Category: Uncategorized

Prime Minister Mark Carney has no immediate plans to ask U.S. President Donald Trump and his negotiating team to return to the table for more trade talks, a source with knowledge of the plans said Monday.

The message leaves little optimism for a resolution to punishing new tariffs from the United States and what Mr. Carney on Saturday described as a trade “war” with Canada’s closest ally and economic partner.

The source said while Canada would not ask for talks at this stage, it’s possible the Trump administration could change its mind and ask for negotiations to resume. Though the source cautioned that is not what Ottawa is planning for.

A separate source said Ontario is now planning for at least two years of tariffs from the United States.

The Globe and Mail is not identifying the sources who were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump says he will raise tariffs on Canadian autos to 50 per cent and also start tariffing auto parts on Jan. 1, 2027, after a prospective trade deal between the two countries collapsed on Friday.

Mr. Trump’s latest threatened tariffs would be in addition to 50-per-cent tariffs on US$20-billion worth of Canadian goods that came into effect on Saturday, as well as tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, forest products and other sectoral levies in place since last year.

“Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years,” Mr. Trump wrote on Monday on his Truth Social network. “Not sustainable, and NOT ANYMORE!”

Mr. Trump said he would double auto tariffs from 25 per cent to 50 per cent and that these would apply to cars, trucks, and auto parts. Auto parts had not previously been tariffed, expanding the economic blast radius of his continental trade war.

Trade talks collapsed at last minute after U.S. commerce chief pressed for harsher terms, sources say

He also said steel tariffs would be “increased” to 50 per cent. These tariffs are already at 50 per cent, as are tariffs on aluminum. Forestry tariffs range from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, in addition to older tariffs on softwood lumber that date to Mr. Trump’s first term.

“Build in the U.S. and there are ZERO TARIFFS. Canada will be treated like a State no longer! On Trade, and in other ways, also, they are among the worst Nations in the World to deal with. They feel entitled, and yet, WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US!” Mr. Trump wrote.

He also complained about a “60 Billion Dollar Deficit” between the countries and Canadian tariffs “on our Farmers.” The trade deficit is mostly caused by the U.S. choosing to import Canadian oil and gas. He did not specify which farmers he was referring to, but Canada’s dairy supply-management system has long been a trade irritant. The vast majority of U.S. agricultural products face no tariffs from Canada.

Ottawa readies tariff-relief plan for businesses

Prime Minister Carney said this weekend that he ordered negotiators to walk away from trade talks on Friday after the U.S. added more punitive demands to the trade deal at the last minute. Among other things, he cited American demands that Canada mirror U.S. trade restrictions on other countries, hampering Ottawa’s ability to make trade deals.

He said Canada will retaliate “dollar-for-dollar” against Mr. Trump’s tariffs on US$20-billion of goods. Those Canadian counter-tariffs will start on Sept. 8.

The auto sector was at the centre of trade negotiations in recent weeks, with Canada promising to remove its retaliatory tariffs against U.S. automobiles and to unwind its remission system – which lowers tariffs for companies that retain production in Canada – in return for lower U.S. tariffs on autos.

The Trump administration had offered to cut auto tariffs to 15 per cent from 25 per cent. However, the two sides disagreed about whether that relief would apply to trucks, and whether there would be a tariff carve-out for Canadian content in the vehicles mirroring the existing carve-out for U.S. content.

Mr. Carney said that Mr. Trump’s negotiating team informed Canadian negotiators at the last minute that medium- and heavy-duty trucks – such as General Motor Co.’s GM-N Chevrolet Silverado produced in Oshawa, Ont., and Ford Motor Co.’s F-N F-Series trucks that will be produced in Oakville – would not be getting the tariff relief granted to light vehicles.

Throughout the negotiations last week, the auto industry and Ontario Premier Doug Ford pushed Ottawa to try to get better terms for the sector. Even though the deal would have lowered the effective tariff rate on Canadian-made light vehicles to around 7.5 per cent, auto industry experts have argued the tariff rate needs to be in the low single-digits to ensure the long-term profitability and survival of final vehicle assembly in Canada.

