Carney and Trump hold private tariff talks
At Issue this week: Sources tell CBC/Radio-Canada that Carney and Trump have shared private calls and texts about tariffs. Premiers pitch their infrastructure projects to the prime minister. And does a new border security bill go too far?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Observer
41 minutes ago
- National Observer
‘Harper's dreams coming true': MPs slam Carney's fast-tracking plan
Prime Minister Mark Carney's new bill to fast-track major projects will have to rely on Conservative votes to pass, with all other parties expressing major reservations. The legislation would allow the federal government to conditionally approve projects it deems 'in the national interest' before an environmental or impact assessment or other regulatory processes take place. Both the NDP and Greens have spoken out against it, while Patrick Bonin, Bloc Québécois environment and climate change critic, called Carney's plan to fast-track major projects 'highly problematic' at a French-language press conference on Monday. The federal government is seeking to give itself 'superpowers' to accelerate projects and weaken environmental protections, Bonin said. Some of the factors used to evaluate whether a project is in the national interest are vague, and there's no obligation for the government to adhere to it, he added. Then, there is the question of sovereignty and whether provinces can say no to projects in their jurisdiction. Last week, Carney said projects need consensus from provinces to move forward, but the legislation doesn't spell that out, leaving room for potential overreach on provincial jurisdiction, Bonin said. The Building Canada Act is part of an omnibus bill that also includes action to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade, which is less controversial than the changes to major project approvals. On Monday, the Bloc Québécois called on the federal government to split the omnibus bill into two separate bills so the issues can be studied in the relevant federal committees. The federal Conservatives have not confirmed whether they will support the bill — Leader Pierre Poilievre said caucus will discuss it on Wednesday. For the Conservatives, the question is not whether legislation is perfect, but whether it is better than the way things are, Poilievre said on Friday. 'That's what we'll be looking at as we study this newly-introduced bill over the next few days.' 'We would vote in favour of accelerating even one project,' Poilievre said, indicating that he wants to see new pipelines in particular. 'Once a project is on that list, it's not a question of if it's going to move forward, but how,' Alexandre Boulerice, NDP critic for environment and climate change, said. 'It's like Stephen Harper's dreams coming true." Last week, BC Premier David Eby said he will not support Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's vision of building a new oil pipeline to BC's north coast. Poilievre made it clear he doesn't think provinces should get veto power over nationally important projects. 'We need a pipeline to the Pacific, and if the prime minister says he's going to wait till everyone agrees, then nothing will get done, which is what has been happening for the last decade,' Poilievre said at a press conference at Parliament Hill on Monday. If the Conservatives support Bill C-5, the Liberals will have the votes they need to get it through the House of Commons. The NDP says its members will vote against the bill, with one MP calling the major projects section 'really dangerous.' 'Once a project is on that list, it's not a question of if it's going to move forward, but how,' Alexandre Boulerice, NDP critic for environment and climate change, said in a phone interview with Canada's National Observer. 'It's like Stephen Harper's dreams coming true.' He said the NDP is currently exploring possible options to block the bill, but any action would likely require cooperation with the Bloc Québécois. Either way, Boulerice doesn't see how the federal government can rush the bill through by July 1, given that there are less than two weeks left before the House rises for the summer. 'It's a really capitalist logic that what we need to do is to provide certainty to investors and companies,' Boulerice said. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May also criticized the proposed legislation in a June 9 press release. 'Bill C-5 gives the federal Cabinet sweeping discretion to fast-track projects while weakening Indigenous rights and environmental protections,' May's statement reads. 'This is the first time in 40 years that Canadian environmental assessment law has been written to serve political deals first and environmental responsibility second.' Factors for determining national interest 'carefully worded' The bill lists some factors the government may consider when deciding whether a project will be listed for fast-tracking, one of which is whether it will 'contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change.' Another factor is whether it will 'advance the interests of Indigenous peoples.' Boulerice said these are nothing more than broad slogans. Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental governance at York University, was of the same mind. 'These are attempts to cover off points of potential vulnerability,' he said in a phone interview with C anada's National Observer. The bill does not have a clear definition of 'clean growth,' he said, which creates huge loopholes for approving projects or employing technologies that many Canadians wouldn't consider 'clean.' 'The government has been very liberal in its definition of 'clean' to include things like CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage], critical minerals, [and] nuclear,' Winfield said. The bill raises serious questions about how the federal government will reconcile Canada's climate change obligations with all the talk of potential pipeline and fossil fuel export projects at the same time as northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are going up in smoke, he added. 'Everybody thinks that it's an open door for pipelines, in fact, for oil and gas,' Boulerice said. 'It's not about solving the housing crisis with a big project of building millions of homes. It's about energy.' Carney has made repeated references to both clean and conventional energy, the latter of which refers to fossil fuels like oil and gas. Carney has referenced 'decarbonized' oil and used the Pathways Alliance's proposed multi-billion dollar carbon capture project as an example of projects that could be considered for fast-tracking. 'Oil is carbon. There's no such thing as decarbonized oil,' Angela Carter, an associate professor of political science at Memorial University of Newfoundland, said in a phone interview. 'We need to be very, very careful about this definition of clean growth. If it's a project that contributes to sustaining and growing oil production, well, that's not clean growth. It's very, very, very simple.' Bloc Québécois House Leader Christine Normandin said it's too early to say whether her party will support the bill. First, they want the government to respond to their request to split the bill into two parts, one for interprovincial trade and one for major projects. 