievable. "Hurricane" Hazel McCallion will definitely be missed. But she lived a complete life for sure at 101 years. And I think you did a good job, Frank, of giving a stout defense for the pendulum to switch back here and away from the movements that we've seen, led by former President Trump. As we move to the war in Ukraine, which I know you brought up in your defense of a more global economy, last month I asked you to predict where the war between Russia and Ukraine would be as we exit to 2023 or a year from now. And I believe your answer was really, not too far from where it is today. And that really is a stalemate. However, in the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of debate amongst Western world countries about delivering tanks to Ukraine, with Germany opposed to this decision. Russia has reacted to the move with increased bombings of Kyiv. And if I recall correctly, even a year ago, President Biden was suggesting that providing tanks to the Ukraine defense would actually be in itself an act of war. Do you think that the Western world has crossed the red line by sending tanks?

FRANK MCKENNA: No, I don't think so, Peter. Russia is constantly saying the West can't do this and that. Russia can bomb cities and civilians with impunity, but if Ukraine were to fight back and perhaps try to attack an airfield in Russia and everything, that's a great provocation. I've never seen such hypocrisy in my entire life. Russia is bringing in drones from Iran. They're bringing in, allegedly, missiles from North Korea. And yet, they're trying to argue that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to have any outside weapons in order to fight this aggression. That hypocrisy cannot go unanswered. When the HIMARS, these long-range artillery systems, were brought in, Russia said that was a terrible provocation as well. It's turned out to be a great weapon for Ukraine. And similarly, the tanks that will be brought in, several hundred, I think, will help Ukraine as well. It may not single-handedly turn the tide of the war, but it will help them defend their position. So no, I don't I don't agree with that at all. Russia is doing some of the most disgraceful things. The bombing of civilians, which is contrary to an accepted level of civility, they're doing that. Atrocities in the battlefield, throwing recruits and former prisoners into battle like cannon fodder, doing all of these things and, and basically saying it's not fair if Ukraine fights back. So I don't buy it for one minute.

PETER HAYNES: Frank, there has been some profile, not necessarily a great profile, about the quality of the tanks that Canada is contributing here. And it's bringing into question the status of our capability to defend ourselves, or at least contribute to defending the Western world. Do you think any of these criticisms are fair with respect to the quality of the machinery that we're providing?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, we haven't historically engaged in large military expenditures on equipment. But in fairness, we do have something like 70 Leopard tanks in our arsenal. We've committed four to start with and more will be coming. The tanks are in three or four locations across the country in various states of repair. So probably some work will have to be done on them, but we shouldn't be apologizing as Canadians. We've sent something like 500,000 units of winter clothing to the Ukrainians, which by all accounts represent a major advantage on the battlefield. We engaged with the UK and the US, as noted in the Wall Street Journal, in a massive training program, since 2014, of Ukrainian troops, which is probably the biggest single factor on the battlefield. And we're supplying artillery, and other weaponry, and so on. So Canada, I think, has really met its commitment to the best of its ability, and we've supplied a lot of aid-- as you know, a $500 million bond recently and a lot of non-military support, et cetera. So I don't think we should be apologetic for what we've done.

PETER HAYNES: No. And I definitely feel all Canadians want to make sure we do our part, or at least most Canadians want to feel we're doing our part. And media coverage of our tanks in disrepair was certainly not something I think that was taken well by Canadians. I think you make a great point, though, that we have done a lot. One thing we certainly know how to do is dress for winter, and I'm sure that our winter clothing was well received. If we switch over to US politics for a moment here, it's been a month since we witnessed the Freedom Caucus of the Republican Party hold the vote for speaker of the house ransom, while the wannabe speaker, Kevin McCarthy, bowed to the group's increasingly aggressive demands. This will not be the last time we hear from this extreme wing of the Republican Party, who have outsized power due to the narrow lead held by the Republicans in the House. There will be many more topics where this group plans interference and getting in the way of, and perhaps the scariest is with respect to the debt ceiling debate. Morgan Stanley's President, James Gorman, said lawmakers would end any debt ceiling stalemate before it's too late because, quote, "the other option is not an option." But really, the extremes don't seem to care until they get what they want. Frank, forecast, for our listeners, how the behavior of this group of Republican leaders will impact future deliberations in the house in the next two years and more specifically with respect to the debt ceiling.

