He knows a thing or two about tech, but what to make of the views of a man who met Jeffrey Epstein 30 times and couldn’t see what a monster he was?

Meta is exploiting a lucrative tax break intended to support research and experimentation. Its own accountants say the gambit is risky.

President Donald Trump’s new ‘super intelligent’ query prompt corrected after stating that Democrat Joe Biden won the 2020 election six years ago, breaking with the loser’s long-running fraud claims

WASHINGTON, Sept 30 - The US Senate on Wednesday blocked legislation placing new restrictions on stock trading by members of Congress, as Democrats refused to provide enough votes to advance the measu...

# TSInetwork.ca _Canadian banks have long been core holdings for investors seeking dependable dividend income. For retirees and other income-focused investors, their established businesses and regular dividend payments can make them an important part of a long-term portfolio._ _Tariff uncertainty, however, creates a new question. If trade restrictions hurt Canadian businesses, slow hiring and weaken consumer spending, could those pressures eventually put Canadian bank dividends at risk?_ _The answer requires looking past daily stock-price movements._ _A bank stock can fall sharply without its dividend being in immediate danger. Dividend safety depends more on the bank’s earnings, capital strength, loan quality and ability to absorb credit losses._ _For conservative investors, the better question is not whether tariffs will make TSX bank stocks rise or fall next. It is whether the financial foundations supporting those dividends remain strong._ ## How Tariffs can affect Canadian Banks Tariffs generally do not hurt a bank in the same direct way they can hurt a manufacturer or exporter. Banks are affected because they lend money to the businesses and households operating in the wider economy. The chain can look something like this: Tariffs and trade disruption → pressure on businesses → weaker economic activity → more financial stress among borrowers → higher loan losses → pressure on bank earnings → potentially slower dividend growth. Businesses exposed to tariffs can face several challenges. Imported materials may become more expensive. Export demand can weaken. Supply chains may need to be reorganized. Companies may also delay hiring, expansion or major investments when future trade rules are uncertain. Those pressures can eventually reach bank customers. A business with falling sales may find it harder to repay a commercial loan. A worker who loses a job or sees income growth slow may have greater difficulty making mortgage, credit-card or line-of-credit payments. Banks prepare for some of these risks by recording provisions for credit losses, which reduce current earnings to reflect loans that may not be fully repaid. Tariffs can also influence inflation, interest rates, business investment and consumer confidence. As a result, different parts of a bank’s business can be affected in different ways. The economic effect is not hypothetical. In its July 2026 outlook, the Bank of Canada said Canadian economic activity had been affected by U.S. tariffs and trade-policy uncertainty, while exports remained on a lower path than before the tariffs were introduced. (Bank of Canada) That does not mean tariffs automatically threaten Canadian bank dividends. The more important issue is whether trade disruption becomes severe enough to significantly weaken borrowers, increase credit losses and reduce bank profitability. ## Falling Bank Stocks don’t necessarily mean Dividends are Unsafe One of the biggest mistakes an income investor can make is treating a falling share price as proof that a dividend is in trouble. Stock prices react quickly to expectations. Investors may sell Canadian bank stocks because they expect a recession, rising unemployment, higher loan losses or slower earnings growth. Tariff headlines can also increase uncertainty and make investors less willing to own economically sensitive stocks. Those fears can push a bank’s share price lower well before there is a serious problem with the dividend. Dividend sustainability works differently. It depends primarily on whether the bank continues to earn enough money, maintain adequate capital and absorb credit losses while still funding its dividend. A bank can therefore experience substantial market volatility and continue paying a well-supported dividend. There is another reason investors need to separate price risk from dividend risk: a falling stock price automatically increases the dividend yield when the dividend itself stays unchanged. The basic formula is: **Dividend yield = annual dividend ÷ share price** Suppose a