Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us, and welcome to the Granite REIT conference call for third quarter 2026 results. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star one again. I will now hand the conference over to Teresa Neto, Chief Financial Officer. Teresa, please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Before we begin today's call, I would like to remind you that statements and information made in today's discussion may constitute forward-looking information and that actual results could differ materially from any conclusion, forecast, or projection. These statements and information are based on certain material factors or assumptions, reflect management's current expectations, and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties and material factors and assumptions applied in making forward-looking information are discussed in Granite's material filed with the Canadian Securities Administrators from time to time, including the risk factor section of its annual information form for 2025 and Granite's management's discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2025, filed on February 25, 2026, and for the quarter ended September 30, 2026, filed on November 4, 2026. Getting to the quarter. Granite delivered Q3 2026 results ahead of Q2 and in line with our expectations for annual forecast and guidance, driven primarily by strong NOI and favorable foreign exchange. Note, NOI growth in the third quarter was primarily driven by strong same-property performance, supported by leasing spreads of 35% and the lease-up of two previously completed development vacancies in the U.S. Growth was further supported by the acquisition of two income-producing properties in Houston, partially offset by the disposition of an income-producing property in Canada during the quarter. Favorable foreign exchange also contributed to NOI growth, with the U.S. dollar and euro strengthening against the Canadian dollar by 1.2% and 0.1% respectively. FFO per unit in Q3 was CAD 1.60, up CAD 0.04 sequentially and up CAD 0.12 or 8.1% compared to the same quarter last year. As discussed on our second quarter earnings call, Q2 included non-recurring items related to a lease termination and an HST audit assessment, which had a net negative impact of approximately CAD 0.02 per unit. Excluding these items, Q2 FFO per unit would have been CAD 1.58, resulting in Q3 FFO per unit being CAD 0.02 higher on a normalized sequential basis. AFFO per unit in Q3 was CAD 1.45, up CAD 0.19 sequentially and up CAD 0.19 year-over-year, with the increase from Q2 primarily driven by lower maintenance capital expenditures and tenant allowances incurred. Excluding the non-recurring items previously discussed, AFFO per unit in Q2 would have been CAD 1.28, resulting in a CAD 0.17 increase on a normalized sequential basis. AFFO-related capital expenditures incurred in the quarter totaled $7.1 million, which is a decrease of $7.6 million over Q2 and a decrease of $3.4 million over the same quarter last year. For 2026, we continue to expect our AFFO-related capital expenditures to come in at approximately $40 million for the year, and that is unchanged from our initial estimates. in the third quarter, same-property NOI delivered strong growth, increasing 6.9% on a constant currency basis and up 7.7%, including the impact of foreign exchange. The continued momentum in same-property NOI growth is a reflection of the successful execution on leasing and achievement on leasing spreads year-over-year. In the fourth quarter, we will see a deceleration in same-property NOI, which will be partially impacted by the lease termination and new lease at Granite's Locust Grove, Georgia property. Although the new lease commences immediately at a leasing spread of over 70% relative to the terminated lease, the new lease includes four months of free rent commencing November 1st. Granite will recognize a termination fee of approximately $1 million in the fourth quarter as a result of this deal, positively impacting FFO. However, the termination fee is not included within same-property NOI. We are maintaining our previously communicated outlook for the four-quarter average constant currency same-property NOI growth to be in the range of 6%-6.5%. G&A for the quarter was $7.2 million, down $6.9 million year-over-year and $11 million sequentially. The sequential decrease was primarily driven by an $8.8 million lower fair value adjustment on non-cash compensation liabilities, which does not impact our FFO and AFFO, and the absence of $1.7 million non-recurring HST expense recorded in Q2. The remainder of the variance reflects normal quarterly fluctuations across other G&A expense categories. For Q4, we will continue to expect G&A expenses that impact FFO and AFFO to come in at around $11 million-$11.5 million, or roughly 7% of revenues. Interest expense was lower in Q3 relative to Q2 by $1.2 million, while interest income was up $0.4 million. The reduction in interest expense is due to the absence of the $0.9 million of non-recurring HST interest and penalties recognized in Q2 and the lower weighted average credit facility balance over the course of the quarter due to repayments made from the net proceeds of the July disposition and issuances under Granite's ATM early in the quarter, partially offset by the draws made to fund the August acquisition. The increase in interest income relates to the higher average cash balances in the quarter as compared to the prior quarter. Granite's weighted average cost of debt is currently 2.62%, and the weighted average debt to maturity is 2.7 years. The $300 million senior unsecured debentures maturing on December 