@ the Bell: Markets steady as investors eye trade talks
Canada's main stock index climbed on Tuesday, despite a dip in oil prices though the energy sector grew. Meanwhile, the Canadian government announced plans to increase military spending to meet NATO's target of 2 per cent of GDP within the current fiscal year—a move some analysts believe could smooth the way for a trade agreement with the United States.
Investors continued to monitor the progress of US-China trade negotiations, hoping for a resolution that avoids the imposition of significant tariffs by either side. Last month, both countries agreed to temporarily reduce their tariffs, a development seen as a positive step following President Donald Trump's proposal for sweeping import duties.
Looking ahead, traders are turning their attention to Wednesday's US inflation report, which is expected to shape market expectations around potential interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.
The Canadian dollar traded for 73.04 cents US compared to 73.03 cents US on Monday.
US crude futures traded $0.59 lower at US$64.70 a barrel, and the Brent contract lost $0.45 to US$66.59 a barrel.
The price of gold was down US$12.02 to US$3,321.54.
In world markets, the Nikkei was up 122.94 points to ¥38,211.51, the Hang Seng was down 18.56 points to HK$24,162.87 the FTSE was up 20.80 points to ₤8,853.08, but the DAX was down 186.76 points to €23,987.56.
The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. For full disclaimer information, please click here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The bully is a person in our neighbourhood
Opinion A new kid moves into your neighbourhood. A loudmouth, pretty darned full of himself; 'I'm the best, the bigly-est, the smartest person ever,' but you're used to all sorts, even windbags, so you don't pay him much mind. And then one day as you're walking by, he punches you in the face. Later, he's all smiles, and says 'Let's let bygones be bygones, we could be the bestest of friends.' And things get better for a bit, though he's still insufferable. Demetrius Freeman / The Washington Post U.S. President Donald Trump Not long after, as you're walking by, he comes up and punches you in the face, saying that you were mean to him. A week later, he punches you in the face. And then says, 'We should really be friends.' At some point, tired of being punched in the face, you simply avoid him. Deal him out altogether from your life. Because you have no trust whatsoever that he isn't going to punch you in the face — and, to add insult to injury, also blame you for forcing him to punch you in the face. Enter America. Several media outlets — the CBC among them — are reporting that Canada and the United States are exchanging broad-strokes terms for a joint deal on economic and security issues. No framework deal at this point, just a starting point for what two competing views on what a negotiation might look like. You can understand it from a pragmatic point of view, when we do so much of our business with our largest trading partner to the south. And it is, in a qualified way, good to at least be talking. On the other hand … Sign a trade and security deal with the United States? We already have a binding trade deal with the United States, signed with great Sharpie flourish by the exact same person who has spent the last few months punching us in the face with tariffs. Here's the key point — why would we trust an American leader with a 100 per cent record of punching us in the face to, maybe, not punch us in the face any more? The truth is, we can't. Especially because U.S. President Donald Trump has a lengthy corporate history of punching people in the face as well. It's been his art of the deal — signing contracts and then refusing to honour payment terms, and demanding people settle breached contracts for pennies on the dollar or fight him in the courts for years. Weekday Mornings A quick glance at the news for the upcoming day. It's a conundrum we, and many other American trading partners, face: we can't really afford to lose America's business, and we can't really afford trying to keep it, either — because every time we jump one hurdle, we're faced with a new one and are asked to jump even higher. Contrast America's current negotiating style with the Chinese government, which has just announced a zero-tariff policy with virtually every single African country — 53 in all — with the one exception being Eswatini, the former country of Swaziland, because that country has diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Meanwhile, the U.S. is punishing African countries with high tariffs because Americans buy products cheap from them, while the populations of those countries are not in a financial position to make an equal-sized purchase of American goods. (Not only punching them in the face, but kicking them when they're down as well.) It's understandable that we're trying to make a deal in the short term, or maybe our federal government is trying to run out the clock as much as possible. But that's not the answer. Maybe we can't move out of the neighbourhood. But we can make new friends — not necessarily China, but there's a big world out there.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What are ‘nation-building projects' anyway?
