Canada's Provincial and Federal Election Watch

FRANK MCKENNA: This confidence motion is just for show. It is not going to defeat the government because the NDP and the Bloc don't see any advantage to them.
PETER HAYNES: Welcome to the September episode of Geopolitics with the Honorable Frank McKenna. My name is Peter Haynes at TD Securities, and I host this podcast series each month. My guest, the Honorable Frank McKenna, is pretty cool to work with.
I literally write questions the day before we tape, and Frank answers every one of them, every last one. I keep trying to find his third rail, but to date, I've been unsuccessful. If you are like me and you're interested in geopolitics with a Canadian flavor, then you've tuned to the right dial.
Frank, let's get right to work as we've got a lot of wood to chop this month. I'm going to start in Canada, and there's a couple of interesting developments worth noting. And I'm not talking about Justin Trudeau's appearance on Stephen Colbert.
Specifically, a couple of weeks ago, NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, canceled his party's partnership with the Liberal government, known as, quote, "a supply and confidence agreement," which, for the past 2 and 1/2 years, has allowed Justin Trudeau's minority Liberals to survive confidence votes in Parliament. Singh explained his decision as saying Trudeau is beholden to, quote, "corporate greed" and has repeatedly, quote, "let Canadians down."
And he stated that the NDP will now vote on non-confidence motions on a case-by-case basis. One of those cases occurs this week as the Conservatives are tabling a non-confidence vote. But Singh has already said he will not vote to bring down the Liberals, which Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, has loudly criticized as a put your money where your mouth is move. What do you make of this NDP calculus?
FRANK MCKENNA: First of all, it's not what Singh says it is. It's not about corporate greed. The only line of attack that one could make in that respect is the decision of the government to force arbitration on the railroad workers when both CN and CP unions went out on strike.
And quite frankly, I think that's one of the most popular things the government has done. I don't think any reasonable Canadian, and including a lot of the people who support the NDP, would be in favor of allowing a strike to drag on for weeks that would destroy billions of dollars in value to the Canadian economy and probably come close to bankrupting Canadian farmers and other people who rely on the railroads for shipping.
So that is the only argument he could make. But quite frankly, I don't believe him when he says that. I think the real reason that he abandoned the agreement was out of pure political calculus. I can tell you from talking to people in the government, ministers and Prime Minister's Office, et cetera, that this came without any notice. It was a total surprise to them.
But I think it was a political calculus, and I don't blame him for doing that. I believe that he used that to his advantage during the two by-elections, one in Winnipeg and one in Montreal, both in which the NDP had a strong strategic interest. He wanted to separate the NDP from the prime minister for those by-elections.
And then generally, I think he wanted to unhitch his wagon from Trudeau's star. Trudeau's popularity has been plummeting, and the NDP have been holding them up, I guess you could say, with that supply and confidence agreement. So I think he wanted to pull away from that and see if he couldn't reverse the fortunes of his party, which has been plummeting along with the Liberals.
PETER HAYNES: So meanwhile, questions continue about the future of Justin Trudeau's leadership. Last night when he was on Colbert, he did say he's in for the long haul. But these leadership questions continue to swirl. And one of the candidates rumored to be interested in the Liberal leadership position, Mark Carney, took on a formal economic advisory role to the Liberal government, fueling further speculation that Carney's ties to the Liberals are in cement.
In both of our last two episodes, which were both post the Biden decision to step aside for Kamala Harris, you indicated that you expected Justin Trudeau to follow suit, but that it needed to happen soon to give time for the next leader to get distance from the previous party leadership. It hasn't happened yet. Have you changed your view on Trudeau potentially leaving?
FRANK MCKENNA: I have. I've changed my view on that. I believe that it was the logical thing to do. Biden did it and received a great deal of praise for his decision. It was considered to be an unselfish decision, and he received pretty good marks for the four years that he conducted as president of the United States.
I think Trudeau has a body of work that he could defend if he were to leave, but he has chosen to stay. And now it's out of his hands because we are in a minority government situation without a supply and confidence agreement. So even if Trudeau wanted to leave now, he couldn't. Quite frankly, we could have an election within weeks.
A lot of people within government think that this government will not survive even until Christmas. So I think that changes the water on the beans. I've talked to Mark Carney during the last week, actually, about this very issue. He did what he wanted to do, which was to show the tribe that he was a member of the tribe so that after an election, he could end up running for office and be accepted as a member of the team.
