Transcript
Hello and welcome to The Download. I'm your host, Dave Richardson, and it is jobs Friday. So we bring on Canada's hardest working economist who's been working super hard this week. Eric Lascelles, Chief Economist at RBC Global Asset Management. Eric, welcome.
Hi, Dave. Thanks for having me.
You know what, Eric, I think I kept up with you. I think I've already put in about an 80- or 90-hour week. So I finally know what it feels like to be you, almost. I'm sure you've worked 120 hours.
But have you, like me, moved temporarily to the West Coast to squeeze those extra three hours out of the week? Because I've done that. I'm in Victoria right now.
Oh, my goodness. You look great for what's seven in the morning on a Friday. That's good. And is that a red shirt you're wearing? I've got my red on.
I am wearing a red shirt. Is that in a patriotic context you're thinking?
Yeah, it's very patriotic. So I was out with a lot of investors, a lot of Canadians this week, and there is that little peek at what's been happening on the tariff run. We'll get back to that. We did the podcast last Friday, and I thought you did a really nice job on the analysis. Then I've seen some of the iterations as things have evolved over this week, and we'll get to that. But let's get into the jobs report. Let's start with Canada, since we've got that patriotism, because we're worried about Canada and a lot of negative news around the Canadian economy. But once you start cutting rates and when you've gone through a fairly slow economic period, what you love to see is jobs being created. We get the Canadian jobs report this morning. And?
It was good indeed. 76,000 new jobs were created that was well above the consensus. The back story is—you made one of the important comments, and I'll get to that in a moment—but the hiring had been quite strong the prior two months as well. We had 91,000 jobs the month before and 44,000 the month before that. Those are big numbers. It gets a little blurry with all this swirling population growth. It was fast, and maybe it's now slowing, and it makes it a little harder to dig through to what normal is. But I think any way you slice it, that's a run of three good months. And really, keep in mind, unlike in the US, the concern economically in Canada has been too much weakness, not too much strength, unlike in the US, where it's an overheating concern. It is an underheating concern here. Canada had a 6.9% unemployment rate not too long ago, and so that was not a wonderful place to be. We like these strong job numbers. This is broadly helpful. Obviously, it's always nuanced. For the Bank of Canada, all sorts of considerations, but ultimately, to get the economy where we'd like it to be, which is in a strong state of equilibrium, we do need some extra hiring. I must say that's what we got. Indeed, consistent with that, the unemployment rate is down again. So it's down to 6.6%, which isn't great still. We'd like it probably to be in the high 5%. It might be a definition of normal for Canada, maybe 6%, but not 6.6%, and not certainly 6.9% where it was a few months ago. And so we're seeing some progress toward that goal. And I have to say, as I look at other economic indicators for Canada, I have been seeing something of an uptick. The business health survey was out not long ago, and businesses were broadly feeling a bit better and expecting their sales to go up, and planning to hire a bit more, and planning to invest a bit more. On that front, I'd say that we are seeing a little bit of an economic renaissance here. As you say, rate cuts have happened in a big way for Canada more than really almost any other major central bank. As we've often noted, the effect of those rate cuts is also outsized, even if there hadn't been more, just because Canada is so rate sensitive. So it's a double whammy. And so on both fronts, we are getting this helping hand. And so that's quite welcome as it stands right now. And you dig through the details, and it was mostly private sector hiring, which is nice. One of the criticisms has been that a lot of the hiring that did happen in recent years did skew a little bit toward the public sector, just less reflective of economic conditions and economic sentiment. And so that held together quite nicely, which was quite welcome. The wage growth data slowed a little bit. And of course, you can take this any number of ways. If you're a worker, you'd rather have it faster, of course. But it slowed from 4% year over year to 3.5%. 3.5 is not a bad number still. We had been nervous just because wage growth had been so significantly outpacing any productivity gains, or more precisely, productivity plus inflation, but it was still outpacing that significantly. And so that was a bit of a concern that we were in this inflationary place where wages were moving too fast. And so I think in the context of settling and keeping inflation around that 2% number, that's probably not a bad outcome. It's not such a horrible place for the actual worker either. I walk away feeling pretty good about this. We've said a few times that Canada is this extremely uncertain economic environment, particularly over the first half of the year. I would still stand by that. Of course, tariff threat swivel, which I think we'll get to a bit later. In theory, population growth plummeting from really fast in 2023 to still quite fast in 2024, to government's forecast population decline this year. We're not quite there, but a significant deceleration. And so that's, in theory, something that's slowing. On the flip side, you get the rate cuts that are super helpful. We're looking for some small revival in productivity growth, which we're still waiting to see evidence of, but some powerful forces pushing in different directions. I guess you would say—and this is one of the very first January 2025 numbers that we can talk about for Canada—you can say that it looks like it's holding together. It looks like the forces of good are outweighing the forces of evil in the context of tailwinds versus headwinds for growth. And so the economy, if anything, is picking up a little bit in Canada, and that was not preordained. And so we should feel pretty good about that.