stock pays $4 in annual dividends and trades for $100. Its yield is 4%. If the price falls to $80 while the dividend remains $4, the yield rises to 5%. That higher yield may look attractive, but it does not automatically mean the stock offers better or safer income. Sometimes a rising yield simply reflects growing investor concern about future earnings or financial risk. A conservative investor should therefore ask two questions: Why has the yield increased, and are the fundamentals supporting the dividend still healthy? Canadian bank dividend yields should never be judged in isolation. ## 5 Signs a Canadian Bank Dividend remains well supported No single financial ratio can guarantee bank dividend safety. A stronger approach is to examine several indicators together and, importantly, watch how they change over multiple quarters. **1.) The Dividend Payout Ratio remains Manageable** The dividend payout ratio measures how much of a company’s earnings are being distributed to shareholders as dividends. If a bank earns substantially more than it pays out, it has more room to deal with weaker profits before the dividend itself comes under pressure. Investors should avoid treating one payout-ratio percentage as a universal dividing line between “safe” and “unsafe.” Instead, look at whether earnings continue to cover the dividend comfortably. The trend also matters. If the payout ratio climbs quickly because earnings are declining while the dividend stays unchanged, that deserves attention. The bank may have less flexibility if conditions deteriorate further. **2.) Earnings remain Resilient** Dividends ultimately have to be funded by a profitable underlying business. That means investors should watch whether a bank continues to produce sufficient earnings through changing economic conditions. Avoid drawing major conclusions from one unusually strong or weak quarter. Banking results can move because of provisions, trading activity, acquisitions, restructuring costs and other temporary factors. Instead, examine the broader earnings trend. Are core businesses still profitable? Is weakness limited to one area? Are earnings problems temporary, or are they becoming more widespread? It is also worth remembering that weaker economic conditions do not have to result in an immediate dividend cut. Slower dividend growth — or a period with little dividend growth — can be a more moderate way that economic pressure affects income investors. **3.) CET1 Capital remains Strong** Common Equity Tier 1, or CET1, is a measure of a bank’s highest-quality capital relative to the risks on its balance sheet. In simple terms, it helps show how much financial protection a bank has available to absorb unexpected losses. For conservative investors, a healthy CET1 ratio provides an important layer of protection when the economy becomes more difficult. OSFI, Canada’s federal banking regulator, expected Canada’s domestic systemically important banks to maintain CET1 capital of at least 11% of risk-weighted assets after its June 19, 2026. At April 30, 2026, the largest banks had an average CET1 ratio of approximately 13.5%, according to OSFI. (OSFI) That does not mean bank dividends are guaranteed. It does show why capital strength belongs near the top of an income investor’s checklist. **4.) Provisions for Credit Losses stay Absorbable** Provisions for credit losses are amounts banks record to account for loans they believe may not be fully repaid. Banks often increase these provisions before borrowers actually default. For that reason, rising provisions can provide an early sign that management expects credit conditions to become more difficult. During a period of tariff risk in Canada, investors should pay particular attention to this figure. However, an increase is not automatically a dividend warning. Ask why provisions are rising, how large the increase is and whether the bank still has enough earnings and capital to absorb the additional expense. OSFI noted in June 2026 that Canada’s major banks had remained well capitalized and profitable, while expected-credit-loss provisioning had stabilized at what the regulator described as healthy levels. (OSFI) The direction of travel matters more than one isolated number. **5.) Loan Quality and Diversification remain Healthy** A bank’s loan book tells you where much of its economic risk sits. Major categories can include residential mortgages, credit cards, lines of credit, commercial lending and loans to industries that may be particularly sensitive to an economic slowdown. Investors should look for signs of deterioration such as increasing delinquencies, impaired loans or concentrated exposure to borrowers under significant pressure. Diversification