FidelityConnects: Policy, politics and Canada-U.S. relations

[00:03:46] Pamela Ritchie: Hello, and welcome to Fidelity Connects. I'm Pamela Ritchie. After what seems like forever Parliament resumes in Ottawa next week with no shortage of legislative issues on the agenda. Tariffs, housing, U.S. relations, China, energy, even a budget, of course. These are only some of the topics that may be tackled in the House this session. All of this follows an unprecedented election campaign won by Mark Carney just a few weeks after winning the Liberal Party nomination. What can investors and advisors expect from the fall session, and what can they expect from Prime Minister Carney himself? I'm very excited to be joined today by Andrew Bevan. He is the National Campaign Co-Director for Prime Minister Mark Carney. He is also CEO at Catalyze4. A warm welcome to you, Andrew. Thank you for being here today.

[00:04:32] Andrew Bevan: Thank you for having me. Happy to be here.

[00:04:34] Pamela Ritchie: It's extraordinary what Mark Carney and you and your team managed to pull off in a very short period of time. Let's invite people to send questions in for Andrew for the next little while. Can we begin just by asking you to kind of back up to what December through March meant for you? I mean, did you sleep?

[00:04:54] Andrew Bevan: Not too much, not too much, but expecting to so that's okay.  It was an interesting six months. The former Prime Minister had appointed me campaign director at Thanksgiving last year, with the expectation that the election campaign was going to be at some point in 2025. Obviously, other events overtook all of that starting in December and then the former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trudeau, announcing his intended resignation in early January. Throughout all of that I remained as the campaign director. We had been preparing for an election anyway. I'd been put in there to make sure that we had people nominated, we had all the pieces of a campaign ready to go. It becomes more complicated when you don't know who the leader's going to be in that campaign, which became the case in January. A campaign that we'd been planning for with one leader suddenly became a campaign we were planning for with somebody we didn't know that would be leader. Over the course of February and March it became clear that Mr. Carney was going to probably win the leadership so we could start planning around that, always knowing that the election campaign was going to begin by the end of March.

[00:05:59] Pamela Ritchie: But you couldn't print signs or, I mean, you couldn't get ready for...

[00:06:01] Andrew Bevan: Well, we did print signs.

[00:06:02] Pamela Ritchie: Did you, actually? Okay.

[00:06:03] Andrew Bevan: I mean, for candidates. Those are the sorts of things we did get done in terms of signing off on designs and, I mean, some things need more than the lead time we were going to be given of two and a half weeks between just kind of being an elected leader and the election starting.

[00:06:18] Pamela Ritchie: Like what, for instance?

[00:06:20] Andrew Bevan: You have to have some of the big things in place, like having a contract with Air Canada to have an airplane to be able to get around the country for the campaign. Things like putting a wrap on the media bus and the bus is going to take the leader around the county. We did wrap the media bus with a generic Liberal wrap and waited and hoped that we would have enough time to do the other one once we knew whose photograph to put on the bus, which we did. It did happen in the first few days of the campaign but we knew it couldn't be done for day one. Anyway, a whole range of pieces that had to come together fairly quickly but on the basis of having sort of 60% or 70% of a campaign in place for whomever the new leader was going to be and then add in the extra 30% of the new leaders brand and what they stood for on that platform, et cetera, which could be literally just plopped onto what we built.

[00:07:09] Pamela Ritchie: How many campaigns have you run over the course of the years? I mean, this is obviously...

[00:07:12] Andrew Bevan: Oh boy. Well, I mean, starting when I was younger, much younger, in the 1990s, starting with local campaigns, so ran quite a lot of local campaigns, provincially and federally. And then central campaigns, both in Ontario and in Ottawa, probably five or six. So yeah, quite a few. And they're all different, they are all unique, this was just more unique than usual.

[00:07:36] Pamela Ritchie: I bet. Absolutely. I mean, things like even advertising space, I think you had mentioned, can take quite a long lead time because you have to know spots and things. How did you scramble to get that? Or again, the team had certain things in place.

[00:07:49] Andrew Bevan: Yes, we had that in place in terms of what our buy would be and how that would be played out over the course of what we thought would be a five-week campaign, although that would be up to the incoming leader as to how long the election would actually be. Those sorts of things you can get done. What you can't get done, obviously, is work on the content very much of what those ads are going to look like. Now having said that, by the time we got into the last couple of weeks of the leadership campaign and it became clear that Mr. Carney was going to win we could begin to figure out, well, exactly what that would entail.