Auto tariffs of 15% would erase profitability and spur industry’s decline, experts say

Mr. Carney was also under pressure from Quebec cabinet ministers over a U.S. demand that Canada drop rules obliging streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime to prioritize Canadian content, including French-language content, in what its algorithms surface for viewers in Canada.

On Monday, Mr. Ford suggested that Canada should cut off the U.S.’s oil supply in response to Mr. Trump escalating his trade war.

“Well, he can kiss my ass, as far as I’m concerned,” the Ontario Premier told Toronto talk radio station NewsTalk 1010. “We’re going to go at him full speed,” he said, threatening that American motorists ”won’t be able to fill up, because we’ll be controlling the oil and the gas going down there.”

Mr. Carney has previously said he does not “see the value” in putting energy exports such as oil on the table in trade talks. “Canadians are reliable,” he said last month in Alberta. “People trust us, and so, when you’re a supplier of a key commodity, key service, you’ve got to think really hard about not supplying.”

Last year, Mr. Ford announced a surcharge on Ontario’s electricity exports to the U.S. as retaliation for Mr. Trump’s tariffs. He quickly backed down after Mr. Trump threatened to increase tariffs in response.

Throughout the trade war over the past year, auto parts have been excluded from tariffs in recognition of the crucial role hundreds of Canadian parts suppliers play in U.S. auto supply chains. Mr. Trump’s new threat to impose 50-per-cent tariffs on auto parts would amount to a major escalation.

With the prospective trade deal in shambles, the auto industry is relying on the remission system Ottawa put in place last year to protect the sector.

The system gives auto manufacturers a break on Canada’s 25-per-cent tariffs on U.S.-made vehicles if they maintain their production levels in Canada. In effect, it’s leveraging access to Canada’s sizeable auto market of around 2-million vehicles per year to convince the “big three” Detroit automakers, Honda HNDAF and Toyota TM-N to keep their factories on this side of the border.

The two sides have spent more than a year and a half in off-and-on negotiations over Mr. Trump’s tariffs. The deal last week, arrived at after a month of feverish talks, would have seen Canada accept some of Mr. Trump’s tariffs and make a long list of other concessions in exchange for the President lowering the tariffs and not hitting Canada with new ones.

• The Canadian dollar fell against a slew of major currencies Monday after the U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on around $20 billion worth of its imports.
• “As a smaller, more open economy, Canada has more to lose from this,” strategists at ING said Monday.
• Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Washington had “asked too much” and he was not prepared to “compromise Canada’s sovereignty or undermine our key industries.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/24/canada-us-trade-war-deal.html

Working with a financial advisor comes at a cost, but it can be hard to measure the quality of what you are getting, and keep track of how much you are paying for it.

For people who don’t scrutinize their statements, this can mean giving up a lot of money to both high fees and poor performance.

I recently did a portfolio review for a couple who works with a financial advisor from one of the big investment management companies. As I dug into the details of their investments, my blood started to boil. Their portfolio was full of high-fee mutual funds, and their returns were well below the market’s.

One fund their financial advisor had them invested in was the Mackenzie Bluewater Canadian Growth Balanced Fund. This fund charges a 2.3-per-cent fee – called a management expense ratio (MER) – and gave investors a return of 5.84 per cent a year over the past 10 years.

By comparison, an exchange-traded fund with a similar asset allocation – the iShares Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL), which tracks stock and bond indexes – returned 7.95 per cent a year over the past 10 years. A $10,000 investment in the Mackenzie fund over 10 years would have grown to $17,811, but the ETF portfolio would have been worth $21,689, or $3,878 more.

How to know when to change financial advisors

This advisor had other underperforming high-fee mutual funds in their portfolio and this is simply unacceptable.

Advisors like this should be fired by their clients. And investors, don’t fret if you fear your portfolio looks like this. There are other options.

