Good morning, everyone. Today, I am providing an update on Rubicon Organics and our progress on 2026, the year we've described as a year of two halves.

As previously outlined, 2026 is a transition year, with our new Cascadia facility ramping up and adding cost to the business in the first half as we complete the ramp-up, where in the second half, we expect to meaningfully see the financial benefits. In the first quarter of '26, we saw revenue from our existing footprint, excluding Cascadia, grow 11% year-over-year.

At the same time, our gross profit and bottom line were impacted by Cascadia's pre-revenue ramp-up. Glen will walk through the financial results shortly and provide additional context behind the numbers.

Rubicon continues to be Canada's number one premium licensed producer. Our focus this quarter has been balanced between delivering today while building for tomorrow.

Nowhere is that more visible than at our Cascadia facility. Our first harvests are complete with batches showcasing promising results, with THC potencies closely comparable to Pacifica.

This provides early validation that this new facility will uphold the quality standards our brands are known for nationally, while positioning us to begin addressing the significant unmet demand for our products. We have also been advancing several initiatives that target our gross profit, and we expect these will meaningfully contribute to gross growth and operating leverage as the year progresses.

Internationally, we have launched into the UK, our first brand-forward medical market outside of Canada. Before handing it over to Glen, I want to emphasize that our near-term margin profile reflects deliberate and strategic investments in capacity, and we are confident that these investments will unlock the next phase of growth for Rubicon.

Thank you, Margaret, and good morning, everyone. As expected, Q1 2026 reflected the typical industry seasonality and was compounded by the lingering effects of the late 2025 BC distribution strike.

Despite these factors, we are satisfied that we were able to grow revenue by 11% and achieve key strategic milestones at the Cascadia facility. Net revenue for the quarter was $13.7 million, up $1.3 million over Q1 of 2025.

This growth was driven by continued strong performance in our 1964 brand and supported by stable contributions from our Simply Bare brand. Canada's number one selling premium brand, 1964 Supply Co., remained the cornerstone of our portfolio, representing 2/3 of our net revenue for the quarter and was up 13% year-over-year.

This growth was primarily driven by flower and pre-rolls, while performance across the rest of the portfolio remained relatively stable. Looking ahead, our Cascadia facility represents the key unlock to further growth in 1964, expanding our supply so that we can begin to grow into the unmet demand for our products.

Simply Bare, our nationally leading super-premium brand, represented around 1/5 of revenue. While overall performance was flat compared to the prior year, flower sales increased meaningfully, up 24%, supported by new genetics and ongoing quality refinement.

We expect this brand to be well-positioned for growth throughout 2026. Wildflower accounts for a relatively smaller portion of revenue, but continues to deliver above-average gross margins, with the 60 g Relief Stick remaining Canada's number one selling topical SKU.

International revenue was just under $1 million for the quarter, relating to wholesale shipments. We do expect growth through the remainder of 2026 on our international sales line following the April launch of our 1964 brand in the UK, our first brand launch outside of Canada.

Gross margin, before fair value adjustments, was 20% in Q1 2026 compared to 31% in Q1 of '25. Excluding the temporary impact of the Cascadia operating costs, which hit our P&L prior to revenue from Cascadia volume being recognized, our Q1 gross margin would have been approximately 29%.

Margins were also pressured from the lower BC revenue due to the lingering effects of the BC strike. However, gross margin is expected to improve in the second half of 2026 as revenue from Cascadia product is recorded and the fixed costs of our cultivation and manufacturing infrastructure support a higher level of sales.

Operating expenses in Q1 2026 increased by $1.6 million year-over-year, reflecting planned investments in talent, brand development in Canada, international initiatives, and growth-related regulatory and insurance costs. Adjusted EBITDA was a loss of $580,000 in Q1 2026 compared to positive $700,000 in Q1 2025.

