The Munk Debates Podcast - Munk Dialogue with Andrew Coyne: Mark Carney's economic plan to get Canada back on track

Episode Date: June 3, 2025

Rudyard welcomes back Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne to talk about Mark Carney's early economic plan for Canada. Andrew suggests that the PM's vision is a mixture of centre right and centre left politics and mimics the language of Stephen Harper. Rudyard and Andrew then try to break down the reasons for Canada's stagnant growth and agree that we need more labour, more investment, and more innovation driven by competition. Talk then turns to this week's meeting between Canada's premiers which will focus on interprovincial trade: how might national unity suffer if trade barriers are dismantled? And why is the Prime Minister dragging his feet on this obvious made-in-Canada solution to Trump's tariff threat?Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If we want the prime minister to have actual power, he's got to give up some of his power on Parliament Hill. The paradox is the prime minister has never been more powerful within the precinct of Parliament Hill, and arguably has never had less power outside of it. And the two things are linked. If you want people to accept your authority and to be willing to abide by your decisions, they have to feel that they're invested in it, that they've been heard, that you're answering to them. And they've lent their power to you. That's right.

That's a very good way of putting. I should have used that. Welcome to the Monk Debates. Continuing Conversations with Andrew Coyne, journalist at The Globe and Mail. Andrew, so good to have you back in studio. Nice to be with you. Book tours going well, I understand. Can't complain.

A new review out? Yeah, you know, there's been some nice reviews. Nice reviews, good. Just remind our audience, where is the book available? How can people get their hands on it? You can buy it directly from Sutherland House books online. You can buy it from Indigo and the big chains. You can buy it from your local bookstore.

You can buy it at Amazon. all sorts of places. We want to support Andrew in this book. It's important one about Canadian democracy. And today I want to talk about, I guess, what's adjacent to that, which is the emerging, I think, economic vision and plan that we're seeing that Mark Carney set out in the throne speech that was set out in the liberal platform during the election to some extent. If you had to kind of characterize what this plan is, give it a name, give it a quality or characteristic.

at this early stage, lots still to be determined. What would that be? Roofal, liberal. You're seeing an interesting kind of trend emerging on the center left. You see it in this book, Abundance by Ezra Klein and I think is Derek Thompson, a kind of a realization on the center left that the regulatory state has maybe run amok a little bit. each one of those regulations might be sensible on themselves, maybe sometimes not, but the cumulative impact of them has made it almost impossible to build any kind of large project. You're seeing this on the housing debate, for example, where you see people across the political spectrum saying we really need to deregulate municipal housing. The regulations that we've imposed in the 20th century, the zoning regulations, et cetera, again, might have had good intentions, might have made sense

at one point, but have the cumulative impact has made it, you know, impossible to build. multi-family dwellings at a time when we really need much more housing. So there's a bit of a rethink going on. I think he's part of that. He's a little hard to categorize in some ways. On spending, for example, he's got this kind of dual track thing where we need to spend less but invest more. On its own, that's not necessarily wrong. And we certainly need, you know, we've had too much operational expenses, not enough investment. On the investment side, though, to say that we need more investment doesn't necessarily mean it has to be more government-funded investment. And I think if you read between the lines, some of the things he said,

there's openings for more involvement of private capital and things that have been traditionally publicly funded. So it's a bit of a mixture of center right and center left. Too early to say what it adds up to. The danger in that splitting of operating and capital expenses, a lot of stuff that's basically operating spending gets reclassified as capital. In the end, you still have to borrow to finance it, whether it's capital or operating.

So there's a germ of a good idea that nevertheless has the potential to take what remaining discipline there is on the federal government off. And so that's the worry is we wind up at the end having better justifications for it, perhaps, but still wind up borrowing more than we can responsibly afford. Yeah. What's your sense, Andrew? Maybe, look, throne speeches are political documents. Needless to say, it was probably this throne speech in particular because it was given by the

king, had to go through more rewriting and sculpting of language. I was surprised, though, that if you looked at the economic agenda laid out in that throne speech, not a lot really on probably the core issue that Canada faces, which is secular decline in its productivity. The lack of this country's economy to generate wealth outside of large-scale government transfers and stimulus. Did that surprise you? Is this something that's still to come? I don't know. I guess I have a concern that if you look, take that throne speech as as the beginnings of an economic agenda. There's a lot of the care economy, which has been reaffirmed, dental care, pharmacare, daycare. In fact, dental care doubled in size. And then a series of additional kind of nods that transfer payments to the provinces would remain untouched. The federal government, in terms of the workforce, is not getting any smaller. He's going to take 9% year-over-year growth, which is ridiculous, down to, you, you know, inflation plus one or two.