That's what he wanted to do, and I think he carried that off with the appointment that he made. But he knows as well that there may not be much left to fight for if the direction of the government continues in the direction it's going in now. Right now, it would appear that it could end up in third or fourth place if the polls are right.
PETER HAYNES: Is there a scenario where the Liberal Party at the federal level is a rump at the end of the next election such that it might lose its party status or there's funding issues around that? What is the worst-case scenario, Frank, for the Liberal Party in the event that Prime Minister Trudeau follows through, and they end up not doing well at the polls?
FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah, you could end up losing status. Coming in fourth would be very difficult to stomach for people who have been proud to be part of a Liberal Party over the years and part of a Liberal government. And it makes it harder to come back, quite frankly. So that could be the case. And there could be financial implications.
I recall, Peter, it's a different situation, but when I won my election in 1987, the opposition party, of course, was completely voted out of office and won no seats. So we had all the seats. They had no seats. And with that went all their funding. I felt, as a matter of, I don't know what you would say, honor, or just as a matter of responsibility, that that wasn't right and that we should be restoring their funding.
This was in the early months of my government. And it turned out to be one of the most unpopular things that I did. I thought it would be seen as a bit of a noble act and of widespread acclaim, but the public in New Brunswick said effectively, look, we made a decision to vote those guys out of office. What right do you have to turn around and reverse our decision by funding them as if they had been elected?
It's the last thing I ever expected. So sometimes these things fool you, but that's a different story. And all of that to say that it would not be a good situation if the Liberal Party were to fall to that level. It probably would mean the comeback would take longer, and you may have fewer people interested in the leadership.
PETER HAYNES: Well, speaking of your former-- the province that you led back in the '80s and '90s, New Brunswick, it is amongst three Canadian provinces across this beautiful country that will be holding elections in the month of October. And I'm speaking about New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and BC. I'm curious, Frank, are you seeing any trends across these three provincial elections that might read through at the federal level? Or are there any specifics on each of those elections that you wanted to highlight?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think British Columbia probably would have the most to offer in terms of looking at the federal situation. What's happened there, of course, the Liberal brand has totally collapsed, and the Liberal Party has really folded itself in with the Conservative Party. And the Conservative Party and the NDP are running neck and neck.
I might as well make a prediction. And I'm not really close to that, but I thought the Conservative leader made a grave mistake in the last several days when he came out as more of an anti-vaxxer. I don't think that is the responsible position for him to take. And it puts him on the defensive when he's trying to put the NDP really on the defensive.
The polls show that it's at 50/50. I think the NDP would be in quite a lot of trouble, but I think the Conservative Party may now be on the defensive. So if I had to call that, I'd call it NDP. In Saskatchewan, the incumbent government is going to be returned handily. In New Brunswick, that's a very interesting situation. The current premier is the most unpopular premier in Canada, and all of the polling shows the Liberals have a lead.
But there are two factors which make this a closer race than it would appear. One is the inefficiency of the vote. The Liberal vote is heavily concentrated in northern New Brunswick and in Acadian communities, and the Conservative vote is more concentrated in the southern part of New Brunswick. And number one and number two is the antipathy towards the Liberal brand at the door. And that's where Trudeau really has a negative impact.
The first reaction at doors, candidates tell me, is, look, I simply can't support Justin Trudeau. So it takes a two-minute conversation to tell them that this election is not about Trudeau at all. It's about the Liberal Party in New Brunswick against the Conservative Party. Now, fortunately, the Conservative brand-- or the premier in New Brunswick is really as unpopular as Trudeau. So if I had to call it, I would say that it's going to be a Liberal win, but it's going to be quite narrow because of the factors I mentioned.
PETER HAYNES: And, Frank, just before we move on here, when Pierre Poilievre was calling for his, literally, just a non-confidence vote, which is occurring this week in Parliament, this is where it frustrates me better on fact checking. Poilievre, as justification for the non-confidence vote-- I'm going to quote him here-- "This is the worst economy since the Great Depression."