[00:08:21] And you may remember that even before that, in February, as a party, as a campaign, put out television ads, quite a big buyout on television about Trump and Poilievre and trying to compare the two and put those two things together in peoples' minds. We already had some advertising going that was a contrast but we couldn't put together the advertising that was about the new leader and what they stood for.

[00:08:53] Pamela Ritchie: The administration in the United States was a big player in the Canadian election, how big a player were they?

[00:08:59] Andrew Bevan: Definitely a big player. I think the two different things, there's sort of an inside story and an outside story to this. One is, obviously, the threat from the Trump administration, from Trump himself, and what that entailed took up a lot of public oxygen in the campaign, most definitely. Therefore, it meant that a lot of the campaign revolved around that in terms of the dialogue over the course of the campaign. But underneath that, and this remains true today, the issues that were then most important to Canadians, and remain so, are much more around the economy and cost of living and affordability and housing and those pieces that affects them and touches them every day. Now, these two things come together, obviously. If you have an economic threat from the Trump administration, which is going to have an effect on macroeconomy, that's going to affect Canadians and, obviously, exacerbate some of those cost of living issues, potentially. So they are, in a way, one and the same issue but not projected that way over the course of the campaign so it was, obviously, very, very important.

[00:10:04] Again, I think that probably ... now, Mr. Carney won a strong minority  and I think part of that is because he was able to speak to both pieces. His experience, expertise and the way he could talk about what the country needed to do in the face of Trump was trusted because of how people quickly took the measure of the man and knew what his experience was and saw it as being the right experience and the right person for the moment, and the right sort of tenor for the moment as well, I think.

[00:10:38] Pamela Ritchie: Speak more about that, calm or...

[00:10:39] Andrew Bevan: Calm, professional, been through crises before, understands what they're about, understands how to deal with them, understands how you get from the beginning to the end of them in one piece, or better. I think he exuded that in the campaign quite quickly. He had an amazingly quick run. This is the most unique thing of all of this, really, in terms of him entering formal politics in January and becoming prime minister in March, that is, you know, it's highly unusual, to me, is an example of just how impressive he is in terms of figuring these things out.

[00:11:20] Pamela Ritchie: When you think about the month of April, April started off with Liberation Day which, of course, is in the middle of an election campaign here, just take us through some of the messaging there. I mean, you were still very much involved. The actual election was rolling and crises were sort of being dropped all over the Canadian economy. I wonder how some of that was used to the benefit of the campaign, not to sort of capitalize too much on individual problems but it was used astutely.

[00:11:53] Andrew Bevan: Well, I mean, more than usual it was absolutely necessary for a campaigning prime minister to also be acting as prime minister in the prime minister's office in terms of what was happening and coming at us.

[00:12:07] Pamela Ritchie: That was useful on some level.

[00:12:08] Andrew Bevan: It certainly was. Politically it was useful because it allowed people to see the Prime Minister being Prime Minister in the midst of a campaign, didn't have to pretend to know what he might be like as prime minister, you could see it right in front of your eyes, and can see it in circumstances which were fairly dire day by day in terms of what was coming at us. Unusually we had to plan for allowing the Prime Minister to be Prime Minister in the campaign as opposed to just being a candidate, and that was unusual.

[00:12:35] Pamela Ritchie: In terms of travel and geography did you have to make sure he was in Ottawa more often than he might have been?

[00:12:43] Andrew Bevan: We had to know that we could get here if we needed to. The Trump administration doesn't tell people what it's going to do very often in advance so you don't know when they're going to do what so we had to be ready for surprises and have a plan to get back as required.

[00:13:01] Pamela Ritchie: Back on the phone to Air Canada.

[00:13:02] Andrew Bevan: Well, you happen to have a plane chartered for all times so it's okay, it's sitting there waiting for you, usually, if you're lucky.

[00:13:10] Pamela Ritchie: Let's talk a little bit about within the campaign the discussion of what became sort of an energy discussion. There were carbon taxes to deal with, there was a shift in policy in the midst of it all and in order to win the election there were a lot of pieces there that had to be tackled, honestly, on Canada's energy producing economy and where that goes from here, and we're still questioning where that goes from there. It seems to still be an open question. That particular area, a lot of questions were answered and the Prime Minister spent a lot of time actually in Alberta, didn't he, and out west. How did you plan for that, tackle that, make sure that those messages ultimately were winners?

