Saskatchewan premier shares thoughts on Bill C-5
Regina Watch
WATCH: Sask. Premier Scott Moe has given his support for federal Bill C-5, also coined 'One Canadian Economy.' Donovan Maess has the details.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
10 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
2 No-Brainer, High-Yield Stocks to Buy With $2,000 Right Now
The S&P 500 index (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) is trading near all-time highs and has a pretty miserly 1.2% or so dividend yield. If you are an income investor, that suggests that you have your work cut out for you right now. But there are great investment options with high yields out there if you take the time to look. Two no-brainer choices today, if you have $2,000 or $20,000 to invest, are Brookfield Renewable (NYSE: BEP)(NYSE: BEPC) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX). Here's what you need to know. Brookfield Renewable is positioned to grow Brookfield Renewable owns a globally diversified portfolio of clean energy assets. On the geographic front, its portfolio spans across North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. On the technology front, the business has exposure to hydroelectric, solar, wind, energy storage, and nuclear power assets. It is as close to a one-stop shop as you can get in the renewable energy space. 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 » The interesting thing here, however, is that Brookfield Renewable is not a regulated utility. It largely sells its power under long-term contracts to others, including both companies and utilities. This actually gives it a lot of room to grow as the world increasingly shifts from carbon-based fuels toward cleaner alternatives. For example, it recently inked a deal with Microsoft to provide around 10.5 gigawatts of power that the technology giant will use to support its data center build-out. Basically, Brookfield Renewable can grow as it sees fit without having to kowtow to regulators who may put limits on its investment plans. And this brings up another interesting fact: Brookfield Renewable is run by Brookfield Asset Management (NYSE: BAM). Brookfield Asset Management has an over-100-year history of investing in infrastructure on a global scale. And it plans to increase its clean-energy investments, where Brookfield Renewable is a key source of funding, by around 100% by 2030. Buying Brookfield Renewable lets you partner with Brookfield Asset Management on that growth. There are two ways to buy in here. Brookfield Renewable Partners has a 5.6% yield. Brookfield Renewable Corporation has a 4.6% dividend yield. Both represent the exact same entity and have the exact same dividend payment. The yield difference is because demand for the corporate share class is higher, which makes sense given that large institutional investors are often barred from owning partnerships. Either way you go, Brookfield Renewable appears well positioned to expand its business as the world goes green. And you can collect a fat yield that has been regularly increased if you buy in right now. A $2,000 investment will get you 75 shares of the partnership units and 60 shares of the corporate shares. Chevron is out of favor for two reasons Chevron is a globally diversified, integrated energy giant offering an attractive 4.7% dividend yield. The dividend has been increased for an incredible 38 consecutive years. That's incredible because oil and natural gas prices tend to be highly volatile, which means that Chevron's top and bottom lines tend to be volatile, too. However, Chevron has an ace up its sleeve in the form of a strong balance sheet. A low level of leverage allows it to take on debt during industry downturns so it can continue to support its business and dividend. When oil prices recover, as they always have historically, it pays down debt in preparation for the next downturn. In addition to this rock-solid financial foundation, Chevron's diversified business also helps. With investments in energy production (the upstream), energy transportation (the midstream), and energy processing (the downstream), the peaks and valleys of oil prices get muted to some degree. That said, Chevron is out of favor right now, which has led to the lofty yield. Part of the reason for that is generally weak energy prices. Those low prices are impacting the entire energy sector. But Chevron also has some company-specific issues. First, it is attempting to buy Hess, but the process has turned out to be more complicated than hoped. Second, Chevron has investments in Venezuela, a tenuous country in which to invest. Those assets have become a bit of a political football. Neither of these things is good, but they aren't likely to derail Chevron over the long term. The currently high yield is an opportunity for investors who can think long term. You may have to suffer through some near-term lagging performance, but if you buy now, you'll get paid well for waiting around. A $2,000 investment in Chevron will get you around 13 shares. Looking for yield, start with this pair of high yielders With lofty yields, Brookfield Renewable and Chevron should both be attractive to dividend investors. But the real key to the story here is that both have strong businesses to support those dividends. If you think in decades and not days, these two high-yield stocks could be no-brainer additions to your portfolio right now. Should you invest $1,000 in Brookfield Renewable right now? Before you buy stock in Brookfield Renewable, 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 Brookfield Renewable 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 $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%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