'In a sense, this is taking what Stephen Harper tried to do with C-38 and putting it on steroids … The problem with trying to take shortcuts is it has a tendency to backfire and to make the underlying conflicts worse than ever,' Winfield said. 'Look what happened: Northern Gateway died, Energy East went nowhere, it took extraordinary steps to get Trans Mountain done.' The biggest challenge for Carney's government will likely be navigating Indigenous opposition and constitutional rights, said Michael Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council. Indigenous Peoples have the most 'legal ability' to slow things down, he said, adding that it is not unsolvable for the Carney government but will be a key hurdle. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak voiced her concerns with the bill on Friday and called an emergency meeting on it this week. Onlookers and experts who care about climate are looking on with 'considerable uncertainty' because the bill could allow for massive progress to be made on an east-west electricity grid or fast-tracking renewable energy infrastructure, but that may not be the case, James Rowe, an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Victoria, said. 'Given the political economy of Canada as the fourth largest oil producer in the world … it's more likely those real powerful forces are going to get their way — and projects that might otherwise have been stopped by regulatory processes and consultations … are going to get fast-tracked,' he said.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
3 Monster Stocks -- including Nvidia -- to Hold for the Next 10 Years
The S&P 500 index tracks the stock performance of America's biggest companies, and it has averaged annual gains of roughly 10% over multiple decades. That's pretty darn good performance, enough to more than quintuple an investment over 15 years for those who purchased exchange-traded funds (ETFs) mirroring the index. Some individual stocks, though, have done better than that -- much better. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » In the table below, you'll see that the S&P 500 has been growing at a much faster rate over the past 15 years compared to its long-term 10% average. That outsized performance is due, in part, to the eye-popping average annual gains of some of its components, including what some might label as monster stocks, that have managed monster performances. Average Annual Return Stock 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: SPY) 14.85% 12.90% 14.18% Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) 73.46% 73.83% 50.57% Intuitive Surgical (NASDAQ: ISRG) 23.08% 26.07% 20.03% Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) 20.78% 26.64% 21.75% Data source: as of June 6, 2025. These kinds of returns are not guaranteed to continue. Many dynamically growing companies see their growth rates slow as they become massive companies. But a select few manage to keep up that outsized growth. Here's a closer look at three companies with this potential and some reasons why you might want to buy and/or keep holding any of them. 1. Nvidia Nvidia got its start as a maker of semiconductor chips for the videogame industry, but it has expanded its scope in the past decade. A side hustle into chip design catered to aid cryptocurrency mining has led to the development of chips and software that are now fueling the artificial intelligence (AI) boom, and it is churning out gobs of chips for data centers -- enough to be the world's leading supplier of graphics processing units for the data centers used in cloud computing. Data centers have replaced gaming as Nvidia's focus, and the company raked in $39 billion in revenue in fiscal 2026's first quarter from its data center business -- fully 89% of total revenue. Better still, CEO Jensen Huang forecasts that AI infrastructure spending could top $1 trillion annually within a few years, and he sees Nvidia capturing most of that business. Despite the monster performance over the past several years, Nvidia stock doesn't appear to be wildly overvalued at recent levels. Its recent forward-looking price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 33, for example, is well below the five-year average of 40. Consider buying Nvidia to hold for the next 10 years or more to take advantage of this forecasted growth. 2. Intuitive Surgical Intuitive Surgical is another strong stock performer, though it's not as attractively valued as Nvidia lately. Its forward P/E was recently at a steep 72, well above the five-year average of 56 (which is steep as well). So think twice before buying at these levels and look for opportunities to buy on the dip. But if you already own the stock, you might want to hold on. Intuitive Surgical is a leader in robotic surgery equipment. It has more than 8,600 of its million-dollar-plus da Vinci robotic surgery systems installed in 71 countries. Together, they've been used to perform more than 14 million medical procedures. I'm a shareholder and I'm hanging on because I expect the company to keep selling and installing surgical systems, and to keep raking in profits from doing so. Notably, Intuitive Surgical derives 84% of its revenue not from the systems themselves, but from dependable recurring sales of servicing, supplies, and accessories for the machines. 3. Microsoft Microsoft is a tech giant with many growing operations contributing to its steady growth. It's home to the dominant Office 365 suite of applications, the Azure cloud computing platform, the Xbox gaming platform, the Windows operating system, and even the business-oriented social media giant LinkedIn, among other ventures. Microsoft is huge (its market value hovers around $3.5 trillion), but it's still growing at a fairly rapid clip, with some of its recent growth largely attributable to its AI-related ventures. In its third quarter of fiscal 2025, revenue was up by 13% year over year, and net income rose by 18%. Its intelligent cloud division grew by 21%. The company is generating more cash than it needs to spend on growth, so it's paying shareholders a dividend that recently yielded 0.71%. (That might not seem like a lot, but the yield is pushed down because of strong share price performance and the dividend is growing briskly -- up from $2.09 per share in 2020 to $3.24 per share currently.) Despite the strong share price performance, its stock remains appealingly valued, too, with a recent forward P/E of 31 only a bit above the five-year average of 30. Given the steady growth, the stock seems well worth hanging on to for the next decade -- and beyond. Should you invest $1,000 in Intuitive Surgical right now? Before you buy stock in Intuitive Surgical, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Intuitive Surgical wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to173%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Selena Maranjian has positions in Intuitive Surgical, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Intuitive Surgical, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Billionaire Investor Bill Ackman Bets Big and Wins Big. Is a Concentrated Portfolio Approach for Everyone?