I guess that's something. It was called a cap, not a cut. I don't know, Andrew, if you just put that all together, is it to use that dreadful phrase the last few months, meeting the moment, given what really happened to the Canadian economy, which is slow, low growth, you know, affecting us now for a decade? Yeah, I mean, you and I would agree on that. I think we would also agree, however,

there's other pressing emergencies facing us. So I'll be a little bit charitable. You know, he's got two sets of issues. He's got one issue that has to do with Donald Trump. And that's where you see the stuff like diversifying our trade and internal trade barriers and trying to meet the challenge that that presents. And defense spending, for example, there's a series of things where, you know,

when your nearest neighbor, closest ally protector, friend, and trading partner suddenly turns into a monster, you know, that puts a lot of issues on your agenda in a hurry. And so I will give him credit that it's a relatively short list of things. There's the seven priorities. There's not a lot beyond that. It's funny, just parenthetically, it's funny how often he mimics the language of Stephen Harper. So Harper had the five priorities.

He talks about Canada's an energy superpower. He keeps talking about Canada's new government. So it's strange bedfellows. So there's that set of issues about dealing with Trump. And then there's another set of issues that are about protecting the liberals from the conservatives, which is to say there's a serious. of issues that the liberals have not handled well, housing, immigration, productivity, be one of those as well, where they really left themselves open. They conservative did a lot of damage to them and where they're

trying to protect their flank on that. And so I agree with you, having mentioned all those things, all of which are important, the issue which is perhaps overarches all of them, productivity, probably didn't get as much attention as it deserved. Again, to be charitable, there's not a lot you can do in the absolute immediate short term. But I hope that people are thinking about that overnight because if you want to finance higher defense spending, you're going to need higher growth if you're to have any chance of that, particularly if we're now talking about not just a 2% of GDP target, but a 3.5 or 5, you know. So we've got huge challenges for us just on that issue alone. Yeah. And we'll see, you know, they're meeting today on the

internal trade barriers and on infrastructure projects and getting those kick started. Those will help at the margins. And certainly interprovincial trade, don't anybody think that's a issue. That is a good chunk of the productivity question is these interprovincial trade bears. There's a lot more than we need to do, particularly on the tax side and on the competition side. And we've not heard a great deal at all. In fact, along with the conservatives, the liberals and the conservatives both proposed during the election, the worst conceivable tax cut, the tax cut that prevents other tax cuts because they're so expensive. You're cutting the bottom rate. It's hugely expensive and does nothing whatever for productivity. So it's a

real shame that both of them succumbed to the temptation of that, but they were obviously vote getters, and I think the liberals were basically trying to cover themselves so that the conservatives couldn't use that as a major talking point during the election. Yeah. So let's go a little bit deeper on this, because it's my kind of particular fascination right now, and you can indulge me. If you acknowledge that productivity is a problem and that we need to have, in a sense, private corporations, private individuals deploying their own capital efficiently and effectively to advance our common wealth, how does large-scale government debt and deficit financing affect our ability to create actually enduring and impactful productivity

gains? I guess what I'm concerned about, Andrew, is that it's not just in Canada, to be fair to the liberals. It's across the Western world. We're effectively buying growth. And we've been doing this even before COVID. I think COVID kind of set a new bar and the extent to which governments after COVID, after the crisis is over, were really interested in buying growth. Yet it continues. And I think in Canada, shouldn't we, I don't know, possibly be a little bit cautious here about the extent to which we may see very large deficits in the fall. We're now, you know, deficit spending on defense is now talked about as an economic good, not simply a security or military good. I worry, Andrew, that we're falling into what is an easy default for Canada,