Globe and Mail
26 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, June 20: ‘On whom influences the U.S. President: depends on who he spoke with last'
Re 'Plus-minus' (Letters, June 19): A letter-writer wishes Mark Carney 'would show more sympathy for his fellow Canadians' while dealing with 'this walking nightmare' who once again 'leads' our southern neighbour. It's unlikely any global leader could have done a more impressive job of deftly dealing with, arguably, the most dangerous person alive today. While he clearly had to treat him with kid gloves, Mr. Carney rose to the occasion by nimbly stepping in to regain control of a press conference that the U.S. President was hijacking with more of his bluster and lies. He also provided some sort of signal of his true feelings while delivering a deliciously subtle wink to Emmanuel Macron during a pivotal moment at the G7 summit. Apparently 'a nod is as good as a wink' … to a blind President. Jeffrey Peckitt Oakville, Ont. Re 'PMO won't say if Carney spoke with Modi about India's alleged role in killing of Canadian Sikh leader' (June 19): Inviting Narendra Modi to the G7 summit, despite India not being a member, could be seen as a good diplomatic gesture. However, we should not forget the treatment the Modi administration extended to Justin Trudeau. Without delving into the complexities of Canada-India relations during Mr. Trudeau's tenure, it was evident to me that how he was treated did not align with diplomatic protocols. The Modi administration has every right to disagree with the Canadian government's positions, but diplomatic protocols should never be compromised under any circumstances. Moving forward, Canada should navigate its relationship with India with a renewed focus on mutual respect and strategic co-operation. While historical grievances should not be ignored, diplomacy should be exercised with a forward-looking approach that prioritizes national interests and global partnerships. Mr. Modi's invitation should be seen as an opportunity to ensure that diplomatic missteps do not hinder future collaborations between the two nations. Anas Khan Beaumont, Alta. Re 'On Iran, Donald Trump has a legacy-defining choice to make' (June 19): On whom influences the U.S. President: depends on who he spoke with last. If it is the hardcore isolationist 'make America great again' types, then Iran will likely face Israel alone. If it is the hardcore Republican hawks, then the United States will likely attack Iran. Difficult to say which is better or worse given the current situation. Perhaps it will be a bit of both, with a light dusting of bunker busters on Iranian nuclear facilities and then leaving the remainder of fighting to the two combatants. Clay Atcheson North Vancouver Re 'At risk' (Letters, June 18): 'If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.' With apologies to John F. Kennedy, I offer the following amendments to his quote: If a free society cannot encourage the investment and growth endeavours of the few who are rich, it cannot save the many who are poor. I believe the contrary is valid and, in our slow-growth and low-productivity economy, necessary. Ted Brough Woolwich, Ont. Re 'Housing remedy' (Letters, June 17): I live in a historic downtown neighbourhood. Dotted through it are multiplex buildings, typically two storeys tall, built in the 1920s and 1930s that often have eight apartments with balconies. These apartment buildings sit on land equivalent to two single-family homes. Usually these buildings have humanely sized units, making them desirable to both renters and owners. If we can build units similar to what already exists in these neighbourhoods, wouldn't that be easier to sell to neighbours and planning departments? Almost every historic city centre I visit has examples of this kind of dense urban planning from 80 to 100 years ago. How can NIMBY residents and planners deny such an application for similar development? Maybe give developers a partial break on development charges when they commit to historically appropriate infill. There will always be pushback when proposed infill housing sticks out like a sore thumb. Why reinvent the wheel? Mary Peirson-Cabena Guelph, Ont. Re 'Canada's population growth slows to a crawl after moves to curb immigration' (June 19): For the first time in a long time, it feels like our government is finally getting a handle on this matter, reining in reckless policies that flooded the country with too many people too quickly. It's no coincidence there are now more houses for sale for longer periods of time, and not being snapped up within hours of being listed. In fact, our daughter and her partner managed to buy a house for under asking recently. Still a lot more work to do on this file, but it's a start. Graham Farrell Toronto Re 'AI adoption is upending the job market for entry-level workers' (June 18): The tech industry is rotten. I worked in software development for 33 years and I am so glad to be retired. When I look back and ask whether my industry has been a net benefit to humanity, I have to conclude that the answer is no. All these corporate types with stars in their eyes can forget that artificial intelligence is trained on human-generated input. That means AI companies steal the hard work and intellectual property of human beings, with no compensation. AI is also consuming ever more energy. AI data centres will likely consume more electricity than everything else, meaning higher prices for everyone else. AI-generated output is increasingly displacing human-generated output. If there are no good entry-level jobs, how do companies expect to train workers to move up? Who do companies expect to sell their products and services to if there are legions of unemployed or underemployed