The most cost-effective choice is to move to do-it-yourself investing using index-tracking ETFs, where you will pay fees in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent. Another cost-effective method is to use a robo-advisor, a kind of managed investing, with fees in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 per cent.

These options aren’t for everyone, and some people need or want to work with a financial advisor. But there are still ways to keep those costs in check.

The first step is to understand how you pay your advisor. There are two main models. The first is commission-based, where you don’t pay the advisor directly but they receive compensation from mutual fund companies.

This is commonly through a trailing commission, a payment the advisor receives as long as you stay invested in a mutual fund. The fees are quite high – about 2 to 2.5 per cent– which lower your returns from the fund.

The 2026 Globe and Mail Digital Brokerage Ranking: Low costs aren’t enough to crown the winner

The second compensation arrangement is a fee-based model. A fee-based advisor will charge you a percentage of the money they manage on your behalf. This fee is often around 1 per cent and you will see it come out of your account monthly or quarterly. You will still pay the MER on any funds that you own, but those fees will be lower than the funds that a commission-based advisor will sell you.

This fee-based model can have lower overall costs than the commission-based model. A fee-based advisor can offer you less-expensive mutual funds, called F-series funds, or fee-based funds, which don’t pay a trailing commission.

The advisor can also invest your money in index mutual funds, which have substantially lower fees than the more commonly used actively managed funds because they don’t pay trailing commissions. Some advisors can also invest in ETFs, many of which will have even lower fees than index mutual funds. A fee-based advisor should put these options on the table. If they don’t, ask for them.

Study outlines five investing archetypes: Which one are you?

Not only will you pay lower fees with index mutual funds and ETFs, but these funds do better than actively managed funds 98 per cent of the time, according to S&P Global, a capital markets company.

Before you begin working with a fee-based advisor, make it clear that you want your fees to be low. Ask them to present you with an investment proposal that uses low-cost funds, and to explain in writing what your total fee will be.

This disclosure is important because it can be hard for investors to see all of the fees they pay. Although advisors have to send you an annual report that discloses their fees, these reports usually leave out the part about the MERs on the mutual funds you own, so you’re not getting the full picture.

Starting in 2027, this disclosure will improve: The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization will require the report to show how much you are paying on your funds, based on the MER. If you don’t want to wait that long, find the MER for each of your funds by looking online at the fund’s profile, and calculate your total annual fees yourself by multiplying the MER by the amount you have invested.

If your fees shock you, consider that a wake-up call. Push your advisor to explain why your fees are so high, or say goodbye.

I’ve been writing about personal finances for over a decade and I get plenty of e-mails from people about their investment portfolios. I’m not a licensed financial adviser, but I can tell you that some of the advice that people get from their licensed advisers is shockingly bad.

Here are the most egregious examples I repeatedly see and when it might make sense to have a tough conversation with your adviser.

Commission-based compensation

If you walk into a bank branch and ask to speak to an investment adviser, chances are they are a commission-based salesperson.

Commissions can either be charged when an investment is purchased, called a front-end load, or as an ongoing fee charged for owning a fund, called a trailing commission.

A typical front-end load is 5 per cent, meaning that if you invest $100, $5 goes to the adviser, and $95 gets invested. The problem with these types of commissions is that they incentivize investment advisers to trade frequently, in a process known as account churning, to boost their fees.

Trailing commissions are paid as an ongoing fee, typically 1 per cent for Canadian equity funds. The problem with these is that they encourage an adviser to put the client into funds that pay the highest commissions, rather than the ones that perform the best for the investor.

How to know when to change financial advisers

Actively managed funds

Most investment advisers put their clients’ money into mutual funds, which are often actively managed.

That means a fund manager is picking stocks with the goal of beating the overall market. If the adviser’s stock picking makes more money than they’re charging in fees, everyone wins, right? Too bad it doesn’t work.

In order for an active manager to deliver market-beating returns, they have to overcome two headwinds. First, they get paid through their fund’s Management Expense Ratio, or MER, which is typically 1 per cent or more. And second, active managers have to trade in and out of stocks to do their job, and that generates capital gains that will cost you money come tax time.

