Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining the GFL Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. My name is Marie, and I will be coordinating your call today. During the presentation, you can register a question by pressing star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you change your mind, please press star followed by two. We ask that you limit yourselves to one question and one follow-up only. I will now hand over to your host, Patrick Dovigi, Founder and CEO, to begin. Please go ahead. Thank you and good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today's call and thank you for joining us. This morning, we will be reviewing our results for the fourth quarter and providing our guidance for 2025. I am joined this morning by Luke Pelosi, our CFO, who will take us through our forward-looking disclaimer before we get into the details. Thank you, Patrick. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining. We have filed our earnings press release, which includes important information. The press release is available on our website. During this call, we'll be making some forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable Canadian and U.S. securities laws, including statements regarding events or developments that we believe or anticipate may occur in the future. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those set out in our filings with the Canadian and U.S. Securities regulators. Any forward-looking statement is not a guarantee of future performance, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date, and we do not assume any obligation to update these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events and developments, or otherwise. This call will include a discussion of certain non-IFRS measures. A reconciliation of these non-IFRS measures can be found in our filings with the Canadian and U.S. Securities regulators. I will now turn the call back over to Patrick. Thank you, Luke. The quality of our asset base and the strong execution of our committed employees once again drove industry-leading organic growth for the year. In Q4, for the second quarter in a row, we saw 300 basis points of margin expansion. At the same time, we exceeded our internal expectations for growth across revenue, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted Free Cash Flow. The momentum of our financial performance gives us conviction in our key value creation strategies: one, generating durable price-cost spread, two, focusing on the quality volume, three, benefiting from improvement in employee turnover, four, optimizing our platform through improved asset utilization, five, realizing contribution from our sustainability-related investments, and six, capturing synergies from accretive M&A within our existing footprint. We believe our continued focus on these strategies will provide significant runway for further value creation over the coming years. The previously announced sale of our ES business is on track to close on March 1st. As we said in January, this transaction facilitates the acceleration of several of our key financial objectives while preserving the opportunity to participate in expected material upside through our retained equity in the business. The sale leaves us with an enhanced balance sheet that will provide us with incremental capital deployment optionality, creating capacity for additional M&A activity, and also, for the first time, allowing us to do share buybacks and increase dividends to become meaningful drivers of our shareholder value creation. Higher return on invested capital organic growth initiatives will continue to be prioritized. We deployed $ 300 million of incremental growth investments in 2024, consistent with our 2024 capital allocation framework. We intend to deploy $ 325 million of incremental growth capital in 2025, mainly comprised of the final investments required for the EPR contracts we've been awarded. By the end of 2025, cumulative investments into EPR will total approximately $ 600 million, with approximately $ 50 million remaining to be spent in 2026 and 2027. This material step down will free up cash flows for other deployment opportunities, such as share repurchases. M&A activity in 2024 was lower than what we would have done as we focused on the balancing both accretive organic growth investments and deleveraging our balance sheet. We closed 11 transactions, all of which were small, except for the vertically integrated asset we acquired in Florida in the second quarter. This asset was highly complementary to our existing footprint in the fast-growing Florida market. In Q4, we also saw the positive volume contribution from the broader network we have created in Florida that facilitated a higher level of participation in hurricane cleanup efforts. Our pipeline remains robust, and we see many similar opportunities to densify our existing networks and improve asset utilization through tuck-in M&A across our existing footprint. For 2025, we are once again guiding industry-leading organic growth across all of our financial metrics. Recall that in 2024, we laid out an extremely detailed plan, raised that guide multiple times throughout the year, and beat our expectations on all fronts. We see multiple avenues of upside to our current guide that gives us confidence in our ability to meet and potentially exceed the expectations for the year that Luke will walk through in detail, and we view 2025 as just the beginning. We believe we have an exceptional multi-year outlook, and we look forward to walking through the details at our Investor Day on February 27th at the New York Stock Exchange. I will now turn the call over to Luke for additional color on the quarter and the 2025 guide, and then I will have some closing remarks before we open it up for Q&A. Thanks, Patrick. Consolidated revenue for the quarter of $1.986 billion was ahead of our guidance. Fourth quarter solid waste organic growth accelerated to 7%, excluding the impact of the divestitures, driven by solid waste pricing of 6% and volume of positive 2.3%, 75 basis points better than planned, and a 310 basis point sequential improvement over Q3. The return to positive volumes was expected in the fourth quarter as we anniversaried most of the impacts of our targeted volume shedding initiatives. Hurricane cleanup activity and the accelerated commencement of EPR-related activity were the main drivers of the volume of performance versus planned. Decreases in energy prices reduced fourth quarter revenues from fuel surcharges as compared to the prior year, and lower commodity prices in the quarter were a headwind to revenues as compared to our guidance, although to a lesser extent than we historically would have experienced as our transition to EPR continues to mitigate our exposure to commodity price fluctuations. Environmental services revenue was - 2.2% compared to the prior year, inclusive of the impact of lower used motor oil pricing, lower soil volumes, and a tough comparison arising from