Yeah. And we just did a series earlier in January. We had about 15 podcasts where we had investment managers from all around the world come on and take a look back at 2024 and forward into 2025. By the way, if you want to go back and listen to those, subscribe to the podcast. Anywhere that you get your podcast, subscribe on YouTube, or I guess it's «follow» for when we talk about the podcast sites. And give us a rating, let us know how we're doing. We always like to hear feedback because it helps us give you what you're looking for. But when we talked to those who were involved in the Canadian market and were linked more to the Canadian economy, they all made a similar comment that we're almost at peak pessimism around the Canadian economy. Maybe even on Monday, and again, we'll get back to it, when we thought the tariffs were going to be imposed. Maybe that was the peak negativity or uncertainty or fear that Canadians had around our economy. I'm not talking about markets, just the economy and the outlook for just being here in Canada. And typically, when you hit a bottom, by definition, there's only one way to go, and that's up. So even if the news isn't fantastic, it's still better than awful. And now we're maybe seeing some numbers. And again, you said you've been seeing them for a while now, but this is a really nice number that says, hey, maybe, just maybe things are okay. And the upside of strong growth in the US is we've had a little bit of a divergence in our economic outcomes over the last little while between Canada and the US and markets as well. But that's more unusual than not, isn't it? And typically, the US growth continues and it maybe even accelerates. That's ultimately going to flow across the border, tariffs aside. But that should actually continue to help the Canadian economy.
Yeah, I think that's all exactly right. So tariffs aside—where there is this question mark that hasn't quite been fully resolved, though I would say, just to steal a bit of our later thunder, presumably, that we've seen some incrementally promising developments on that front, I would say—but you're quite right. The Canadian economy is in a position to do a little better. I'm fully on the peak pessimism story. I guess some of that does depend on what happens on March 6th, some other question marks, but I do think so. In fact, I was just at the Victoria CFA annual dinner last night conveying precisely that thought, and yeah, when you're cutting rates and when some challenges that dominated last year start to fade a little bit, and not to politicize anything or to provide any endorsements investments, but there is the opportunity for a reset from a political standpoint, depending on when elections happen and how those go. Perhaps that will provide some form of tailwind as well from a policy standpoint. So on a number of fronts, I think the outlook for Canada is getting a little bit better, which is certainly quite welcome right now. To your comment that historically the two countries grow very similarly, that's exactly right. We were just looking at the famous chart that shows that incredibly tight relationship. It is quite rare to see a multi-year deviation in growth between the two countries, which is what we had with Canada underperforming, of course. You did have ones in 2015, 2016, which was an oil shock. Canada did snap back after that. Late '80s to early '90s, there was a slightly lengthier period where Canada was reliably underperforming, and it was, again, a bit of a resource shock. It was a housing bust. It might have been a little bit of a more hawkish central bank with implications for Canada there. But in all cases, it wasn't permanent. In fact, in both episodes, the Canadian economy accelerated up toward the US, as opposed to the US accelerating down. There are broader questions of productivity and innovation, and we're actually doing some pretty serious work on that behind the scenes right now. And I can't say it's easily resolved or that Canada can enjoy the exact same innovation that the US is managing in the near term. But I do think there's scope for some catch-up, for sure.