Frank, I don't understand that comment. Unemployment today is about 6 and 1/2% in Canada. And, yeah, it's up 1% in the last year. But in the early 1980s, unemployment was 13%. How can a prospective prime minister of our country make such a comment that is so factually inaccurate and not have it punish him in some way, shape, or form?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, politicians get away with a lot of extreme statements. Look at Trump. Fact checkers just can't keep up with him. I would say this because you've opened that question. Poilievre, in all likelihood, is going to be the prime minister of Canada, in all likelihood. This confidence motion is just for show.
It is not going to defeat the government because the NDP and the Bloc don't see any advantage to them. They'll look for issues in the case of the Bloc that are unique to Quebec, in the case of the NDP, unique to their constituency to bring the government down on. This will not bring the government down.
What I would like to see is Pierre Poilievre make the pivot, the transition, from being an attack dog in opposition, which he's been very effective at, to being prime ministerial. And that means being careful about language like that because you're absolutely right. The Canadian economy is probably tops in the G7. Inflation is trending down at a very rapid rate, as indicated by the decisions of the Bank of Canada.
And by a number of measurements, the economy is doing not too badly. So Poilievre is on a good track, a good glide slope, to end up winning the election handily, but he should start making the transition towards being prime ministerial. Stop with the Rat Terrier approach. Stop being an attack dog.
Be above the fray. I think that will suit him better if and when he becomes prime minister. Then he can truly say, I'm a prime minister for all Canadians. And there's a better chance you can enjoy popular sport for a longer period of time.
PETER HAYNES: It reminds me of the comment you always used to make, and I think it was Bill Clinton who said this to you about, when you're running for your party leadership, you have to lean to the one end or the other. But when you're running for the leadership of the country, in the case of the United States, you have to govern towards the middle. And it seems that that is where we need our, as you say, likely next prime minister to move.
FRANK MCKENNA: Absolutely. And I think Poilievre, to his credit, and his party have moved to the center on a lot of social issues. We are not going to be relitigating a lot of issues that you see dominating the US election. That's settled law, the things like reproductive rights, and LGBTQ issues, and cannabis, and MAID, and so on and so on. So I think quite cleverly, those issues are off the table, and the economy will be the dominant issue in the next federal election.
PETER HAYNES: OK. So, Frank, just as the summer was ending, the Liberals held a cabinet retreat. This is the federal Liberals, I should say, held the cabinet retreat in Halifax. And you and your fellow former Canadian ambassador to the United States, David McNaughton, were asked to speak with cabinet about Canada-US relations. What was your message to our government? And what takeaways from that meeting can you share with our listeners?
FRANK MCKENNA: To start with, I would say, the cabinet were really absorbed in the US-Canada file and listened quite carefully. So I would have talked about the fact that we've got two threats coming at us in the next several years. One is reopening of CUSMA, which happens in 2026. We have to be ready for that because the United States will almost certainly try and get concessions.
We also have to separate ourselves from Mexico because Mexico, in many ways, is the reason why the United States is not very happy about the CUSMA agreement. The United States knows that Mexico is a bit of a halfway house for cheap Chinese manufacturing that is coming into Mexico and then flooding into the United States. So we need to find ways of separating ourselves from Mexico or at least trying to get Mexico to be a better actor.
We need a broader campaign around hearts and minds and getting to know governors better and getting to know senators and congressional leaders. We need to make it a whole-of-Canada approach, which means non-partisan, provincial premiers of all ilk, party leaders across the political spectrum, corporate leaders, labor leaders. All of Canada needs to be involved, much like they were in the last NAFTA negotiation.
That all has to be lined up because we've got this a symmetric threat of CUSMA, which is coming up, but asymmetric threats as well. When Trump was in before, he used several powers which the president enjoys to launch trade actions against us on steel, aluminum, et cetera, that just came out of the blue. We have to have friends. We have to make friends in the United States on all of these issues that we can reach out to. So we need to do all of that.
I talked about two or three other things, which are much more targeted. One was softwood lumber. I think the conditions are propitious for a settlement during the lame-duck period. I think that we need to be more motivated. In Canada, we've just had a thousand jobs lost in our mills. The duties are going to double during the coming year.
There's $10 billion in the escrow account. All the conditions are present for us to try to reach a settlement with the United States on the last two months of Biden's watch with Trudeau. So I've suggested envoys be appointed from both sides to try to deal with that. I've also suggested that we find a way to actually cooperate with Mexico on another big issue, which is an issue in Canada and Mexico, and that is US guns.