Billionaire Bill Ackman is one of the world's most renowned investors. He's a value investor who runs a highly concentrated portfolio, with just 15 stocks as of the end of May. Given his strong long-term track record, it's natural for investors to wonder: "Is a concentrated portfolio right for me?" Among hedge funds, running a concentrated long portfolio isn't unusual. Fund managers are paid based on performance, so they often load up on their highest-conviction ideas. That makes a lot of sense. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More » But let's peel back the onion a bit. I previously worked as an equity analyst at a hedge fund with about $600 million in assets under management. While that sounds like a lot, it's modest compared to Ackman's $18 billion Pershing Square portfolio. Like many others, we ran a concentrated book on the long side, typically 15 to 20 positions. Our short book, however, was very different, usually holding more than 50 names. Shorting is inherently riskier, so you want to spread out your bets. If a long goes against you, it gets smaller, and you can add more. But if a short goes against you, it gets bigger, and you're often forced to trim or take a loss. Even if your thesis eventually plays out, bad timing can still cost you. Why hedge funds often run concentrated portfolios On the long side, professional investors tend to be more comfortable with concentration because of the resources they have. Even at the fund where I worked, we routinely tapped experts to gain deeper insights into businesses. We used expert networks to connect with former executives, industry insiders, customers, and even rivals, which is a common practice in the hedge fund industry. Some funds even use web-scraped data, credit card transaction data, or satellite imagery to get an edge. Large investors also get better access to management. I spoke to the CFO of one of our larger positions every quarter, and I'd often follow up with direct contact after any major news. In short, professional investors simply have more tools at their disposal, and that's why concentrated portfolios can make sense for them. But they also come with more risk. I'll never forget when my portfolio manager added a small position in a stock he hadn't researched, simply because a "smart" fund manager had gone all-in on it. That stock eventually went bankrupt, and that fund manager lost everything. That's an extreme case, but it highlights the risk of too much concentration. It's also worth noting that stock picking is hard. A J.P. Morgan study found that between 1980 and 2020, about 40% of stocks in the Russell 3000 delivered negative returns, and two-thirds underperformed the index. Meanwhile, another 40% of stocks experienced a catastrophic decline of 70% or more and never fully recovered. A better approach for individual investors While concentrated portfolios may work for the pros, most individual investors are better off with a more diversified approach. Owning more stocks could require more research, but I don't think researching a whole bunch of individual stocks to create a large diversified stock portfolio is the best use of most investors' time. After all, professionals already have a data edge. Instead, I think the best option to get diversified exposure is through an index exchange-traded fund (ETF) like the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO). It tracks the performance of the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) and gives you instant ownership in about 500 of the largest U.S. companies. The S&P 500 is a market-cap weighted index, which means that the larger a company is, the higher its portfolio weighting is in the index, and the more effect it has on the index's performance. With market-cap weighted indexes, the biggest winning stocks naturally become a larger part of the index over time, while underperformers shrink or drop out. This dynamic is a big reason why the S&P 500 has outperformed most professional managers over the long run. The S&P 500 lets its winners run, while fund managers tend to double down on their losers and trim their winners. I do think investors should still buy individual stocks if they've done the research. But for a core holding, I think an index ETF like the Vanguard S&P 500 is the smartest foundation from which to build a winning portfolio. Should you invest $1,000 in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF right now? Before you buy stock in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to173%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025