Yeah. And you were out in Victoria. So when you're sitting in Victoria, you're actually below the 49th parallel. You're feeling the US. I was doing an event, and I know a lot of them are listening, just a fantastic crowd in the Niagara region last night. So they're right on the border, and we had several business owners there, and they're feeling it, and they're worried. We talked about this very idea of that, as you say, peak pessimism. Again, and I said, look, watch tomorrow morning. Where we are right now, watch that jobs number and see if the jobs number is good. They're going to wake up and hear the jobs number and listen to this and jobs number is good. Maybe we get that turn. But on the market side, too, we've had 14 years now of US market outperformance of the Canadian market. US dollar appreciating versus the Canadian dollar. And we saw at the bottom of this nervousness around the tariffs overnight on Monday, the dollar was down around 67.5 cents US. And now we're back up towards 70. But those things tend to run in those 10- to 15-year cycles and then start to reverse. Let's not get over our skis, so to speak, or pass the puck too quickly. But let's say that maybe, just maybe, we've got some green shoots. And as we move into the spring here in Canada, with all the snow on my lawn, I'm looking for those green shoots. So let's go to the US. The US one was a little more mixed, right? But I'll let you tell the story.
Yeah, it certainly was. Ultimately, it did slightly miss the consensus forecast. It was 143,000 jobs created. The expectation had been 175, so it was a miss. I would just say my very loose interpretation of US job numbers in this environment, which is one in which the economy is pretty hot, we're just hoping it hangs on to this level of performance. If it went any hotter, it might be problematic. If it went any cooler, you might get nervous that something else was happening. But to me, this is very much in that sweet spot. The sweet spot, very loosely defined, is 100,000 to 200,000 jobs a month. 143,000 is pretty much in the middle there. Okay, it’s a little bit less than the consensus, but not such a bad thing when really the concerns have been tilted a little bit more toward overheating than underheating recently. You may recall the month before was a big monster month of job creation, and there were some special factors, and it was timing of Black Friday and some catch up from hurricanes still, etc. I don't think that was the sustainable trend, but nevertheless, that was a bit too hot for sure. Particularly in that light, which is we just had this really hot month the month before, and a bit of a giveback makes sense. I'm quite comfortable with where we've ended up. As much as the unemployment rate very confusingly comes from a completely different survey, and so you can't quite say, of course, therefore X happened. But nevertheless, the unemployment rate is worth watching. It actually fell slightly. It fell from 4.1% to 4.0%. Just to make the point that we're all a bit nervous about overheating, and so maybe you could say it would have been better if it stayed at 4.1%, but certainly you can't say this was too little job creation for the economy. If anything, you could say it was maybe a little tiny bit too much just to keep that unemployment rate happily in the low 4%. It's now at the very low end of that. Of course, not to be unhappy with job creation and not to say that unemployment is a good thing, and of course, we don't want that, but just in general, you would think that 4 to 4.5% US unemployment rate is probably about a sustainable spot. If you go much below that, you worry about the inflation picking up and other problems emerging. If you go much above, of course, you're just needlessly having unemployed people, which we don't want.
The revisions, though, were up on previous months, and the wages were a little stronger.
That's right. Again, as much as the job creation was a little softer, I would say everything else tilted a bit in the opposite direction, so a little bit more wage growth. First of all, you get some revisions every month. So the net revisions, you're right, to the prior three months were significantly positive, 100,000 jobs extra found over the last few months. You might recall that we weren't originally talking about 307,000 jobs created in December. In the prior month, it was 250 some, I think. They found some extra jobs that month, too. That was one set of revisions that were positive. However, there are two other sets. It just happens to be the case that February is the special benchmark revision month. They did a fair bit—and this sounds awfully stale and maybe not that interesting—but significant revisions to the data up until March 2024. So yes, that's 10 months ago. But anyways. They found that there were 589,000 fewer employed people. They previously thought the level of employment was way back then. I should say, though, they made a preliminary estimate. They were guessing what that number would be a number of months ago. They thought it was going to be 818,000. The level of employment was less than they'd originally thought in real-time a year ago, but not as much less as they'd guessed in the fall. So take from that what you will. Similarly—and this does apply right through to the data up until last month, so the 2024 data—they do revisit the prior data, really going into the weeds here, the prior data, they're matching income tax data with the wage data from that. That's with a lag because, of course, everybody reports their income tax in April, and so they don't really have the latest information. But the data more recently was they revised the population estimates. That's a fairly big deal because US population growth, we've all known this, has been significantly faster than official data. They weren't picking up the undocumented residents coming across the Southern US border. They've done some work to that effect, and they found the US population is 2.9 million people higher than they previously thought. Again, everybody knew this. They were being very conservative in their estimates previously. They've smushed that in there as well. But again, when push comes to shove, the unemployment rate is the unemployment rate. That's the thing we're looking most at, if that makes sense. And so that's still after revisions, a 4.0% number, which is the healthy place and toward the lower end of the range. And so population is bigger, and employment low, and all these things, but they do ultimately square there. We haven't been misled in any significant way as to whether the economy is tight or loose. It's in a fairly tight place for the US.