In Canada, probably 70% of the violence, gun violence, comes from guns that come in from the US, smuggled in. In Mexico, it's an even higher percentage. They actually really don't have loose gun laws in Mexico at all. All of the guns that come into Mexico, and there are a lot, come from the United States.
The result, they've started a class-action suit against US gun manufacturers, I think, claiming about $10 billion in damages. And they've already passed through the Court of Appeal. So they're well on their way on the litigation track. My suggestion to our government is that we should join them and do everything that we can to try and prevent US gun manufacturers from throwing guns into trade shows and straw markets, et cetera, which will eventually be bought and smuggled across the border.
So those were some of the ideas that were thrown around at the meeting, but mainly it was around trade and how we can protect Canadian interests on trade. We have to remember, 40% of our GDP goes across the border. And that means we got to watch like a hawk everything that happens south of the border.
PETER HAYNES: Frank, do you feel, when you're speaking to that group, given everything we've just talked about in the last few minutes, that you're speaking to a group that's not going to have the power to make change within days, weeks, months, or at least a year when the government changes? Don't you feel like your message might get lost in that there's going to be a new government in place that will have their own views? And do you feel like that new government is going to have the same level of attention to these issues?
FRANK MCKENNA: We all know that there's likely to be an election, and if there's an election, there's likely to be a change. But the people that I'm talking to are approaching their jobs very responsibly. And I talked yesterday, I don't mind telling you, to Chrystia Freeland on the softwood lumber issue. She called me because she's really interested in pursuing the initiative that I just talked about.
I talked to ministers about the gun initiative that I've talked about. Now, they're all acting as if they have the job and they're going to do the job. I don't detect any pulling back or lack of enthusiasm.
PETER HAYNES: Oh, that's good to hear. You mentioned Mexico. I want to shift the discussion to the US. But just before we get to that, it's clear that border security and illegal immigration are top-of-the-ballot items, obviously, and that impacts Mexican border with the United States. In this vein, CBC reported this week that the number of illegal immigrants crossing from Quebec to Upstate New York has increased dramatically over the summer of 2024.
During the period June to August, the number of people caught illegally crossing borders in this area increased fourfold on a year-over-year basis. It appears these illegal crossings are being led by human trafficking organizations promising immigrants access to the United States. With the rhetoric about illegal crossings at the southern border at a fever pitch, it's only a matter of time before this activity becomes front-page news in the US, especially if the southern border becomes impenetrable and this north border becomes the only illegal access to the United States.
We discussed this topic a few months ago when attention was on the Roxham Road crossing, which was a loophole for asylum seekers and has now been closed. What do you suggest authorities need to do to slow down this recent uptick in illegal border crossings in Quebec into the United States?
FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. So this is a really important discussion, but it does need to be put in context as well. This year, there have been about 19,500 border encounters, Canada-US. And that is up. It's almost double from what it was last year. And it's about four or five times as much as it was the year before.
So there's definitely a trend line of escalating encounters on the border. But by contrast, the United States averages 2 million encounters a year on the Mexican-US border. December of this past year, it had 250,000 encounters in one month. Now, the trend line has been down. And July, there were only 56,000 encounters. So that's showing some promise on the most recent Biden initiatives.
But simply to let you know that in terms of context, we're looking at several million encounters a year in the US and less than 20,000 in Canada. So that's a really important point to make. Is it getting attention, though? Yes. Trump, in a Fox News interview, talked about the northern border, and some speeches in New Hampshire of raise the northern border. And so it's being flagged a little more than we would like.
The other thing that it's important to know is the nature of the encounter. First of all, they're geographically confined. Out of the 19,500 encounters we've had, 15,600 are on the Quebec border, which means that it should be easier to enforce the law, and we should enforce the law. But the other thing that's fascinating, Peter, is who is crossing the northern border.
In the case of Mexico, we know that it tends to be people like Venezuelans who have been driven out of their own country, people from El Salvador, where there's a huge amount of violence, and other places in Latin America trying to get into the United States. In the case of the northern border, 10,000 of the encounters were people from India, totally different dynamic, totally different profile.
These are people that are flying in on big transatlantic jets, landing in Canada, and then heading to the border to try to cross. These are organized efforts by big gangs to try to bring in large numbers of people, who are paying them to do that. So in many ways, it's much easier to manage.