11th are expected to be refinanced through an unsecured term loan at an interest rate slightly below 4%. Therefore, we expect interest expense to moderately increase to approximately $23.5 million in Q4 and to normalize to approximately $25.2 million in Q1 of 2027. Q3 2026 current income tax was $3.1 million, up $0.1 million year-over-year and down $0.1 million versus Q2. For the fourth quarter, we are expecting no material change to current income taxes. As in prior years, Granite may realize a credit to current income taxes of approximately CAD 1.6 million in Q4 due to the reversal of prior year tax provisions. However, we cannot confirm the certainty of this credit until after December 31st, and our guidance does not factor in any tax provision reversals. For the remainder of 2026, Granite is maintaining its previously communicated guidance while further tightening the ranges provided in its August 5, 2026 outlook. The updated forecast reflects leasing activity, acquisitions, dispositions, and financing transactions completed to date. It assumes no impact from additional acquisitions or dispositions for the balance of the year and incorporates the expected refinancing of the CAD 300 million debentures maturing in December. We expect FFO to be in the range of CAD 6.32-CAD 6.37, approximately still 7%-8% growth over 2025. For AFFO per unit, we expect a range of CAD 5.50-CAD 5.55, reflecting the growth of approximately 5%-6% year-over-year. As previously noted, the capital expenditures are expected to be CAD 40 million in 2026 compared to CAD 34 million incurred in 2025. Our guidance ranges have incorporated updated foreign currency rate assumptions only for the forecasted period in Q4 for the EUR, US dollar, and British pound. We expect to issue guidance for 2027 at next quarter's earnings call. Investment properties totaled CAD 9.7 billion at the end of the quarter, an increase of CAD 130.7 million from Q2 and excludes CAD 54.9 million related to an asset held for sale. During the quarter, movements in investment properties reflected the acquisition of the two income-producing properties in Houston, Texas for CAD 137.9 million, CAD 10.1 million in maintenance capital and leasing expenditures across the properties, primarily in U.S. and Canada, and CAD 9.4 million invested in development properties, primarily related to our Houston development property that achieved substantial completion during the quarter. These increases were partially offset by CAD 21.5 million in fair value losses and CAD 7.4 million in unrealized foreign exchange losses, primarily driven by the strengthening of the Canadian dollar against the EUR relative to Q2. Net fair value losses, including an asset held for sale, totaled CAD 16.4 million, and that mostly reflects higher discount and terminal capitalization rates of select European properties, lower fair market rents at select Canadian properties, and a vacancy in a U.S. property, partially offset by the fair value gain on our asset held for sale. Our overall weighted average cap rate on in-place NOI is 5.7%, up only one basis point relative to Q2 and 12 basis points year-over-year. With respect to the asset held for sale totaling CAD 54.9 million in value, the trust did record a fair value gain of CAD 5 million in the quarter on the asset, and on October 1st, completed the disposition of the 500,000 sq ft property located in Plainfield, Indiana for a gross sale price of CAD 55 million. Granite's balance sheet remains strong with debt metrics continuing to improve each quarter. Net leverage at quarter end was 32%, unchanged from Q2 and down from 35% at the end of 2025. Debt to EBITDA was 6.5x, improving from 6.6x in Q2 and 7.3x at the end of 2025. The continued improvement this quarter reflects strong EBITDA growth driven by same property NOI growth over the trailing four quarters. Ratios continue to trend as targeted by management, providing the balance sheet and financial flexibility to support future growth. Our liquidity is currently approximately CAD 993 million, representing cash on hand of CAD 108 million and the undrawn portion of the operating line of CAD 885 million. As of today, Granite has CAD 112 million drawn on the credit facility and CAD 2.5 million in letters of credit outstanding. I will turn the call over to Kevan. Thanks, Teresa. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the call. Q3 results, as mentioned, were in line with our expectations, with normalized AFFO per unit of $1.60, primarily as a result of higher same property NOI and partially offset by the sale of an asset in the GTA in the quarter. The team obviously completed a number of strategic acquisitions that were telegraphed on our last call, which I will discuss later in my prepared comments. To begin, on leasing, as you can see, turnover was higher in the third quarter as the team renewed roughly 1600000 sq ft of space, achieving an increase over expiry rents of roughly 35%. To date, we have so far renewed just over 70% of our 2026 expiries by GLA at an average rent increase of 21%, in line with our projection for an average increase of between 20%-25% on overall expiries for the year, which is consistent with the average increase we achieved in 2024. As you can see, same property NOI growth in the quarter was once again led by gains in the GTA and U.S. portfolios at 12.8% and 8.9% respectively. While occupancy fell from 98% to just under 97% in the third quarter, primarily related to a new vacancy as of October 1st at our 750,000 sq ft property in Pennsylvania that we telegraphed for successive quarters. The asset in question is a state-of-the-art facility with immediate access to the I-78, located within