This reflects the impact of our increased fixed cost infrastructure in a seasonally soft quarter, and prior to the revenue inflection we anticipate in the second half of 2026. From a liquidity perspective, we ended the quarter with $3.2 million in cash.

Cash flow from operations was $2.1 million for the quarter, representing strong accounts receivable collections following a record Q4 '25 for sales. In April 2026, we temporarily increased our line of credit by $1.5 million until the end of September, providing additional flexibility to support the integration and optimization of Cascadia.

For CapEx, we spent approximately half a million dollars during the quarter, mainly on Cascadia optimization initiatives. Q1 has given us a solid foundation to launch into the remainder of 2026.

Growing 11% through a seasonally slow quarter while absorbing the costs of a major facility ramp-up speaks to the underlying resilience of this business. Looking ahead, we have clear visibility for revenue and margin expansion through the balance of 2026 and beyond.

We continue to anticipate a clear inflection point mid-year, with higher revenue, improved margins, and stronger operating cash flow in the second half as Cascadia ramps into branded sales and we are able to service more of our currently unmet demand in Canada and internationally. Our path to long-term margin expansion is well-defined and underway, driven by processing automation, yield improvement, and dual facility scale efficiencies, all expected to contribute to P&L bottom-line growth this year and in the years ahead.

For the full year of 2026, we expect a total of $5.2 million for CapEx across all of Rubicon, and this reflects further process insourcing and automation and cost-efficiency projects. This investment is supported by the $4 million in debt financing we secured late last year and by expected stronger operating cash flow in the second half of this year.

With proven execution and continued strong demand for our leading brands, we remain confident in delivering our 2026 plan. With that, I'll turn the call back to Margaret.

Thanks, Glen. Rubicon has maintained its leadership in the first quarter of '26 as Canada's number one premium LP, as evidenced by Hifyre market share data, and further supported by continued industry recognition and awards received.

Rubicon continues to perform well across multiple categories, growing faster than total market as well as in key premium categories. In premium flower, we grew category share to 10.3%, up from 7.1% in Q1 '25.

In premium pre-rolls, we saw modest but consistent share growth across both premium and all price point categories. Wildflower continues to deliver strong results as Canada's number two topical brand, holding over 25% market share despite increasing competitive intensity.

Its 60 g Extra Strength Relief Stick remains the top-selling SKU across Canada. At the heart of our flower performance is our world-class genetics program that we continue to invest in.

Our portfolio continues to evolve with new strains and expanded formats in 2026 that align with consumer demand for unique cultivars, industry-leading premium quality, and consistent, dependable brand experiences. Notable flower launches during the quarter include BC Organic Limonada and Mandarin Skittlez launched under Simply Bare, and Gasolina and Kush Mints launched under 1964.

Our genetics program has always been a competitive advantage for Rubicon. With two facilities now operating, we are in a position to further refine our grow plans, optimizing each cultivar for yield, terpene profile, and overall quality.

This is important as genetic selection drives yield and has impact on gross margin, pricing, and brand loyalty. This is the part of the business the true premium consumer resonates with.

The all-in-one vape products launched in May of '25 have added a meaningful new dimension to our product portfolio. To strengthen our position in this segment, we are actively adjusting our all-in-one portfolio to optimize price-to-value for consumers, and we expect these pricing refinements to drive growth for the remainder of '26.

Additionally, the recent launch of the Stinky Pinky FSE resin all-in-one vape, built on our 2026 High Buds Club award-winning genetic of Indica of the Year, reinforces our confidence in regaining traction in this segment. Rubicon brands were again recognized by over 1,000 budtenders at the High Buds Club Awards held in April this year, where in addition to Stinky Pinky's award, 1964 received the Brand of the Year award, and Wildflower was recognized as Topical of the Year.

Turning to Cascadia, progress has accelerated since our last update. Initial harvests are complete, and the results have exceeded expectations with encouraging yields, THC potencies, and terpene results.