which is instead of doing the hard things like incentivizing and in some cases, maybe with immigration, forcing companies to replace cheap labor with more expensive technology and manufacturing and other things, we're actually, we're not really confronting the underlying problems of that era of low and slow growth. Yeah, I mean, in theory, this was the argument that was made during the Trudeau, era, and I'm sure you'll hear some of it under Carney as well, is, well, we're borrowing, well, we are borrowing to pay for the groceries, but we're also borrowing for infrastructure, which will increase productivity, et cetera. So there's at least a sliver of a point there. The problem is just because you call something infrastructure doesn't mean it is infrastructure,

and even if it is infrastructure, it doesn't necessarily increase productivity. There's lots of infrastructure that's just wasteful and not particularly useful, and just, you know, it happens to be called infrastructure, but so what? So you want to have some market tests. on that. That again was the thinking behind the infrastructure bank, supposedly was, okay, well, governments will be the organizers, but it will be private capital and it'll be private capital incentivized by the pursuit of the revenue stream that can come from charging user fees. Nice idea in principle, but in fact, when they got down to it, it was very politicized. Private capital didn't want to go near it because they could see where this was leading. And so

it's not a bad idea in principle, and I'm hearing more talk of that from the Carney people, that maybe they'll do it right this time. Right. Ports, for instance. Ports would be a kind of boring prosaic, but ultimately productivity-enhancing. But you really want to make sure there's some kind of market test. Otherwise, you know, there's just so much room

for politicization and games playing. And quite beyond that, there's been far too much of an idea behind growth in this country on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives fall prey to this as well, is that everybody's in favor of innovation, but they think of innovation

as this thing where you sort of, you pump in a bunch of money for R&D at one end, and magically out the other end comes more productivity. And again, it ain't necessarily so. We've got R&D programs out the wazoo, just at the federal level. There's like dozens of them. And you're just not going to get a $3 trillion economy off the ground

by these kind of little dinky little programs. What you want is every one of the 1.4 million businesses in this country, you want them, A, facing accurate prices that give them real information about the relative scarcity and abundance of things, so that they're not distorted by either inflation or much more perniciously by the tens of billions of dollars we spend annually on business subsidies,

which basically distort business decision-making, lead them to make suboptimal investments just because there's a subsidy available, not because it makes the economic sense. So we need to absolutely dream the subsidies out of the system. It should be priority number one. But secondly, even if you get the pricing right, even if you get tax rates way down low,

so you incentivize much more investment. If you don't have something driving people to make more efficient use of that extra capital, then you're still not going to get where you need to go. And what is that something? It's competition. And this comes through in all of the literature on productivity is the absolute vital importance of intense local competition.

If you want to be successful as an exporting power, people have to learn how to compete at home to really... And there's all these sectors right now that are still either protected from foreign competition or foreign investment, which is oftentimes the only way you can really inject competition in the marketplace in Canada. We still have all these clanking old state monopolies like the post office, for God's sake, which make no sense whatever in the 21st century. So a national, you know, a Royal Commission, a productivity council or something, but I would really like to see a really focused effort, A, as you say,

to make a focus on productivity, but B, in particular, to really go through and say, we need to have much more intense competition. We need every manager at every one of those businesses lying awake at night thinking, what can I do tomorrow, not to invent some gee whiz Nobel Prize winning invention, but just little things I can do tomorrow to make my business more efficient, because if I don't, the competition is going to eat my lunch. If you're enjoying the Monk Debates podcast, come over to our website at triple-w monkdebates.com. That's MUNK DebateswithanS.com, and check out our first.

free monk membership. As a complimentary monk member, you get all kinds of great perks and benefits, access to our weekly email, summarizing our best debates, and ticketing privileges at our main stage debates, special news information, and offers all courtesy of the monk debates. You can grab your complimentary monk membership again right now at triple w monkdebates.com. Simply look to the top navigation on the website. and follow the links. Thanks in advance for joining our community.