a three-hour drive of New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. The new rents upon stabilization are expected to exceed expiring by roughly 30%. Staying on leasing, a few comments on relevant market data. Beginning in the U.S., based on published research, leasing momentum continued to build broadly across the sector despite macroeconomic uncertainty, with demand remaining strongest in the large bay class A stock segment as tenants continue to prioritize modern, automation-ready facilities in higher growth inland markets. With respect to our portfolio, data points to lower vacancy quarter-over-quarter in 11 of our 15 markets, led by posted vacancy declines in Atlanta, Cincinnati, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Columbus. Net absorption exceeded 100 million sq ft nationally in the quarter, the highest in approximately four years, and was positive across our entire portfolio once again in the third quarter, with our portfolio markets representing the top three and eight of the top 10 markets once again in the U.S. year to date, led by Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, and Chicago. Asking rental rate growth exceeded 4% nationally, marking the third consecutive quarter of acceleration, with year-over-year growth led by Dallas-Fort Worth, again, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Chicago, all posting double-digit rental rate growth. Our weakest markets once again were the GTA and New Jersey, with asking rents down just under 5% year- over- year. Turning to Europe, vacancy in the U.K. fell 20 basis points to 6.6% nationally, the lowest in almost two years, as demand for larger modern product drove strong leasing activity year to date. Prime asking rents rose by just under 5% year- over- year in the key Midlands distribution submarket. Net absorption in Germany and the Netherlands continued to improve, with year-to-date absorption coming in roughly 10% above last year's pace. Market rent growth for major markets in both countries reached mid-single digits. In summary, to repeat, despite economic uncertainty, industrial demand continues to accelerate across our portfolio markets, particularly in the newer large bay segment, having adequate power for automation. As you can see from the materials, we recently closed on the sale of an asset in the U.S., and the team achieved a sale price well above our unaffected IFRS value. To date, we have now disposed of approximately CAD 210 million of non-strategic assets this year at a normalized yield of 5.1%, over 15% on average above our unaffected IFRS value, enabling us to redeploy the proceeds accretively on strategic acquisitions in our target markets with strong growth profiles. As announced in a press release, we also completed CAD 270 million in acquisitions in our target markets in the Southeast U.S. and the U.K. at a weighted average going-in yield of 5.5%. All of these acquisitions strongly complement our portfolio and reflect our strategy of investing in modern assets in premier locations in our Tier 1 target markets, and all possess attractive growth potential over the near and medium terms. The acquisitions have been funded by the dispositions year to date, noted above, and the issuance of roughly CAD 140 million in equity in the second and third quarters. As an update on our development program, as Teresa mentioned, our build-to-suit project in Houston has reached substantial completion, and occupancy will commence on schedule in December. In addition, the team has successfully negotiated the expansion of the build-to-suit facility by 100,000 sq ft, with substantial completion scheduled by the end of the second quarter. As a general comment on the investment market, I think that there is general consensus that cap rates could expand in response to persistent levels of high treasury yields, which is understandable. I wanted to make the point that the impact will not be felt, in my opinion, uniformly across all assets and markets. Based on readily available transaction market data, to date, there is no evidence of price deterioration for class A products in key growth markets. To that point, year-to-date investment volumes in logistics are up 15% year-over-year in the U.S. and just under 10% in Europe, as institutional investors continue to target high-quality assets and portfolios in growth markets across our geographies. In summary, I would characterize the quarter as in line and positive. Despite lower occupancy than in the second quarter, albeit still one of the highest in the entire sector, NOI growth was strong, and execution was excellent on key strategic objectives, with full-year guidance maintained and tightened. This is notably inclusive of over CAD 200 million in dispositions and the issuance of CAD 140 million in equity. I would also like to highlight that we have increased FFO per unit year to date by roughly 9.5% year-over-year, while reducing debt to EBITDA from 7.3x to 6.5x. Looking forward, leasing fundamentals for modern, well-located logistics properties remain positive and continue to strengthen despite economic uncertainty, as the leading demand drivers heading into this year across the portfolio markets remain intact. With respect to capital allocation, the combination of the disposition and ATM program activity have enabled us to effectively and efficiently fund the recently closed acquisitions while maintaining the strength and flexibility of our balance sheet. We will, of course, continue to monitor market conditions, including the movement in interest rates. We are confident we will continue to selectively source strategic opportunities in our target markets that will both enhance