large-scale event-driven revenue realized in the prior year period. Excluding the impact of these three items, segment revenue was +2% versus the prior year. Adjusted EBITDA margins were 29.1% for the quarter, 300 basis points higher than the prior year, consistent with our guide. Solid waste adjusted EBITDA margins were 33.4%, a 270 basis point increase over the prior year, inclusive of the dilutive margin impact of the extra workday as compared to the prior year, an increased cost of risk, as well as the impact of reclassification of certain costs that were recognized in the corporate segment in the prior year period. Commodity and fuel prices, FX and M&A, and the impact of recent divestitures were tailwinds to margins. Environmental services adjusted EBITDA margins were 28.9%, 390 basis points ahead of the prior year, despite headwinds from used motor oil pricing. Recall we had a fire at one of our facilities in December of last year, and that reduced Q4 2023 profitability. The lapping of this event was a tailwind to margins, as was the timing of incident claim costs and performance compensation accruals. Adjusted free cash flow and adjusted net income were $ 360 million and $ 86 million, respectively, both ahead of expectations. Q4 cash collections were negatively impacted by a Canadian postal strike in December, creating a headwind to working capital in the quarter, an investment we expect to recover in 2025. We deployed $ 51 million of incremental growth CapEx during the quarter, bringing the total for the year of incremental growth CapEx to $ 298 million. Together with the approximate $ 590 million we deployed into M&A, total capital deployed into these growth initiatives was $ 890 million, in line with the $ 900 million cap we guided to in our initial capital allocation framework at the beginning of 2024. With the significant strengthening of the U.S. dollar versus the Canadian dollar in the fourth quarter, our net leverage at the end of the year increased to 4.06 due to the translational impact of revaluing our year-end debt stack at the year-end FX rate of 1.44. If you recast the year-end balance sheet and the full year's Adjusted EBITDA at the FX rate of 1.35, on which our guidance was originally based, year-end net leverage would have been 3.85, exactly in line with the target we committed to at the beginning of last year. As Patrick said, we expect the ES transaction to close March 1st. As previously indicated, we intend to repay approximately $3.75 billion of long-term debt shortly after the closing of the sale, giving rise to annual cash interest savings of just under $200 million. We also plan to use up to $2.25 billion of the proceeds to opportunistically pursue repurchases of GFL shares with a view to reducing the current overhang as well as reducing our current diluted share count. Pro forma for the planned use of the ES proceeds, net leverage is expected to be approximately three times. Looking forward, the strength with which we are exiting 2024 and our outlook for 2025 sets up guidance better than the initial framework we provided in Q3. In the press release, we provided guidance both on a status quo basis as well as pro forma for the divestiture of ES. As we have a high degree of conviction that the ES sale will close this coming weekend, the focus of our guidance will be ES, and that is what I will walk through now. Top-line growth is expected to be 6%-7%, yielding $ 6.5 billion-$ 6.55 billion of revenue. Underpinning this growth is 5.25%-5.5% price, which we are implementing in response to our expected cost inflation of low to mid-fours. As we have said, we believe price-cost spreads over the next five years can be structurally higher than they were in the past due to the highly disciplined industry backdrop, as well as incremental pricing opportunities unique to GFL, given the relatively nascent stage of our price discovery versus our peers that are more mature in this area. Partially offsetting the price growth is 30 basis point headwind from commodity prices and fuel surcharges. Note that the continued deterioration in commodity prices since November has created a headwind versus when we provided our initial framework for 2025, albeit to a lesser extent than typical, thanks to the reduced commodity price exposure resulting from our EPR transition. On volume, we are assuming roughly flat at the midpoint, plus or minus 25 basis points for the year. The volume assumption underlying the initial 2025 framework provided in November was slightly higher than this, but we are being conservative in light of the severe winter we have seen across many of our markets that we will expect will impact Q1 volumes. FX is assumed to be 1.41, which adds 200 basis points, and net M&A contributes negative 80 basis points, which is largely the result of the Michigan divestitures that we completed in Q2, partially offset by the small rollover of the modest M&A we did in 2024. Excluding the impact of the 2024 Michigan divestitures, expected revenue growth is over 8%. For the third year in a row, we are guiding an industry-leading 100 basis points of Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion. Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA margin is expected to be 29.7%. Solid waste margins are expected to be 33.8%-33.9%, and corporate costs of 4.1%-4.2% of revenue. The step up in corporate cost intensity is not due to an increase in cost, but rather reduced revenue as a result of the sale of the ES business. We expect meaningful leveraging of the corporate cost segment as we grow our top line both organically and through M&A over the coming years. Commodity prices and RNG ITCs previously recognized in the P&L in 2024 are a 45 basis point headwind, whereas M&A rollover, the Michigan divestitures, and FX are a 45 basis point tailwind, meaning the 100 basis points is effectively underlying organic margin expansion. Again, as we have transitioned to EPR, our recycling business is structurally less sensitive to commodity prices due to the higher proportion of overall recycling revenues derived from processing fees. Adjusted free cash flow is expected to be $750 million. For the WACM adjusted EBITDA, we expect normal course CapEx of $700-$725 million, net of cash interest of approximately $350 million, approximately $200 million lower than what it would have otherwise been as a result of the use of the ES proceeds, and $125 million of other cash flow items, mainly ARO and cash taxes. The $325 million of planned growth capital is excluded from the guide. Free cash flow conversion as a percentage of adjusted EBITDA increases 230 basis points to 38.7% as we push towards our near-term goal of free cash flow conversion that starts with a 4. We believe we have a clear line of sight to industry-leading rates of improvement to our free cash flow conversion, which will be a key focus of our discussion at this week's Investor Day. As Patrick mentioned, the post-ES de-levered balance sheet allows for the reignition of our M&A strategies that have