Yeah, I mean, no big deal. They just were off by the size of the city of Toronto.
That's right. You might say that. Of course, there are estimates that in Canada, the undocumented resident population could be up to three quarters of a million people. So maybe we're off by a city the size of Ottawa or something as well. Canada, so not trivial there. One other thing, Dave, I know we need to move beyond the job numbers, perhaps, but the California fires, the LA fires. We've been so distracted by tariffs and other things that we haven't quite put the effort in that we normally do to sort through all of that. But I can say we are just belatedly putting out a little note in our macro memo that will be out next week on that subject. But the BLS did say explicitly they did not see a significant deviation in employment from the LA fires. That is our tentative takeaway. Certainly, massive insurance implications and insurance costs going forward, big personal wealth implications there to the extent that a lot of people who didn't have fully insured houses and all sorts of personal tragedies there. But ultimately, we don't think it did as much of an economic hit job to LA economic output or the country's output as, say, the hurricanes in Florida, in Georgia, and North Carolina, South Carolina did, say last fall. It looks as if that's certainly the case on the labor market side, which is most people, even in LA, were in a position to continue working during the fires and lots of high productivity, white collar jobs where you could work from home or from your office or where you needed to work from, regardless of what was going on around you.
Yeah. And just your general natural disaster economic outcome is that you have that negative event, but then the money flows in, you get the pickup in activity. And I mentioned that because I was talking to a gentleman who owns several properties down in Florida, and the hurricanes that went through there this year and said that just the activity is crazy there with the rebuilding and all the activities around cleanup, which are ongoing. But California will go through that. That's generally what happens, correct?
Yeah, That's right. Yeah, it's one of these perverse things where natural disasters are GDP positive over the long run. You have to go build some houses or build some things, and GDP doesn't care that things got destroyed beforehand. So that's the subtle long term positive. And then in the short run, the output does fall during the event and immediately thereafter, and then it bounces back to more normal levels shortly thereafter. That's part of the payroll ebb and flow that we were talking about last year in the context of the hurricanes. It looks like the event was not large enough to have a national significance in the labor market.
Now, let's go back and rehash the last week or so around the tariffs, the way they were announced, the progression through the weekend, ultimately to the Monday, where they're then pulled back after what we call givebacks from Canadian-Mexican governments, but they're only pushed back 30 days, and now we still have to worry. But I will mention for those listeners, if you go to an advisor at RBC or on our website at rbcgam.com, Eric has put out a piece on the tariffs and lots of thinking around that, along with all of the great work that Eric does on LinkedIn and X, I guess, is what we would call it now. So he's a great follow there. So if you want to keep track of the day to day thoughts of Eric, instead of waiting once a week or once every couple of weeks or once a month when we have him on here, you can certainly track that stuff down because he really does amazing work. So when you sit back here a week later—I think it was almost exactly a week from when we were recording our thoughts on the tariffs last Friday—just walk through the week maybe and how things evolved. And was there anything different than you expected or did it play out the way you thought it might?