Opinion The Canadian Press reports that 38 CEOs of Canadian energy companies signed a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, congratulating him for his election win and pitching policy measures like overhauling (read 'gutting') the Impact Assessment Act, scrapping federal emissions caps on oil and gas and repealing industrial carbon pricing. Carney met with them and thanked them for their communications. (Carney talks partnerships with energy execs, Free Press, June 2). Then, 13 premiers met with the PM to pitch their favourite projects which include pipelines and nuclear plants. The process sounds more like a high-stakes version of Dragons' Den, with the feds ready to dole out the public purse, than it does a thoughtful, serious assessment of the very real dangers that Canada faces — not just from the U.S. tariffs and the economy, but also from climate change. Couldn't the premiers smell the smoke emanating from the infernos blazing across the northern forests as they sat behind closed doors in a Saskatoon hotel room? Now the PM and cabinet will make decisions about which of these projects make the cut — which ones will be 'pre-approved' and fast-tracked. A few hints are leaking out: looks like nuclear will make the short list, along with 'decarbonized barrels of oil' — which is shorthand for as yet unproven carbon capture, but which sounds like a perfect oxymoron. What are the criteria for these decisions? Does anyone know? Will the public get that information? Will Parliament? Just a week before that, 130 civil society organizations from across the country, representing many thousands of Canadians, also wrote the PM, reminding him that the 'nation-building' energy and infrastructure projects that Canada needs will not only create good jobs and build the economy, but also respect Indigenous rights and protect the climate. Oil and gas development and pipelines will not meet these goals, never mind the threats of Alberta separation. Did Alberta Premier Danielle Smith not get the memo that several oilsands sites were evacuating due to wildfires? Oh, the irony). Nuclear builds are too slow to address the global warming crisis and nuclear is among the most expensive forms of electricity production. Taxpayer dollars can be invested way more efficiently in actual renewable energy sources (including efficiency and storage) — all available now and ready to be deployed, and regional and national grid interconnections that are so sorely needed. These are the best investment for energy supply, requiring less capital investment and providing the best return on the dollar in terms of energy production, job creation, and rapid greenhouse gas reduction. And imagine for a moment a remote nuclear plant engulfed in a wildfire. (Thinking here about Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe who promotes 'small modular nuclear reactors' for remote communities while acknowledging at the time that his province 'cannot manage and handle a single other fire'). Oil, gas and nuclear projects are more properly 'nation destroying' projects. Ask any of the First Nations currently evacuating their homes and territories as climate change creates prime conditions for out-of-control fires. It's unlikely the PM will meet with civil society groups (though we did ask). Will he meet with and more importantly, hear the concerns of, First Nations worried that 'fast tracking' impact assessments will only run rough-shod over their rights and lands? As Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Derek Nepinak put it 'We need to talk about these issues collectively… our inherent rights, treaty rights and human rights are at issue…' Also at issue: our children's future. How is it that we can be at this point in history where we know without a doubt what the impacts of climate change are — and yet our governments seem prepared to invest and go whole hog into the very same industrial development schemes that created the problem in the first place? If it's true as the International Energy Agency has stated that countries will be seeking non-fuel-dependent sources of energy and actually winding down fossil fuel infrastructure by 2030, why would Canada spend crucial resources (our money) on exactly these fuel dependent technologies? (For the record, nuclear is dependent on uranium and therefore not renewable). Can you say, 'stranded assets'? Not only are we at risk of betting the farm on unsustainable projects and creating even more economic chaos for the future, by not changing the development paradigm we put at risk the very building blocks and sustainers of life itself — water, air, forests, oceans, the ability to grow food. We owe it to future generations (as well as ourselves and especially those being drastically impacted by climate change today) to turn this ship around. The energy CEOs might not agree, but that's what our premiers should be calling for. That's what our new government should be determined to do. Anne Lindsey volunteers with the No Nukes MB campaign of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition and has been monitoring nuclear waste since the 1980s.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
As legal fight over Guard deployment plays out, Noem vows to continue Trump's immigration crackdown