We stopped a lot of Mexicans from coming to Canada and then going into the United States by introducing a visa program. And so probably by doing a better job of screening passengers from India, we could probably reduce dramatically the number of people crossing the northern border. So statistics are easy to throw around, but we need to be careful and granulate the information so that we know what the constituency is that we're dealing with, the exact numbers, and put it in context against the experience the US has on their southern border.
PETER HAYNES: And I guess probably accept the fact that we can't control those soundbites that politicians are going to want to take advantage of, especially in those northern border states that may want to see this as a ballot item or try to take advantage of, as you say, playing the game on the numbers.
FRANK MCKENNA: No, but Peter, there's a really important point out of this. Right now, I'd say, the situation is manageable. And we should work at reducing the number, and we should do it by targeting the people that are abusing the system. But this could turn into a floodgate if Trump were to win and proceed with his plans to deport millions of undocumented people in the United States.
There's 11 million undocumented people in the United States. If he does what he says he's going to do, creates detention camps and literally chases people through the streets, sends these people to other countries, we are going to have a flood of immigrants trying to get into Canada or use Canada as a halfway house to get back into the United States, which would create huge tensions for us with the United States. So we need to be on guard for what could be a very problematic situation, depending on how the election goes in the US.
* Yeah, you're right because the rhetoric is very, very loud, and no one really thinks through the implications. Well, what exactly does he mean? How are these people going to be forced out of the country? Are they going to have pitchforks, literally pushing people over borders? And where are they going?
If they're undocumented, illegal immigrants in the United States, it's not really, the United States, that they can push them into Canada, and we're just going to make it our problem. So I can see that being definitely a difficult issue to deal with. So, Frank, literally at the same time you were speaking to the Liberal cabinet, US ambassador to Canada, David Cohen, was interviewed by a popular political publication, known as The Hub, about Canada's seemingly insatiable appetite for US politics, an obsession that he described as, quote, "unhealthy."
He thinks the polarizing nature of US politics and this related polarized media coverage is leaking into Canadian politics. Do you agree with Ambassador Cohen? And what, if anything, can be done to reverse this trend?
FRANK MCKENNA: [SCOFFS] I don't agree. I do agree that what we watch in the United States is polarizing. I find myself fascinated by what's going on south of the border. And I watch it, and I find it disturbing. Quite frankly, a lot of the rhetoric in the debates are disturbing. But you can't unwatch history being made.
And whether it was the assassination of Kennedy, or whether it was the moon shot, or whether it was the Cuban Missile Crisis, or whether it was the war in Vietnam, or whatever it might be, the United States creates a lot of news. And we're fascinated by it, as is the whole world. I mean, 40% of our GDP goes to the United States.
What happens in the US is more material than anything that happens in Canada. We have 400,000 people a day crossing the border between Canada and the United States. So it's really material to us. And the news is always fascinating. Look, in the last two months, we've had two assassination attempts on a president. We've had a sitting president resign. We've had a new candidate running for office. All of this just in the last several months.
We're going to be consumed by that news. And we can't help it. So is it healthy or unhealthy? I don't know. But it is what it is. And that is reality. And the reality is, is we're always going to be fascinated by Taylor Swift, and we're going to be fascinated by football games, and we're going to be fascinated by Hollywood. It's just the nature of the beast. And I don't find there's much use in being critical of it because it's not going to change.
PETER HAYNES: Well, yeah, you used the term fascination. My wife would argue that I'm obsessed by some of those things, namely sports, and not just fascinated. So as we move over to the US, Frank, there's just over 40 days until the election. And since we last spoke, the two party leaders engaged in a debate that everyone but former President Trump thinks Vice President Harris won, but yet the result hardly moved the needle. What are the key variables you are following that you think will decide the November 5 election?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think it's going to actually be probably more granular, and that's going to become really important because everybody listening to this would know that in the United States, there's the popular vote, how many people vote for a particular candidate or party compared to the other one, and then there's the Electoral College vote. How many actual votes do you get to try to be president?
So there's no doubt the needle has moved in terms of Kamala Harris. Biden was behind in terms of the popular vote. Kamala Harris is ahead. In the most recent poll, she's about four or five points ahead in terms of the popular vote. The trouble is the vote is so inefficient in the United States that Democrats have to win by at least five percentage points in order to win the Electoral College votes.