This provides early confirmation that branded production is approaching and that the quality standards required for 1964 are achievable at this site, and expect a meaningful step change mid-year in our top line, with small lots also available late in the second quarter. To those who missed it earlier this week, I am pleased to share that Cascadia has officially received its GACP certification, a meaningful milestone that opens access to international markets.

We expect to follow with IMC-GAP certification in the coming months, enabling entry into additional medical markets and advancing our broader international strategy. Cascadia adds approximately 4,500 kg of annual premium production capacity, representing a roughly 40% increase in our total annual output.

We see further upside as we continue to adapt our genetic selection and cultivation processes to the facility's unique profile. With Cascadia now fully planted, we anticipate the potential to further increase estimated annual production capacity over time as crop performance data is collected and our world-class genetic library is optimized.

A refined increase in capacity is expected to be provided later this year. It is worth acknowledging what the team has accomplished.

Cascadia is Rubicon's first indoor grow facility, a distinct cultivation environment from our Pacifica greenhouse. This flexibility allows us to match cultivars to the environment where they best perform.

At the same time, operationalizing a new facility is complex and often takes multiple cycles to achieve full potential. The fact that our first harvests have come in ahead of initial targets on quality and yield is a testament to the team's execution, and I want to recognize that effort.

Cascadia is on track, with initial production being strategically monetized and a clear path to a full branded output in the second half of 2026. For the remainder of '26, our growth strategy continues to be anchored around three key priorities: capacity expansion, international growth, and genetics leadership.

As demand for our premium brands has consistently run ahead of available supply, improving our capacity remains front of mind. With operations at Cascadia being refined, this new facility will enable larger formats, new SKUs, and more favorable cost structure as we scale, and these benefits will compound over time.

International expansion, beginning with the UK and supported by additional certifications, allows us to complement our domestic leadership with exposure to growing medical markets abroad, where the repeated requests we hear from international customers is a desire for consistent, premium quality and access to our genetics. As regulatory frameworks mature and patient populations expand, we believe that the track record and consistency we have established in Canada will naturally flow to the international medical markets.

Underpinning these two priorities is genetics, which represents the foundation of our business. A proprietary genetics library that continuously yields new cultivars and improved quality is foundational to sustaining premium positioning at scale, and we will continue to invest accordingly.

Now to questions.

Thanks very much, and good morning. My first question, I guess, can you elaborate a little bit on the carry-on impacts of the BC strike into Q1, and is there any way to quantify how much of that, you posted 11% revenue growth year-over-year, any way to quantify what it would have been without the impacts of the BC strike?

What I can say, Neal, and thanks and good morning, is we didn't hit our expectations in BC. The overall total market was down about 1%, but flower was down 9% year-on-year, and premium flower was down double digits.

I'm happy to say that there were various segments that we were in growth in Q1 in BC. What we believe, and we've spoken to a lot of operators about this, is it's been a consistent experience across the space, except for a few of the direct delivery companies that actually gained traction during the strike when all of the larger than 3,000 kg companies were locked out.

Hard to quantify, but I would say we were below our expectations on BC. In terms of now, we're actually seeing momentum now in BC.

We are feeling that the market is stabilized again, and we believe that the effect is largely behind us. The retail shelves looked like they had the wrong mix on shelf, and given that there's not a large key account or consolidation of stores, there are individual stores that had inventory that they couldn't write down that they needed to actually clear through before they could repurchase and get the right product on shelf.

Great. Thanks, Margaret.

Next question is on I guess Q2 and in the gross margin outlook. You commented that, or I think I saw it in the press release, the first sales or revenue recognition from product out of Cascadia should happen in late Q2.

I'm going to think that that's a fairly small and overly immaterial contribution, so that we wouldn't see much of a rebound in margin in Q2, and it speaks more to what you've communicated on the second half improvement in margins and EBITDA. Look,

I can give some more color around Cascadia as well. The the production is is we we've just finished production in all of the rooms.