Yeah, I mean, boy, it's been a real full circle, you might say. I can even articulate it in the sense that I've had this presentation. In fact, I was making this presentation yesterday, but started putting it together last week. And the title of the presentation originally was—just because it's the big subject, though, I was covering other economic issues, too—it was «Tariff Time?» with a question mark. The title a week ago would have been consistent with some of the conversations we had last Friday. Over the weekend, the level of rhetoric escalated to a point that it seemed to become rather more serious. So I removed the question mark. It became a declarative statement tariff time. That's where we stood over the weekend. Then Monday morning, after that initial seemingly failed conversation between Canada and the US—at one in which Mexico had succeeded in achieving its own delay, but Canada seemingly had not—I added an exclamation mark. Briefly, the presentation was scheduled to be tariff time with an exclamation mark. Then, of course, a second conversation occurred later on Monday and managed to achieve that same deferral of tariffs that Mexico had achieved. It's back to tariff time with the question mark. That's the full circle. Certainly, I felt the emotional roller coaster everyone else has and been very nervous at times and quite concerned, and other times a bit less concerned. I think the danger right now is that we're a bit too glib, we're a bit too confident that we've got it all figured out. I know, of course, tariff will happen and will be delayed. I would say throughout, we've been of the view that the most likely, I would say, medium-term scenario—so let's look forward a year from now, say—and we will find that there probably are some smaller targeted tariffs that have been applied to Canada and to a number of countries. And don't underestimate the value of tariffs as, at least from an accounting perspective, a revenue tool to justify or enable tax cuts and to protect certain industries. But I would be quite surprised if there were blanket 25% tariffs on Canada or on a lot of countries, really. And so that's been the story throughout, and we've been a bit worried about that story at times and a bit more confident in that story at other times. I guess we're a bit more confident in it now that we've seen—let me see, how many delays has it been?—we've just seen three delays in the tariff for Canada and Mexico, from inauguration day to February 1st and then February 4th, and now 30 days would be March 6th at a minimum. That is repeated delays. That is certainly suggesting that a fair fraction of these tariffs are a negotiating strategy as opposed to, tariffs are good for their own sake. If you thought tariffs were amazing for their own sake, the instant you gain power you'd be raking in all that revenue and helping the US economy. Of course, that's not actually how tariffs really work. I think actually the behavior of the US is consistent with that, as was its interaction with Colombia, where they were threatened and the concession was made and they were removed, as was the border control concessions, you could say that Canada and Mexico made and achieved that deferral. Probably the best guess is either you get another deferral in late March or maybe—it's pretty tight timing—there's an economic deal that struck by then, though I would just emphasize that when it came to negotiating the USMCA, which maybe was a bigger project, but it's hard to say, that did take over a year. Just for context, it would be pretty amazing if you could pull off a full economic deal in the span of 30 days. So I'm not completely convinced the tariffs are off the table as of March 6th. There are scenarios where the big tariffs do get put on for a brief period of time. We'd be very surprised if they endured, just in the sense they're sufficiently damaging to all parties, that that's not particularly desirable. We've seen pretty clearly what Trump is interested in from a Canadian perspective. Again, border control is a big one, and defense spending is another. I've got a list of eight or nine other things that I'm sure could come up in the conversation, but it's hard to say at this juncture what might dominate. I think there is room for Canada to make concessions on some of these things. There's already been money spent for border control. They can spend more, to be honest, if you want to just view it as, is it worth spending a few billion dollars to avoid many billions of dollars of economic damage? It is whether or not you think it's really the most efficient spending or not. It's certainly fair that Canada is not meeting its NATO targets for military spending. It doesn't seem absurd, even from a Canadian focus perspective, to think that there's room to expand that. I guess the question is just how much further those conversations go. But I'll circle back to the point that I'd be surprised if big tariffs were applied that stuck around. I'd be a bit surprised if we didn't ultimately get some smaller tariffs, whether it's steel and aluminum again, whether it's some other targeted tariffs. I think, realistically, we probably should be braced for that, braced for some economic damage. But if you avoid the blanket tariffs and the 25% tariff, you avoid the inflationary hit as well. It's a manageable hit as opposed to one that would just be unmanageable.
And I just want to come back and reemphasize one of the points that you just made there, because I think it's really important. And that is the idea that if you honestly think that this is a winning policy approach, that this is what you need to do as the President of the United States or as the United States in general, to improve the state of your economy, bring manufacturing jobs back, all the things that are talked about around tariffs, you would impose the tariffs, and it wouldn't be like, hey, I'm going to do it unless you do this. Because the idea is it's the right thing to do, so we're going to do it, which makes you, logically, lean back towards this is more about a negotiation. Then there was an article, I think it was in the Wall Street Journal, but the whole idea that the rhetoric, as you say, went up over the weekend. Then, of course, markets open up in Asia, they're down 3%. Markets open up in Europe, they're down 3%. The markets are about to open up in North America and then do open down 2.5% or 3%. The Canadian dollar sitting at 67.5 cents. And Trump wakes up and goes, oh, wow, this ain't good. I like a strong stock market linked to my presidency and goes, okay, Canada and Mexico, let's get something so that it looks like a win. But maybe these tariffs aren't such a great idea after all. And so I guess all this combines to say, if you put your logical hat on, you'd come to the conclusion that you're coming to and that I'm sharing with investors as well when I'm speaking. But it’s not always logical. And then on the flip side, another commentator I was listening to this morning goes, well, has he given up this whole bluff that I put the tariffs out there and if you don't do something, then you're going to have the tariffs applied because he's now gone through several scenarios where he said he was going to do it, pulled back or delayed, and is the credibility shot? So now is it even maybe more likely that something has to happen? And again, that's more likely something on the targeted side in your view, right?