our portfolio and our future growth profile. At this time, I would also like to mention that we have transferred a 355,000 sq ft asset in the Netherlands from IPP to property under development in the quarter. As planned, we expect to transfer a second asset in the U.K. from IPP to PUD in late 2027. Both will have a small negative impact on NOI and FFO for 2027, but these developments should drive higher growth and returns in 2028 and 2029. In closing, we are well-positioned to once again deliver strong financial results and execute on all of our corporate objectives for the year, and our focus remains on addressing current availabilities and executing on our capital recycling program, which we believe will continue to deliver attractive income and net asset value growth for unitholders. Operator, I am happy to open up the call for questions. We will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star one again. Please pick up your handset when asking a question. If you are muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Tom Callaghan with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Thanks. Morning, Kevan and Teresa. Maybe just to start, Kevan, I appreciate the comments on the operational side there, and obviously you flagged the downshift in growth relative to the first half last few calls. Curious, can you talk about how you see occupancy trending in the next few quarters across 2027? Well, I will say, just to the end of the year, I think we expect to finish right about where we are today, I think would be fair. I wouldn't want to go beyond that because it can move, especially with the vacancy in Pennsylvania, it could move quite a bit if we were able to successfully lease that up early in 2027. Okay, got it. Maybe just in terms of leasing discussions, how would you characterize those today maybe versus the August timeframe we last talked? I think at that point you mentioned over 500,000 of vacant space potentially under discussion. Just any update on that front would be great. Sure. I think, consistent with my prepared comments, I think we've seen very strong demand in the large space segment and the modern large space segment. To that point, through 2026, we really had no availabilities over 500,000 ft we can focus on. I think our average size right now is just over 100,000 ft of availability when you take out the new one in Pennsylvania, which just came back to us literally a month ago. I will comment on that. What we have seen in that market is we have seen more activity in the 400,000-500,000 ft and the million square foot plus. We have had engagement with prospects for our site in that 400,000-500,000 range. But at this point, it just doesn't make a lot of sense for us, economic sense for us to demise the building. It can be, but we actually think a better deal will be a single tenant for the entire space. We are going to continue to wait for the right deal for that asset. That activity overall has been strong across the markets. Okay, appreciate the color. Maybe just second one, shifting gears on the capital recycling side. Sounds like from your comments that despite kind of the rise in yields, still confident that the demand will be there for your type of product and we could continue to kind of see that recycling into 2027. Is that a fair way to characterize it today? I think so. I think when you look at the 10-year U.S. Treasury, when it went from 4.8 to 5.3, I think that was a shock to everyone's system, and that has since calmed down, thankfully. My comment on previous calls, I think, still stands, and that is, I think a lot of institutional investors looking at logistics markets, the right asset in the right market, are looking through these sort of short-term volatility in the rates. They are looking at the strengthening fundamentals, which are already good but getting better in the markets. They believe, I think, long term that the bond yields will calm down. I think that that comment still stands today. Okay, great. Thanks for the color. I will pass back. Your next question comes from the line of Kyle Stanley with Desjardins. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Thanks. Morning, everyone. I know 2028 is obviously still a ways away, but it is a big lease maturity year in the U.S. for the portfolio at, I think, over 8 million sq ft. Looking at, if we back into where the average in-place rate is, it's in kind of the mid-$4 per sq ft range U.S. I am wondering, you have kind of stuck with the 20%-25% mark-to-market opportunity. Could there be upside to that in 2028, just given where the place rate is, or is there something else that would pull that down a bit? I think that is a fair comment, Kyle. I think we are going to stick with the 20%, 25% overall. One comment is, it is going to depend on what market rent growth looks like over the next couple years, and it could be better than we expect, and certainly that mark-to-market could be better than what we are thinking it is today. Okay, fair enough. You have now closed on the previously announced acquisitions. How should we think about future external growth as it sits here today? Are you seeing more opportunities? If so, kind of which geographies? I think you kind of gave this answer in the last question, just in terms of pricing and any changes there given the move in rates, but I would love your thoughts on, from an acquisition standpoint, what is going on. I think so. I mentioned capital recycling, so we are always mindful of our balance sheet and our capital ratios. We are in discussions on roughly CAD 100 million-CAD 150 million in dispositions right now. We are in discussions on roughly the same number of acquisitions