been tempered over the past 18 months. Our pipeline remains robust, and the incremental M&A completed during the year will be upside to our guide. I want to highlight that our M&A program can be executed without having a significant impact on leverage, thanks to the power of our financial model, which provides dependable organic delivery each year through Adjusted EBITDA growth and consistent strong free cash flow generation. Specifically, as it relates to the first quarter of 2025, we expect consolidated revenues of approximately $ 1.52 billion at approximately 27.1% Adjusted EBITDA margin, which implies a 100 basis point expansion over the prior year pro forma for the ES sale. Q1 adjusted free cash flow, pro forma as if the ES sale occurred in January 1, is expected to be about nil, less than the prior year, largely on account of the timing of cash interest payments and anticipated investments of working capital and CapEx. I will now pass the call back to Patrick, who will provide some closing comments before Q&A. Thanks, Luke. As we said in January, I don't think our setup has ever been better. We have proven that we can execute on our strategic plan, and we believe that we have laid out the foundation for long-term growth and value creation for all shareholders. Our go-forward strategy remains simple and clear. We're going to continue to generate industry-leading organic growth in part from the near-term ramp-up from EPR, R&G, and the other self-help strategies I described in my opening remarks. We're going to improve free cash flow conversion, execute on our robust M&A pipeline while maintaining leverage in line with our targets and continuing to progress towards an investment-grade credit rating. We're going to broaden our capital allocation strategy to include share buybacks as well as increase dividends. At our Investor Day, we will expand on each of these items and demonstrate why we believe that GFL is uniquely positioned for industry-leading financial performance over the near term. I always want to end with thanking our employees. Our continued success would not be possible without their tireless hard work and dedication, and I want to thank each and every one of them for their continued contributions. I will now turn the call over to the operator to open the line for Q&A. To ask a question, please press * followed by 1 on your telephone keypad now. If you change your mind, please press * followed by 2. When preparing to ask your question, please ensure that your device is unmuted locally. We ask that you kindly limit yourselves to one question and one follow-up only. Our first question comes from Sabahat Khan of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Okay. Great. Thanks and good morning. Maybe before getting into the operation, just a broader question on capital allocation here. Your guidance at the time of the ES announcement was for pro forma leverage to be around three times. Maybe if you can just update us on sort of the capital allocation priorities as we look ahead to the closing on March and kind of therefore, thanks. Yeah, thanks, Sabah. As we said and Luke mentioned in his comments, we expect to close on the 1st and receive the capital on March 3rd. I think it's going to be twofold. Initially, as we said, $3.75 billion roughly is going to go to repay debt, and that's going to be a combination of revolver, term loan, as well as some payable bonds that exist. I mean, the term loan revolver will be done fairly instantaneously. The bonds will take a couple of weeks, but certainly before the end of the quarter, that debt will be repaid, and then we're going to turn our attention to share buybacks. I think from our perspective and the board's perspective, the stock continues to be undervalued here. We think when we look out later into 2025, into 2026, given all the investments we've made around EPR, RNG, and I mean, we've given a conservative guide, and with the organic expansion we're expecting coupled together with the M&A, the board thinks that the stock is materially undervalued here. So what you're going to see from us is twofold. You're going to see most likely in the next 24-48 hours, normal course issuer bid, which we've applied for exemptive relief to buy back up to 10% of the public float. And then there'll be a combination of doing that. And I think from our perspective, we can, depending on the rolling volume calc, on the U.S. line, we could typically be buyers of probably 350,000-500,000 shares a day, up to that. On the Canadian line, we can buy probably up to 65-70,000 shares a day on the Canadian line. In conjunction with that, we are also finalizing now that we have clarity on the closing. We expect to have clarity on how we're actually going to buy back shares that Luke referenced in terms of the overhang from the private equity shareholders, meaning Ontario Teachers, GIC, and BC Partners. We expect clarity on that from the OSC over the next sort of week or two as well. That'll also be a combination. Between the two of those, we expect that we'll be able to buy back the $2.25 billion worth of shares that we had articulated when we announced the transaction. Okay, great. And then maybe just on some of the margin commentary that Luke shared for 2025, maybe you can just dig a little bit deeper into maybe the self-help levers. I know you'll get a bit more detail at the Investor Day, but maybe for 2025, what are some of the levers that are driving this margin improvement for this year? And maybe the stuff that we should wait for, I guess, over the next few years that you'll maybe talk about later this week. Thanks. That's it for me. Yeah, great question, Sabahat. Obviously, we're really pleased with the setup and being able to come out with industry-leading margin expansion yet again. If you think about the drivers, as you know, I always like to talk about the exogenous factors, if you will, and if you think about the guide, you have 100 basis points of underlying solid waste margin. If I think about commodities and fuel with where we sit today, it's about a 20 basis point drag. And then last year, the sort of recognition of RNG ITC that ended up in EBITDA is about another 25 basis point drag. So you got 45 basis points sort of against you. Now, good guys, M&A, albeit a small amount, is accretive, and that's five basis points. The FX today is five basis points. And you got sort of a 30-35 basis point benefit from the Michigan divestitures. So the good guys and bad guys articulated there are a bit of a wash. So really leaving this 100 basis points of underlying as really organic margin expansion. And now to your point on the self-help levers. I mean, if you think about a price cost spread, we're thinking of cost inflation sort of low to mid fours against a sort of price number of that kind of low to mid fives. So you're banking on 100 basis points of spread there, which effectively gives you 60 basis points of margin expansion coming out of that spread. So you really have another sort of 30 to 40 basis points coming