What about immigration? Because, you know, the Carney government is indicating that they want to bring immigration down from a historic high right now, at least in modern Canada, of 7% of annual population growth to 5. And they're not going to do that until 2027. So they're allowing themselves a long runway. You know the arguments that if you have a surfeit of cheap labor, in a country, and we certainly have relatively high rates of unemployment, certainly very high rates

of underemployment amongst young people, upwards of 12, 15%, depending on the province. This leads companies to substitute investments in capital and technology with cheap labor. And is there a bit of a trap that the Canadian economy has gotten into, Andrew, in substituting the more kind of intensive growth that you get out of productivity gains and product. activity investments with kind of top line GDP growth, albeit. In fact, I think if you went back and looked in the numbers and backed out population growth over the last half decade or so, maybe even going back before COVID, you would have very little of any economic growth in Canada other than the economic, the top line economic growth that's rendered through increasing the

size of the population. Well, I wouldn't go quite as far as you're suggesting. First of all, there's an optimal level of investment. There's an optimal level of innovation. There's an optimal level of of capitalization. You don't want to be in the position of dictating to business. You should be replacing labor with machinery if it makes more sense to use labor. What you want to do is to make sure that businesses are facing the real costs and benefits of each of the decisions, but I'm low to be sort of always and everywhere saying you should be replacing labor with capital any more than I want to, you know, prevent businesses from replacing labor with capital in the name of sustaining employment. So there's always a balance to be struck there.

Secondly, you know, most of the problems we have are not a function of having too many people. It's having too little investment. We had just as high population growth in the 50s, and we didn't have a housing shortage. Why? Because we had building, we were building houses to beat the ban. We're building fewer houses today with a population of over 40 million than we were in the 1970s when our population was, what, 25 million? So the problem is under investment, the same with the... Well, we've also financialized housing, Andrew.

In the 1950s, you could buy a house. for one and a half times your annual salary, it now takes the average person in downtown Toronto or Vancouver, you know, seven to ten years of annualized salary, even to get on the bottom of a housing ladder in those cities. Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to, you know, the housing situation is a complex situation.

I'm just saying if we were building houses at the same rate we were in the 50s, we would not have a problem with a housing shortage, okay? If we had, if we were investing generally in the economy at the same rates as we used to in the 50s, and 60s, we would not have a problem of underinvestment. But aren't we investing a lot with large-scale deficits running at $40 and $50 billion a year? Private capital formation, private fixed capital formation is, in fact, not even growing fast enough

to offset depreciation and stuff just being obsolete. So the actual, the real capital stock is actually declining, which is part of the reason why productivity. Which is usually a consequence, isn't it, of very high levels of government debt and deficit spending? It suppresses private capital, a crowd's private. private capital. In fact, it forces the borrowing costs of private capital higher because government capital is the free, you know, sovereign, full faith, and credit rate of return. There's certainly always that danger. Or if it doesn't, if it's not crowding out private capital,

then it's sucking in foreign capital and you pay for the price of that in terms of your trade balance. So one way or another, the stimulative impact of government deficits is pretty quickly unwound in a small open economy like ours. So that was why, parenthetically, Trudeau-Liberal started to talk about it borrowing, not in terms of Keynesian pump priming, but in terms of long-term building productive capacity. Again, not on its surface, a bad argument, but just in the reality of how it actually worked, not a particularly useful one. So long and short of it is, I'm in favor of high but controlled immigration. The problem I think we have had in the recent years is not so much the level of permanent immigration. It's that we've had a bunch of people coming in under the

temporary foreign worker or the student programs, and it was very loosely regulated. It wouldn't even be the word for it and people were being exploited on the one hand, et cetera. So I have no problem with saying let's get those programs under control, but let's keep our eyes in the prize of we have a rapidly aging population. We have a shortage of labor in the grand scheme of things. We're going to have fewer workers per retiree. But Andrew, I guess I'm confusing this because I thought we're entering into an age of roboticization and automation. And in fact, are we fighting the last war here? Why do we assume a straight line conclusion that we will have a labor shortage when in fact it looks like we're on the verge of a big technological revolution that's unfolding right now,

which would suggest, in fact, we're going to have the opposite problem. We're going to have a lot of displacement of labor by technology in a profound way across their society. And there may be all kinds of people who will be very happy working in retirement homes precisely because the jobs that you and I do will be largely obsolete in an age of advanced intelligence, machine intelligence. I remain to be persuaded that that is going to be the issue any more than previous waves of technology have long-term impacts on employment. Short-term, of course, they do. Long-term, there's no shortage of work to be done. The productivity savings that come from mechanization of anything ultimately wind up in higher real incomes. Higher real incomes have to be spent