Yeah, that's right. I think we just need to work in a world of probabilities. We cannot say definitively there will be small tariffs. We can't say definitively there won't be big tariffs. There are scenarios which there are no tariffs to speak of in a Canada-Mexico context. And so we've been trying to do that. Going into this weekend, and I should say, feeling some level of confidence prior to the scare, it was all thrust upon us, perhaps early in the week, we were of the view that maybe there was a cumulatively 20% chance or so of really nasty tariffs actually being applied and sticking around. And so the risk is probably a little higher, not a little lower, to be honest, over the last few weeks as we go over it as we just revised those estimates, but still distinctly the minority outcome, the less likely outcome. As you say, it gets really very hazy in the game theory. As he lost his clout? but there's still enough danger from that and the possibility of tariffs being applied. You can't completely ignore that. It's not as though the US can't extract concessions, unclear the extent to which Canada would be willing to concede things, or other countries. It is still a bit tricky. Europe is likely in the crosshairs shortly, and you could argue that's actually a more logical complaint, at least, than Canada was in the context of it's a pretty big trade surplus and very different economic policies and regulatory regimes and these sorts of things, some of which US tech firms have run a foul of. That could be an awfully interesting one and a little bit precarious as well. It's not impossible that the European auto sector is in for some tariff for a period of time. We're not through the danger zone just yet, but I do think we should stick to our guns here and really, realistically, smaller tariffs are likely, and that's what we're forecasting and really investing on that basis as well.
Yeah, and at the fear of being repetitive, because I'm going to keep saying this and remind me, one of the things why we do this podcast is we want to give you the facts, the answers to some of the questions you have and explanation of things that are happening in economies and markets. But ultimately, everything we do, all the guests we have on, are about helping you become a better investor. I think when you listen to Eric, when you listen to some of the other guests we have around anything that's happening in the global economy, a natural disaster or the prospect of these tariffs, I hope what you hear in the voices of all of these investment professionals is a calmness. There's not a motion in the way they're coming at it. It is clinical. Here's what the numbers say. Here are the different scenarios that could play out. Here's some probabilities. You can't ignore these things, but you also don't want to react emotionally. As a parent, I've got two teenagers, and my wife and I were always talking about, okay, settle down. You're upset about it, about what's happened, but let's take a step back, a deep breath. Okay, what's the right course of action? Let's make the right decision. And as I've been out with Canadians this week—and I've been out a lot this week, I was not joking around at the front of the podcast—Canadians are a little bit unnerved about this, and for good reason. This is a different threat than we're typically used to. The Americans are our friends. This is our closest ally, arguably, in the whole world. And so we're a little bit unnerved about this outcome. But when it comes to your investment portfolio, again, listen to this podcast. Listen to the professionals we have on here. Listen to what they're saying. Have a good advisor, get the right advice, and make good solid decisions, good non-emotional, rational decisions around your portfolio. If you do that consistently over time, along with a good financial plan, you're going to be successful investing. And a lot of this short-term noise ultimately disappears. Over the long haul, what really drives things is consistent economic growth, which drives growth and profitability in the stock market. It's low and stable inflation, which keeps interest rates at a rate where we can generate good returns out of your bond portfolio. And that's really what matters. So it's tough. It's tough. And we have, I believe, four years, less two weeks and four days left of a different kind of administration out of the US with a particular approach and style. So having that emotional strength, just sticking to making good, solid rational decisions is going to be important because there's going to be opportunities there. If you let fear take over, you'll miss some of those great opportunities that are going to be presented over the next four years. Again, a little preachy there, Eric. Sorry. I know it's early in the morning for you to get a diatribe like that from me. But thanks for getting up. Thanks again for last week. Thanks again for all the great stuff you're putting out that, again, is available to all of you. If you contact whoever you work with at RBC or come to our website. And I know you're going to keep putting that information out. And like I say, we'll keep you up to date and we'll keep getting you on as news develops. Thanks again, though, for getting up early in the morning in Victoria and doing this with us.
My pleasure. Bye, everybody.