FRANK MCKENNA: They'll end up raising the debt ceiling. That's how it will end up. In the meantime, there'll be more drama in Washington than there will be in Hollywood. It's a perpetual state of affairs. This idea of having to raise the debt ceiling from time to time is a really stupid idea. It's something that I don't think you see in any other country. And it just allows for a lot of drama and stress to take place. But at the end of the day, the alternatives are all nuclear, and the Republicans are not going to want to blow up the US economy and for that matter the global economy. So I think they'll end up finding a way to make peace on this one. And remember, we talked about the Freedom Caucus and the disproportionate amount of power that they have. But remember, as well, that there are more members of the moderate Republican caucus, who, together with Democrats, form a majority. So at the end of the day, Senate Republicans and moderate Republicans in the House I think will talk people off the ledge and some type of resolution will be found. In the meantime, there'll be a lot of saber rattling and a lot of drama. But at the end of the day, this will be resolved.

PETER HAYNES: So you say the debt ceiling will get raised. I believe it was back in 2011 was the last time that we faced the same sort of endgame. Since then, there has been a lot of work done, particularly by the Republican Party, if I remember correctly, over whether or not there truly is a debt ceiling. I.e., if for some reason is there ways where we can actually continue to pay-- the we being the United States government-- bondholders while maybe not paying other citizens or firms that are doing business with the government? I believe this being dubbed payment prioritization, and it's getting a little bit more play on Wall Street. One of the quotes I read recently by one of our future colleagues at Cowen, Chris Krueger, who works in their Washington policy group, his quote was, "of all the unilateral options on the debt ceiling, prioritization is probably the healthiest horse in the glue factory." What are your thoughts with respect to this concept of payment prioritization-- i.e., we're going to pay the bondholders and nobody else while we work through this debt ceiling?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. Well, I love the characterization-- the way that he's constructed this. And I think it's a thoughtful idea, but I think it's highly unlikely to come to pass. I think there would be outrage-- absolute political outrage-- if one group were to be privileged over others. And I think that in itself would enough to drive this towards a resolution. Again, people are coming up with all kinds of ideas of minting a coin.

[LAUGHTER] I don't know what a 30-trillion--

PETER HAYNES: A trillion-dollar coin. I read that.

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. Yeah. So people are coming up with all kinds of ideas-- Hail Mary passes and so on. But as we get closer to the end on this, the pressure intensifies. And I believe people will end up finding a solution. I've, I guess, been around long enough to witness a lot of drama in Washington over a lot of things, but Americans always, as Winston Churchill would put it, end up doing the right thing after all other choices are exhausted.

PETER HAYNES: I was asked by a listener for you to talk about the climate in Ottawa, or for that matter within provincial leadership offices, for private sales of infrastructure. So we're back on the infrastructure file. Are we going to see partnerships with the private sector to spend on roads, bridges, buildings, ports, terminals, and airports? We've heard a lot about the creation of an infrastructure bank in Ottawa, but arguably it seems to have been a lot more talk than action. Especially in speaking to some people I know that have been involved in that, there just doesn't seem to have been that big of a sense of urgency to actually get involved. There has been, I believe, $129 billion invested to date through the investing in Canada plan that was launched in 2016, but really this pales in comparison to what the late 2021 US government, trillion-dollar commitment to infrastructure spending. Do you have a take on the Infra file in Ottawa, Frank, and should Canadians expect much on this topic any time soon?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think there'll be money spent on infrastructure. There are budgets to do it, and I the government is quite committed to do it. But that's a different question from whether or not there's going to be any privatization or public-private partnerships. And the answer to the latter question is, no, there is not going to be. This government, at one stage, ran on the concept of recycling assets. And Scott Bryson was the it's proponent and referred to Australia and how they actually incentivize the recycling of assets, which resulted in many privatizations and freeing up of money to do many other important things. The irony, of course, in Canada, is that we've got probably the biggest pool of pension fund and asset management money in the world to go to work, with the most credibility. And yet they can't find, in large measure, projects in Canada to invest in. So ideologically, the current government is not geared towards that. The idea of privatization of Pearson, no matter how bad the baggage handling is or security lineups, that conversation is just not taking place. Or Canada Post, even under the Harper administration, there was no talk of privatizing Canada Post, even though that asset has declined in value every year for the last 20 or 30 years. So it's just the way it is in Canada. The unions are strong. They resist any effort to try to change the ownership structure. We have mixture restrictions-- federal, provincial, municipal-- that make it very difficult. And, of course, we have First Nations, with support from the Supreme Court, expecting to have some not only say through consultation, but also some accommodation of their interest, which usually involves an equity stake. So you throw all of those together, and the regulatory process you have to go through here in Canada, and it's hard to see a situation where we'll have any meaningful either privatizations or public-private partnerships taking place.