from the self-help levers. And what it says, Sabahat, is what gets us excited. It's not any one thing. It's really all of the things contributing, right? And so you have the benefits of EPR and RNG rolling on. You're having the benefits of continued sort of fleet and asset utilization. You're having the benefits of the employee turnover, the quantification of which is multifold, but you see it from onboarding costs, but productivity, cost of risk, etc. So what gets us excited is the sort of incremental contributions from each of these levers working in concert to yield these sort of industry-leading results. So on Thursday, we'll talk about each of those levers in a little bit sort of more detail as to what we think the art of the possible can be. But safe to say, we have a high degree of conviction that the realization of those benefits ratably over the next couple of years is going to continue to deliver exceptional results at the margin and, more importantly, free cash flow conversion line. Thanks very much. We have a question from Patrick T. Brown of Raymond James. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, guys. Tyler. Good morning. Morning. Hey, Luke, can we just start a little bit more on the EBITDA bridge? So if we've started pro forma solid waste plus corporate, I think you're at, call it, $1.76 billion. But just how much is FX, and then how much is EPR and RNG laying in this year? And I think you've got maybe some corporate a little bit that goes with ES as well. But can you talk a little bit about the puts and takes? Yeah, so that's right, Tyler. I think if you take, I'll do the bridge of revenue, and then we can talk about margins. But if you take about a starting point bridge, you have roughly $6.150 of revenue last year pro forma if you back out ES, right? Now, you have $100 million roughly from the Michigan divestitures. So if you want to sort of normalize, you would take that out. And so you're at roughly this sort of 6.050 sort of ex ES. So from that, what we're saying at the top line, as I said, is 5.25%-5.5% price. You're getting volume of sort of plus or minus 25 basis points. So assume that's sort of nil at the midpoint. You're having commodity price of sort of minus 25 basis points. Now, that would have been significantly higher when you think about how the actual underlying indexes move. But as we've said, the benefit of sort of EPR transition moving to fixed fee processing model is shielding us from some of that volatility. But nonetheless, you got about 25 basis points drag from the commodity price component. M&A rollover is 80 basis points, which is really an 80 basis points positive from the small amount of M&A offset by the 160 basis points of Michigan. So depending on if you start with the 61/50 number or 60/50, how you treat the divestitures. And then on top of that, to your point, you got FX at two points, right? So we're saying an FX assumption of 1.41. Now, realize that is lower than where we are at today. And as we set our guides, we always like to sort of pick the prevailing interest rate and use that as the basis for the guide. There's been a lot of volatility in FX as of late, and there continues to be. So with a bit of a bouncing target for sort of conservative purposes, we just took the sort of 1.41 rate. Worth noting or reminding folks that the sensitivity of the revenue line is about $30 million per point of FX. And about sort of round numbers, $10 million at the EBITDA line. So if you were to recast this guide at, say, something I think today's FX might be closer to 1.44, that's what a three-point difference would yield an incremental of roughly $100 million of revenue and over $30 million of EBITDA, just for sort of context there. So that's the sort of revenue bridge, saying you're putting it all together at the EBITDA line. I think you're right. You start with roughly $1.76 billion of EBITDA in 2024 pro forma for removal of ES, and then you can think of the natural fall through of each of those components as they work towards the EBITDA line. R&G and EPR, the specific items you called out, are ramping up in their contribution. R&G will go from a sort of roughly $25-$30 million contributor in 2024 upwards to sort of $50 million in 2025, and then EPR, as we said, we originally thought we'd have about $10 million in 2024. With the outperformance we had in Q4 and the ways in the commodity price movements, it was closer to sort of $20 million realized in 2024. As we said, you get sort of roughly $35-$40 million lift of incremental coming into 2025. And again, that's sort of helped it with the sort of margin walk. And then the last piece just to note is what EPR is uniquely doing is it is shielding us from the downward pressure we would have otherwise seen as it relates to the commodity price decline. So we're still feeling some of it, but not as great as we otherwise would have. So you effectively get this incremental lift or preservation of your EBITDA base by virtue of that move to the sort of fixed fee processing model. So those are the moving pieces. Obviously, there's many other puts and takes underneath that, but those are the sort of broad strokes that we think are working out to that guide we just laid out. Excellent. Okay. Lots of good detail. Appreciate that very much. Hey, Patrick, can we talk real quickly about GIP? Can you just give us some updated financials there, maybe EBITDA, the leverage profile? And then now that you've got kind of ES behind you, what's the plan to monetize that asset maybe over the next couple of years? Thanks, guys. Sure. Yeah. So 2024 was a great year. Finished in sort of low $ 200 million of EBITDA. We have a plan this year for approximately $ 225 million of EBITDA as the plan. We have three M&A transactions lined up for that business. So again, back on plan, which is great. Interestingly enough, we have had a significant amount of reverse inquiry into that about that business, particularly on the success that came from the ES transaction. So it is something we're going to look at and explore. Would it be a full outright sale? No, because I think there's a significant amount of value creation opportunities within that business, particularly coming out of this crazy inflationary environment. But it is something we're going to explore. And maybe there's a partial liquidity event that comes with that business, but we're going to explore that post-closing the ES business. But it's on track, performing great. Valuations in the sector sort of have never been better. So we're feeling very good about it and very confident about it. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thanks, Tyler. We have a question from Kevin Chiang of CIBC Wood Gundy. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, everybody. Thanks for taking my question. Luke, maybe just on the margin guide for the year and maybe for the first quarter, I think you're calling out about 100 basis points for both. I guess I think the margin cadence through the year, I would have imagined Q1 would have been tougher. Just you called out winter, and I suspect commodity prices, and I know EPR helps here, but commodity prices, the comps are probably tougher to start off 2025. Just I guess, how do I square a pretty good margin lift in Q1, which looks maybe is your most challenging seasonal quarter with the full year outlook also being 100 basis points? Yeah. It's a great question, Kevin. Thanks for it. I mean, so if you think about H1 versus H2, I mean, H1 has the benefit of this Michigan divestiture, right? And it just goes to show the power. Patrick mentioned the comment about focusing on quality of volume, right? And the benefit in Q1 of not having that sort of lower quality volume is roughly sort of 65 basis points, right? So providing a lot of support to offset, I think, one, the commodity and other sort of exogenous type factors, but also the sort of seasonal component. Now, if you think about the commodity ramp for last year, I think it's important to understand the cadence there because recall, it was really a Q2 into Q3 ramp when the prices took off. So Q1 over Q1, we actually have a slight lift on commodities at the margin level, and that actually turns sort of negative as you get into the sort of back end of the year. And it's also just the sort of quality of the underlying sort of margin expansion that's happening sort of ratably, right? And so you're seeing that come through in each of the quarters. We anticipate being able to have the right amount of industry leading, I keep saying, but there's very impressive organic growth across each of the quarters. I think Q3 is going to be the toughest just by virtue of if you go back and look at what you're looking at, that was a record-breaking quarter for us. But the H1 is certainly benefiting from, again, with the outsized contribution from the sort of divestitures as well as just the cadence and timing of some of the exogenous factors on commodity. That's a very helpful color. I apologize if I missed this. I did notice a step up in your organic growth in the U.S., up to 5.8%, I guess, on a pro forma basis versus what you're tracking in Q3 and I think through the first half of 2024. Anything to call out there in terms of the step up in the fourth quarter? Yeah, Kevin, I'd say if you look at the U.S. sort of specifically, I mean, both markets have been contributing sort of at the price line in a very sort of satisfactory manner to us. A little bit of outsized price in Canada as you're getting new municipal contracts rolling on and you're getting the sort of price increase sort of benefit from that. I'd say the really strong story in the U.S. in Q4 was the sort of volume piece, right? And again, as you're laughing at sort of intentional shedding and you think about how that's materializing in volume, I mean, the U.S. volumes increased 360 basis points sequentially from Q3, right? Q3 was negative 1.9%, and that increased to 1.7% in Q4. Now, part of that was the anniversary. Part of it was strong success in the sort of hurricane cleanup efforts that we were able to participate in thanks to our optimized platform in those regions, so that certainly sort of contributed to the step up there where you were otherwise seeing negative volumes during the year. That's super helpful. Thank you for taking my questions. Thanks, Kevin. Thanks, Kevin. We have a question from Brian Burgmeier of Citigroup. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking the question. Maybe just digging into RNG a little bit. Do you expect to lock in any RIN pricing for this year? And are you able to maybe provide an earnings sensitivity to RIN prices just so we can market that throughout the year? And then after the $ 325 million in growth CapEx, is it possible to say how much do you think could be left for 2026 and 2027? Yeah, so this is Luke speaking. I'll speak on the first point or the second comment about sensitivity. If you look today, we're assuming RIN pricing in around the sort of 240 level. It's roughly with what we have online, every 50 cents of RIN prices would drive roughly 15 million of EBITDA. Now, at maturity, every 50 cents of RIN prices drives about 50 million of EBITDA. But obviously, with the sort of lower volume of MMBtus that we've yet to have in the system, today's sensitivity is a little bit lower. I'll pass it to sort of Patrick as you think about sort of the locking in of pricing. Yeah. So long-term locking of pricing, obviously, we don't feel like today is the right time. But as the year progresses, similar to the last Trump administration, we think that it'll find a level-setting place. And I think from an industry perspective, we think $2.75-$3 is probably still the long-term number. That's what all the people who are smarter than me think. That being said, we're going to forward sell all of our RINs for the year. So our expectation is that we don't see much volatility from that because everything will be presold for the year in the near term. And Brian, on the last one, the CapEx piece, each year, the sustainability spend has been roughly sort of two-thirds EPR and other, and then a sort of third R&G. If you look after this year, there's probably another sort of $ 100-150 million of sort of net CapEx that's going to come out of our pocket as it relates to R&G over the sort of 2026 through 2028 levels. So I think that overall spend comes down considerably from today's levels. There will still be some as it relates to finalizing those last R&G projects. Okay. Understood. Thank you very much for that detail. And then last question for me, and then I can turn it over is I know guidance doesn't have any kind of incremental M&A in there. Just curious if you've either closed any deals yet this year, and then if you think maybe last year's $ 600 million in spending is like a decent proxy for 2025, or maybe we should just hold tight until the Investor Day for more details. But thank you. I'll turn it over. Yeah. I mean, we'll wait. Listen, I think we've closed one small deal this year. The expectation is post-getting the dollars that the M&A program is going to ramp up to what it was before. And I think we typically guide it to somewhere between a spend of sort of anywhere between $500-$700 million. I think the upside case is probably closer to $1 billion. But in that zip code is what our expectations are getting back to a normal year versus last year. Obviously, last year was an abnormal year just because we had the capital allocation framework balancing the EPR, RNG spends coupled together with M&A, coupled together with delevering. Now that that's all behind us, we'll get back to normal course and do what we do best and continue executing on the strategy that we've deployed over the last 17 years. But we'll have a very good update for you on Investor Day on Thursday. We have a question from Jerry Revich of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. This is Adam on for Jerry today. Just one follow-up on M&A. It sounds like the pipeline remains robust. Can you just talk about the mix of opportunities