[00:13:57] Andrew Bevan: First of all, with any candidate, any new candidate, you want to make sure people gain an understanding of what they're about and what motivates them, what the values are but what motivates them as well. So making it clear that he had been brought up in Alberta was useful in a pan-Canadian sense because you have the Northwest Territories, you've got  Alberta, living in Ontario, I mean, there's a range of pieces of the country that he understands innately and trying to make sure people understood that was important. Secondly, I think people make a lot of this but it really isn't that unusual that a new prime minister will be different than the last one and will try to prove themselves to be so. First of all, they are different people. Quite clearly, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Carney are quite different people, different set of experiences, and came into office, or were trying to come into office from Mr. Carney's side, at very different times and very different contexts. You put those things together with what was coming at us after November of last year from the U.S. and what that meant in terms of what we needed to do at home, that confluence of events lends itself to change in terms of policies that are important and integral to the country and to the economy. I think Canadians also gave some leeway to the prime minister when it came to energy and the environment, energy and climate change, because they know, or knew of, his history on climate change as a central banker and elsewhere, and knew that there was a balance there that could be calibrated responsibly for the moment to get us through now and then figure out how we're going to get through tomorrow.

[00:15:45] Pamela Ritchie: That's very interesting because it's an area that ... it was certainly thought that Pierre Poilievre's campaign, it was known, had an enormous amount of money in its coffers, they were ready to go. They had raised significant amounts of money, more than the Liberal parties, we understand, was that an impediment at all? 

[00:16:06] Andrew Bevan: No. Firstly, absolutely true, the Conservatives raised more money than Liberals but we both had fully funded campaigns. There's a campaign limit for what you're allowed to spend over the course of that five weeks. We were fully funded for that, as were the Conservatives, so we're only equal footing the day the election starts. But that point is about how you're spending that money, I mean, what proportion of it are you spending on advertising, what proportion are you spending it on travel, et cetera. The difference is that before the campaign they had more money to spend than we did on advertising. That was fairly apparent, although we started to get into the advertising frame on television and other platforms, as I said, in January and February. We'd waited until then to spend our [indecipherable] money.

[00:16:47] Second thing that happened for us is that ... actually, 2024 was a very good fundraising year for the Liberal Party of Canada for a range of reasons. I think people who were giving to the Liberal party were worried about the potential of a Poilievre government and therefore were enthusiastic about being donors. They hadn't walked away from being donors. Then when Mr. Carney became leader it turned out that he was very good at fundraising in terms of figuring out how to raise more money in addition. We actually ended up having more money than we thought we would before the [indecipherable started so we could spend even more on advertising. The Conservatives spent a lot last year on advertising but not as much as we thought they might this spring.

[00:17:25] Pamela Ritchie: From recent announcements that we've heard just over the course of the last several days, actually, the Buy Canada discussion of how we're going to apparently power the economy forward is to spend the money here rather than to buy from abroad. Take us into that notion and how that's evolved, if you wouldn't mind. It sounds like whatever we're going to build we're going to  try and use resources from here. That's a big pivot.

[00:17:52] Andrew Bevan: Yeah, it is. I try and use the same short form the Prime Minister did during the election campaign which is, in just a few words, in order to build a Canada strong we're going to fight, protect and build. Those three pieces are equally important. First of all, fight to defend the interests of Canada when it comes to negotiation with the U.S. around tariffs, around security, around everything. Secondly, no matter what happens in those negotiations on the protect side, protect Canadian businesses, protect Canadian workers who are impacted by whatever comes at us from the U.S. We've seen some of that over the course of the last few weeks and last few days. The third part, I think probably the most important part is the build piece. As the Prime Minister has often said, what we can control here at home we should control. That means building up the Canadian economy with the levers we have available to ourselves as a country, government, private sector and beyond, to do some things we haven't done in the recent past but now are being forced to and need to.

[00:18:56] Pamela Ritchie: Defence is there, housing is going to be another one. These are things that actually don't get built overnight, although we're looking at housing that sometimes get built in three days which is sort of amazing, take us into these areas, how we can spend the money that is earmarked at this point, which is a lot. There's a lot of different areas that needs to be spent on. The package of sort of security and a new CUSMA, USMCA, however we're looking at that, how much of that security is defence?