in markets that we have mentioned before. We are still looking at the GTA, we are still looking at Florida, we are still looking at markets like Houston, the U.K. Germany is a market we are starting to pay more attention to, in the right locations in Germany, and in the major markets there. In terms of external growth, I do not want to give a target, but I do think that we have the capacity on the balance sheet to complete more acquisitions into 2027. But I do not want to put a number on it just yet. Okay. No, that checks out. Just last one, again, obviously very early, but would love your initial thoughts on any potential changes to the operating environment as it relates to the midterm elections, and maybe more specifically regarding future demand from the data center users that had been looking for more traditional warehouse space. As it was highlighted over the last quarter or two. Any thoughts there would be very helpful. Yeah, I think that is a fair question. Obviously, this is very recent information. We certainly have not seen a change. But I will say a lot of users, if they are affected, were probably sitting on the sidelines already with the midterm elections. If that mattered to them, they would have been waiting on the sidelines in advance of the elections, not waiting till after the election. I do not see a big change. With respect to data centers, the one comment I want to make is, and I have mentioned that it is a tailwind for the sector, but it is not as though we have chased particular locations or assets to benefit directly from AI infrastructure. We are targeting the best locations in these markets, not because we think AI is a huge tailwind in those markets, but because we believe in those markets. The decisions that we're making from an investment or operating perspective are not contingent about what goes on in the space. I will say it's a tailwind, which it is overall for these markets, but we do not necessarily need that tailwind from the AI for our portfolio markets to perform or our assets in those markets to perform well. Does that answer the question? Yeah. No, I think that's good color. I will turn it back. Thanks very much. Thanks, Kyle. Your next question comes from the line of Brad Sturges with Raymond James. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Maybe just starting on the distribution increase, I think this is the second year in a row of 4%, and it is around half of your FFO growth. Just curious on the thinking of whether that is a good run rate in terms of the amount of growth you are willing to pay out through distribution increases, or if there is specific thinking or logic on how you got to 4% this year. I think we talked about this last year. This is the 16th year of the consecutive distribution increase. We had always done CAD 0.10 since 2011, and we had a lot of discussion at the board last year about what the right number was. If we had stayed with CAD 0.10, it would have been under the 3% increase. Just based on our performance and growth in income, I think we felt this was the right time to move. Of course, the payout ratio is quite low, and I think it was some consideration if we do not start increasing the distribution, will we be forced to increase the distribution at some point in the near future? We felt what was really important to us is if we increase from CAD 0.10 to CAD 0.15, and of course, we do not need to do five, CAD 0.05 increments, but we are going to do that. Will our growth exceed that, and will we be able to maintain a 15% distribution increase over the next few years without compromising our payout ratio and our balance sheet? At the end of the day, we are retaining, Brad, CAD 120 million in cash a year, and the extra CAD 0.05 is roughly CAD 3 million a year. So we felt that CAD 0.15 was the right move last year, and as long as we were able to sustain that each year or put ourselves in a position to decide to sustain that was the important considerations for us. I guess you do not have a specific target in terms of percentage of FFO growth that you are willing to pass along, or it is more case by case, year by year basis? Yeah, that's a consideration, but it is a case by case and year by year decision. What was important to us, though, is not to compromise that from year to year and have to go back down to 10, for example. It was important that we felt the confidence that we could sustain a 0.15 increase each year. In terms of, I guess you're going to move a couple properties into PUD. How should we think about expectations around capital spend for development next year, and would there be beyond the new intensification or expansion opportunity that just came about, is there anything else in the pipeline that could be added into PUD for next year? No, I think those are the only two for PUD. I don't think we have a large expenditure. I think we're thinking it would probably be in the sort of $10 million, sort of $20 million range next year related to- Yeah, it's really just the expansion that we just announced. Yeah. That is kind of the bulk of it, and then the rest is really just continuation of just site preparation on the existing other land that we have. We are not budgeting at this point any spec project in development. It is really just known development, which is the expansion and just continuation of site servicing on the existing land held for development. Okay. I think just last question, just on the Houston acquisitions, any comment on what the contractual rent bumps look like? I think the comment in the press release was that they are strong, but just curious of how that would compare to the rest of the portfolio. They are north of 