matters too. A bank whose earnings and lending exposure are spread across different borrowers, industries, regions and business lines may be less dependent on a single part of the economy. The broader lesson is simple: do not stop your analysis at the dividend yield. Look at the business generating the cash that supports it. ## The Bigger Risk may be Owning too many Bank Stocks Even when the dividend of an individual bank remains well supported, an investor can still have too much banking exposure at the portfolio level. This is especially relevant in Canada because financial companies represent a significant part of the domestic equity market. An investor might own several Canadian bank stocks directly while also holding Canadian dividend ETFs, broad-market index funds or mutual funds containing many of those same banks. Owning several banks can reduce the risk associated with one company. It does not eliminate sector concentration. If tariffs or another economic shock cause broad weakness across Canadian businesses and households, several banks may experience similar pressures at the same time. That matters greatly for retirees and near-retirees whose portfolios depend heavily on dividend income. If a large share of total portfolio income ultimately comes from Canadian financial companies, the investor may be more exposed to one economic outcome than it first appears. One response is to consider how income is distributed across the full portfolio. Utilities, pipelines and infrastructure companies, telecommunications businesses, real estate investment trusts and diversified dividend ETFs can provide different sources of income. None is automatically safer than a Canadian bank, and each carries its own risks. The purpose of diversification is not to find a collection of “safe” sectors. It is to reduce the portfolio’s dependence on any one sector, company or economic scenario. ## Should you stop Reinvesting Bank Dividends during Tariff Uncertainty? A dividend reinvestment plan, or DRIP, automatically uses dividend payments to purchase additional shares instead of paying the dividend in cash. For investors still accumulating wealth, DRIPs can encourage long-term compounding and reduce the temptation to make frequent market-timing decisions. But automatic reinvestment also means continually putting more money into the same investment. If Canadian banks already represent a large portion of a portfolio, investors may want to consider whether bank dividends should automatically purchase even more bank shares or instead provide cash that can be allocated elsewhere. Retirees may face a different decision because they may already depend on dividend payments for living expenses. Tariff headlines alone are not a good reason to turn a DRIP on or off. A more useful decision should consider portfolio concentration, valuation, diversification needs and whether the investor needs the dividend as current income. ## Are Canadian Bank Dividends still suitable for Income Investors? Tariff uncertainty can increase risks for Canadian banks when trade disruption hurts businesses, employment, consumer finances and borrowers’ ability to repay their loans. But tariff headlines alone do not establish that Canadian bank dividends are in danger. Income investors can make a better assessment by monitoring the fundamentals supporting the payment: payout ratios, earnings resilience, CET1 capital, provisions for credit losses and the quality and diversification of the loan book. Portfolio-level risk matters as well. Even individually strong Canadian banks can create excessive concentration when they account for too much of an investor’s assets or income. Note, however, that we believe most Canadian investors benefit from holding two to three of the Big Five. That’s due to the high credit quality of their lending portfolios. As well, fee income from their expanding wealth management operations and trading businesses help cut their reliance on new loan volumes and rising interest rates. Ultimately, dividend safety should be judged by the financial strength supporting the payment: not by the size of the yield or the intensity of the latest headline. _Pat McKeough has been one of Canada’s most respected investment advisors for over three decades. He is the founder and senior editor of TSI Network and the founder of Successful Investor Wealth Management. He is also the author of several acclaimed investment books. This post was originally published in 2014 and is updated regularly, mostly recently onSept. 14, 2026. __It i_ _s republished on Findependence Hub with permission._ ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Print (Opens in new window) Print * ### _Related_