Passive investing, which involves simply buying and holding a few index fund ETFs, avoids both of these problems. ETFs have very low fees – 0.1 per cent or less – because there’s no fund manager to pay. And buy-and-hold investing generates no taxable events.

With these two headwinds factored in an analysis by the Wharton School of Business found a whopping 97 per cent of active managers at large and mid-sized companies failed to beat a passive index fund.

Rob Carrick: When the financial industry fails you, AI has your back

Lack of strategy

When I started helping my parents manage their investment portfolios, I was floored by the sheer amount of funds their adviser bought for them. I counted more than 50 of them spread out over half a dozen different accounts.

And while each investment was reasonable in isolation, the problem with a portfolio like this is that they’re impossible to manage. Every investor should have a clear investment strategy, and their portfolio should be designed to implement that strategy.

That’s what I love about passive investing. It offers a built-in investment strategy, which is “I will buy and hold index funds because that offers me the easiest, lowest-risk way of tracking overall market returns.”

You then buy funds tracking the major world stock markets, such as the TSX, the S&P 500 and the MSCI EAFE Index (Europe, Australasia, Far East) and hold them in roughly equal portions. You can also add bonds to smooth the ride.

And then you wait.

Opinion: The 4% withdrawal rule for retirees is dead. Long live the 4.7% rule

Compounding costs

The thing about investing is that performance drags of 1 per cent here and there add up over time.

Let’s use an example of someone investing $100,000 in an equity fund that grows at 8 per cent a year for 30 years.

If Investor A used a passive index fund that charged a 0.1 per cent MER, over that 30 year period their investment would grow to an impressive $978,685.

But if Investor B invested through a commission-based investment adviser that charges a 5 per cent front-load commission, a 1 per cent trailing fee, and invests in actively managed mutual funds that charge a 1 per cent MER, then over the same 30 year period that investment would grow to just $545,631.

Those fees ate up $433,054 of Investor B’s hard-earned money, which is a great deal for the adviser. For the client? Not so much.

So, who are these advisers actually working for?

Tariffs of likely 15 per cent on Canadian-made cars being negotiated in Canada-U.S. trade talks would make manufacturing here unprofitable and spur the domestic industry’s decline, experts say.

Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are leading talks in Washington ahead of a Friday midnight deadline, seeking to address a slate of trade issues that include dairy, metals, lumber and autos.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said that he will impose 50-per-cent tariffs on a range of Canadian imports if no deal is reached by midnight on Friday.

The Globe and Mail has reported that the prospective trade deal would reduce U.S. tariffs on the American content of Canadian-made cars to 15 per cent from 25 per cent, without the exception for domestic and Mexican input that Canada sought.

Proposed Canada-U.S. trade deal would lock in 15% auto tariffs, sources say

Automotive experts say that level of tariff would prod carmakers in Canada to slow or halt plant upgrades and look elsewhere to build new models in countries where they can turn a profit.

The U.S. content in a car assembled in Canada varies but is about 50 per cent. This would mean an effective tariff rate of 6 to 8 per cent, which is roughly equal to the labour costs of assembly and, separately, the margin of profit on a vehicle. That means the tariff would saddle carmakers with costs while destroying profitability.

“None of these carmakers are non-profit enterprises and so over the longer term, they’ll start to look at Canada and think, ‘where can we make more money?’ ” said Greig Mordue, an engineering professor at McMaster University and a former general manager of Toyota in Canada.

Peter Frise, an automotive engineering professor at the University of Windsor, said it is difficult to predict the impact of the tariffs until the details of the agreement are released. But he said a 15-per-cent tariff would drive up the costs of vehicles for consumers in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, while slowing investment in Canadian auto plants.

“It can’t be seen as a positive thing,” Prof. Frise said. “In an industry where profit margins are typically 6 to 8 per cent, 15 per cent is a lot.”

Mr. Trump imposed 25-per-cent tariffs on Canadian-made cars last year, using Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and disregarding the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on free trade.

