Canada election 2025 result impact on stock market
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Liberal Majority Expected — Limited Market Disruption
A Conservative Win Could Stir the Markets
Tax Cuts and Fiscal Plans
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FAQs
As Canada's federal election is scheduled for April 28, the political result may have profound implications for the nation's financial markets, specifically the Canadian dollar and investor sentiment.Polls and betting odds are strongly favouring a Liberal Party victory , with Prime Minister Mark Carney set to win with an absolute majority, as per THINK economic and financial analysis. According to the THINK report, "This scenario is likely priced in by markets, and should have a limited short-term impact on CAD."But a Conservative Party surprise victory , led by Pierre Poilievre , might spark a rally in the Canadian dollar, as per the THINK analysis. That might also prompt market action, as the Conservative entails bigger tax cuts and more stringent deficit projections than the Liberals, according to THINK.Both have promised tax reductions, but the Conservatives are promising more drastic cuts, 2.25 percentage points from the lowest income group compared to the Liberals' 1-point reduction, as per the report. The Conservatives also commit to a "Taxpayer Protection Act" and intend to eliminate the corporate carbon tax, lower home sales taxes, and slash federal spending, according to THINK. Their budget projects a C$75 billion tax cut offset by C$56 billion in savings, resulting in a much smaller deficit than the Liberals' forecast, as per the analysis.The Liberals, meanwhile, plan to widen the fiscal deficit slightly in 2025 and 2026 but aim to reduce it steadily by 2029, according to THINK. They're also splitting the budget into a balanced operating budget and a modest capital spending plan, as per the analysis.The market impact of the election would be most strongly felt in Canada's trade relationship with the United States, according to the report. After US president Donald Trump announced high tariffs on imports, Carney's government retaliated with C$60 billion in duties, as per THINK. The Liberals are also advocating a C$5 billion Trade Diversification Corridors fund to cut trade dependence on the United States, according to the report. By comparison, the Conservatives are seeking early renegotiation of the USMCA and seeking to suspend tariffs while doing so, as per the report.Since 76% of Canada's exports flow to the United States, about 20% of its GDP, the outlook for US-Canada trade will be closely tied to investor confidence. Though a Liberal victory is unlikely to unsettle markets, any variation from the forecast could inject near-term volatility, particularly in the Canadian dollar, as per the analysis.Likely minimal, since markets have already priced in a Liberal victory.Yes, a surprise win could trigger a short-term rally in CAD.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
Brics rising: The unintended consequences of Trump's tariff strategy
In standing firm, India not only asserts its sovereignty but also signals a larger shift in the global order, where nations of the Global South are increasingly unwilling to be coerced into choosing sides in conflicts not of their making Donald Trump's return to the White House carried with it the grand promise of ending the war in Ukraine within days, a claim that was as theatrical as it was unrealistic. Seven months on, that promise has collided with the reality of international politics and the stubbornness of Vladimir Putin. Trump's failure to extract even a temporary pause in hostilities from Moscow is not merely a diplomatic shortcoming; it reflects his inability to distinguish between showmanship and statecraft. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Red-carpet receptions and personal overtures cannot substitute for hard-nosed negotiation and long-term strategy. The very idea that Putin—who has staked both his domestic legitimacy and Russia's global posture on the war—would simply concede ground because of Trump's famed 'art of the deal' was a misreading of history and power. The war in Ukraine is not a real estate transaction that can be clinched over a handshake; it is a geopolitical struggle with deep historical roots, and treating it as otherwise was bound to end in failure. This failure also highlights a consistent pattern in Trump's political praxis: the reduction of complex global problems into spectacles of personality and improvisation. His handling of trade wars, marked by a cavalcade of tariffs against adversaries and allies alike, displays the same misplaced faith in unilateral gestures. Tariffs were announced and withdrawn like a magician pulling rabbits from a hat, with little thought to the long-term economic consequences for America or its partners. In the same vein, his diplomacy with Putin rests on the assumption that intimidation mixed with personal charm can resolve conflicts that are, in fact, structural and historical. Such an approach not only undermines America's credibility but also erodes the very fabric of international cooperation. Trump's method of reducing diplomacy to impulsive theatrics has made foreign policy a stage, but one where the curtain rises to reveal more chaos than resolution. The ongoing strain in India-US trade relations only reinforces the hollowness of Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy. His willingness to dangle punitive tariffs on Indian exports—while casually offering to hold them back in exchange for India's supposed cessation of Russian oil imports—reveals not a strategy but a bargaining tactic better suited for a casino floor than a negotiation between sovereign nations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The irony, of course, is striking: while lecturing India on its trade with Moscow, Trump himself could not justify America's continued import of Russian uranium and fertilizers, dismissing the question with a characteristic shrug of ignorance. This double standard not only undermines Washington's moral high ground but also alienates a critical partner in Asia. For India, whose agricultural and dairy sectors remain the backbone of rural livelihoods, acquiescing to Washington's demands would not be ideal. Thus, what emerges is not the 'art of the deal' but the art of bluster—policies that neither secure American interests nor respect those of its allies. It is evident that Trump's displeasure with India stems from its outright refusal to endorse his unsolicited claim of brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, a rejection that undercut his self-fashioned image as a global dealmaker. In retaliation, the use of steep tariffs and selective economic pressures on New Delhi appears less like coherent policy and more like bullying tactics, designed to remind India of America's leverage. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is quite telling that both economists and seasoned strategists in the United States have spoken with one voice in denouncing Trump's tariff gambit against India. Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist and professor at Columbia University, sharply criticised Trump's tariff decisions, calling them a mere pressure tactic against New Delhi and warning that such steps risk undoing years of progress in India–US relations. He went further to describe the duties as 'bizarre' and 'self-destructive,' highlighting how they damage America's own foreign policy interests. John Bolton, a veteran foreign policy hawk who served as National Security Adviser during Trump's first administration, also criticised Trump, arguing that penalising India for its oil trade with Russia—while sparing China for doing the same—was a serious strategic miscalculation. He warned that this selective targeting could push India closer toward the Beijing–Moscow axis, calling it an 'unforced error' that undermines America's broader geopolitical goals. Bolton's warning likely carries a deeper strategic charge: by punishing India over Russian oil while overlooking China's larger energy ties with Moscow, Washington signals that its ire is selective—and New Delhi reads selectivity as unreliability, not leverage. India's purchases of discounted Russian crude have reached or neared record levels and are central to its inflation management and refining exports; coercive tariffs would mean hardening India's resolve to keep that lifeline and to hedge more visibly with Moscow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In that light, Bolton's 'unforced error' critique is less a quip than a diagnosis: tariff theatrics that cancel talks and demand farm-sector concessions don't align with America's Indo-Pacific aims and could push India to double down on strategic autonomy in ways that tilt the balance toward a de facto Moscow–Beijing–Delhi accommodation. What emerges from these developments is an intriguing paradox: Trump, in his quest to arm-twist partners through tariffs and unilateral dictates, may be inadvertently contributing to the consolidation of a stronger Brics. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva recently declared in Brasília, 'I will not call Trump because he does not want to talk. I will call Xi Jinping, I will call Prime Minister Modi. I just won't call Putin, because Putin can't travel right now.' This statement, coming in the wake of Washington's sweeping 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian imports, reflects not only Lula's refusal to engage with Trump but also his intent to reaffirm Brazil's standing by strengthening ties with leaders of the Global South. Lula's words carry weight because they signal a deliberate pivot: choosing to prioritise dialogue with Beijing, New Delhi, and other power axes, while sidelining Washington. When placed against the backdrop of rising tariff disputes and diplomatic rifts, the remark suggests that Trump's approach may inadvertently be encouraging deeper solidarity within Brics, giving it not just economic heft but also fresh political significance as an alternative pole in global affairs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Chinese foreign ministry recently remarked that India and China, as 'major developing countries and important members of the Global South,' should embrace a 'cooperative pas de deux of the dragon and the elephant as partners helping each other succeed,' according to Global Times. In this context, and amid India's escalating tariff tensions with the United States, reports suggest that Prime Minister Narendra Modi may soon announce the resumption of direct flights between India and China, with a formal deal expected during his visit to Tianjin for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit at the end of August—his first trip to China in seven years. This combination of rhetorical warmth and concrete steps toward engagement reveals Beijing's desire to recalibrate its strained ties with New Delhi. For China, fostering a working relationship with India not only bolsters its standing in the Global South but also adds strategic depth to Brics at a time when US trade policies are alienating both nations. For India, the outreach presents both an opportunity and a dilemma: while closer economic ties with Beijing could strengthen its leverage against Washington, they also risk complicating its long-standing concerns over security and territorial disputes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD South Africa, the only African member of Brics and a nation that counts the United States as its second-largest trading partner, has now been slapped with steep 30 per cent tariffs by the Trump administration—the highest imposed on any African country. This move not only strains Pretoria's economic ties with Washington but also risks accelerating its pivot toward the Brics framework, where it already finds solidarity with other economies similarly targeted by US trade measures. Instead of pulling South Africa closer, Trump's tariff offensive may well push it deeper into the Brics fold, reinforcing the bloc's cohesion against perceived US unilateralism. The warmth between Russia and India scarcely needs restating, given the long history of strategic trust between the two nations. Even amidst the current tariff struggle with the United States, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar's recent visit to Moscow underscored the resilience of the partnership, while National Security Adviser Ajit Doval hinted that President Vladimir Putin may soon travel to India. These developments reaffirm that New Delhi and Moscow continue to nurture their ties, regardless of shifting pressures from Washington. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The bottom line is clear: Washington must rethink its approach. First, tariffs are no panacea for America's economic woes. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, Trump's tariff proposals are a deeply flawed attempt to revive US manufacturing, hurting partners abroad while doing little to address the structural issues at home. Second, it need not play the role of an unsolicited arbitrator in regional disputes and then bristle when its efforts go unacknowledged. And third and finally, the era of bullying the Global South into compliance through the threat of tariffs is rapidly fading—India, like any sovereign nation, will pursue its own interests, and America's conflict with Russia cannot simply be imposed on others. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his Independence Day address, underlined this very resolve, declaring that India was prepared to bear the cost of US tariffs rather than compromise its autonomy. His message was clear: India's economic and strategic decisions will not be dictated by external pressures, no matter how formidable, but will be guided by its own vision of growth, security, and global engagement. In standing firm, India not only asserts its sovereignty but also signals a larger shift in the global order, where nations of the Global South are increasingly unwilling to be coerced into choosing sides in conflicts not of their making. The writer takes special interest in history, culture and geopolitics. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Harvard Kennedy School cancels global online program citing low demand: Canadian option to remain open for international students
Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) has called off its plans to launch HKS Global, an online program designed for international students unable to enter the United States, while continuing to offer an alternative enrollment pathway in Canada. The decision comes after limited student interest in the online program, officials said, but the Canadian program with the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto remains on track, providing a hybrid learning option for a small cohort of returning students. HKS global was a contingency plan The HKS Global initiative was first announced in June as a safety net for international students facing travel and visa restrictions under the Trump administration. At the time, Harvard faced challenges including visa suspension threats and an entry ban affecting international students. Although courts temporarily blocked both actions, HKS had prepared a remote learning option to ensure students could continue their studies abroad. According to HKS Dean Jeremy M. Weinstein, the program would only launch if 'sufficient demand' existed from students unable to come to campus. In a recent email to incoming students, Debra E. Isaacson, senior associate dean for degree programs and student affairs, confirmed that the program would not move forward due to low participation. 'At the anticipated levels of participation, the cohorts would have been too small and the class offerings too few to ensure the world-class HKS experience that you deserve,' she wrote, as reported by The Harvard Crimson . Canadian program moves forward While HKS Global has been shelved, the Canadian visiting program continues. Students enrolled in this pathway will be registered as full-time students at the Munk School but will earn HKS degrees. Classes will be a mix of online and in-person sessions, taught by instructors from both Harvard and Munk. This program is currently open only to returning students, unlike HKS Global, which had been intended for both new and returning cohorts. Limited options for international students The cancellation of HKS Global leaves some students with fewer alternatives. International students yet to secure a U.S. visa must either defer enrollment or withdraw from the program. To ease this transition, HKS has extended the on-campus arrival deadline to October 20 for students in the Master in Public Policy (MPP) and Master in Public Administration in International Development (MPA/ID) programs. Meanwhile, International Mid-Career MPA students may begin their studies online through the Public Leadership Credential pathway. Students who complete this credential within two years can later transfer to the full degree program at HKS without reapplying. Legal battles cast a shadow The uncertainty surrounding international enrollment persists amid ongoing legal disputes. Harvard sued the federal government in May after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. The lawsuit expanded after President Donald Trump's June proclamation temporarily barred foreign students from entering the U.S. with Harvard-sponsored visas. Federal judges issued preliminary injunctions against both measures, though the government has since appealed. A spokesperson for HKS emphasised that the school remains ready to launch HKS Global in the future if circumstances change and a larger number of students require remote study options. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
News18
an hour ago
- News18
US-led coalition captures senior Islamic State member in Syria
Agency: Beirut, Aug 20 (AP) A US-led coalition captured a senior member of the Islamic State group in northwest Syria on Wednesday, state media and a war monitor reported. It was not immediately clear if the man is the IS supreme leader. The US military did not respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press. The operation that included landing troops from helicopters occurred before dawn in Atmeh town near the Turkish border, and an IS commander known as Abu Hafs al-Qurayshi, an Iraqi citizen, was taken away while another Iraqi citizen was killed, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The Observatory said the man captured had a French-speaking woman with him, and it was not immediately clear if she was taken by the US force or by Syrian security forces, who later cordoned the area. Two years ago, IS announced that a man called Abu Hafs al-Hashemi al-Qurayshi was named as its new leader after Turkish authorities killed his predecessor. Syrian state TV on Wednesday quoted an unnamed security official as saying the Iraqi man targeted in the operation is known as Ali, adding that his real name is Salah Noman. It said Noman was living in an apartment with his wife, son and mother. It said he was killed in the raid. There was no immediate clarification for the difference in names reported by state media and the war monitor. IS broke away from al-Qaida more than a decade ago and attracted supporters from around the world after it declared a so-called caliphate in 2014 in large parts of Syria and Iraq. Despite its defeat in Iraq in 2017 and in Syria two years later, IS militants still carry out deadly attacks in both countries and elsewhere. Al-Qurayshi is not the real name of IS leaders but comes from Quraish, the name of the tribe to which Islam's Prophet Muhammad belonged. IS claims its leaders hail from the tribe, and 'al-Qurayshi" is part of their nom de guerre. (AP) NPK NPK view comments First Published: August 20, 2025, 18:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