PETER HAYNES: Are there any potential wins, even if they're small wins, to try to get this concept of public-private partnerships aligned and perhaps a little bit more profile? Can you think of any assets out there that the government's publicly stated that they are willing to vend out?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. I think you're seeing, at the provincial level, in some cases schools or hospitals being built in that manner. So you do see that from time to time. But the governments have a very different approach. If you were to ask our bank or other banks why they don't own the buildings they're in, their answer would probably be because that's not what we do. We're not great managers of real estate. That's not our core business. Governments don't necessarily think that way, and they don't think that owning the hospital is mission critical, when mission critical is what takes place in the hospital. So I'll just maybe be blunt-- maybe blunter than I should be-- but, at the end of the day, we just don't have a burning platform in Canada. In a lot of countries in the world they don't have enough money, and they really need to do things in order to free up money for higher priorities. In Canada, we always have enough to get along, and nobody's desperate enough to take drastic measures.

PETER HAYNES: When I think of a country like Australia being as aggressive in selling its airports and other facilities-- public facilities-- it just seems strange. Because I would think that they're financially in the same sort of snack bracket as Canada. Regardless, it's disappointing, I think, for those that have invested a lot of time in trying to grow that platform. And so, I'll certainly be probably circling back with you on that topic down the road. OK, Frank, I'm just going to-- as we finish up here, we're going to talk about sports. But I'm going to skip the Blue Jays this month, and we'll get back to it next month after pitchers and catchers report. Probably will be talking a little bit about the World Baseball Classic, which is coming in March as well. This month, I'm going to check in on your other sports teams or individuals that you cheer for. So me personally, my four favorite teams in the major North American sports are the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Toronto Blue Jays, the Toronto Raptors, and the Buffalo Bills. In my lifetime, I've witnessed three championship victories-- two by the Jays in back-to-back years and one by the Raptors. And quite frankly, I think I'm hard done by and have been cheated by my sports teams, in particular the Leafs and the Bills. Tell me about one of your other favorite teams or athletes that you're following right now, and give us your take on their likelihood for near-term success.

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, it's interesting. I cheer for the same teams that you do. In fact, I cheer for all the Canadian teams in hockey. I follow them pretty religiously. As a maritimer, like almost all maritimers, we cheer for Sidney Crosby as an individual, simply because he's such a great leader on and off the ice-- plays a 200-foot game and is just a true leader. But other leaders that I watch that I get excited about would be Brooke Henderson in golf, and what she's doing is exceptional. I would cheer for the Canadian Women's Hockey Team. They've just got so much heart and so much skill. Similarly with Canadian Women's soccer, which is they've got incredible talent, and Christine Sinclair is truly one of the greatest athletes of all time. All of us were heartened by watching Bianca Andreescu win the US Open. We've got wonderful tennis players, both men and women that I cheer on. And more latterly, I've been cheering for the Canadian Junior Hockey Team that made us all very proud in the recent World Hockey Championships. And in particular, Connor Bedard, I watch his progress very carefully, and I think that he'll be a star for decades to come, and a class act at that. And I can't help but note that the Blue Jays ended up signing a 16-year-old from the Dominican Republic very recently. Bobby Bonilla, I think, his name is, who's projected to be a superstar at some stage. So I like seeing these youngsters and watch their evolution. So I'll be watching him with interest.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah. And you never know, they'll be at the Blue Jays Major League level before it. I'm going to mention one other individual that I'm cheering for. And my son will kill me for this, but he had a teammate-- I coached his hockey team when he was in grade eight, minor bantam, and he had a teammate by the name of Zach Edey. And in grade eight, Zach Edey was 6 foot 8, and his favorite love was hockey and baseball. He is now the starting center for the Purdue basketball team, which is number one in the nation. And yesterday, he scored 38 points against Michigan State, and he's favored to be-- a kid from Leeside-- the Naismith winner this year in the NCAA and will likely be a first-round draft choice in the NBA. And he's 7 foot 4. And as his mother said, in an interview yesterday, he's had a lifelong growth spurt. It's never stopped. And I'll tell you, he's 6 foot 4-- excuse me, 7 foot 4-- 290 pounds. And when my 6 foot 4 son was beside him, he actually-- it looked like he could eat him. He was that much bigger. And a wonderful kid, and I'm really cheering for his success. I coached him in hockey. He's been successful in basketball. So that probably tells you my capabilities as a hockey coach. But nonetheless, it's been fun to watch. And for those of you listeners out there that watch the NCAA, keep an eye on Zach Edey, who will be, definitely, a force in the March Madness. Frank, Thanks very much for your time this month. And we'll look forward to circling back again In February.

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. Thank you, Peter.

[INSTRUMENTAL]

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.