[00:19:27] Andrew Bevan: I think it comes down to two main elements, defence and then border security. Those two things hand in hand. You're right, there are some big investments to be made. I think the government, and this is true in the election campaign and thereafter, has tried very hard to make it clear that this isn't just about the federal government or provincial governments spending a whole lot of new money just for the sake of building federal projects. It's kind of the opposite of that. It's trying to make sure that, in the Prime Minister's words, the government's catalyzed private sector spending to come in behind big federal capital spending to build some of these big projects that we need to build. Some of them are hard infrastructure projects around natural resources, some of them around other ... I don't know if you can use the word softer but...

[00:20:17] Pamela Ritchie: You get the dual use discussion about everything from firefighting to different machinery that would be used by both.

[00:20:24] Andrew Bevan: Yeah, and how do you do other things that can be the equivalent of nation building projects such as being a leader in AI across the border, being a leader in carbon dioxide removal, for example. There's a whole range of different projects that we could do as a country and invest in that certainly have a public sector role, both in terms of investment and through regulation, but also require private sector investment.

[00:20:51] Pamela Ritchie: If we're to sort of look at both of those, the private sector investment sounds like it fits into the sort of nudge or catalyze, I think is the word you like because it's the name of your company, to get the public sector, get it moving and then have private investors come after it. That sounds a little bit longer term versus money that is about to be spent we think on basically shovel-ready projects. Is that right?

[00:21:12] Andrew Bevan: I think that's right. I think, obviously, some of the projects that will be purely government funded will happen more quickly. But I would hope, and I know the government hopes, that that will extend beyond those shovel-ready pieces now into other spaces that can happen fast.

[00:21:32] Pamela Ritchie: We're talking rails. What are we talking, what projects are we talking about?

[00:21:36] Andrew Bevan: There's a whole range of infrastructure projects. The province had a list, there was a list that was leaked in the newspaper last week, I think, of 19 potential projects. Those are mostly hard infrastructure projects. There's a whole range of other pieces beyond that that would have, could have, potentially, huge economic effect in Canada if we get the mix right between public and private investment.

[00:21:57] Pamela Ritchie: And that's AI, what else?

[00:22:00] Andrew Bevan: Well, I mean, it's figuring out the energy and climate space. Where are we on clean energy, clean tech? What are we doing? How are we going to use the new defence investments to drive advances in other areas beyond defence itself  in various technologies? Trying to make sure we leverage every dollar of federal government spending and provincial government spending into the equivalent of matching from the private sector but making sure they actually get bigger results than just federal government investment itself.

[00:22:33] Pamela Ritchie: On the technology side of things that, as you say, defence spending could then catalyze other types of spending that comes in there. I mean, we're reading lots about space companies and how Canada has their own versus using others. What else within there?

[00:22:49] Andrew Bevan: There are many, many large and small companies that are in the defence space in Canada who are now figuring out how they can grow their footprint, given the additional spending. For example, I represent a company in Merrickville that builds EV boats, 36 and 40 foot boats. They've figured out the mix between how you have a strong hydrocarbon hull and a heavy battery pack. They already have contracts in the U.S. and Canada both in the defence and security space but figuring out how they're going to ramp up their production given what is going on, not just here in additional spending in Canada but other countries around the world too across NATO, is a huge opportunity both for local regional economic development but also on the technology side and being a leader in EV boats is a space which could be quite valuable. You can repeat that across a number of different sectors and technologies as these public investments roll out.

[00:23:51] Pamela Ritchie: What sort of regulations will be either removed or try to be removed in terms of the red tape to be taken away, which the major projects office will sort of work to do that. We heard about the announcement of Dawn Farrell who had been at the Trans Mountain and had pushed that through and made it happen. She's now going to be the head of this. She will be probably well-informed about red tape that needs to come out of things. What kind of layers of that will come out and what kind of new ones might go back in?

[00:24:27] Andrew Bevan: Interesting question. First of all, Dawn Farrell, immensely impressive person. I got to work with her quite a bit on Trans Mountain over the course of 2024. She's exactly the right person to lead that office and it's located in exactly the place in terms of the natural--

[00:24:47] Pamela Ritchie: It's in Calgary, right?