September 30, 2026

Also: Jack Smith is definitely smarter than every Republican

CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale noticed that President Donald Trump's administration has now changed its AI chatbot so that it no longer reveals the so-called "big lie."

Donald Trump appears to be doing a mafia style bust out of the Kennedy Center according to a new report showing it’s run through every resource it had and is in “free fall.”

Ken Paxton, one of the party’s top Senate candidates and a Trump loyalist, said that “everybody’s numbers dropped” after the event, according to audio obtained by The Times.

Hundreds of riders were allegedly injured on X2, which has seats that spin 360 degrees.

White House has labeled ads ‘public service announcements’ and has responded defiantly to criticism

Once you realize Trump's morally binding AI code doesn't even spell "United States" properly, the whole sham looks even more ominous.

It’s a sign of just how dire the midterm straits are for Republicans.

Trump has broken lots of huge campaign promises. Can we trust him this time?

Say what you will about James Comer and Jim Jordan – this site has said plenty. Yet for all the many times that they made themselves look like absolute stupid assholes, even the clearest instances of their incompetence very rarely ever unfolded in real time, on live television, self-immolated the way pockmarked fascist white nationalist Missouri MAGA Senator Eric Schmitt did on Tuesday. In all fairness, expectations are always pretty low when Comer and Jordan take their perches in the hearing room and start hammering their latest stupid bullshit conspiracy theory, making it fair to say Schmitt’s utterly embarrassing fuckup was actually worse since, until Tuesday, he had managed to project an image of estimable sophistication and competence compared to Gymbo and Fuckwheat. Before actually getting into the specifics of the disaster, it’s worth seeing it on the face of not Jack Smith, not Eric Schmitt, but Alabama Senator Katie Britt – a Hill lifer who worked her way up to now-retired Senator Roy Blunt’s chief of staff and then won the old man’s seat – looking on like she’s about to burst into tears upon realizing what Schmitt and his aides just did in a hearing: Your browser does not support the video tag. And if you didn’t watch the topmost video of Schmitt and Amy Klobuchar on CNN here’s what went down: Schmitt and his staff had this whole fucking ridiculous conspiracy in their heads of Jack Smith colluding with Fulton County, Georgia DA Fani Willis predicated entirely on the theory that Smith went to an Atlanta Hawks home game on February 3rd, 2024. Schmitt even accused Smith of perjury for denying he had gone to the game. Right here is where it’s important to mention that there’s nothing prohibiting a federal prosecutor from sharing notes with a local district attorney. No statute, no Justice Department policy. If they’re investigating the same conspiracy then they are absolutely free to work together if they so choose, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so as long as they’re not violating any laws. This was all just MAGA bullshit and dust clouds. If it was based on truth. On the night in question Smith went to an a Maryland Lady Terps home game. In Maryland. Some fucking asshole on Schmitt’s team confused the Iowa Hawkeyes with the Atlanta Hawks, even going so far as to put up the placard illustrating the Smith-Willis collusion conspiracy, which they very quickly took down when they realized the mistake, far too late. > Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan? > > — Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) September 29, 2026 Who knew Eric Schmitt was even fucking dumber than Jim Jordan and James Comer. It’s like Schmitt tried to copy their lyrics but not the meaning, that if (really when) you fuck up you can just chalk your mistake to some larger conspiracy or that, okay, maybe _that_ witness didn’t blow the conspiracy wide open but they’re going to be _super-duper subpoenaed_ next week and we’ll get to the bottom the mystery of the treasure that Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden buried at Pirate’s Cove. Those two would tie together the most ridiculous shit on the same level of specious inanity as “Smith went to an Atlanta Hawks game, therefore he and Fani Willis colluded” but they would NEVER have done so in a way that can be falsified in real time, in the room. This guy was _the fucking attorney general of Missouri_ and defendants who lost cases against his office might seriously consider petitioning for a new trial at this point. That’s how bad of a self-own this was. Or just measure it by the look on Katie Britt’s face. **BONUS CONTENT:** It really was that bad. > Same reason Benny Johnson deleted this pic.twitter.com/sfOQuTVt6N > > — Southern Cowgirl 💕 (@DrSouthern) September 29, 2026 Schmitt’s team apparently had orchestrated a whole blitz, starting with a morning Axios slobbering “SCOOP” claiming that Schmitt was on the shortlist for Jaydee’s running mate in 2028. And this pitiful bit on the Charlie Kirk-less Charlie Kirk Show almost immediately afterward.

The exchange unravelled after Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt mistook a Caitlin Clark college basketball game in Maryland for an NBA game in Atlanta

White House calls the spots public-service ads, but critics argue using taxpayer money for campaign-like messaging may violate federal law.

The Trump White House drove users to its official app — and it's fraught with trackers. The White House app covertly collects excessive user data and shares it with third-party trackers while sideste...