somewhere. They're spent, what, on new goods, new services, new industries that didn't exist five, ten, twenty years ago. So I don't worry where the jobs are going to come from. The jobs one or another will come because human beings, human needs and wants are basically limitless. And entrepreneurs will always have incentives to find ways to relieve people of their real income that they earn from robotization. So that part of it long run, I don't worry about it. I don't really worry a great deal either in terms of AI being a special thing. I think what we're going to see it, we shall see, but I think what we're going to see with AI is it'll be a bit like a comparative advantage argument. Even if the robots can do everything better than we can,

they'll still pay the robots to specialize in certain things and for us to specialize in certain things based on what we're least bad at. And as Gary Kasparov has argued in terms of a computer chess, the real winners will be not either computer versus computer or humans versus humans. It'll be which teaming of humans versus humans plus computers is most effectively uses the strengths of each versus their competitors. So one or another, I think humans will stay in the picture. But look, if, you know, the basic growth model, the solo growth model is, you know, labor plus capital plus technical change. We want more of everything. We need, we need more labor. We need more investment. And we, most of all, we need more innovation, the kind that is

driven by competition. So I don't see it as an either or. As I say, I want to, I want a controlled immigration system. I will say one thing. We've made more progress, more headway in talking about solutions to the housing crisis in the last six months or two years than we did in 40, 50, 60 years before that. Why? Because we had this influx of population. So in the short term, it creates dislocation, but it also creates pressure for change and innovation and fixing some of our problems. I mean, if you create a crisis, you have to solve it. A little bit. I don't know if that's the best way to run a business, a family, your personal life. I'm not saying that's create a crisis. I'm not saying we should create a crisis.

Honey, I've got a solution to this marriage. I'm not saying, I should go cheat. No, I'm not saying we should create a crisis, but I'm saying one upside of a crisis is it does force you to confront things that you, in simpler times, you could avoid. So we're, you know, there's more action happening on the housing front. I hope to see more action on the, on the investment front more generally. But that's the issue.

It's not that we have too many people. It's we have too little capital and too little investment. Back to Kearney-Nomics, as we're calling it on this episode. episode, what are you going to look for? The premiers are meeting this week. There will probably be some action on interviginal trade barriers. That, though, really relies with the premiers. What the federal government can do on that front, unless it wants to use some of its kind of nuclear powers, is quite limited. So what clues are you going to look for in the coming months as this summer session of Parliament winds down, and then I guess we prepare for a fall budget? Well, we're a little bit hostage to events. As we speak, I think they're still meeting. I'm a little

bit skeptical that some of the fine words that we've heard from the PINGUS, but maybe I'll be proven wrong. There's a lot of kind of bilateral dealmaking going on, which I find kind of disturbing. It seems piecemeal. It seems like, well, we're going to do something with you on alcohol. We'll do something with honeybees. So it creates the impression of progress. Maybe I'm selling this short. Maybe that creates a competitive dynamic. I don't want to exclude this possibility that that, you know, Ontario strikes a deal with New Brunswick and therefore Nova Scotia says, oh, we better I could deal with Ontario. But, you know, I'd rather see something comprehensive.

And my fear is... Especially for it to be effective, for businesses to understand that there's one set of rules as opposed to maybe even now... That's right. So my fear is the provinces will do what they've always done in the past, which is talk a good game, particularly, you know, in the heat of the moment with Trump, there was a lot of fine expressions of national patriotism. But I think you're already starting to see them carving out exceptions and things.

Maybe there'll be fewer exceptions in the past. maybe it will be piecemeal progress, and that's better than nothing. Why is this, Andrew? I mean, they know that if they got rid of these things, that their economic growth would level up. They know that they would have more tax revenue as a result of that, so therefore they could satisfy more of their short-term political objectives by spending that tax revenue to get re-elected next time.

Yeah, well, I think there's two categories. One is there's a category of interprovincial trade barriers that have mostly to do with, that they have different states, standards for things, each of which may be perfectly valid and wasn't intended originally as a trade barrier. And where I think the consensus view, the sensible view, is you don't want to try and harmonize them all, because that would take eons and probably isn't worth the effort wouldn't be worth the advance. But what you certainly can and should have is mutual recognition. So if something is good enough for Quebec, it should be good enough for Saskatchewan and vice versa.