3%. North of three. Okay. Three. I'll turn it back. Thank you. Yeah. Your next question comes from the line of Sam Damiani with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Maybe just first off, in reference to the Netherlands and U.K. projects going into PUD, did I hear clearly that there's no intention to go vertical on those in the near term? It's more just some normal course pre-development site prep and stuff. Is that right? So there's no- The one in the U.K. is under lease contract through right until the end of the third quarter next year. That is why I said late in 2027, Sam. The one in the Netherlands, yes, we could start going vertical next year. That would be the expectation, and there will be some development spend around that. I do not think it would be too material. Offhand, I think we are budgeting roughly EUR 45 million-EUR 50 million total development spend in 2027, and that would include the PUD in the Netherlands. We are not allocating or expecting a large development spend for the U.K. PUD in 2027. That would be more of a 2028 spend. Okay, good. And those both contributed rent and NOI in the third quarter, both those projects? Yes. Yeah. Switching over to, I guess, just sort of Europe tenant demand generally. What is driving the demand? Are you seeing any adverse impacts just from macro volatility, et cetera? Any update on sort of what key sectors are supporting demand or detracting from the market demand right now? Yeah, I mean, thankfully, we are 100% occupied, so we are not as close to the leasing market in a lot of our markets because we are fully occupied, which is a good thing, obviously. But defense spending is really starting to pick up in Germany, and it is having an impact just overall in the logistics center. 3PLs are very active. The growth of Asian 3PLs in the U.K. and in mainland Europe are having an impact. So there is more e-commerce spending as a percentage of the overall sort of demand in Europe than there is in North America. So those remain pretty very important demand drivers for our markets in the U.K. and in Europe. You're not seeing any sectors really pulling back or delaying decisions? I mean, as we said, I don't think pulling back. I think the trends that we've talked about for the past couple years now still remain intact, and that is flight to quality and consolidation. We are seeing a lot of strength in the large space segment, in the newer large space segment. One stat that I saw through the third quarter that was staggering to me is if you look at the U.S., of the 210 million-250 million of year-to-date net absorption, roughly 200 million of that are in buildings built this decade, so buildings built after 2020, which is really a staggering number, and it shows you sort of flight to quality that's going on and obviously the consolidation. There's a lot of strength in the large bay segment, and obviously that's having a negative impact on smaller and mid-bay older product. That's a trend that we continue to see across our markets. Okay, great. Last one for me is just on the dispositions. Kevan, I think you said there's 100 million-150 million worth in discussions right now. Last quarter, I think you mentioned there was some discussions going on with respect to some non-core assets or some assets in Europe, in Austria, Germany perhaps. Those discussions continuing? Just wondering if that's still kind of in the- That's fair. They are ongoing, but when I mentioned these discussions, we're in advanced discussions on roughly CAD 150 million. The ones that I had referenced before in Europe, we are, but certainly not as advanced as the ones we're having right now. These are two U.S. assets. Perfect. Thank you. I'll turn it back. Your next question comes from the line of Himanshu Gupta with Scotiabank. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good morning. On acquisitions, you've been active in Houston. What do you like about the Houston market, and where do you see the upside? Oh, we've liked Houston for a long time. When you look at the markets that we're in, we've been in Houston now for a number of years via our development site there. It's a market we've always liked, and it's a market where we didn't have, frankly, a lot of concentration. It's a natural fit for us. In terms of the fundamentals, it's been one of the strongest markets in the U.S. for the past number of years. It doesn't deal with the same supply issues as some other markets. It's a market we've been monitoring and involved with for many years. We've had a lot of success with our development site there, and so it was a natural fit for us, and we continue to think it will outperform. It will be one of the top performers in the U.S. over the next five to 10 years. Got it. If I look at the cap rates on the Houston acquisitions, let's call it low to mid-5%. Are you underwriting above average market rent growth for that market? I mean, in the context of 10-year treasury at like five-ish percentage to justify the investment? Well, I think we have mid-3% contractual rent escalations on both those assets. Yes, we do expect market rent growth to remain strong there. We're not projecting even as strong as they've had the last few years, but we are expecting there to be continued strong market rent growth for Houston, and that certainly will position us for future growth with those assets, even upon expiry in the next few years. Got it. Thank you. Staying on Houston, I mean, the Houston development deal is almost like mid-7. So, do you think the spread is enough to maybe justify more development here compared to the acquisition, like almost 200 basis points, or maybe more than 200 basis points here? I think 