He said the tariffs were designed to bring home U.S. manufacturing and create jobs, while applying economic pressure on Canada as he pressed for annexation. He also imposed Section 232 tariffs of 50 per cent on imported aluminum and steel, further driving up costs for U.S. manufacturers.

Michigan-based Anderson Economic Group estimates that the auto tariffs on Canada and Mexico cost U.S. consumers and businesses US$12.5-billion in 2025. That doesn’t include levies on steel, aluminum or other products. “That’s a burden that could fall or rise based on the results of this latest trade drama,” said Patrick Anderson, the consultancy’s chief executive officer.

Mr. Trump has also applied 15-per-cent tariffs on most cars made overseas. The tariffs have cost U.S.-based carmakers billions of dollars and spurred them to shift production and boost U.S. content.

“That’s what Trump said he was going to do,” Prof. Frise said. “He’s going to damage our economy to the point where it isn’t sustainable any more, and then he could take over. That’s his goal. The thing about Mr. Trump is he usually tells you what he’s going to do.”

Ontario is home to assembly plants owned by five automakers, Honda HNDAF +0.54%increase, Toyota TM-N +2.66%increase, Stellantis STLA-N +2.85%increase, General Motors GM-N +2.07%increase and Ford F-N +3.00%increase, all of which rely on the U.S. for about 90 per cent of sales. The auto industry employs about 105,000 people in Canada, according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association.

In Ontario, the tariffs applied last year put the future of automaking into question. One of the province’s largest carmakers, Honda, shelved its $15-billion electric-car project; Stellantis moved planned Jeep production to Illinois from its idled Brampton factory, which the Unifor union says is up for sale; General Motors closed its electric-van plant in Ingersoll and cut jobs and production at its Oshawa truck plant.

Toyota and Honda, which account for 75 per cent of Ontario’s 1.2 million vehicle output in 2025, lack the capacity to expand in the U.S. for now and have held Canadian production and employment steady. Still, Toyota last year called the Trump tariffs unsustainable.

With auto tariffs a key sticking point, Canada’s industry hangs in the balance

Toyota recently announced plans to double the size of its plant in San Antonio, Tex., by 2030, and Honda is reportedly considering building a new North American plant that analysts expect will be in the U.S.

It can take two or three years to build a new plant in the U.S. but moving production to American plants that have capacity takes just six months, Prof. Mordue said.

“It doesn’t augur very well for Canada if it’s 15 per cent minus U.S. content,” he said. “I completely get that a deal has to be made because it’s better than 25 per cent minus U.S. content, but over the longer term, it’s probably not sustainable and decisions have to get made.”

Although auto parts made in Canada remain tariff-free, there are doubts much of the industry will survive the loss of assembly plants, he said.

“That’s not to say all of the parts [factories] will disappear. It’s not to say all of the assembly will disappear, but it’s a long-term challenge,” Prof. Mordue said.

“And even companies like Toyota and Honda, which have stayed pretty steady and consistent, will start to look askance.”

Monday August 24

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. Chicago Fed National Activity Index for July.

---

Tuesday August 25

Germany GDP and business climate

(8:15 a.m. ET) U.S. ADP employment for Aug. 8 (four-week average change)

(9 a.m. ET) U.S. S&P Cotality Case-Shiller Home Price Index (20 city) for June. The Street is projecting a rise of 0.1 per cent from May and up 1.8 per cent year-over-year.

(9 a.m. ET) U.S. FHFA House Price Index for June. Consensus is a rise of 0.2 per cent month-over-month and up 2.5 per cent year-over-year.

(10 a.m. ET) U.S. new home sales for July.

(10 a.m. ET) U.S. Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index for August.

Earnings include: Bank of Montreal; Bank of Nova Scotia; Intuit Inc.; Zoom Video Communications Inc.

---

Wednesday August 26

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. real GDP and GDP price index. The consensus projections are annualized rate increases of 1.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent, respectively).