Hamilton ETFs _**By Hamilton ETFs**_ _**(Sponsor Blog)**_ A little over a year ago, we unveiled Canada’s first suite of daily covered call ETFs, made possible by the evolution of the options market and emergence of options that expire every trading day. The innovative and carefully crafted DayMAX™line-up created a new category in the Canadian ETF market, offering a differentiated approach to generating income. One year later, we’re excited to share the results and demonstrate the strategy’s potential. #### **What are the DayMAX™ ETFs?** Our first three DayMAX™ ETFs consist of two separate holdings — one providing the core equity exposure and the other providing the underlying for the daily options strategy: * The core exposure is a HAMILTON CHAMPIONS™ ETF, specifically, CMVP (Canadian Equity), SMVP (U.S. Equity) or QMVP (Technology), which holds blue-chip stocks and participates 100% in market movements. * A low-cost index fund with healthy options liquidity, like VOO.US or QQQ.US, on which we execute the zero-days-to-expiry (0DTE) options strategy. Unlike traditional covered call ETFs that use monthly call options and generate income 12 times a year, the DayMAX™ ETFs seek to generate higher and more frequent tax-efficient income from writing call options that expire daily. By selling options in the morning that expire at the market close, the ETFs remain fully exposed to any market movements that occur after trading hours. They also employ modest 25% leverage, intended to enhance overall growth and income potential and help mitigate the yield/return trade-off inherent in covered call strategies. A year later, these DayMAX™ ETFs have raised a combined **$1.3 billion in assets under management (AUM**)[1]. Here they are with their respective yields and total returns as of August 31, 2026: **Fund** | **1 Year** | **Since Inception*** | **Yield[2]** ---|---|---|--- Hamilton Enhanced Canadian Equity DayMAX™ ETF (CDAY) | 32.5% | 33.0% | 18.52% Hamilton Enhanced U.S. Equity DayMAX™ ETF (SDAY) | 19.9% | 20.1% | 18.45% Hamilton Enhanced Technology DayMAX™ ETF (QDAY) | 42.0% | 40.4% | 19.33% _*Annualized_ **_“It’s encouraging first-year evidence that the strategy is performing as intended,” says Nick Piquard, Chief Options Strategist at Hamilton ETFs. “It’s unique, and we believe we’ve hit the right balance between generating high yield and maintaining a high-quality underlying portfolio. We have successfully married our HAMILTON CHAMPIONS™ ETFs with daily covered calls written on a smaller, modestly leveraged exposure. The leverage is designed to offset the upside we’re giving up on those daily options, and so far, it has done that well.”_** #### **DayMAX™ One Year In: Comparisons** Below, we compare how a $100,000 investment in each of the DayMAX™ ETFs performed since inception against relevant indices on a total return basis. As you can see, CDAY and QDAY have outperformed the S&P/TSX 60 and Nasdaq-100, respectively, while SDAY has closely tracked the S&P 500. This is particularly noteworthy given that covered call ETFs tend to lag traditional equity ETFs in bull markets, as they give up some upside potential in exchange for generating income. Over the period shown, the DayMAX™ ETFs portfolio construction, use of modest leverage and daily options strategy helped mitigate this trade-off and even deliver higher total returns in some cases. #### **Canadian Equities: CDAY vs. S &P/TSX 60 Index[3]** #### ** ** #### **U.S. Equities: SDAY vs. S &P 500 Index[4]** **** #### **Technology: QDAY vs. Nasdaq-100 Index[5]** #### #### **The DayMAX™ Advantage: What makes the Suite Unique?** The first three DayMAX™ ETFs have delivered strong returns and distributions in their first year. Let’s examine the key design decisions behind the strategy: ##### **Daily options trading** Options trading is the basis of any covered call strategy. Investors sell call options in exchange for cash premiums at the expense of some potential upside. Usually, the call options employed in covered call ETFs expire in a month, but in recent years, same day options or “0DTE” options became possible. These daily options contracts now represent over 60% of all S&P 500 index options volume on a typical day, underscoring both their rapid adoption and deep liquidity[6]. At Hamilton ETFs, we recognized the potential this development held for investors. With options expiring every day of the week, an ETF can generate income daily by monetizing intraday volatility. While the premium on an individual 0DTE option is lower than that of a one-month option, the key difference lies in the trading frequency: monthly strategies sell options 12 times per year, while 0DTE options can be written ~250 times annually. This should translate into higher total premiums and enable us to pay distributions out to investors more frequently — in the DayMAX™ case, twice a month. It’s important to add that while daily options contracts are a way of monetizing volatility more frequently, they aren’t always a superior strategy. **_“There are different scenarios where one does better than the other. If markets are moving a lot on a day-to-day basis but not on a month-to-month basis, then you’re likely better off with a monthly contract,” says Piquard. “On the other hand, if markets are moving steadily, with only smaller daily movements, you’ll probably be better off with a daily options strategy.”_** For that reason, we believe DayMAX™ ETFs may complement longer-duration covered call strategies such as our YIELD MAXIMIZER™ ETFs. By combining daily and monthly covered call strategies, income investors can diversify across time horizons, helping to smooth cash flows and tap into a wider range of income opportunities. In essence, DayMAX™ adds another tool to your income toolkit, enhancing flexibility and supporting more frequent income generation. ##### **100% overnight participation** When designing our DayMAX™ line-up, we chose to sell call options in the morning that expire at the end of that same trading day. While 25% of the overall portfolio remains covered during the trading day, limiting the upside on that portion, the full portfolio (i.e., 125% of the ETF’s net asset value) is exposed to market moves outside of regular trading hours. This can make a dramatic difference to long-term returns given that historically the majority of gains happen overnight. (See also: **Unlocking Overnight Returns for Covered Call ETFs****)** #### **Overnight Returns vs. Intraday Returns — S &P 500 Index[7]** ** ** **** ##### **A high-quality portfolio** It takes a lot more than skillful and diligent options trading to make a covered call ETF successful long-term. We