[00:24:47] Andrew Bevan: --resource projects. She knows how to get those things done. Trans Mountain was difficult to make happen. It was difficult to make happen for a whole range of complex and complicated issues. The private sector did not want to do it so the federal government stepped in at great expense for Canadian taxpayer dollars, $32, $34 billion or something, but it's already paying dividends. It's paying dividends in terms of revenue to the federal government, it's paying dividends to the private sector companies that are using it so it's been a worthwhile project in pure economic terms, despite how difficult it was to get from here to there.

[00:25:19] Pamela Ritchie: And that it was owned by the government.

[00:25:21] Andrew Bevan: That may not be the case forever but. I don't think the intent is to own pipelines across the country as a federal government. She knows how to navigate through that morass of understandably difficult pieces as you build these things across a massive landscape which has all kinds of different interests attached to it. If you take that back to your question about regulations and red tape, it's going to be interesting to see how they deal with that. I mean, C5 began that process in terms of laying out what the government's intent was on this front and that the government was serious on doing things more efficiently and more quickly. That then has to actually play out on the ground.

[00:26:10] Pamela Ritchie: Yeah, and there's pushback, obviously, there, and that's perhaps not surprising. We'll watch for some of these things to be tackled in Parliament over the course of the next session. Tell us a little bit about what we might see in the trade relations between the U.S. and Canada. You hear everything from there just will be a certain floor of tariffs. We don't know what that will be. Maybe it will be low. We hope it won't be high but they just will be there and that's the way it will be, to everything in between. There'll be pieces of the structure that remain in certain areas. Tell us what you're hearing. Give us a sense of where this might go and actually when it might begin. We're hearing this fall.

[00:26:54] Andrew Bevan: This may be the most impossible question you will ask me. Look, I think people generally understand that we are in a world where, unfortunately, we are negotiating across the table from an American president who isn't always clearly understanding what his own interests might be let alone us knowing what those interests might be and how we might meet them or begin to share meeting them in order to get to an agreement. There's a lot of irrationality to what he has done to the Canadian economy, the global economy and to the American economy, quite frankly. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Trying to figure out how you then come to an arrangement with that sort of a player is difficult to forecast. Having said that...

[00:27:44] Pamela Ritchie: Having said that, there's the Japan model, for instance.

[00:27:47] Andrew Bevan: There are various models, none of which look very attractive to us as Canadians given what we have at the moment. You're right. I mean, the real risk out there, obviously, is what's going to happen with the review of CUSMA in 2026. Now people don't use the word review, they basically always talk about it's going to be a renegotiation. That, is obviously, the most important part because as the government keeps on pointing out at the moment we're in fairly good shape in terms of what is covered or not covered by U.S. tariffs. We, obviously, have sectoral difficulties. We have sectoral difficulties in important sectors of the Canadian economy, which is what they are now, it appears, concentrating on sorting through piece by piece, which seems to me to make sense in the context of what might have to happen with CUSMA later on.

[00:28:34] Pamela Ritchie: That's really interesting. Who are some of the players negotiating this deal? We see Dominic LeBlanc certainly doing most of it through, I think, the summer. Now Michael Sabia, who's the head of the Privy Council, maybe he needed to give Dominic LeBlanc a break. I don't know. Tell us about the players, how they're going to fit together, a little bit of the approach here in terms of personnel.

[00:28:58] Andrew Bevan: The reality is there are a number of players on the U.S. side so the Canadian side tries to match that to a certain extent. You're right about Dominic LeBlanc who has formal carriage in the cabinet for Canada-U.S. relations. Michael Sabia and Marc-André Blanchard, who is the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the two of them are very heavily involved. Obviously, our ambassador to the U.S., the very impressive Kirsten Hillman, is a point person on all of this and has been there happily since the last negotiation of CUSMA, so knows the people, knows the players, knows it like the back of her hand, and it is obviously the most important file on her desk. There are a range of people engaged with their counterparts in the U.S. because trying to make sure this isn't just about negotiating with one man is important, and trying to understand the, as I was saying before, the interests of the commerce secretary or the trade rep is as important as knowing where  the President might sit. So where that lands, I think Canadians ... my guess is Canadians know that, first of all, this is a very difficult row to hoe, that if you're dealing with an irrational player you can't necessarily expect success. That takes us back to what are the things we do control as opposed to things we don't control, and concentrating on those as a government as well.

[00:30:21] Pamela Ritchie: One thing that, I mean, there's an element of control but not entirely, is that China is a massive trading partner for Canada after the U.S., the largest, and the U.S. administration is going to make sure that Canada and Mexico don't do too much trade with China. That's just going to be part of it. What do we do with that? Do you lean into other Asian trade? How do we deal with that, especially now?