people? Dianne Skoll Ottawa Re 'Oilers can't keep up in Stanley Cup rat race' (Sports, June 18): More telling than the 32-year drought for a Canadian Stanley Cup champion is the fact that eight Canadian teams have made the finals in that time, and are now 0 for 8. The reason to me is obvious: too much pressure. A little indifference from Canadian fans would help. My dream is to see a purely Canadian league with a mix of international players and a more international outlook. Players would be paid well, but not exorbitantly. Media and fan pressure on players would be less because it would be one league among others. Don't assume a Canadian league wouldn't be competitive. A 'champions league' can determine the best team. Don't assume that National Hockey League clubs would dominate – we have plenty of evidence for the strength of international hockey. The NHL is a U.S. business; let them have it. Ed Janicki Victoria Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
CBC
28 minutes ago
- CBC
How voters in rural conservative heartland wrestle with Alberta separatism
Cam Davies asked the audience in the Three Hills community hall for a show of hands: who believes Alberta should give Prime Minister Mark Carney a chance to provide for their province. Among the approximately 150 people at this pro-independence event, one hand went up. "There's always one," remarked Davies, leader of the Republican Party of Alberta, to scattered laughter. The event in this central Alberta town of about 3,000 was pitched as a lecture series on the upsides of Alberta separation, but doubled as a campaign rally for Davies, running in the upcoming provincial byelection in Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Electing a separatist here, attendees were told, would send a message to the federal and provincial governments. Gord Kesler was there to testify to that — he'd grabbed headlines 43 years ago for winning a provincial seat for another separatist party, during another stretch of heated anti-Ottawa mood. "I'd love to brand you all freedom warriors," Kesler said, asking how many in the crowd would vote for Davies. Most hands went up, but some noticeably stayed down. Part of that may reflect geographical reality. Some in the hall, including a local separatist and the town mayor, said they only recognized around one-quarter or fewer of the audience as Three Hills residents. Several attendees visited from an hour's drive or more away — places like Calgary, or Ponoka County, or Westlock. Three Hills resident Mike Litke and his partner paid $20 each for Republican ballcaps — his in camouflage, hers in tan — and believe Alberta would be freer and better off if the province became its own republic. They'd travelled elsewhere before for separatist gatherings, but this was their first in their hometown. Almost the first time they've heard the topic come up in Three Hills. "I haven't heard separation mentioned in this town at all," Litke said. But if you talk to people in and around Three Hills, they've thought plenty about Alberta's place within Canada. You will hear how they hold out hope for a better deal (and a pipeline or two) from Carney, and how that big option to leave will wind up being more tempting if nothing changes. CBC Calgary and the Front Burner podcast ventured to Three Hills because it's in Alberta's political crosshairs like no other place. Residents vote not only in next Monday's provincial byelection, but also in the coming weeks in the federal Conservative stronghold of Battle River–Crowfoot, where the MP resigned this week so Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre can secure a seat after losing his own riding in Ottawa in the federal election. Alberta independence may become its own ballot question here next year if a looming petition drive is successful in triggering a provincial referendum. With support for separatism running below 30 per cent throughout Alberta and much lower in Calgary and Edmonton, activists will have to run up the numbers in places like Three Hills if they want Alberta out of Canada. Like many other residents in the area, realtor Donald MacDonald uses marital analogies to describe the strained relationship between Alberta and Canada. "In any marriage, there comes points in time where people do not feel respected, where we lose every sense of trust, and where things are dictated to you, where people vote with their feet," said MacDonald, who won a 1992 provincial byelection in Three Hills for a more conservative version of the Alberta Liberals. "So, my hope, my prayer, is that we are able to resolve things. There is a reality that people get pushed too far and they say, 'Enough is enough.'" Personally, MacDonald isn't there, certainly not yet. His dad served Canada in the Second World War, and he considers himself patriotic. But he's convinced the status quo isn't working, and supports Premier Danielle Smith's push to demand Ottawa clear the way for new energy corridors to export more of Alberta's oil and gas. "The separatist parties that are driving a wedge here, trying to drive a wedge right now, that we're gonna change all this overnight, that's naive," MacDonald said. "Any kind of change is a process. It's going to take time." Ray Wildeman, the mayor of Three Hills, said he met Davies at a vintage car show downtown this month. He warned the separatist candidate he doesn't want to throw Canada into the crusher, "in the hopes it's going to be reshaped into some grand new design." The mayor recalled Davies' response: Ottawa built the crusher. Wildeman has perused the rosy financial pictures that separation advocates paint of a standalone Alberta that avoids equalization and federal taxes, and wishes more of them understood like he does how government and