So that's a broad category of barrier. Then there's the more overt things like, you know, I don't know, Quebec's construction laws. And I think that these are simply examples, I would argue, of the classic public choice dilemma, that the costs of these inefficient things are spread across the population at large. Any one person isn't bearing a huge cost, isn't even aware that they're bearing the cost. The benefits are very conscious in a particular sector who know exactly who they are and who to make trouble for if anybody threatens. That's why we still have supply management for God's sake.

And so that's the basic political dynamic among a lot of these things. You're absolutely right. They make no sense economically. they make the province that imposes them poor. They'd be better off if they did it on their own, regardless of whether anybody reciprocated. But sometimes economic logic can't compete with the political logic of this is a very vocal interest group that can make my life miserable if I don't pay heed to them.

Final question. Pipelines. You know, it's been a big focus of the discussion post-election. All, I think, Canadian natural resources mining, hydrocarbons, less than 10% of GDP. why are we so obsessed about pipelines? Like, what about all the rest of the economy? What about people living in downtown Toronto or Vancouver or Halifax?

What's happened here? Why has this become the ed fix of our political class? Well, to be fair, if I were in Alberta, I would say, why are we so obsessed with automobiles and EBs? And why are we throwing tens of billions of dollars of subsidies at electric vehicle batteries? You know, so each side has a complaint on that. But you're right. it's acquired an outsized importance of debate because it's...

Almost a litmus test for the Carney government. Will they do this or not? Are they different from Justin Trudeau or not? That's right. So it's become emblematic, has become a symbol of do you respect to Alberta. Are you living in the real world or are you obsessed with ideological hobby horses, which is, I do not say that for one second to imply that climate change is not a real issue that we have to address. And I'm dismayed that all parties are now opposed to Carbott.

which is the single best solution to it. But I think that that happens sometimes with issues as they acquire a political significance as a symbol of something far beyond the substantive things. Anybody's looked at this in detail will tell you, even if you remove every legislative impediment to pipelines, it's not clear you'd have a whole lot of pipelines being built because, you know, there's already capacity that's unused and the economic arguments for a lot of them still don't add up. But certainly as a matter of principle, you want to make sure you're not artificially

holding them up. And tied to the American market. Yeah, and particularly when you're looking at things like not just regulatory barriers, but political barriers. I mean, to this day, you still have BC saying, well, I don't know if we want to let Alberta build a pipeline to the coast. Sorry, this is a federation. It is not up to provinces or Quebec or any other to be announcing that we are not going to approve a pipeline across a territory. That's not your responsibility. this comes back to maybe, you know, some of the things in my book is, you mentioned that the federal government in principle has the constitutional power to knock down trade barriers. Why doesn't it use it?

Because it doesn't feel it has the legitimacy. It feels that if it did so, it would blow up into a huge national unity crisis. And the people in these provinces would side with their provincial government rather than Ottawa. And so I'll come back to a point I've made many times, including, I think, with you, is if we want a more robust federal authority, we need a more democratic and legitimate federal government. If we want the prime minister to have actual power, he's got to give up some of his power on Parliament Hill. The paradox is the prime minister has never been more powerful

within the precinct of Parliament Hill and arguably has never had less power outside of it. And the two things are linked. If you want people to accept your authority and to be willing to abide by your decisions, they have to feel that they're invested in it, that they've been heard, that you're answering to them. And they've lent their power to you.

That's right. That's a very good way of putting. I should have used that. Ladies gentlemen, you can see why you want to get a copy of the crisis of Canadian democracy by Andrew Coyne. Andrew, thank you so much for coming here to the studio and talking to the Monk Debates community. We really enjoy these conversations. We hope you and the audience have two. If you're on our YouTube channel, please subscribe, click that little bell, and you'll get Andrew's latest video with us sent to you the next time it's uploaded. And if you're listening to this on our podcast feed, leave a review. We always read them.

We like them. We take your feedback seriously. And please share this version of the show with friends and family. Until next time, I'm Rudyard-Griffis. Chair of the Monk Debates. Bye-bye. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk charitable foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers.

Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again. for listening.