in the M&A pipeline from a standpoint of solid waste business lines or geography? Yeah. It's going to be a combination of U.S. and Canada in existing markets where we're currently operating, to densify existing markets where we already own a substantial amount of post-collection assets. And I think you're going to see that move throughout both Canada and the U.S. I think from a dollar-weighted perspective, you're going to see more dollars get deployed into the U.S. just because of the size of opportunity and where we're looking to expand a bunch of those operations, again, around markets where we have landfills, recycling facilities, transfer stations. But my expectation is probably something like 75, 25, 75% of dollars go to the U.S., 25% of dollars go to Canada. Great, and then can you just talk about your assumptions for recycling prices in the guide and update us on how we should think about sensitivity to recycling prices based on risk-sharing mechanisms in place today? Yeah. Adam, it's Luke speaking. I mean, we exited 2025 at roughly about $ 180 for sort of Canadian ton when you look at where the sort of markets were. I think one thing to note when you look on a year-over-year comp is that during periods of price volatility, I mean, we ultimately sell at a spread above the market price, right? And when you have periods of rising prices, we're often able to sort of increase that spread that we're able to realize, and then the inverse as prices decline. And why I highlight that is when you look at the 2024 average rate, it's about 200-205 dollars per ton Canadian for Canadian ton. It's about a $ 25 delta when I think about the $ 180 exit rate. But our realized rate during 2024 was significantly higher than that because of that sort of price volatility. And so you're looking at more like a sort of $40-$45 dollar delta in terms of the sort of pricing year over year, which our guide is based. Now, at the roughly 1 million tons that we have, that would have implied like a $45 million headwind. The reality is today we're seeing a significantly lower headwind than that because, again, as I mentioned, fixed away from volatile commodity-based contracts to fixed fee processing model. So today, where we said it's roughly every $10 change is going to be about a $5 change in EBITDA, the flow through. And as we progress through 2025 and 2026, that exposure will reduce even further from there. But that's how I would think about the setup for 2025 as we sit today. Great. Thanks so much. We have a question from Devin Dodge of BMO. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thanks. Good morning, so I wanted to start asking a question about the OTPP appointed director stepping down. I think the investor rights agreement allowed teachers to appoint a board member as long as they don't more than 5%. Just based on the buyback with the proxies from ES that you've talked about before, I don't think teachers would fall below that threshold, so just wondering if you could provide a bit of color behind the board change and if there is any read-through to the planned buyback activity. No change in the read-through. I think from our perspective, as we said, looking at board composition, we've approached both of the sponsors and thinking about what the long-term view is on the board, how that board representation is going to play out, particularly given that the levels that they're going to be at post the buyback, and then allowing the company to set itself up to go out and think about a long-term board and, again, recruiting individuals that would go on the board in replacement of more of the sponsor type, right? And as I said previously, our expectation was that Ontario teachers would come off in sort of early 2025, which is happening now. And obviously, with the sell down, our expectation is that one of the BC members will come off as well. So I think the way the investor rights agreement reads is they have the right to appoint it. It's not a necessity. And then just given how close they'll be to the threshold post the buyback, the expectation was we got one of them out of the way now. We expect the other one and we're in process now of working with our external advisors as well as the current board on what that board is going to look like and what new members will be appointed to the board. So that's all in process as per plan. Okay. Thanks for that. Good context. And then maybe just a modeling question. So it might be for Luke here, but the repayment of lease obligations on the cash flow statement, there's been a fair bit of quarter-to-quarter volatility. I think it was almost zero in the quarter. Just wondering if you could provide some color on what's driving some of that noise and that line item and what that should be on a go-forward basis and the mix between operating and finance leases. Yeah. Devin, it's Luke speaking. On a go-forward basis, if you think about it, it's roughly like $100 million-$120 million dollar per year amounts. And I say there's U.S. dollar denominated. You get some FX sort of volatility in that. The operating versus finance, as you know, it doesn't really sort of exist under IFRS per se. So it's not a classification that we have readily available. But I think of it sort of roughly call it 75%, which you think about operating, which is buildings primarily. It's like offices and some of our key facilities that are leased. And the other balance would be equipment-type financing amounts. Okay, and maybe just the volatility. Can you help me understand just the timing of payments or what's driving some of that quarter-to-quarter volatility? This year, what you had is equipment, specifically corporate aircraft lease that you had had typically under a lease, and you had upfront payments for replacement aircraft being made, and then you received a reimbursement in Q4 as it pivoted into a regular loan for those payments, and so you just had some puts and takes within the quarters as a result of those amounts. Okay. Got it. Thanks for that. I'll turn it over. We have a question from Konark Gupta of Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Thanks, Adam. Good morning. Just wanted to understand, Luke, what's your expectation for the cadence for net leverage as the year progresses? And I'm asking this from a perspective of you have obviously the capital deployment for the sustainability, then ES sale will happen in the next month or so, and then you have some M&A as well happening. So how do you see the ebb and flow of some of the net leverage as the year progresses? Thanks. Yeah. It's a great question and obviously something we're going to pivot towards being very proud to report on as opposed to historically, maybe it wasn't always the case, but if you think pro forma for the transaction, you have roughly sort of three turns right out the gate, and then as you go forward from here, I mean, ex-M&A, I'll start, it's just the sort of natural sort of deleveraging that happens throughout the year between Q2, Q3, and then Q4. You bounce