In the last election, Joe Biden had 7 million more votes than Donald Trump, and yet he just barely won the Electoral College as a result of about 42,000 votes sprinkled over three or four states. So I think it's going to be as close this time. I think Kamala Harris will handily win the popular vote, but she's going to have a much closer contest in the seven battleground states.
And I think a lot of little things will matter. So here are some of the little things. In North Carolina, the lieutenant governor, who's running for governor there for the Republican Party, it turns out that he's a former porn star who says he was a Black Nazi and has said just about every creepy thing imaginable. And he's going to drag the Republican ticket down. Will that slop over into the presidential race? We don't know. But it has the potential to do that, in which case North Carolina's in play.
If North Carolina's in play, it's all over for Trump. He has to win North Carolina to win. So that's one example. In Pennsylvania, there's a Polish vote of about 800,000 voters. Democrats can virtually not win the election without Pennsylvania. The Polish vote is about 800,000 voters. That's a significant number.
And they're quite influenced by what's going on in the Ukraine. And that is why Kamala Harris specifically mentioned Polish voters in the debate because those votes need to break the Democratic way if they're going to try to end up winning Pennsylvania. That's an example.
What just happened in Georgia in the last day or two, where it looks like Cornel West's third party may not get on the ballot, that could be very material. Kennedy's effort to try to get off the ballot so his voters can vote for Trump could be very material. Some states won't let him off the ballot. How well the Green Party does in Michigan, that's very material. They prevented Hillary Clinton from being president before.
Jill Stein has been receiving about 2 million votes in the election. That's enough to change the course of history if that were to happen again. And then there's the young voters. The delta between Republicans and Democrats is 32%. This is almost unimaginable. The energy level of young voters could decide this election because there is such a vast discrepancy between their voting intentions between Democrats and Republicans.
The question is, will they vote? If they vote, they will vote Democrat by 32%, which is massive. And the delta for women is massive as well. It's probably 17 percentage points, at least, between the Democrats and the Republicans. So you say, so what? A lot of these communities don't vote. Well, that's where Oprah comes into it.
That's why Oprah was in Pennsylvania. That's to try to get women to vote and, particularly, African Americans to vote. And that's where Taylor Swift's endorsement becomes so important. She's not telling people how to vote. She's telling them to vote. And her constituency, 280 million people on Instagram, are predominantly young women. And if they vote, they're going to be voting predominantly Democratic.
So if she can influence 30,000 or 40,000 people in Pennsylvania or Michigan to vote, that could be the election in itself. And behind her, you probably will have other stars, Beyoncé and so on, who also have massive Instagram followers. A really massive celebrity who hasn't weighed in yet is Selena Gomez. She has over 300 million Instagram followers and is highly followed in the Latino community.
So these kinds of messages will resonate not for all of the voters, but if it's only 20,000 or 30,000, that could be enough to swing the election. So it's going to be the war within the war within the war that may decide this election.
PETER HAYNES: I was thinking maybe we'd invite Chris Krueger, our colleague, next month as we'll be talking towards the end of October. And that'll be obviously a hot period just before the election. So we'll see if that works for Chris's schedule. Let's just shift to the Middle East, Frank.
In the past week, there's been an escalation in hostilities in Israel, but this time, the axis of conflict shifted to Israel's other main regional adversary, the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Frank, can you tell us about Hezbollah? And what do you think of Israel's aggressive bombing activity deep into Lebanon earlier this week, which resulted in over 500 deaths and many more casualties?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, the Middle East is escalating at a very, very dangerous rate and has the potential to spiral totally out of control. Hezbollah, make no mistake about it, is a terrorist organization. It was founded by Iran, the Iran Revolutionary Guard, during the Lebanese Civil War. They wanted them to fight the Israeli forces that had invaded Lebanon. Its Shiite as a religious basis, which is, of course, like Iran.
Because it's Shiite, it not only has enemies in the West who have declared it the terrorist organization, but also in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and some of the other Sunni countries are really opposed to the influence of Hezbollah as well. So it's a proxy for Iran. Iran has three or four proxies. One of them is in Iraq. It's a Shiite community in Iraq.