In fact, all of the testing and cure hasn't completed. We're very happy and confident with the initial direction of the facility, and remain confident on meeting brand standards from the midpoint in the year.

The Q2, we do expect small lots will be available before the end of the quarter, and we're sort of assessing at this time what can be allocated, still too early to tell. I think, Glen, you can speak to the increased top line overall as we come out of the seasonal of Q1 and how that will help help our gross margin given the given that we've got a fixed cost base.

Glen?

Thanks. Neal, there's a number of actions we're taking as you know to increase gross margin over time.

There's also something for us in our reporting standards or in our accounting policies, it's really important to keep in mind. We expense cultivation costs as incurred.

In the quarter, regardless of revenue, we expense all of our cultivation costs. Going through our cost of goods line in Q1, over 40% of that are fixed cultivation costs between Cascadia, Pacifica.

Independent to the revenue, that number flows through. Obviously, if revenue is a little bit light in the quarter, that hurts our margin.

It'll benefit us in the future as we start to see that extra revenue coming through from Cascadia and as we see BC normalize and we are having actually an exceptional quarter in terms of winning new listings and things like that. The traction in the business is solid.

As that revenue starts to come through and sit on top of that same fixed-cost number, the margin just structurally will increase. Of course, it's a big focus for us, just the higher throughput will give us scale efficiencies.

We're investing significantly in process automation, whether automated pre-roll at capacity running 24/7 right now, we'll be adding more there. We're putting more automation into packaging.

In fact, we're working in insourcing a couple of key processes, for instance, hydrocarbon extraction by the end of the year, to drive down the cost and give us in our vape and the 2.0 product portfolio. Then, really importantly for us is just the massive sort of push and opportunity on yield increases, and we're seeing really nice increases across the portfolio of strains, for right now, at least 10% year-over-year.

That, I think, to connect the dots on that, that is extra cannabis coming through our facilities with very minimal incremental costs. Lots of good stuff going on in terms of driving the margin up where we want to see it over the next number of quarters.

Really importantly, that fixed-cost piece, not all LPs report in the same manner, and it's important to understand that about our P&L because I think it'll naturally increase just with a higher level of revenue.

Fair. Appreciate that, Glen.

Then, Glenn,

you mentioned in your prepared remarks the CapEx for the year, and I missed it, that basically supports all those initiatives that you just talked about.

Yeah, $5.2 million for the year, inclusive of our Q1 spending, covers all of those initiatives that I've just explained plus all the usual maintenance and that kind of thing. A long list of efficiency projects.

Okay. Great.

Thanks very much, guys. I'll pass the line.

Thanks.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. I think in the past you've given some cadence about when the capacity comes in, but can we assume that the additional 4.5 tons comes through in full in the third quarter and that can be sold in the third quarter?

Do you want to just refine maybe the cadence of the volume coming out of Cascadia for 3Q, 4Q, and the first half of '27?

Look, we expect that we'll be at a decent run rate coming out of Cascadia this year. We had previously indicated that we were thinking around 2/3 to 3/4 of total yield in this year with the ramp-up, and I don't think that's changed, and we should be at reasonably steady state certainly going into '27 in the fourth quarter and into '27.

Although what I do want to say is we've seen early indications that we expect that we can increase that capacity at that facility as we get the right genetic, etc. We're waiting for more data to make that assessment, and we expect in the autumn we'll provide an update on that.

Is that helpful?

That's good. Thank you.

Then in terms of I know it's going to depend on the demand side of things, but will the allocation be proportionate to your formats and brands the way and even domestic versus international? Will it be proportionate or will it be more skewed a larger percentage of the volume coming out going to Simply Bare, more to international?

I'm speaking in relative terms. I understand 1964 is the main brand, but do you have a sense of how that will be allocated across formats, brands, and regions?

Thank you.

Very good question. Yes, we've said that we expect in 2026 around 10% of our top line going to the international channel.