[00:30:46] Andrew Bevan: Yeah, I mean, it's an obvious complicating factor in terms of trying to figure out how you're dealing with the U.S. negotiation while knowing what their interest is re China. We have different interests on the trade side, certainly, with China, as you say, a massive trading relationship. The government has made it clear that it's going to be re-engaging with India, for example, which I think is part of that offset and broadening trade relationships around the world. Obviously, there's a full range of activity going on with our European friends at the macro level but also the individual project level, joint projects in the defence space, those sorts of things.

[00:31:26] Pamela Ritchie: So stitching it together.

[00:31:27] Andrew Bevan: Yes, and there are many pieces to stitch together, and it's quite a quilt. It's not one thing that's going to get us out of this, it is going to be many, many. Trying to do all those things at once is important. You know the Prime Minister said last week, I heard him say last week that  this government can do more than one thing at once, that's good because it has to do dozens.

[00:31:47] Pamela Ritchie: Hope many means, yeah, hundreds. We began sort of talking about the galvanizing ability for Canada and how the campaign that you organized made that happen in Canada along with an external player. It's still there, the national pride, right now. I don't know if there's impatience. There's certainly some tariff fatigue for all kinds of people in industry in this country. What would you say to sort of the national pride moment that we're ... are we still in it?

[00:32:22] Andrew Bevan: I think we are. I think it ebbs and flows a little bit but it ebb and flows from a base of fairly intense pride and understanding what we're about and what we want to be, who we want to be, how we want project, how we want to live our lives. I think there's another interesting, two other interesting elements that come into play. We're in a moment of both anxiety and ambition. There's anxiety about what's happening economically. There's anxiety about what the U.S. is trying to do to us. Anxiety about the kinds of words that Trump is using about 51st state, et cetera. That is anxiety inducing for all of us as individuals, let alone what it might mean economically. There's an ambition, though, as well, which is in the face of that, for both defensive and offensive purposes, it's a moment where we actually need to do big things for ourselves. When I've been talking to folks in the private sector that comes across very much as being top of mind, even in the face of what looks like some potential economic headwinds with a more fragile economy than we would wish. Despite that, I think there's still a feeling that we need to do these things no matter what. Don't batten down the hatches, keep on going because if we don't we're going to be in more trouble.

[00:33:40] Pamela Ritchie: You're hearing that from industry leaders that you're working with.

[00:33:45] Andrew Bevan: Yes.

[00:33:45] Pamela Ritchie: Does that extend to the budget? This will be the final question. Does that extend to the budget which will have to, you know, kind of walk a tightrope between maybe Canada going into recession, maybe in recession, we don't know yet, and of these major projects?

[00:33:57] Andrew Bevan: I think it does. As always, budgets are complicated. It has to do at least two things at once. It has to, on the one hand, save money over here so it can invest over there, in the simplest of terms, and probably do so with a fairly large deficit. The country is in a good fiscal position so that's affordable. We are at a moment where we have to do some things that cost money. Whether it's on the fight side, the protect side or the build side those things don't come free. I know that people were writing to their newspaper, I saw that Canadians are beginning to see what the cost of sovereignty is. There is a cost to it. The cost right now is higher than usual.

[00:34:40] Pamela Ritchie: Andrew Bevan, it's a delight to meet you. Thank you very much for sharing your time here on Fidelity Connects.

[00:34:44] Andrew Bevan: Thank you for having me.

[00:34:46] Pamela Ritchie: That's Andrew Bevan joining us here today in studio. Coming up tomorrow, it's Thursday already, Fidelity Director of Quantitative Market Strategy, Denise Chisholm. She'll be back to unpack her latest market thesis including the sectors on her radar and sub-sectors. She's going to zero in on the home builders and see what that opportunity might produce over the course of the next several months.

[00:35:05] On Friday, equity research analyst, Nick Everett. He's gonna be discussing innovations, disruptions and investment themes shaping the U.S. fintech and financial services sectors.

[00:35:15] On Monday, portfolio manager David Wolf, he shares how the Global Asset Allocation team is positioned ahead of key central bank decisions. Of course, next week is major central bank week so we'll be happy to have David in the chair here expanding what the rate announcements, ultimately, could mean for markets and for you, the investor. Thanks for joining us here today. We'll see you soon. I'm Pamela Ritchie.