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. personal spending and income for July. The Street expects month-over-month gains of 0.1 per cent and 0.2 per cent, respectively.

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. core PCE price index for July. Consensus is a rise of 0.2 per cent from June and 3.3 per cent year-over-year.

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. durable and core goods orders for July. Consensus estimates are increases of 0.5 per cent and 1.0 per cent, respectively.

Earnings include: CrowdStrike Holdings Inc.; EQB Inc.; HP Inc.; National Bank of Canada; Nvidia Corp.; Paladin Energy Ltd.; Salesforce Inc.

---

Thursday August 27

China industrial profits

Japan machine tool orders

Euro zone private sector credit growth

Germany consumer confidence

(8:30 a.m. ET) Canada’s current account balance for Q2.

(8:30 a.m. ET) Canada’s SEPH survey (payrolls and vacancy rate) for June.

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. initial jobless claims for week of Aug. 22. Estimate is 208,000, a gain of 2,000 from the previous week.

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. goods trade deficit for July.

(8:30 a.m. ET) U.S. wholesale and retail inventories for July.

Also: Jackson Hole Economic Symposium begins (through Saturday)

Earnings include: Autodesk Inc.; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Kraken Robotics Inc.; Lululemon Athletica Inc.; Marvell Technology Inc.; Royal Bank of Canada; Toronto-Dominion Bank

---

Friday August 28

Japan’s Tokyo CPI

Euro zone economic and consumer confidence

Germany unemployment

(8:30 a.m. ET) Canada’s real GDP and chain prices for Q2. The Street is forecasting annualized rate increases of 3.3 per cent and 7.2 per cent, respectively.

(8:30 a.m. ET) Canada’s monthly real GDP.

(9:45 a.m. ET) U.S. Chicago PMI

(10 a.m. ET) U.S. University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index.

(10 a.m. ET) U.S. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh speaks at the Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium

Earnings include: Laurentian Bank of Canada

• The U.S. and Canada failed to reach a trade deal on Friday to stave off new tariffs by the Trump administration.
• The tariffs impact roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian imports, including wine, furniture, dairy products, cement, clothing, fishing rods, hockey equipment.
• Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the country would retaliate against the new tariffs “dollar for dollar.”

Trade talks between the U.S. and Canada fell apart on Friday, triggering a new set of 50% Trump administration tariffs.

Negotiators for both sides had been working on a deal all week, at times signaling that an agreement was near. President Donald Trump had postponed the original deadline of Wednesday just hours ahead of it being imposed, saying that there was a soon-to-be finalized deal. Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s trade minister for the U.S., told reporters on Thursday that a deal was “very close.”

However, both sides blamed the other on Friday as the tariffs, impacting roughly $20 billion in Canadian exports, including wine, furniture, dairy products, cement, clothing, fishing rods, hockey equipment, went into effect on Saturday morning.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a statement released on Friday that despite working toward a deal, “that progress has not been enough to meet our objectives for Canadians,” saying that “last-minute changes in the U.S. proposed terms were unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal.”

In his statement, Carney said that Canada would retaliate against the new tariffs “dollar for dollar.”

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in a post on X early Saturday morning, that “Canada declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week.”

Greer added that in the negotiations this week, the U.S. had “agreed to provide even better treatment to Canada, offering significant tariff reductions on steel, aluminum, autos, and lumber.” However, he wrote, “Canada is continuing to maintain its prolonged retaliation against the United States, including, among other things, flat-out prohibitions on certain American goods and services.”

U.S. President Donald Trump says he has reached a trade deal with Canada and will postpone his latest round of threatened tariffs for three days while the agreement is finalized.

After a day of down-to-the wire bargaining Tuesday, Mr. Trump announced the tentative pact less than two hours before the new levies on US$20-billion worth of Canadian goods were set to take effect.

“I have paused the 50% Tariffs against Canada, that were scheduled to kick in tomorrow morning for a three day period, based on the fact that Canada and the U.S.A., subject to the finalization of documents, have a DEAL!” the President wrote on Truth Social.