That product will likely come out of both facilities and be allocated. Given the largest demand signals and the largest segment that we're not satisfying currently from a flower perspective is the 28 g, in Canada, as we allocate there, it will be at a lower margin.

That being said, we do expect it to be offset by the international opportunity where we don't bear the same working capital on packaging, the challenges of the Canadian market, and the lower margin on larger formats.

Thank you. Then just in terms of new markets on international front, I know you're saying 10% of your sales in international.

Can you talk about other markets you expect to enter in 2026? You've mentioned the UK.

Can you talk about other markets?

Just

in general, obviously, you've attended international conferences, you've been very visible out there, I suppose you're having good inbounds. If you can just talk about one, what other markets you can enter, and two, I know you've talked about the demand for premium, but everyone talks about deflation, pricing coming down, but obviously, there is a segment for premium flower, right?

What more color can you share that you've learned about that demand? Thank you.

Thank you. The most significant learning we had in ICBC this year, and there's no accounting for being on the ground, is that the challenge operators are having in Europe is the lack of consistency in their purchases from Canada.

Our vision is to be the most trusted house of premium cannabis brands, and we've repeated that in that we are not looking to continue to sell and to grow wholesale premium cannabis business. That being said, entering and learning in markets, that's extremely important.

We have gone brand-first in the UK medical market. In Germany, we are looking at a number of wholesale agreements that may in time, and I would say in the short to mid-term, turn into branded opportunities.

We do have a lot of inbound demand, and notably, it's because of many companies are struggling to build consistency and deliver consistency for their patients in their supply chains. That's the number one concern, and we have built our reputation in Canada on consistency and delivering consistent product.

On the price pressure, which was your last point, we do expect that there's going to be pricing pressure in Europe. We've always expected that.

It's why we stayed focused on the Canadian customer and building and delivering on our reputation and brand, and making sure that we are not too heavily weighted in one sector or another. As we have some more that supply that comes online, this is about managing the bottom line and cash flow, and taking the opportunity to sell some wholesale product for us in the short term.

I do think we're going to continue to see pressure there, but there will be a natural floor on that. I don't think we've seen it yet.

We are seeing in Canada many companies having sort of ridden the international train and now wanting to diversify and de-risk their business with having some channel in Canada and some channel internationally, the spot sales can be very stressful and then making sure that you're collecting the money. As we look to do things, we're looking for long-term partners.

We're looking for real relationship and consistency. That's what we bring, and that's what we're expecting in the partners that we would work with.

Right. Thank you.

Just one last, and I guess it's a two-part question. I know you talked about the GACP and other certification you may get in the second half, but will it make economic sense for you to also get EU-GMP certification for your Canadian facilities if you can talk about that?

Then the second thing, go on. Maybe answer that first.

Go on.

GACP is a standard that we now have at both of our facilities. There's one more sort of add-on to part of the GACP would be the way that I would frame it for access to certain countries that we are continuing to pursue.

EU-GMP, we've been asked a lot of times, what's the difference between EU-GMP and GACP? GACP and the medical standard in Canada is a very high bar.

We have a lot of testing, and it means we can offer a trusted product to the world. EU-GMP, I would frame more as if you've got a child that is sitting in a hospital and you're looking to give them medicine, you sure as heck want to make sure that that medicine has gone through extremely stringent standards.

That's the level that EU-GMP has because it is a medical standard, remembering that these facilities are agricultural facilities that are built. I do believe it's something that Rubicon Organics will pursue in the medium term, and it's very important for us to look at pursuing that.

We are in very early stages of evaluating that. We've got some other projects that we're looking at first.

I think there would be a reasonable cost to doing so, à la $2 to $3 million, but the benefits are real in terms of being able to export directly from your facility and not using an EU-GMP facility to process your product. There's a bandwidth and cost to doing this, our first priority is to get Cascadia up and running, delivering some of the gross margin improvements that we're looking at through yield and other projects, and then EU-GMP is very close to the top after that.

