Category: Uncategorized

Bank of Nova Scotia BNS-T +4.56%increase posted higher third-quarter profit that beat analysts’ expectations on a boost from capital markets and stronger performance across its businesses.

Scotiabank’s net income rose 17 per cent to $2.95-billion, or $2.27 per share, in the three months that ended July 31. Adjusted to exclude certain items, the bank said it earned $2.28per share, topping the $2.10 per share analysts expected, according to data by Bloomberg.

Scotiabank is working on growing its domestic business by attracting lower-cost deposits and selling more products and services to its clients. But competition for deposits has been mounting in the Canadian market as lenders vie for customer cash.

In the first quarter ended Jan. 31, Scotiabank said it expects to hit its target of 14-per-cent return on equity in 2027, a year earlier than expected. In the third quarter, Scotiabank posted an adjusted return on equity of 14.2 per cent.

But the lender is still shy of its ROE target in its critical Canadian banking business. In the quarter, the unit’s ROE improved to 19.4 per cent as Scotiabank aims to boost the metric to the low to mid-twenties.

Scotiabank chief executive officer Scott Thomson has said he anticipates double-digit earnings per share growth the year in its domestic banking business this year – a critical part of Scotiabank’s strategy to boost profitability.

To help bridge the gap, Scotiabank has built a segment focused on midmarket businesses, adding added almost 700 of those commercial clients this year, up about 85 per cent year-over-year, according to the lender’s head of Canadian banking Aris Bogdaneris. The lender is also growing loans with small businesses and focusing on specialized segments, including health care professionals and accountants.

“When you take these two businesses together, we’re confident as we continue, and especially as our transaction banking capabilities improve, that we can hit the 20 per cent plus ROE over time,” Mr. Bogdaneris said during a conference call with analyst.

Scotiabank is the second major Canadian bank to report earnings for the fiscal third quarter. Bank of Montreal posted results earlier Tuesday. National Bank will post earnings on Wednesday. Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce will wrap up the week with earnings releases on Thursday.

Canadian bank stocks have soared this year, outperforming Canada’s stock market and U.S. lenders. Investors have been eager for third-quarter results to help assess whether bank stocks have more room run higher, or if their lofty valuations have peaked.

In the quarter, Scotiabank set aside $1.08-billion in provisions for credit losses – the funds banks set aside to cover loans that may default. That was lower than analysts anticipated but slightly higher than the $1.04-billion in provisions the lender reserved in the same quarter last year.

Total revenue rose 11 per cent in the quarter to $10.53-billion. But expenses increased nine per cent to $5.56-billion, which the bank said was driven by higher staffing and technology costs, as well as the negative impact of foreign exchange.

Profit from Canadian banking was $1.07-billion, up 12 per cent from a year earlier, on higher revenue driven by margin expansion and fee income growth, partially offset by higher provisions.

Scotiabank’s turnaround strategy also depends on reviving its international unit and expanding its capital markets division in the United States. Profit from the bank’s international division was up eight per cent at $725-million.

The global wealth management division generated $515-million of profit, up 23 per cent. And capital markets profit rose 37 per cent to $647-million.

Ottawa is hitting back against the United States with hefty counter-tariffs on $27.6-billion worth of American products including metals, seafood, clothing, home appliances and electronic devices.

On Tuesday morning, the federal government outlined how it plans to retaliate against the new 50-per-cent tariffs U.S. President Donald Trump placed on around $28-billion worth of Canadian goods over the weekend after trade talks collapsed late Friday.

Ottawa is targeting more than 700 items, with most of the levies set at 25 per cent or 50 per cent, with a small number subject to a lower 15-per-cent tariff. The tariffs are scheduled to come into force on Sept. 8.

Ottawa also outlined a $7.5-billion support package of “new and enhanced” measures Tuesday for Canadian workers and businesses affected by the latest wave of American tariffs. The Canadian measures include easier access to Employment Insurance for affected workers and a range of loan programs for businesses.

“When the United States asked too much and offered too little, we chose to stand up for Canadians,” Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in a statement.

“Our dollar-for-dollar, rate for rate counter-tariffs as well as a multi-billion dollar support package will protect workers, farmers, families, and businesses as we build a stronger, more resilient, and more diversified Canadian economy.”

The most significant part of Canada’s retaliation, from a dollar perspective, is the decision to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as many products made from the metals, to 50 per cent from the current 25 per cent.

After that, the biggest hit will be to machinery and mechanical appliances, paper and paperboard, electrical machinery and seafood.

Ottawa is targeting a number of consumer items, including dishwashers and refrigerators, furniture and lighting, golf clubs, motorcycles and video game consoles. Even smart phones are on the list, although most Canadian smartphones are not actually manufactured in the U.S.

In a briefing about the measures, a government official said that the tariffs had been designed to reduce competition from U.S. companies for Canadian businesses hit by tariffs. He said that the government would continue to accept remission requests from companies who would be unduly impacted by the tariffs.

The Globe is not identifying the officials because they spoke to journalists on background during a technical briefing before the announcement.

Mr. Trump’s new 50-per-cent tariffs against Canadian products hit electronics, plastics, paper, furniture and home appliances, among other products. The U.S. measures target around 5 per cent of Canadian exports with the damage concentrated in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called on the government to recall Parliament early for a debate on Canada’s response. He said the government should bring in an “economic action plan” to support growth that would include a range of measures, including temporarily removing all tax on gasoline and removing the federal sales tax on Canadian-made cars.

Speaking with reporters in Windsor, Mr. Poilievre also encouraged Canadians to buy domestic goods.

“I send the message out to my fellow Canadians: Buy Canadian. Look at the label, make sure that the things you’re buying have as much Canadian content as humanly possible. Support your fellow workers and stand up for our country,” he said.

Mr. Poilievre said he was scheduled to speak with Mr. Carney at 8:30 a.m.

On Monday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford traded insults with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump commented further on Truth Social Tuesday morning, responding to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s comment that U.S. trade negotiators proposed weakening support for the French language.

“I would never interfere with Canadians speaking French! In fact, I have never even thought of doing such a stupid thing. This lie was made up by a weak and ineffective Prime Minister in an attempt to gain political support, which he has totally lost, from the people of Quebec. I love French Canadians! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” the post said.

He also mused about changing the name of Lake Ontario.

“The United States is giving serious consideration to changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America in that we don’t expect to doing much business with Ontario any longer. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

Canadian government officials said the $7.5-billion package includes a mix of new and previously announced programs. They also said they do not expect revenues from the new Canadian tariffs to exceed the cost of the support programs.

The specific policies announced Tuesday include a $3.5-billion package of worker supports. This includes extending some existing temporary enhancements to Employment Insurance.

There will also be a new “Workforce Retention and Retraining Program” that will encourage work sharing.

For businesses, regional development agencies will receive an additional $1.5-billion to provide liquidity support.

A new $500-million stream will be added to a loan program at the Business Development Bank of Canada. The government said this will provide working capital to businesses facing cash-flow shortfalls as a result of U.S. tariffs. This new liquidity stream will be added to provide working capital support for small and medium-sized businesses facing immediate cashflow pressures. Companies will be eligible for loans ranging from $250,000 to $5-million and will only be required to pay back interest costs for the first 36 months.

For larger projects, a new stream will be added to the Strategic Response Fund called the Canada Strong Diversification Fund, worth $2-billion. The government said this will support “shovel-ready” projects.

Ottawa also said it is providing “new flexibilities” to the $10-billion Large Enterprise Tariff Loan facility, administered by the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation (CEEFC). The government said this will provide liquidity for large employers.

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.”