Canada's services PMI rises to 3-month high in May as confidence improves
TORONTO, June 4 (Reuters) - The downturn in Canada's services economy eased somewhat in May as firms grew more hopeful that trade and political uncertainty would become less of a drag on activity over the coming 12 months, S&P Global's Canada services PMI data showed on Wednesday.
The headline Business Activity Index was at 45.6 last month, its highest level since February and up from 41.5 in April. Still, it remained well below the 50.0 no-change mark that separates growth from contraction.
'Canada's service sector continued to struggle in the face of ongoing tariff and residual political uncertainty during May, with activity and new business volumes again declining markedly," Paul Smith, economics director at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a statement.
'That said, there are some hopes of greater stability in the year ahead, with confidence improving since April and helping to support some marginal employment growth as firms look ahead to higher workloads in the months ahead."
The measure of employment rose to 50.3 from 47.9 in April, showing job increases for the first time since December, while the Future Activity Index was at 58.9, up from 56.4.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal Party retained power in April's parliamentary elections, promising sweeping changes to Canada's economy.
The nation sends about 75% of its exports to the United States, including autos, steel and aluminum which have been hit with hefty U.S. duties. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he plans to increase steel and aluminum tariffs to 50% from 25%.
Tariffs were reported to have raised the price of some products, contributing to cost pressures that firms attempted to pass on to clients, S&P Global said.
The prices charged measure rose to its highest level in one year at 54.6, up from 48.0 in April.
The S&P Global Canada Composite PMI Output Index was at 45.5 last month, recovering some ground after it hit 41.7 in April, its lowest level since June 2020.
Data on Monday showed a slower pace of decline for manufacturing activity in May. The S&P Global Canada Manufacturing PMI edged up to 46.1 from 45.3 in April.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
How Donald Trump hammered Iran's nuke bases with bunker buster bombs and missiles fired from submarines
DONALD Trump has blitzed Iran's nuclear bases to stop the Ayatollah's doomsday project in a complex operation from air and sea. The president has declared the strike a "spectacular success" that "obliterated" the mad mullahs' atomic program. 9 Donald Trump in the Situation Room during the strike Credit: Reuters 9 Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines were used to strike two bases (stock image) Credit: AFP 9 The B-2A Spirit was used to carry the bunker busting bombs Credit: Getty 9 To do that, Trump used some of the US military's most advanced weapons. Six 30,000lb bunker busting bombs - officially called the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) - were used to hit the most difficult target, Trump told Fox News. They were dropped from B-2 bombers flying high in the atmosphere for 37 hours all the way from Missouri, the New York Times reported. The lethal bombers even refuelled several times in the air so they didn't have to land. Read more on world news BOMB BLITZ Trump launches strikes on Iran as three nuke bases blitzed in historic attack B-2 bombers were the only weapon which could do the job - because the Ayatollah's prized Fordow nuclear enrichment plant is 300ft deep underground and encased in steel. Israel has been unable to destroy the site by itself - with Trump declaring on Saturday that only America could destroy it from above. Now, Trump claims he has done so - with six bunker busters able to bury deep through the rock and hit the base. The missiles - 20ft long and carrying a 5,000lb warhead - were dropped by the B-2s, hit the earth, and buried themselves deep into the rock before they exploded. Iran claims that it knew the attack was coming and evacuated anything of value from the base. But two other of Iran's nuclear facilities were also hit - Natanz and Isfahan. How Trump COULD destroy Iran's prize nuclear bunker They were blitzed by 30 Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines 400miles away. Tomahawk missiles are a long-range weapon which can be fired from land or sea and can travel at least 1,000miles. The US keeps a naval base across the Persian Gulf from Iran in Bahrain. The complex at Natanz holds Iran's largest uranium enrichment plant - crucial for getting the material to weapons grade. 9 A US submarine - capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk missiles Credit: AP 9 Isfahan nuclear power plant Credit: AFP 9 One B-2 also dropped two bunker busters on Natanz, according to the New York Times. Isfahan is thought to hold a repository of near bomb-grade nuclear material. Both Natanz and Isfahan had previously been hit by Israel. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, previously said Iran's biggest atomic plant at Natanz was knocked out by the first waves of the Israeli offensive. Mr Grossi said: "The above-ground part of the pilot fuel enrichment plant, where Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235, has been destroyed". Uranium-235 is essential both for nuclear power stations and also for nuclear weapons. 9 Trump addressing the nation revealed America had 'obliterated' Fordow Credit: Alamy 9 Posting on Truth Social, President Donald Trump announced that US bombers targeted Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan enrichment sites. The bombings come just two days after Trump said he would decide "within two weeks" whether to join key ally Israel in attacking Iran. In a nationally televised speech at the White House, Trump said: "Tonight I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier. "There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days."