Right. Look, I'm going to add one more.

Obviously, going back to my initial question, you've been very precise about the cadence, right, how the new capacity comes in by year-end, by 2027. Going back to the topic that one facility's greenhouse, Cascadia is indoor, the greenhouse is organic product, right, Cascadia is not organic, I'm just wondering about the learning curve in terms of your genetic library, your different strains.

One thing may work in one facility, may not work on the other, so that could impact your cadence forward-thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Absolutely. It's a very good question, and those who have been around the industry know that typically it takes 18 to 24 months to get these facilities starting to get dialed.

I'm extremely pleased, have to say, high expectations of our team and their depth of knowledge, both having worked in greenhouse and an indoor environment, we do have that experience within the team. Very pleased and proud of what they've been able to accomplish to date.

Right now, what we're doing is, now that we've run through every room, we've learned in the various rooms, okay, that AC unit clicked off at this despite having done all the optimization. You learn things when you run them 24/7.

High confidence in our ability to drive yields and deliver exceptional product and premium product from the facility. What I would say is on the genetic side is there is some learning.

A lot of our genetics in our library have come from over time or been developed for indoor environments, we believe we'll do very well. We've already found one of our favorite strains, Blue Dream, didn't love the indoor environment.

It has always been grown in more of a greenhouse or outdoor environment with the natural sun, we've already made that switch. There will be continued learnings like that.

I would say we're very bullish on the potential and what we can do, and some of the genetics that haven't worked in the greenhouse, we're very excited to be putting through and trialing at Cascadia, and taking advantage of that opportunity. I've said for many many months, I believe that Cascadia will be a Kush factory and it will love that style of plant, and early indications are that that's accurate.

That's great. Thank you.

Hey, Margaret and Glen. Thanks for taking my questions here.

The first thing I wanted to drill into a bit was how the premium market has declined, I guess, across Canada, as per the Hifyre data, and if you could provide some more commentary on why you think that's happened, and then why do you think that you guys were able to outperform that?

Another very good question. We are seeing the premium market decline over in Canada.

That's against trend in the United States where the premium market sits between 25% and 30%, I believe. Interestingly, in Q1 of '25, the premium market was about $197 million, and in Q1 of '26, is about $181 million.

That's a drop of about 8%. In that time, we'd actually grown our share, and we've grown our dollars sold, very, very proud of that outcome.

I think what's happening is the lack of consistency in the markets, brands moving in and out, premium competitors moving in and out, and learning to build your supply chain and your operation to actually execute, have the discipline to do that. At the same time, consumers, when they're paying a more expensive price point, are looking for consistency and trust, and that when they pick up a product, that it's going to deliver the brand promise.

That's where we've been successful. I believe that the Canadian market will ultimately have somewhere between two and four premium and super-premium national brands, and everything else will be hyper-local.

The hyper-local tends to move in and out with more trends, often people entering the market, pulling share and consumer interest where they try it. Typically, what we've seen in this market is the first crops are very, very good, but it's being able to maintain that.

I won't name names, but over the last number of years, we've definitely seen market entrants come in, pull market share for a moment, and then fall right away.

Okay. That makes sense.

Then I also wanted to ask about some of the operating expenses, maybe if you could provide some more color on what specific headcount that you guys invested in, and what other investments have been made from a salaries and wages perspective, but also maybe a sales and marketing perspective.

Absolutely. The first thing, I'm going to pass it to Glen in a minute, but the overlay I would say is we have invested ahead for scale.

Now, it's not massively ahead because the revenues expected to start showing up very soon, and all the working capital around a new facility is there. As you're building a new facility and have more product, you have more complexity.

You have more people. You need more IT.

We have more products going out, we need more analysis and finance, as well things like insurance. We've now got two facilities.

Those are all the below-the-line costs. Then what we're seeing is certainly is pressure on the sales and marketing side from the key accounts and the data fees and pressure into working with those groups.