around in and around there, but you're going to end the year otherwise at 2.9 times on an organic basis, and that's inclusive of the sort of growth CapEx, etc. Now, the actual sort of cadence from each of the periods, typically H1 is a bit of a heavier investment on both working capital and CapEx. I mean, H1 will be roughly a $100 million working capital investment, and you'd spend sort of 55%-60% of your total CapEx spend. So from a free cash flow perspective, H1 is a little bit more of an investment. So you will see a slight uptick in Q2 on that sort of pro forma number, and then that rate of labor recovers through Q3 and Q4. Inclusive of potential M&A, which would be all the additive to the guide at the EBITDA level, that could impact leverage depending on the timing when those deals close. However, what I would say, and I highlighted it in the prepared remarks, is the relative impact of M&A due to the size and overall sort of EBITDA and free cash flow generation of the business is much more muted today at the leverage line. Specifically, if you look at it, you could spend about $500 million at seven and a half, eight times on M&A, and that would impact leverage by roughly sort of 15 basis points. So that's part of our excitement of the story of this inflection point that's been reached, whereas you can execute on the M&A strategy and still maintain leverage at this desired level. So that's something that we've historically been able to do and gives us great sort of conviction in our ability to sort of balance the various sort of interests and driving equity value creation as we go forward from here. That's great color. Look, if I can follow up quickly, we have seen one of the companies in Canada was trying to re-domicile in the US and then they pulled back. I'm just wondering, with the ES sale transaction, is there any consideration to change anything on the headquarters side of things or from accounting perspective, whether to go to U.S. GAAP or not? Yeah. No decisions obviously have been made. Again, in the Investor Day, I think you'll see us lay out what the two paths are for that. I think from our perspective, index inclusion would be great. I think when you look at where we sort of sit in the rankings for the TSX 60, I would say we're pretty close in Canada to probably being one of the next, obviously, industrial names that would go into the TSX 60. Obviously, there's some larger companies like Fairfax and particularly Celestica on the technical side, Fairfax on the financial side, and it looks like we would be next from what everybody sends us in terms of data going into TSX 60. Obviously, industrials in the TSX 60 are underweighted today, so it would appear to be a question of what the committee there thinks in terms of what goes in next. Given our market cap and trajectory and sort of float where it's moving to, our expectation is that as someone comes out, we'll probably be one of the next two or three that would go in, maybe the next one that goes in. We don't know. As far as us looking at it, obviously, the substantial amount of our revenue now in the U.S., that is probably an avenue that's available to us as well. Although it's not as clear, obviously, we would never reincorporate in the U.S. We think that's not possible. I mean, anything is possible, but from a tax efficiency perspective, it's not efficient. So that would never happen. But there are paths, and there are other examples of companies that have reincorporated their head offices to get U.S. industry inclusion as well as checking the box with about eight other things. So again, that's something we're obviously actively looking at today. It's a question of what opens the broadest base of investors. I think either path is good. I think currently we're focused on the Canadian TSX 60 path, but at the same time, post the ES divestiture, we'll look at both and we'll make a determination as to where we see the most amount of value that can be added to our name over time and where we can get the most amount of flows of buyers and shareholders into our name. So both in progress and give you a pretty good summary at the Investor Day on Thursday. Yep. That's great. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it and see you Thursday. Thank you. We have a question from Chris Murray of ATB Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Chris, your line is now open. Please go ahead. As we are not getting any audio from Chris's line, we will move on to the next question. We have a question from Brian Butler from Stifel. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Just first one, starting off on maybe pricing. When you talk about, you gave good color on kind of cadence on some items. Could you talk maybe about pricing cadence through the year for 2025 and that five to five and a quarter? Yeah. Hey, Brian. Great question. It's Luke here speaking. I mean, I think in a typical year, you're going to see the cadence come out with the highest print in Q1 and then kind of ratably step down from there. Now, obviously, that's predicated on our current assumptions of how the year played out, but I think as we've demonstrated before, to the extent cost inflation behaves differently than anticipated, we will go back and revisit that sort of strategy. Because again, we're going to continue to ensure that we get paid an appropriate sort of rate of return on the services that we're providing. But where we sit today, you kind of start at a higher fives, middle Q2 and Q3, and then that sort of mid fives, and you end the year at that sort of lower fives. And that's what's going to blend to that sort of five and a quarter to five and a half. The one thing I just remind everyone on pricing, it's just the way the pricing cadence works. You already have sort of 70%-75% of those price dollars pretty much locked in post Q1. So again, I think the downside on that number is de minimis and is really a question of whether cost inflation behaves as anticipated that will drive the need to potentially explore incremental prices. Perfect. Great. And then, second, you gave super strong outlook kind of going into 2025. What do you guys see as kind of the biggest challenges for 2025 being that fundamentals seem in a good place, a lot of self-help levers to pull? What kind of needs to be overcome if there is anything? Yeah. I don't think I see anything material in front of us. I think the business has become very predictable as you've seen quarter after quarter after quarter. I would say weather may be in Q1 a little bit more impactful than probably the previous last three years, particularly in Canada and Northeast. But again, just looking at how the business performed even through that, we're almost two-thirds of the way through basically Q1. So we feel very good about Q1. And I would say the only unknown out there potentially is there's all this tariff noise. Again, from our perspective, we think it has a de minimis impact on anything. Does it change potential capital requirements depending on if OEMs have