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
‘No Carbon' Carney has left us high and dry
A bit like a sort of unreliable boyfriend. This, rather brilliantly, was the description of the record of the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, by the Labour MP Pat McFadden, then a member of the Treasury select committee. That was in 2014, when the handsome Canadian, hailed as the 'George Clooney of central banking', was just a year into his tenure. McFadden was not talking about Carney's personal life: it was a metaphor for his policy of interest rate 'forward guidance', which was proving no sort of guidance at all. It was all over the place. In one respect, however, there was complete consistency in Carney's record over seven years as this country's most powerful unelected figure. He determinedly used his position to push Britain's banks into defunding the oil and gas industry, on the grounds that man-made climate change was of primary importance, and that financial institutions should base their investment decisions on the proposition that 80 per cent of the planet's hydrocarbon reserves were 'un-burnable'. His wise predecessor, Mervyn King, questioned the decision to make fighting climate change part of the Bank of England's remit, arguing that it made 'absolutely no sense' to add 'net zero' to its responsibilities, and that the Bank should stick to its knitting (interest rates and price stability) and leave environmental policies to the politicians. However, after leaving the Bank in 2020, Carney stuck to his mission. Under the auspices of the UN, he set up the Net Zero Banking Alliance, co-opting a large number of the world's biggest banks, representing $74 trillion in assets, into basing their lending on the mission to achieve 'net zero by 2050'. This, combined with the Labour government's policies under Ed Miliband, has meant that, as one British oil company executive put it to me, 'Not a single UK bank will lend to the North Sea industry'. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, more recently, has suffered an exodus of its American members, which have fallen in line with Donald Trump's agenda (summarised as 'Drill, baby, drill'). But surely, now that Carney has at last achieved his ambition of becoming Canadian prime minister, he is using all the power of that position to fight the good fight. Er, no. One reason Carney actually won the recent election was that he pledged to scrap the 'carbon tax' implemented by Justin Trudeau, for which he had previously proselytised. In office Carney has kept that promise — and in recent weeks gone much further in the opposite direction to everything he did when Bank of England governor. He appointed as energy minister a man who was an executive of an oil exploration and production company in Alberta, the heart of Canada's vast hydrocarbon reserves. These are known as the Alberta oil sands, covering an area the size of England and described some years ago by National Geographic (not a fan) as 'the world's largest industrial project … Especially north of Fort McMurray, where the boreal forest has been razed and bitumen is mined from the ground in immense open pits, the blot on the landscape is incomparable.' Carney has relaxed the emission restrictions that hampered this development (among others) and declared two weeks ago that he wanted Canada to be 'an energy superpower … in both clean and conventional energies. And, yes, that does mean oil and gas. It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so, yes, it also means more oil and gas exports, without question.' • The oil-rich Canadian cowboys who want their own Brexit What accounts for this remarkable transformation? Pure political expediency. Trudeau's policy had been profoundly unpopular, and the Conservative candidate, Pierre Poilievre, constantly referred to 'carbon tax Carney'. So, shamelessly disowning his own previous advocacy, Carney dumped it. Then there were the idiotic threats from Trump to annex Canada. While that will 'never happen' (to quote Carney), the prospect of Albertan secession was less improbable, as that province had been sorely provoked by the ecologically motivated threats to its hydrocarbon industry. Canada as a whole could not afford such a secession, and immediately after Carney's election win, the premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, introduced a bill to make a referendum on the matter much simpler to implement. She simultaneously called on Carney to make various concessions, which 'must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap'. He got the message. It was no coincidence that, as host of last week's G7 summit, Carney chose to hold it in Alberta. In the final communiqué, the topic of climate change was barely mentioned. To put it mildly, this has confused those who deeply admired Carney, not least in this country, for his previously passionate campaigning against oil and gas investment. But when I asked someone who worked closely with the man at the Bank of England what had happened to his old boss, he laughed and said: 'I must have told you before that Mark is fundamentally a trader, and therefore prepared to adapt principles to circumstances.' This was partly a reference to the fact that Carney's career before becoming a central banker was at Goldman Sachs. But what does this mean for the UK, still thoroughly enmeshed by the net zero policies in which Carney played such a central role? As Brendan Long, a Canadian energy analyst, told The Daily Telegraph last week: 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was governor of the Bank of England.' Although Ed Miliband has now indicated a reversal of his opposition to the development of two North Sea fields, known as Rosebank and Jackdaw, the government is keeping its radical policy of banning all new exploration; across the median line, Norway has declared it will be boosting its North Sea exploration and production to the highest level since 2010. The crazy point, which fits in with the government's target but not the national interest, is that if we buy Norwegian gas, it does not come out of our 'carbon budget', as administered by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Similarly, when we've shut down our entire domestic oil and gas operation and are buying the Canadian hydrocarbons that Carney is now so keen to boost, we will make the (unelected) Climate Change Committee — charged with setting our carbon budgets and invigilating our progress to purity — happy. Not so much the British voters, I fear, come our own general election in a few years' time.
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
US B-2 bombers involved in Iran strikes, U.S. official says
WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) - U.S. B-2 bombers were involved in strikes on Iran's nuclear sites announced by President Donald Trump on Saturday, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. Reuters had reported earlier on Saturday the movement of B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry massive bombs that experts say would be ideal to strike the sites.