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged to carry on with the Trump administration's immigration crackdown despite waves of unrest across the U.S. Hours after her comment Thursday, a judge directed the president to return control to California over National Guard troops he deployed after protests erupted over the immigration crackdown, but an appeals court quickly put the brakes on that and temporarily blocked the order that was to go into effect on Friday. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled a hearing on the matter for Tuesday. The federal judge's temporary restraining order said the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded President Donald Trump's statutory authority. The order applied only to the National Guard troops and not Marines who were also deployed to the LA protests. The judge said he would not rule on the Marines because they were not out on the streets yet. Gov. Gavin Newsom who had asked the judge for an emergency stop to troops helping carry out immigration raids, had praised the order before it was blocked saying 'today was really about a test of democracy, and today we passed the test' and had said he would be redeploying Guard soldiers to 'what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said the president acted within his powers and that the federal judge's order 'puts our brave federal officials in danger. The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief.' The developments unfolded as protests continued in cities nationwide and the country braced for major demonstrations against Trump over the weekend. 'This is only going to continue,' DHS chief says of raids Noem said the immigration raids that fueled the protests would move forward and agents have thousands of targets. 'This is only going to continue until we have peace on the streets of Los Angeles,' she said during a news conference that was interrupted by shouting from U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who was forcibly removed from the event. Newsom has warned that the military intervention is part of a broader effort by Trump to overturn norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. He also said sending Guard troops on the raids has further inflamed tensions in LA. So far the protests have been centered mostly in downtown near City Hall and a federal detention center where some immigrants are being held. Much of the sprawling city has been spared from the protests. On the third night of an 8 p.m. curfew, Los Angeles police arrested several demonstrators who refused orders to leave a street downtown. Earlier in the night, officers with the Department of Homeland Security deployed flash bangs to disperse a crowd that had gathered near the jail, sending protesters sprinting away. Those incidents were outliers. As with the past two nights, the hours-long demonstrations remained peaceful and upbeat, drawing a few hundred attendees who marched through downtown chanting, dancing and poking fun at the Trump administration's characterization of the city as a 'war zone.' Elsewhere, demonstrations have picked up across the U.S., emerging in more than a dozen major cities. Some have led to clashes with police and hundreds have been arrested. Noem calls action in LA a blueprint The immigration agents conducting the raids in LA are 'putting together a model and a blueprint' for other communities, Noem said. She pledged that federal authorities 'are not going away' even though, she said, officers have been hit with rocks and bricks and assaulted. She said people with criminal records who are in the country illegally and violent protesters will 'face consequences.' 'Just because you think you're here as a citizen, or because you're a member of a certain group or you're not a citizen, it doesn't mean that you're going to be protected and not face consequences from the laws that this country stands for,' she said. Noem criticized the Padilla's interruption, calling it 'inappropriate.' A statement from her agency said the two met after the news conference for about 15 minutes, but it also chided him for 'disrespectful political theater.' Padilla said later that he was demanding answers about the 'increasingly extreme immigration enforcement actions' and only wanted to ask Noem a question. He said he was handcuffed but not arrested. 'If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, I can only imagine what they are doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers throughout the Los Angeles community,' he said. Military involvement escalates in LA The administration has said it is willing to send troops to other cities to assist with immigration enforcement and controlling disturbances — in line with what Trump promised during last year's campaign. Some 2,000 Guard soldiers were in the nation's second-largest city and were soon to be joined by 2,000 more, along with about 700 Marines, said Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who is in charge of the operation. About 500 of the Guard troops deployed to the Los Angeles protests have been trained to accompany agents on immigration operations, Sherman said Wednesday. The Guard has the authority to temporarily detain people who attack officers, but any arrests must be made by law enforcement. States face questions on deploying troops With more demonstrations expected over the weekend, and the possibility that Trump could send troops to other states for immigration enforcement, governors are weighing what to do. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has put 5,000 National Guard members on standby in cities where demonstrations are planned. In other Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they may deploy troops. A group of Democratic governors earlier signed a statement this week calling Trump's deployments 'an alarming abuse of power.' Hundreds arrested in LA protests There have been about 470 arrests since Saturday, the vast majority of which were for failing to leave the area at the request of law enforcement, according to the police department. There have been a handful of more serious charges, including for assault against officers and for possession of a Molotov cocktail and a gun. Nine officers have been hurt, mostly with minor injuries. ___ Rodriguez reported from San Francisco and Seewer from Toledo, Ohio. Associated Press writers Julie Watson in San Diego, Jesse Bedayn in Denver, and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, and Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed.