That's all forming part of the environment in which we're dealing. We are being, what I would say is, very disciplined to not get over our skis, and be thoughtful about, as we're adding heads and finding the balance between the amount we're pushing the team pre-revenue, but also getting the right resource to actually execute with discipline.

Glen, any commentary on that?

The increase obviously is relative to last year, but I'll echo Margaret's comments. I've been kicked around the industry for quite a while, this company, Rubicon, is very disciplined, and is operating in quite a lean manner.

We have built on the expectation, the complexity of operating multiple facilities and building that scale, and investing in some of the efficiency projects that does require a little bit more horsepower, a bit more talent. We also, on the OpEx side, have invested in sales and marketing headcount, in particular, as the industry's evolved, and you have the need to support retail directly, people calling on the stores, and also, you have the development of national, regional accounts, chains, who are servicing more of a kind of head-office model as well.

There is some investment in sales and marketing. Naturally, as our revenue's been growing, we also see higher [unclear] as revenue higher [unclear] as well.

Glen, you're actually breaking up a little bit. If you could just try saying that again?

Yeah. Sorry, I don't know where I broke up, but just for the SG&A, we still do have costs that are relative to revenue [unclear].

In sum, we've built a structurally optimized to serve a higher level of revenue, and if you put that OpEx beside most of our peers, where the revenue we expect [unclear] from Cascadia [unclear] is going to quite balance and drive that bottom line.

Glenn, sorry, that was a bit broken up. Thanks, Glenn.

I think I got most of that.

Yeah.

That's all right.

Then

just last question quickly, what is your opinion on the balance sheet at this point, given that the CapEx budget looks like you guys should be all set, given most of that $5.2 million came already in Q1, but let me know your thoughts on the balance sheet.

Glen, I'm going to try passing that over to you, but I'll cut you off if it cuts out a little bit.

Hopefully my connection's better here. Just to correct that the CapEx came in Q1.

I want to just be very clear. Our CapEx budget for the year is $5.2 million.

We spent about $500,000 in Q1 on Cascadia, we still have a fair amount that's mainly in the back half of the year around process insourcing and automation, plus more Cascadia stand-up costs. That being said, I think your thesis is right.

We're satisfied where our liquidity is. We certainly are collecting all of our revenues in a timely basis.

Cash flow is good, and as we start to see that revenue tick up on a fixed-cost basis, that'll start to flow more cash through the company. I think we're in good shape there.

Right. Glen, can you just repeat what you said at the beginning there about the $5.2 million?

Yeah, $5.2 million is the CapEx budget for the year. I just want to be clear.

I think you had said that a lot of that was spent in Q1, and no, about half a million of that was spent in Q1.

Okay. Thank you.

Those were all my questions. Thanks for the time.

Thanks, Nick.

Good morning, Margaret. Good morning, Glen.

Obviously, starting off with some questions for Glen today. That's a joke, Margaret.

I know you're very well on this and could probably answer these if we have further issues. Just interested in how we should look at the sales and marketing line on a go-forward basis.

As those yields and volumes ramp, I'm just wondering, should we expect that to stay static, maybe as a percentage of sales? Is there any opportunity for leverage there, or is there any major spending strategies required to move that additional yield?

There's a portion of that, Josh, that is, I guess revenue-dependent. It does vary with revenue.

Again, we built the team, the sales and marketing team, that we believe is capable of servicing certainly a higher cadence. If you think about how our revenues will grow over the next number of quarters and through next year, it's essentially the same channels, same distributors.

We are calling on all the retailers, and we're working with all the major key, national and regional retail chains. We believe that the investment in the headcount and the marketing dollars, by and large, will service a higher level of revenue.

There is a portion of it that's is a percentage of revenue that it'll grow by. We should get leverage there to answer your question directly as our revenue grows.

No, super. Appreciate that.