designed CDAY, SDAY, and QDAY to have high-quality underlying portfolios that reflect strong fundamentals and diversification. They each hold a HAMILTON CHAMPIONS™ ETF that provides exposure to blue-chip stocks with demonstrated track records in terms of dividends or profitability and forms the foundation for the strategy. The DayMAX™ suite reflects the innovative spirit, careful consideration and rigorous testing behind everything we do, and we’re optimistic this novel approach will provide many investors with long-term sustainable cashflows. #### **Key Benefits of the DayMAX Suite:** * Daily call options for higher income: Premiums generated every day * More frequent payouts: Distributions twice a month * Full overnight market exposure: The portfolio remains fully exposed to overnight market movements, including both gains and losses. * High-quality stocks: A diversified, blue-chip underlying portfolio * Enhanced structure: Modest leverage for higher income and growth potential * Options expertise: A team with combined experience of 60+ years to execute strategies **Trivia** JPMorgan commodities research team recently said “… we don’t have a baseline view. We simply don’t know how to model the endgame.”² What has the analysts stumped? _Hint: It’s driving stocks in our**EMAX ETF** this year. _ Answer: Oil prices. The S&P 500 Index and the S&P/TSX 60 Index (“Indices”) and associated data are a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, its affiliates and/or their licensors and has been licensed for use by Hamilton ETFs © 2026 S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, its affiliates and/or their licensors. All rights reserved. Redistribution or reproduction in whole or in part are prohibited without written permission of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. For more information on any of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC’s indices please visit www.spdji.com. S&P® is a registered trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“SPFS”) and Dow Jones® is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (“Dow Jones”). Neither S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, SPFS, Dow Jones, their affiliates nor their licensors (“S&P DJI”) make any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the ability of any index to accurately represent the asset class or market sector that it purports to represent and S&P DJI shall have no liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index or the data included therein. Commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with investments in exchange traded funds (ETFs) managed by Hamilton ETFs. Please read the prospectus before investing. The indicated rates of return are the historical annual compounded total returns including changes in per unit value and reinvestment of all dividends or distributions and does not take into account sales, redemptions, distribution or optional charges or income taxes payable by any securityholder that would have reduced returns. Only the returns for periods of one year or greater are annualized returns. ETFs are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Certain statements contained in this note may constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking information may relate to a future outlook and anticipated distributions, events or results and may include statements regarding future financial performance. In some cases, forward-looking information can be identified by terms such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “intend” or other similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. Actual results may vary from such forward-looking information. Hamilton ETFs undertakes no obligation to update publicly or otherwise revise any forward-looking statement whether as a result of new information, future events or other such factors which affect this information, except as required by law. [1] As of September 21, 2026. Source: Bloomberg Terminal [2] Yield is an estimate of the annualized yield an investor would receive if the most recent distribution remained unchanged for the next 12 months, stated as a percentage of the price per unit on August 31, 2026. The yield calculation excludes any additional year end distributions and does not include reinvested distributions. [3] July 14, 2025, to August 31, 2026. Source: Bloomberg. The graph illustrates the impact to an initial investment of $100,000. It is not intended to reflect future returns on investments in **CDAY.** The index performance returns are for illustrative purposes only, and the returns do not reflect any management fees, transaction costs or expenses. Investors cannot invest directly in an index. [4] July 14, 2025, to August 31, 2026. Source: Bloomberg. The graph illustrates the impact to an initial investment of $100,000. It is not intended to reflect future returns on investments in **SDAY.** The index performance returns are for illustrative purposes only, and the returns do not reflect any management fees, transaction costs or expenses. Investors cannot invest directly in an index. [5] July 14, 2025, to August 31, 2026. Source: Bloomberg. The graph illustrates the impact to an initial investment of $100,000. It is not intended to reflect future returns on investments in **QDAY.** The index performance returns are for illustrative purposes only, and the returns do not reflect any management fees, transaction costs or expenses. Investors cannot invest directly in an index. [6] Source: Cboe, August 5, 2026 [7] Source: Bloomberg, S&P Global, Hamilton ETFs. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Overnight vs. intraday returns may differ materially in future periods. Source: S&P Global, Bloomberg, Hamilton ETFs. Data from Jan 1, 2000, to August 31, 2026. The graph illustrates the growth of an initial investment of $100 in the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) overnight, and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) intraday with annual compounded total returns. The graph is for illustrative purposes only and intended to demonstrate the historical impact of the indexes compound growth rate during intraday and overnight sessions. It is not a projection of future index performance, nor does it reflect potential returns on investments in the ETF. Investors cannot directly invest in the index. All performance data assumes reinvestment of distributions and excludes management fees, transaction costs, and other expenses which would have impacted an investor’s returns. ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Print (Opens in new window) Print * ### _Related_