bureaucracies really work. "That's what I see for an independent Alberta, a lot of frantic scurrying around trying to recreate what we already have in place," the mayor said. He thinks most people in his town see it the way he does. "They see confusion, they see chaos, are they going to see more dollars in their pocket? Maybe in the short term." Even having a red Republican Party lawn sign for Davies wasn't necessarily a clear indication somebody was separatist. Pat Elliott, who works in the kitchen of the town's century-old bible college, said she agreed to let a polite door-knocker put it in the front yard outside her mobile home. She supported some of the party's ideas, like fighting for a better federal relationship, but insisted: "No, I am definitely not a separatist. "I have a daughter that lives in P.E.I.," Elliott said. "Is she going to be needing a passport to come and see me? Or do I need one to go visit her? I should hope not." Sonja Farrell is ready to take Alberta out of Canada, and sort out the consequences later. She moved from Ontario two decades ago to attend bible college in Three Hills, and found work in the town post office. When Canada Post mandated she wear a medical mask during the COVID pandemic, that was a sign to Farrell that Canada was headed in the wrong direction. She was at the independence event, serving up coffee and cookies from the community hall's kitchen. Her vision of Alberta separatism is less economically centred than others. "To me I see Alberta being a bit of a beachhead, a place where we can keep that last refuge of freedom or at least start it so that there is freedom in Canada because I think that freedom is going to be a thing of the past." Frustrations with the pandemic laws seem to have lit a fire for many independence backers. Litke said he'd been a support driver for the Freedom Convoy activists in Coutts, Alta., and wore a "resistance" sweatshirt with a tattered Canadian flag emblem in memory of the convoy. Jacquie Bargholz said she began attending speaker events during COVID, events that sometimes flouted gathering limits. Some of those same speakers were advocating separatism this month in Three Hills, and she drove from Sundre, more than one hour to the west, to hear them again. She wore a "More Alberta, Less Ottawa" sweatshirt she picked up at a UCP convention in 2023, though her stance has now evolved to "No Ottawa." "We can be an independent province. Back then I didn't think that," Bargholz explained. "I thought we were strong, we're going to stand up for ourselves within Canada. I don't think it can happen any more." Her adult son Ryan Bargholz joined her in Three Hills. "It's time for us to stand up for ourselves and be on our own, make decisions with our own money and not spend it on Ottawa and Quebec and their happiness." The mix of locals and visitors at the independence rally was dwarfed by a crowd that gathered earlier that week for a town hall with Premier Smith and Tara Sawyer, the grain farmer running for the UCP in the riding. In front of more than 300 in the bible college's chapel, Sawyer appeared to warn about Davies's party without naming it. "Some forces are trying to divide us and split the [conservative] vote," she said. "We cannot let that happen." That event's main draw was the premier, and attendees had many questions for Smith, on everything from health policy and education to wind power and Smith's appointment of Sawyer as a candidate. Fourteen questions in all — and none concerned separation. In an interview, Davies called Three Hills his "toughest area in the whole riding," and said separatism gets more support in other towns. While some UCP insiders quietly doubt his assertion, there were noticeably more Republican party signs on lawns in the town of Didsbury, a 45-minute drive to the west, than in Three Hills when the CBC news crews rolled through last week. A Janet Brown Opinion Research survey last month found that 38 per cent of rural Albertans would vote yes to separate in a referendum, compared to 28 per cent in the province overall. MacDonald, when told CBC News hadn't found as many determined separatists as polls suggest exist in small towns, suggested a trip to Three Hills's agricultural outskirts. At Harold Bayes's cattle feedlot, the third-generation farmer offered more marriage analogies. "If we can't get from a contemptuous relationship to a collaborative relationship, at some point and time, the final separation happens, right?" Bayes said at his dining room table. He feels if there isn't change, especially movement on interprovincial pipelines, "I'd be out the door." Bayes said he'd likely sign a petition demanding a secession referendum, to "bring the thing to a head" and make the federal government pay attention. The idea of having Poilievre as his riding's MP after the next byelection doesn't move Bayes much. "It's not like I would think there's a great big perk coming to our constituency just because he's the leader of the Opposition, right?" Keith Doerksen, his grain farmer friend, said he's getting close to the "enough is enough" point as well. "There's lots of us with one foot out the door, but we're just waiting for some leadership, federal leadership, to show which way we're going to go." But Doerksen also believes that Alberta would never separate. Become more autonomous within confederation perhaps, but not leave entirely. "What's to be gained by creating your own landlocked country?" he asks. At the entry gates to his cattle farm, Bayes keeps up a Canadian flag and an ultramarine Alberta flag. He'd just replaced both that day, after the old ones had been tattered in the wind. He's asked if he gives any thought to only keeping the blue one. Not at all, Bayes said. "I still live in Canada."