It's got the Houthis in Yemen, would be a proxy fighting for Iran, Hamas, of course, in Gaza, and then you've got the Hezbollah proxy. The only difference is that this is the biggest, most well-equipped army of them all. They claim to have 100,000 fighters. The CIA, who've done an analysis of them, claim it's about 50,000. But they're heavily armed, so they're really, really dangerous.
And of course, they're on the northern border of Israel, and they're creating havoc in the West Bank and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. So very serious military force, much more organized and serious than Hamas in Gaza. What is Israel doing? I think none of us know with certainty what they're doing, but what it looks like is that they believe that Hezbollah is going to become increasingly militant against their communities in Northern Israel and go on the offensive.
So what they're doing is a pre-emptive strike. I mean, what they've done in terms of attacking Hezbollah, in terms of attacking them through explosives and their handheld devices, walkie-talkies and radios, that decapitated a lot of the leadership of Hezbollah, quite frankly. And more recently, they've attacked in Beirut and killed some of the leading commanders of Hezbollah.
So they're trying to decapitate Hezbollah and render them ineffective as a fighting force. Whether that'll work or not, none of us know. But I doubt if Hezbollah will go down without a huge fight. And they have the ability to reach Israeli cities, like Tel Aviv, with their rockets. So the potential for more escalation and danger there is ever present.
The only good news-- and I'd like to leave us with a bit of good news-- is Iran, much to the surprise of many, in a recent election, elected a moderate, Pezeshkian, who is actually quite open towards the West and gave a speech to the United Nations this week, where he spoke about how he is open to a relationship with Israel. If he is able to exercise some influence over the religious community in Iran, which tends to call the shots, and try to exercise some restraint, maybe there's a chance to put the genie back in the bottle. But that's the only slight piece of good news we've seen in the Middle East.
PETER HAYNES: Yeah, we're going to be watching that very closely. Does the Middle East have a potential influence on the election? I recognize that people have staked out their sides with respect to that. But is there anything that can happen in the next month or two that could influence the outcome of the election in the United States?
FRANK MCKENNA: Well, it's a very astute question, Peter, because it already has. There are at least several primaries in the Democratic Party where the incumbents were defeated because they were seen as too pro-Hamas. And the Jewish community got very actively involved in the campaigns and were able to defeat several candidates.
More significantly, however, is what could take place in Michigan. Michigan has a large Arabic population. They have a significant percentage of the voters in Dearborn, Michigan, but other parts of Michigan as well. And they're furious at the Democratic Party for what they think is too much leniency towards Israel.
So if they sit it out or vote against the Democrats, that could cost Michigan, which is 12 Electoral College votes and is part of the blue wall. So it could make a big difference. Minnesota as well, surprisingly enough. Even though Tim Walz is the governor from there, he's not entirely creating a landslide because of the large Somalian population. And the large Somalian population there are highly irritated with the Democratic Party for their position in the Middle East.
So it's not enough to influence millions of people nationally, but in some strategic locations, the Middle East could have an influence on the vote. Absolutely.
PETER HAYNES: Well, Frank, just before I ask you about the World Series, I took my mother to see the movie Reagan. And what I would say as a general comment, walking out of that movie wasn't so much about specifically Dennis Quaid's performance or anything more about whether all the exact individual facts were accurate, but it gave me more of a general perspective on just how much was going on in the United States when Reagan was president.
You had nuclear scares. You had the hostage crisis in Iran, which he ended. You had the fall of the Soviet Empire. And it gave me perspective. It doesn't matter what time in society we're talking about. There's always a lot of uncertainty and unrest. And we live in the moment right now and say it's the worst it's ever been, but it gives you a perspective that whether it be, as you mentioned earlier, the Cuban Missile Crisis, some of the other events that have occurred over your lifetime--
Is it fair to say, Frank, that we get a little too caught in the moment-- I'm not trying to downplay how serious global issues are right now-- and need to step back and realize that there's always global unrest?
FRANK MCKENNA: Peter, that's a really, really important admonition for us because we do. We get totally caught in the moment, and we think that our crisis is the only crisis and the most important crisis. Just as a proof point to what you're saying, the stock market, I believe, during Biden's presidency here has increased something around 56% to 60%. That's pretty dramatic.