On September 21, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government introducedlegislation that could amount to one of the most significant rollbacks of workers’ rights in Canada since the creation of the postwar industrial relations system. Tucked inside the sprawling 232-page Bill C-39 are amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would give the federal labor minister explicit authority to terminate lawful strikes and impose binding dispute resolution when the minister decides a work stoppage threatens the “national interest.”The legislation would also create a new “special mediator,” adding an additional state-directed phase to collective bargaining. Before workers can strike, the mediator would produce a report on bargaining disputes, which the minister would make public if the parties fail to reach an agreement. The new process would create a new perquisite for eventual government intervention under the controversial Section 107 of the Labour Code.The government describes these provisions as “guardrails” constraining ministerial power. But they are anything but. The legislation instead doubles down on what has become a pattern of strikebreaking from the Liberals. These proposed changes to labor law fit within Carney’s broader corporate remodeling of Canada.In response to Donald Trump’s trade war, the Liberals are attempting to attract domestic and international capital through lower investment taxes, accelerated project approvals, privatization, and a political commitment to ensuring that infrastructure gets built quickly.Workers’ capacity to disrupt the movement of goods and capital poses an obvious complication for such a project. Bill C-39 is the government’s answer.From Section 107 to the “National Interest”The attack on the right to strike did not begin with Bill C-39.Over the past two years, Liberal labor ministers have repeatedly used Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to terminate strikes or lockouts and send disputes to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, often resulting in binding arbitration. The provision has been deployed in disputes involving railworkers at Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Kansas City, West Coast and Quebec port workers, Canada Post employees, WestJet mechanics, and Air Canada flight attendants.The result has been a creeping normalization of extraordinary government intervention into union negotiations.Section 107 itself says little more than that the minister may take measures deemed necessary to “maintain or secure industrial peace.” Until recently, the provision was not generally understood as a standing power allowing a minister to effectively accomplish by executive order what governments historically required back-to-work legislation to achieve.Unions have responded with constitutional challenges. Teamsters Canada challenged the government’s intervention in the 2024 railway dispute; the Canadian Union of Postal Workers challenged the intervention that suspended its 2024 strike; and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has contested Ottawa’s use of Section 107 against Air Canada flight attendants in 2025.Instead of retreating from this experiment, the government launched a truncated review of the Labour Code seemingly meant to supercharge its recent interventionism.The process quickly raised alarms among unions. The first consultation ran from April 17 to May 25 of this year and canvassed dozens of potentially consequential changes to federal labor law. A second consultation, focused partly on Section 107, ran from July 3 until August 2.Unifor complained that the exercise gave unions only limited time to respond to a broad range of questions concerning fundamental changes to collective bargaining law. In its second submission, the union again warned that the abbreviated process was particularly troubling when Charter-protected bargaining and strike rights were at stake.Bill C-39 shows why those concerns were justified.The bill creates a special mediation process for certain difficult bargaining relationships. The mediator would attempt to secure an agreement before a strike or lockout begins. Failing that, they would issue a report outlining the issues, the parties’ positions, and recommendations. That report would become public, ostensibly to put pressure on unions to concede.But the mediator has another significance. Everyone at the bargaining table will know that the next step is binding arbitration.The rewritten Section 107 would expressly permit the minister, once a strike or lockout begins, to direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to restore operations, extend a collective agreement, or impose binding arbitration if the minister believes the dispute “adversely affects or may adversely affect the national interest.”