To the Point for the Week of August 9, 2026

To the Point for the Week of August 9, 2026

The Ontario Liberal leadership hopefuls spared in the first debate of the leadership race. The Prime Minister walks a tightrope.  

ONTARIO

Leadership Hopefuls Square Off in First Debate

Five candidates vying for the job of Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party gathered in Brampton this past Monday for the party’s first leadership debate. It was about as typical a leadership debate as they come. The candidates took shots at Premier Ford and the governing PCs, and discussed rebuilding the party, affordability, housing, health care, education, and the economy.

What made this debate unique was the discussion around the party’s guiding ideology and positioning on the political spectrum, as well as whether the next leader needs a seat in the legislature before the general election, recognizing the two preceding leaders were not elected MPPs before the writ.

With the leadership vote not until November 21 and the next scheduled provincial election not until 2030, last week’s debate nonetheless may have foreshadowed a troubling continuation of the Ontario Liberal Party’s central problem: its inability to articulate a governing philosophy—and a credible policy agenda flowing from it—that can serve as an alternative to a weakened Progressive Conservative government.

The debate exposed this problem in paradoxical fashion. The perceived front-runner offered little in the way of a coherent governing vision, while the perceived longshot’s more substantive and clearly articulated alternative may struggle to gain serious traction due to the candidate’s political inexperience.

Navdeep Bains, without question, is the front-runner in this campaign. This is more a matter of leading on quantitative and qualitative indicators rather than any considerable groundswell of support. Bains boasts the most money raised, the backing of Liberal Party figures at both the federal and provincial levels, is the only candidate with cabinet experience, and has a campaign machine primed to sign up members and get them to vote.

Yet, as The Globe and Mail’s Robyn Urback pointed out, Bains’ debate performance was uninspiring, not because he was challenged or outshined by his opponents, but because he offered little to substantiate his campaign slogan: “Let’s Lead Again.”

Bains wants the province to lead in areas like health care, child care, and manufacturing, but never articulated exactly what that means or what policies are required to achieve that objective. He did not tell voters how that would happen. He quipped that he “would do everything differently” than Doug Ford, which, to Bains, means spending more cash, even though the Ford PCs have spent more on health care than Kathleen Wynne. He could not outline a coherent policy prescription on affordability and recounted a story about his Grade 6 teacher when asked about school board governance.

Juxtapose Bains’ campaign with finance and tech entrepreneur Eric Lombardi, who consistently and earnestly highlights what he sees as the policy and governance failures of both Ontario Liberal and PC governments over decades and offers a detailed set of policy proposals.

Lombardi boasts a 100-plus-page policy platform that he says is fully costed. Moreover, he regularly engages in substantive policy discussions in an open and honest way online with partisans, professionals, and the public. It is refreshing, intellectually stimulating, and genuinely inspiring.

Lombardi may be the only candidate in the race taking political risks and running against the grain of a traditional leadership race. He engages questions, pushback, and debate online in an unscripted way, opting to be more honest about what ails the province than to regurgitate politically tested talking points.

Even more interesting about Lombardi’s campaign is his willingness and openness to court more right-leaning voters who have become disillusioned with Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives.

And why not? What does he have to lose? Well, obviously, the leadership race, but that is beside the point.

Lombardi represents what the Ontario Liberal Party could become if it just waded outside its comfort zone. Yet the response to his desire to court conservative voters as a key to success in the next general election suggests that influential parts of the party remain reluctant to embrace that kind of repositioning. It has raised eyebrows and prompted strong reactions among some party faithful.

Moreover, there is a sense that Lombardi is not a viable candidate because—as TVO’s The Agenda host Steve Paikin put it—he has “little personal warmth or charm” and speaks stiffly on camera. In other words, he does not come across as a politician with charisma or likeability. His political inexperience is also a concern for many evaluating his candidacy. Lombardi is a thought leader who engages in political discourse, but his professional experience is less directly connected to electoral politics. An experienced Doug Ford would expose that during a general-election debate.

That is the dilemma facing Ontario Liberals. Bains may have the campaign infrastructure to win the leadership but has yet to show members what a Bains government would stand for. Lombardi may have the most developed answer to that question but must prove he can translate ideas into the political connection and credibility required to defeat Doug Ford. The party cannot afford to settle one question while leaving the other unanswered.

FEDERAL

Balancing Act

A mad scramble is taking place.

Dominic LeBlanc, Minister responsible for Canada–United States Trade, and Janice Charette, Canada's Chief Trade Negotiator to the United States, remained in Washington on Friday after an intense, week-long effort to stop President Trump's Section 338 tariffs from taking effect on August 19.