He did not specify what was in the agreement nor confirm that, if the documents were signed, he would cancel the planned levies entirely.

But he did saythe deal might somehow revive the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a Canadian priority project thwarted by U.S. permitting problems and twice cancelled by previous presidents. Mr. Trump wrote that the pipeline “may be awoken from the grave!” and included an AI-generated image of himself pulling it up from the ground.

The Globe and Mail has reported that the frenetic talks over the past month focused on the U.S. reducing, but not eliminating, Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Canadian autos, steel, aluminum and forest products and averting the implementation of his new levies.

In exchange, the U.S. demanded a long list of concessions from Canada, including that Ottawa drop its retaliatory tariffs on American autos, change how licences are allocated under the dairy supply-management system and instruct provincial governments to return U.S. alcohol to store shelves and end their Buy Canadian procurement policies. Canadian steel and aluminum would also face export quotas in addition to tariffs.

Trump made new trade deals with countries around the world. Here’s how they played out

The U.S. also pressed Canada to complete its long-delayed purchase of F-35 fighter jets from American defence contractor Lockheed Martin, give Washington the right of first refusal over critical minerals and agree to buy American-made radar planes as part of joining the planned Golden Dome missile defence system.

A Canadian commitment to maintain or increase its supply of oil to the U.S. was also under discussion, two sources with knowledge of the talks said. The Globe is not identifying the sources because they were not authorized to disclose details of the closed-door bargaining.

Canadian defence companies eye idle auto plants for growth plans

In a White House proclamation postponing the tariffs, Mr. Trump wrote that “Canada has expressed a commitment to remove the discriminations or unreasonable and unequal impositions at issue,” on autos, dairy and alcohol.

In a statement late Tuesday, Prime Minister Mark Carney sounded a more cautious note than Mr. Trump.

“Substantial progress has been made, although there is important work still to be done,” the Prime Minister said. “While we continue this work, Canada remains focused on building a stronger, more independent, and more competitive economy at home.”

Mr. Carney and Mr. Trump spoke Tuesday afternoon for the second time in as many days, shortly after negotiators put a proposed deal on the President’s desk.

The office ofU.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who led negotiations for the Trump administration, said on social media that the deal will include “comprehensive market access for all American goods, economic security commitments, digital trade alignment” and other unspecified provisions.

Last month Mr. Trump threatened to impose the 50-per-cent levies on Canadian electronic equipment, dairy and alcohol, among other products, under Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

These would be in addition to the 25-per-cent tariff on autos, 50-per-cent tariffs on steel and aluminum and 10- to 25-per-cent tariffs on forest products he imposed last year under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

He set Wednesday as the implementation day for the latest levies, cranking up the pressure on Canada to agree to an “interim” trade deal covering some of his priority areas. After finishing this first deal, the sides are expected to undertake the more complicated trilateral renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which could stretch into next year.

One of the toughest issues to resolve, according to three sources with knowledge of the negotiations, has been autos, with Mr. Trump explicitly callingfor all assembly to be reshored in his country. The matter was still under discussion for much of Tuesday, the sources said.

Washington offered to reduce auto levies from 25 per cent to 15 per cent and maintain an exemption for the value of American content, which makes up about half the worth of a Canadian-made car, the three sources and one other said. Ottawa wanted the value of all North American-made content exempted.

An additional complicating factor, said one of the three sources and another source, is that the U.S. wants to align its deal on autos with Canada with a parallel deal it is negotiating with Mexico.

On Tuesday evening, Mexican Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard was seen leaving Mr. Greer’s office. He was tight-lipped about the state of negotiations.

Forestry has also been a flashpoint at the negotiating table, The Globe has reported. Washington insisted that Ottawa should settle for a separate U.S. Commerce Department review of a different set of tariffs on softwood lumber. Canada demanded an immediate reduction in Section 232 tariffs.

If the deal does go through, Mr. Carney will have to convince both the provinces and an angry public largely opposed to trade concessions that the agreement is in Canada’s interest.