“National interest” is an enormously elastic concept. The legislation identifies economic effects and serious social disruption as considerations, alongside freedom of association, but ultimately leaves the decision solely with the minister.The danger this poses extends well beyond strikes that get terminated. Employers bargain differently when they believe the state will eventually rescue them from the economic consequences of job action. The threat of intervention therefore tips the bargaining balance in favor of employers before workers even erect a picket line.Teamsters Canada says this is precisely what happened during the 2024 railway dispute. “The government has created an environment that will no longer provide employers with the incentive to bargain in good faith,” Teamsters Canada President François Laporte said after Bill C-39 was introduced.Making Canada Safe for InvestmentBill C-39 makes considerably more sense when viewed alongside Carney’s wider economic program.The Trump administration’s escalating trade war has thrown Canada’s economic model into crisis. For decades, Canadian governments pursued ever-deeper integration with the United States. Carney’s response to the breakdown of that relationship has been to promise that Canada can reinvent itself as a destination for global investment while rapidly expanding energy, mining, transportation, defense, and artificial intelligence infrastructure.Central to that project is the government’s Major Projects Office, established in 2025 to accelerate what Ottawa calls “nation-building” projects. Bill C-39 extends this agenda by seeking a “one project, one review, one year” standard for federal approvals. The government argues that faster decisions can coexist with environmental protections and indigenous rights.Critics, however, have questioned whether compressing approval processes can preserve meaningful democratic participation.Environmental reviews, indigenous consultations, regulatory hearings, and collective bargaining all take time. Strikes can halt ports, railways, airlines, and other infrastructure through which commodities and capital circulate. For a government promising investors “speed, certainty, and predictability,” these democratic and collective processes are obstacles.Carney made the government’s priorities remarkably explicit at this month’s Canada Investment Summit in Toronto. The event brought together investors from nearly thirty countries managing more than $100 trillion in assets. Ottawa says the summit produced commitments approaching $500 billion and is part of a strategy to catalyze $1 trillion in investment over five years.Carney told investors that his government was pursuing some of Canada’s most significant regulatory reforms in generations and promised that “when Canada says it wants something built, Canada will get it built.” He also announced a major expansion of business investment deductions that the government says will reduce Canada’s marginal effective tax rate on new investment from roughly 13 percent to 6.4 percent.And then there is privatization.At the same summit, Carney announced plans to solicit private investment through long-term concessions to operate Canada’s four largest airports — Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Calgary.Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Senior Economist David Macdonald has warned that airport privatization converts public, nonprofit infrastructure into a vehicle for extracting returns.Because airports possess considerable monopoly power, he argues, private operators can generate profits through higher charges, reduced service quality, contracting out, layoffs, and downward pressure on wages.Seen in this context, Bill C-39 is not an isolated labor law reform.It belongs to a larger political-economic project aimed at reorganizing Canada around corporate priorities. The government is offering investors lower taxes, fewer regulations, new infrastructure opportunities, and access to formerly nonprofit public assets. It is simultaneously proposing greater state power over workers capable of disrupting the transportation networks on which that investment strategy depends.Canadian business organizations have long complained about strikes at ports, railways and airlines. Bill C-39 translates that concern with “certainty” into regressive labor law reform. The state now reserves the authority to decide when workers’ economic power has become inconsistent with the “national interest.”Is Canadian Labor Up for the Fight?Unions have reacted angrily. The Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, Teamsters Canada, and provincial labor federations have all condemned the proposed restrictions.The Canadian Union of Public Employees has gone furthest. On September 23, its national executive board unanimously resolved that the union would defy Bill C-39's strike restrictions if Parliament passes the legislation unamended.That threat could prove consequential. Air Canada flight attendants represented by CUPE refused to immediately return to work after the government used Section 107 against their strike in August 2025, continuing their walkout even after the labor board declared it unlawful. Whether the broader labor movement is willing to commit to bold action remains to be seen.The stakes are high. The postwar system of industrial legality is being fundamentally challenged by employers and governments alike. Labor rights that governments can suspend whenever they become economically disruptive risk becoming no rights at all.Bill C-39 therefore poses a strategic challenge for organized labor. Statements, lobbying, and constitutional litigation can all shape what happens next. But the history of union struggles in Canada and beyond shows that the effectiveness of labor rights depends heavily on workers’ capacity to exercise collective power.The Carney government is attempting to build a political economy organized around reassuring investors that Canada will be fast, predictable, and profitable. Whether workers’ right to withdraw their labor remains an effective counterweight will depend substantially on how unions respond.