The 50% tariffs would hit hundreds of Canadian tariff classifications, including dairy products and dairy inputs, alcohol, textiles, cement, electronics and many other product categories—without a CUSMA exemption.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was adamant the United States would not tolerate Canada's retaliatory tariffs but conceded that the talks were constructive, adding that both sides are working towards securing a "phase one" deal before the August 19 deadline. Yet sources tell Global News the two sides remain "not close" to an agreement, despite a week of line-by-line negotiations on individual tariffs. Media reports citing inside sources suggest Canada is prepared to end U.S. alcohol bans, drop retaliatory tariffs on U.S. automobiles, and adjust dairy quota rules. In exchange, Canada is insisting on reduced tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars (zero tariffs appear to be a nonstarter); no new tariffs on August 19; and a resumption of CUSMA talks this fall. Canada has also signaled it's willing to walk away and let the new tariffs take effect rather than sign a deal it considers unfavorable.

The biggest issues for the United States are the retaliatory tariffs, alcohol bans, and the dairy quotas, all incredibly politically sensitive for the Canadian public and the government. Moreover, the United States is insisting on a right of first refusal of Canadian critical minerals and future guarantees on oil and gas supplies. The Americans also remain firm on Canada's inclusion in the Golden Dome missile defense system that would necessitate the purchase of U.S. F-35 fighter jets as well as other U.S. military hardware such as surveillance and radar aircraft.

Additional tariffs on Canadian goods would be hard to swallow for a variety of industries, but it wouldn't be considered a devastating blow. The tariffs would target approximately $20B to $28B of Canadian goods, depending on the source—still only a fraction of the roughly $400B in annual Canadian exports to the U.S. As well, major strategic sectors were excluded in this round of Trump's tariff threats. Potash, energy, critical minerals, fish and goods that fall under Section 232 are carved out.

Canada has been beset with trade and tariff uncertainty since the moment President Trump first signalled his trade agenda prior to his second term inauguration. Yet this time, the domestic political implications for the Prime Minister feel more acute.

The Prime Minister and his government, along with the Premiers, understand the critical need to maintain access to the U.S. market, the largest economy on earth. The U.S. is a $32 trillion market. China is second at $20 trillion, but you must cross an ocean to reach it, not to mention it's wildly protectionist of industries, especially their manufacturing sector. Access to the U.S. market is so consequential that uncertainty over securing a deal may force Canadian manufacturers to make tough decisions—decisions that would no doubt hinder the good-news economics the Carney government has been able to deliver.

A KPMG survey of Canadian manufacturers conducted in late May found that 42% have either moved production or are considering moving production to the United States. Of that group, 29% have already moved some or all production to the U.S., 13% are planning to move production but haven't pulled the trigger, and 77% of those are considering moving within the next two years. A further 59% have delayed, reduced, or cancelled capital investment due to trade uncertainty and competition concerns.

That uncertainty explains the frantic effort by LeBlanc and Charette to hammer out a deal. It's also forcing the Prime Minister to walk a tightrope between securing a deal and not appearing overly conciliatory to the United States.

The problem for Carney is that Canadians have very little appetite for conciliation and are even less enthused to give up concessions to secure a deal. Whatever deal is struck, the challenge for Carney will be how it's politically sold to both the public and Premiers. Canadians' expectations of the government are significant, and those expectations were nurtured before, during and after the 2025 federal election. Canadians were sold on the belief that the Prime Minister would secure the best deal possible for Canada.

However, reports of the underlying basis of a deal—U.S. booze placed back on Canadian shelves, scrapping Canada's retaliatory auto tariffs, and the third rail of Canadian politics, reforming dairy quotas—risk being perceived as a managed retreat rather than a deal Canadians can stomach. The risk that Canadians view a pending deal with the Americans as a surrender is very real, and the Prime Minister will be tasked with selling it to Canadians as a positive development that retains Canadian economic sovereignty, dignity, and resilience.

Christopher Mourtos, writing on behalf of ONpoint Strategy Group

ABOUT TO THE POINT

To the Point – ONpoint Strategy Group's weekly roundup – cuts through the noise to deliver insight and analysis of key federal, provincial, and municipal stories shaping Canada's policy and political landscape. Designed for decision-makers and thought leaders, this newsletter is your go-to resource for staying ahead. Share these trusted insights with your network to spark meaningful conversations. Simply hit forward or follow ONpoint Strategy Group on X and LinkedIn to spread these valuable perspectives."