to put through some incremental surcharges, which then I think would force us to go back to the market to push through more price? But other than that, we feel very good about what we put forward. Again, from our perspective, pretty simple. Again, we've put out industry-leading organic margin expansion, which again, as Luke said, again, conservative. Our expectations are we're going to do better. Organic growth, same vein. Again, from a free cash flow conversion perspective, again, post repaying the debt, we've put out on the street is sort of like 38.7. Again, our expectation is doing better. We want to get that into the sort of low 40s as we've talked about. And again, the M&A pipeline zeros model. So again, multiple levers for upside to the guide, feeling very good about where the year is starting, put ourselves in a great place. And then as the RNG and EPR investments that we've made over the last two years come into fruition, really starting in sort of 2026, again, see multiple levers for growth. And that's why the board has taken the position that they have and authorized a sort of Normal Course Issuer Bid and allowed us to be post receiving the dollars on the first to be active buyers in the market of our own stock, which is a first for us. So we think we're feeling very good about 2025 and things are shaping up exactly the way we anticipated. Perfect. Thank you very much for taking the questions. Thanks, Brian. We have a question from Toby Sommer of Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. This is Sid on for Toby. I believe the guidance assumes cost inflation, the low- to mid-4% range. I'm curious if that's what you saw on the 4Q or if you're anticipating some easing there. Thanks. Hey, it's a great question. This is Luke speaking. Again, if you think about what drives our sort of raw cost inflation, mostly sort of labor and transportation-related costs, we've seen sequential easing as we move through 2023 and then into 2024. We're being, I think, appropriately conservative in the 2025 guide just by nature of the current sort of uncertainty on the trajectory of inflationary paths, right? Because the direction of downward seems to have sort of stabilized, and I think there's talk of potentially things sort of moving back the other way. So I'd say it is based on what our current experience is and where we're exiting, but not necessarily giving consideration to potential incremental reductions from here. So if you see a lowering cost inflation as you go forward, that could yield some sort of upside to the guide. But as we said, the theme of sort of conservatism, I don't see a lot of sort of risk to that number playing out being materially higher, absent, as Patrick said, some tariff potential causing issues, but that would likely be more on the capital side, right? Because that's potentially our concern if there's a tariff situation that maybe some of your CapEx in the short term gets a little bit more expensive. But I think the risk that the cost inflation is materially higher than that sort of low to mid fours is pretty de minimis where we sit today. All right. Great. Thanks. We have a question from Stephanie Moore of Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hello. This is Harold on for Stephanie Moore. So I guess on the progress to investment-grade rating, post the ES transaction, you get down to three times performance leverage. So I guess what else needs to be done as you guys move to that investment-grade rating after you collect the capital from the divestiture? Yeah. Not in our control. Obviously, when we move that, obviously, the expectation is we're going to get significant upgrades in time. When ultimately we get the investment-grade credit rating is really up to Moody's and S&P. Typically they like to see the numbers roll through over sort of a 12-month period. But in the meantime, we'll get material credit rating upgrades. So a little bit unknown, but obviously squarely in our sight now post the debt repayment next week. Got it. And I guess just on the guide, what are you seeing on open book price and versus restricted book? And then on the volumes, I know they're expected to be flattish, but if you could talk about intentional shedding versus expectations on specialty waste, industrial, are you expecting an improvement there? Are you expecting specialty waste and C&D volumes to remain kind of in line with 2024 levels? Thank you. Yeah, Harold, Luke speaking. So on the pricing side, we're really, you're definitely seeing the collection, which is really your open market commercial collection businesses stepping down from the levels you realized in 2023 and 2024, as can be expected in response to that sort of cost inflation stepping down. So you're still at a sort of 6% plus number on your blended collection, which is higher in your commercial industrial book and a little bit lower in your residential. Your residential tends to be that CPI linked, what you call restricted. And then the part that gets us sort of excited is the continued sort of new floor level of close to mid single digits on post collection, right? Because historically, the post collection piece has been the one that sort of dragged down your blended pricing. I think you hear this concerted narrative from the industry that we can't give away our sort of post collection assets and capacity at below our sort of cost of servicing those lines of business. So continue to see strength in both the collection and the post collection line, albeit step down from 2024 and 2023 in doing so in conjunction with the step down in cost inflation. In terms of the volume, I'd say intentional shedding activities are largely behind us. There's always some, but relatively de minimis where we sit today of what's baked in the 2025 guide. As you ramp back M&A, you obviously give rise to incremental volumes that don't meet your sort of thresholds. And so that could give rise to some incremental. But the guide today is really, I think you articulate really around the special waste, right? Whether it's hurricane cleanup or just general sort of special waste, there's puts or takes, a little bit of uncertainty with how the market is in 2025 has brought some caution to that. To the extent there is incremental volumes, that will all be sort of upside. You think about the margin walk, there is about a sort of 50 basis points drag as a result of our assumptions around special waste. So there could be even more incremental upside to what we had previously said if that does play out as it did in the past. Thank you. And has no further questions, so I will hand back to Patrick for closing remarks. Thank you, everyone, and much appreciated for joining the call and look forward to seeing everyone on Thursday at our Investor Day, and as always, if anyone has any questions, please feel free to reach out, and looking forward to speaking to everyone after Q1 and another successful quarter. Thank you so much. This concludes today's call. Thank you for joining. You may now disconnect your lines.