Provincial co-operation would be necessary for Mr. Trump’s demands to be met, and key sectors, such as autos in Ontario and forestry in British Columbia, were on the table in talks. Two sources, however, said provinces were not briefed Tuesday on the substance of talks.

Janice Charette, Canada’s chief negotiator, told Mr. Greer last week that, in the event the new tariffs came into effect, Canada would have to stop negotiating and retaliate.

Canadian oil exports came up in trade talks last year, when Mr. Carney first unsuccessfully tried to reach a deal with Mr. Trump. U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra said in July that Mr. Carney had offered to double oil exports to the U.S., which would have involved Canada agreeing to ship an additional three to four million barrels of oil per day.

It was unclear how Mr. Carney could promise such figures, given that oil production is handled by private companies. It was also unclear how such measures would square with Mr. Trump’s desire to cut his country’s trade deficit with Canada, which is mostly the result of the U.S. importing Canadian oil.

In July, Mr. Carney announced plans to build a new pipeline to the West Coast to diversify oil exports and reduce Canada’s reliance on the U.S. market. But oil sands firms have been reluctant to commit to the capital investments needed to massively expand production and fill the planned new pipelines.

The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed by TC Energy Corp. in 2010 to ship Canadian crude to southern U.S. refineries. After years of delays and opposition from environmentalists and former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the project was shelved in 2021.

Recently, South Bow Corp. – a company that was spun off TC energy in 2024 to handle its oil pipeline business – has partly resurrected the idea with its proposed Prairie Connector pipeline, which would carry about 500,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta to the U.S. border. The proposed pipeline would meet up at the border with a second pipeline proposed by Bridger Pipeline LLC. Mr. Trump granted a permit to the Bridger Pipeline proposal in April.

South Bow said earlier this month that it was on track to make a final investment decision by the middle of next year after securing shipper commitments.

Oil prices rose on Monday on a lack of progress in diplomatic efforts to resolve the ⁠Iran war, ​though the absence of major supply outages limited gains.

Brent crude futures were up 43 US cents, or 0.5 per cent, at US$88.95 a barrel by 9:13 a.m. TE after hitting a session high of US$89.68. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures rose 25 US cents, or 0.3 per cent, to US$82.65 ​a barrel.

Both contracts gained more than 5% last week ‌following attacks on tankers operated by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in the Strait of Hormuz and on a Saudi Aramco refinery.

But Bjarne Schieldrop at SEB Research said that prices were unlikely to move substantially higher unless there was a halt in the current flow of crude out ‌through the Strait ​of Hormuz at night and/or ‌a closure of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

For now, prices were trading close to UDS$90 ​as traders weigh the risk of deeper disruption and shortages ⁠against the possibility of a resolution where the Strait of Hormuz is reopened ⁠and oil prices fall sharply, Schieldrop said.

Over the weekend, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Iran had not ​decided to resume talks with the United States, while U.S. President Donald Trump urged Americans to accept slightly higher gasoline prices while the conflict continues.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said talks with Oman were continuing and were taking a long time due to the complexity of the subject, the involvement ⁠of multiple actors and countries seeking to undermine the process.

“Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains restricted, and negotiations have reached a stalemate, both of which limit the potential for further decline,” said Frank Walbaum, market analyst at trading platform Naga.com.

“In the absence of new catalysts, oil prices could continue to consolidate around current levels.”

Shipping through the Strait of ⁠Hormuz slowed over the weekend, data showed on Monday, ​following attacks on tankers. Five commodity vessels transited the strait on Saturday, with none registered for Sunday, ⁠ship-tracking data from Kpler showed, versus 31 for the prior weekend.

Before U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran began in late February, the ‌strait handled about one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.

Meanwhile, ADNOC sold at least ​14 million barrels of spot crude to Asian refiners at premiums in its latest tender, trade sources said on Monday.

Saudi Aramco is offering crude oil outside of the Strait of Hormuz to some Asian refiners, two sources with knowledge of ​the matter said on Monday.