200 basis points would be a fair characterization of where we see stabilized yields there. Would we do more at that level? It would depend on the opportunity itself and the tenant and the prospect, but that remains a pretty attractive number for us. Okay. Thank you. Moving on the Locust Grove deal, subsequent to the quarter, 70% rent bump, very strong. Is that a function of very low in-place rents on this property, or are there not many properties of that size in the market which led you to that level of rent increase? A bit of both. The in-place markets certainly were low for the market. The tenant had been there a number of years. It was one of the reasons why we acquired this asset was the in-place rents and the cost basis, the resulting cost basis from it. But rents in Atlanta and in this part of Atlanta, this submarket, have moved very strongly. I would tell you, if this deal were done two years ago, the new rent would probably be $0.75 below where it is today. So, it's been a combination of already low in-place rents versus market rents that have strengthened significantly in this part of the Atlanta market over the last few years. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Just on the Airpack disposition in Indianapolis, I know this was a vacant property. Was it sold to the end user? Wondering what cap rate it will imply on a stabilized rent basis? I think you would assume a rent of probably 4.25 to 4.50 on that. I just want to give some context on it. I haven't really talked about this because I wanted to wait until the close. This asset was constructed in 1999, so roughly 27 years of age, 30-foot clear, high office. I think about 105,000 sq ft of office, so roughly 22% office content, low door ratio, a little bit of a challenging configuration. For us, in terms of the value, we would have applied a high TI to release that space. For us, the end user sale was probably the best outcome and a welcome one for us. That was sort of the strategy that we followed with that asset. I think the price that we achieved was strong with all those circumstances being considered. Got it. Thank you so much. Maybe just last one here for Teresa Neto on the CAD 300 million. I think you already mentioned low four, I think, rate. For the one coming in June, I think it's around CAD 500 million. Fair to assume like mid 4% rate for that? Yeah, I think it's. We haven't decided what we'll do yet. We're going to kind of see where the markets are, where the bond markets are. But I think if you're going to want to model, I would at least model 4.25 for that one, which the expiring bond is just under three, so about 100 to 125 basis point difference. Thank you so much, and I'll turn it back. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Matt Kornack with National Bank of Canada Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. We don't spend a ton of time on Canada in your portfolio, but you do have some space available. Can you give us a sense as to what discussions look like on that? Obviously, you've been getting some really good lease spreads on the stuff that's renewed, but yeah, any indication there? It looked like Toronto had a good Q3, but obviously we've had the trade tensions, so I'm trying to understand this market a bit better. You mean in terms of the availability, Matt? Yeah, just in terms of your vacancy. Are you seeing some traction on that space from tenants? If so, what kind of type of tenants are looking in the Toronto market? Yeah, we've seen some traction. I mean, the one, they're on the smaller side, and that, again, has been a bit soft in that there's a lot of competition in that segment. The one in Vaughan that came back to us, the one thing that we're also considering is there could be the potential to increase the power to the site quite substantially. So we do have decent activity on that asset, but at the same time, we're also sort of working through the ability to increase the potential of that asset. So, I think that's one we want to proceed with carefully. There's been decent interest in it. It's a great location, and the power's already high at 5,000 amps, but there could be the ability to increase the power substantially. The other thing too we're doing is we're also working with a third-party firm to assess the feasibility of some data center conversions on a few of our sites in the GTA, and this would be one of them as well. So, we're working through a number of things and levers on this asset, and hopefully we'll have sort of more to talk about early in 2027. But overall, I mean, the interest across our availabilities in the GTA has been good, but there's also quite a bit of competition in those size ranges. Okay, fair enough. That's interesting content. You mentioned earlier just with regards to the asset in Pennsylvania, maybe you can expand this beyond that single asset, but can you walk through kind of the economics of demising a space and why you would be less inclined to do so? Or is there a rent uptick for a smaller bay, or do you just think that the asset's better off being a large single bay asset longer term? No, and it depends on the market, Matt, and it is interesting that way. When we had the availability in Louisville and Conestoga, and we had 620,000 ft available, we could demise that building. At the same time, rents in the 600,000 plus range were higher than rents in the 300,000 to 400,000 range. Again, it made no sense for us to do it other than you would be able to partially lease up the building sooner. The same thing goes here. There is no rent benefit to us, rental rate benefit to going down in a smaller segment. Frankly, as I mentioned, there is some requirement circling