And the number of jobs that have been created are record breaking. That's in the United States alone. In Canada, I think we've engineered a soft landing after coming out of the pandemic and all of the inflation-induced measures that came out of the Ukraine war in the Middle East. We have one of the stronger economies in the G7.
And the end result is that in spite of what I think are world-class conflicts, Ukraine, the Middle East, elections shakeups all over the world taking place of just a change of government in the UK, potentially a massive disruptive election in the US, the economy just motors along, and a lot of people are quite oblivious to the political intrigue that's taking place because they're looking at issues that are more bread and butter.
So I would say that, to much extent, we've always had crises. It could have been 9/11, that horrific event, or could go back to the Vietnam War, could be the Korean War, or it could be some of the recessions that we've had that border on depressions. We've gone through a lot. The world is pretty resilient.
And, Peter, I have to say this because I'm a homer. There's not a place in the world that's been better throughout all of this than Canada. We've been able to have civility in our political debates. We've had peaceful transitions of power. Even though a lot of people would argue with it, I think that we've generally had good leadership at the premier level and the national level, honest people, respectable people, people doing their best. Not a better place to be.
PETER HAYNES: And I think that that would have been the message that Prime Minister Trudeau gave Stephen Colbert's audience last night, too, was just exactly that. Through all the trials and tribulations, it's a pretty good country to live in, and I think we agree with that. So you talked about intrigue, Frank. There is some intrigue in baseball this week as we're seeing some really interesting wild-card races unfolding.
And meanwhile, some of the division-winning favorites, like the Dodgers, the Phillies, and the Guardians, are locking in ahead of the playoffs. Who is your World Series favorite?
FRANK MCKENNA: My World Series favorite, I have to tell you, is Guerrero. He's not going to be in the playoffs or anything else. But I watch the Blue Jays every night just so I can watch him, not only with the bat, but with the glove and on the bench just smiling and loving life and thoroughly enjoying the game of baseball. He's why I watch baseball now.
But in terms of the others, you can't help but be mesmerized by Ohtani and his skill sets or Judge and his skill sets. These are just five tool players. They take me back to Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays and Hank Aaron and Bonds and some of the great players over the years. So I'm going to enjoy watching them as individuals.
But some of these playoffs will be interesting. The Padres just need a tie to get in, and that would be neat if that were to happen. I'm partial to the Detroit Tigers. I was in London, Ontario, for events yesterday, and everybody was talking about Detroit because they're fairly close to that city. And a lot of Canadians cheer for the Detroit Tigers.
I'm always partial to the Kansas City Royals because they're a small market team and always seem to put a scrappy team on the field. So those would be some of the things I'm looking for. Who's your favorite?
PETER HAYNES: I have a tough time going against the Dodgers, although their starting rotation is a major, major issue with Tyler Glasnow hurt as well and Walker Buehler just not coming back from his two surgeries. So that lineup, though, is hard to get through one to three. And then the Guardians-- I heard a baseball guy reporting this weekend. He said the Guardians have the best bullpen he's ever seen in history, so they'll be tough to beat if he can get them into the sixth inning.
But you mentioned London, Ontario, and the Tigers, and I can't help but remember a story in the early '90s. I went to school in London, but I'd gone back to visit the following year. It was 1992, I want to say, Frank. And the local bar that I spent a lot of time at was called Joe Cool's, and that's a Detroit Tigers bar. And I'll never forget. I went in there with one of my friends.
And as you walked into the bar, because it's a Detroit Tigers town, they had Lloyd Moseby's jersey stapled to the floor. So everybody that walked in stepped over Lloyd Moseby's jersey. And one of my idiot friends walked in behind me and started trying to rip the jersey out of the ground and ended up getting kicked out. So I can tell you that I loved being in London for exactly that reason. It was a Tiger town, and they loved their Tigers.
And actually, I got to be honest with you, I'm really cheering for the Tigers right now. They're a good story. They sold at the deadline, and they got a chance to make the playoffs. So it's going to be fun to watch, Frank. So we'll see. We'll be talking. It won't be over when we speak next at the end of October. They'll still be playing, so we'll have more to talk about.
But this has been a great conversation, a lot on Canada and it was fun to talk about. And we'll get at it again next month.
FRANK MCKENNA: OK, enjoyed it. Thank you, Peter.
[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 individual's 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.
[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.