Turning back to CapEx, the $5.2 million shows there's still room for sizable investments in the business. You've outlined the automation and extraction spend.

I'm just wondering, do those line items comprise the entire $5.2 million? I'm just wondering if there's any potential strategies, maybe regarding cultivation, efficiency improvements, improving yields, etc., that might be part of that $5.2 million?

Are there any parts of the $5.2 million that you didn't outline specifically that maybe you're just not ready to discuss publicly?

We're happy to discuss them, Josh. There's a list of about 40 projects, I'm not going to outline them all.

The major ones, in terms of actual dollar CapEx investment, are one of the process insourcing projects that we've got going on, I think I mentioned hydrocarbon extraction. There are some automation, we're going to put in automated pre-roll capacity and some packaging automation, particularly on the vape line.

There's some of that type of investment. Then there are a number of projects that require a little bit of CapEx, not to give away all the secrets, but we, for less than $100,000, we increase some of the lighting intensity in our Pacifica facility, which we're already seeing have a positive benefit to yield.

There are lots of little projects that could have, they add up to have a material impact over time.

Got it. To sneak in a third, I know we don't talk about Fight Club, but starting to see operators across the US and Canada finally understand how important genetics strategy is, how important it is to increase yield and average selling price, and what that means to the bottom line, a big part of that strategy is determined by genetic strategy, that really does seem where a lot of operators are lacking.

Given that context, do you think there's any possibility to monetize your kind of internal genetics strategy on a go-forward basis, or do you view that as kind of a core competitive advantage that you want to keep internal?

Great question. We've been banging on the drum of genetics, and I think there has been a general lack of understanding certainly in the wider market.

The consumer and the premium consumer certainly understands the importance of genetics. They do three things: one is they impact yield, so that's number one, that therefore impacts your gross margin.

Number two is you can pick a strain and grow it all day long, but if nobody wants to buy it and if it doesn't hit consumers, then you're not going to be able to sell it. The third thing is, does that genetic yield consistently and does it produce a consistent product without issues, whether it's pest or attracting a number of things that can go wrong when it's actually growing?

For us, genetics is very important. We've seen a notable shift.

Three years three and a bit years ago, we really started working on our genetics strategy, and if you look back, we started hinting at it then. We are now seeing an inflection point in the results of our genetics on yield and the choices that we've made and the testing that we've done.

Thus, we feel very confident in our library that we have today and what our plans are going forward, obviously. Never satisfied, there's always a lot of work to do, and it's probably the single largest unlock opportunity that we have in terms of the right choices drive yield, drive results, and drive trust.

In terms of monetizing it, you'd have to pay us a lot of money to monetize our genetics library today because it has certainly not just been a labor of love for a number of people in the business, but it is a competitive advantage, and it's something that gives us a moat. You can see proof points in the genetics that we have in market if you look back over the last four years and what we've consistently dropped into market, and how we've won Flower of the Year for three of the last four years by the KIND Awards, again, just being recognized this spring with Stinky Pinky winning Indica of the Year, elaborating on that.

I am bullish on genetics. One of the inbound questions that we have gotten internationally is, how can we access your genetics?

How can we access and get you supplying x genetic into our market because we hear of its sort of lore? We continue to invest there, believe in it, and expect, I think you can look back at a lot of other industries, whether it's fruits and vegetables, and how they've stabilized and monetized genetics.

If you look at the pork industry or the meat packing industry or wheat, canola, all of them, genetics and strain and what you're doing there become a critical part of the growth of those industries, and we understand and believe that today.

Super. Really appreciate it.

Can't wait for the inflection in the second half. Thanks for the answers.

Thanks, Josh.

Thanks for joining us today. Rubicon Organics is Canada's premium cannabis leader, and we're investing today to build enduring brands that last.

I'd like to end with my personal recommendation, and today, as we come into summer, I suggest BC Organic Pink pre-rolls to take the edge off a long day.