at 1 million sq ft and above, which we cannot accommodate. Rents in that segment have been healthy. It is not just the cost of demising the building, it is also are you going to achieve a rent premium by going down in the size range? For this asset, we do not believe that that is the case. It makes better economic sense for us to continue to look at the sort of 750,000 sq ft range. Okay, that makes a ton of sense. Thanks. Your next question comes from the line of Pammi Bir with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. I just wanted to come back to the Locust Grove, that lease there. Pretty decent outcome. I am just curious, was the prior tenant looking to exit or anything you can share just on the background of maybe how that deal evolved? The prior tenant had, I think, five years remaining on the lease, but they had lost their contract. So they were a 3PL, a well-funded 3PL, so we were not worried about their ability to continue to pay rent. But we were aware, as the market was aware, that they were not utilizing the space. So we received interest from another tenant, another occupier for the space. This has been probably 16 months of negotiations, and we reached a point where the team was able to negotiate a favorable sort of surrender of the lease and transfer to the new tenant. As Teresa mentioned, we bring it up only because it will impact Q4 same property NOI. But at the same time, it positions us for better growth in 2027. Over the term of the lease, it is definitely a win-win for us. Yeah, for sure. No, that is good to see. Okay, and then just maybe a follow-up on the Samsung space. It sounds like there is good interest, but you try to line up the right tenant. I am just curious how much availability there is in that particular node of the market. I would think there is, in our immediate size range, I think we are aware of one other. So I think in that market, you could say that we are down to two, and the other one is a relatively new development, so a new entrant to the market. We are not aware of any new supply or imminent new supply coming on. So there is one other availability, and I think we are very well positioned. Frankly, in terms of the ability to do a certain rent in that market, I think we are better positioned than our competition. Okay. Then I guess, along that thinking, is it fair to assume that you should have this, I guess, cash rents at this site toward the second half of next year, or is that too early to call? Yeah, that is our expectation, yes. Okay. Then just maybe lastly, on looking at the 2027 lease maturities that you have already addressed or committed, where have the spreads come in to date? Then, if there is anything else that might be known in terms of any known vacancies coming back to you. 21% year to date. On the 2027 maturities, right? On the 2027. Those ones that I talked about, we have this year is rather unique to us. About a third of our expiries next year are contractual rent increases, which is way above what it normally is. Now, one of that in Italy is a Magna facility in Austria. So so far, I do not want to give the actual percentage, but we have those contractual rent increases outside of that. So two-thirds of our expiries for next year, we would expect a lift similar to what we are projecting for this year. Okay, that helps. And then, sorry, just the second part of that question was, anything known in terms of what might be coming back to you from the vacancy standpoint next year? No. Okay, great. Thanks very much. I will turn it back. Your last question comes from the line of Dean Wilkinson with CIBC. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Morning, everybody. I will keep this quick. Kevan, we saw something out of Granite with the quarter that we haven't seen in a long time in the REIT world. That's the split. I guess, largely a function of the success of the units over time. What was the thinking around there, and is this something, and you and I have talked about this a little before, an effort to expand the broader ownership base and perhaps get retail a little more involved? Well, I appreciate the question, Dean. First of all, we don't know if this is really going to help or not. Our thinking on this was, the leadership team, myself, have met with institutional investors and investors for many years. I think the one concern or challenge that was expressed to us by our largest unit holders was they wanted better liquidity. It was from a good spot, meaning, because we're highly institutionally held, sometimes our unit holders, if they wanted to increase their holdings in Granite, they just didn't feel there was enough liquidity in the market in order to do that, because the other unit holders weren't selling. That's something that we heard directly from our unit holders and investors over the past number of years. Looking at the institutional ownership or lack of the retail ownership, we felt that this would be a good opportunity to try and split the stock and see if we can improve access to our units by retail investors. Again, we don't know if it will work, but based on the feedback we received, we thought it was worth the effort, and we will see. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think that retail do look at price, not valuation quite often. I expect it will significantly expand the shareholder base. That's all I had. Thanks. All right. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Kevan Gorrie for closing remarks. All right. Thank you, operator. Thank you, everyone, for joining us on the Q3 call. We hope you can make it on the Q4 call, and have a great day. This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.