To the Point for the Week of February 1, 2026
To the Point for the Week of February 1, 2026
NES has entered the race to replace Bonnie Crombie. Is Canada the next victim of the Belt and Road Initiative?
ONTARIO
The Race to Replace Crombie Takes Shape
Polls have shown, and pundits have argued, that the future political fortunes of the Ontario Liberal Party will markedly improve as soon as the Liberals have a permanent and capable leader who can not only excite the party base, but give voters a clear alternative to Doug Ford’s PCs, who continue to dominate voting intention and perceptions of competence as economic managers.
This week, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith formally announced his intent to enter the race, even before it has become official. That move comes after what was arguably a series of backroom deals orchestrated by the Liberal Party of Canada to facilitate a political switch-a-roo. Ontario NDP MPP Doly Begum is expected to resign her Scarborough Southwest seat to run federally as a Liberal in the newly vacated riding triggered by the resignation of federal Liberal MP Bill Blair earlier this week. The result is a clear pathway for Erskine-Smith into Queen’s Park, should Premier Ford call a by-election, as he has already signalled his intent to run for the Ontario Liberals in that seat.
Erskine-Smith’s ambition to give another kick at the can to become Ontario Liberal leader is one of the worst-kept secrets in Ontario politics. He came up short in the 2023 leadership race, finishing second behind Bonnie Crombie, and during her tenure he was not shy about offering what can charitably be described as constructive criticism. He took direct aim at Crombie’s lack of preparedness ahead of last year’s snap election and faulted her for failing to articulate a compelling vision for both the party and the province.
Make no mistake: his appeal inside Liberal circles is real. He offers something the party has struggled to articulate since 2018—a credible generational reset. He talks openly about democratic renewal, political integrity, and “changing the game,” and he does it without sounding like he’s reading from a rebrand memo.
He also leads with policy substance, particularly on housing. Commentators routinely describe him as issues-driven rather than brand-driven, which gives him credibility at a moment when voters are deeply suspicious of leaders who feel engineered rather than earned. In a party often accused of valuing style over substance, that matters.
Then there’s the independence factor. As a federal MP, he built a reputation for occasionally breaking with his own party and speaking plainly when he thought it mattered. That record lends weight to his claim that he would do politics differently as leader. Voters may not agree with him on everything, but many believe he means what he says.
This appeal isn’t theoretical. His strong second-place finish in the 2023 leadership race demonstrated an ability to raise money, sign up members, and organize across the province. That’s organizational proof, not just a loud social media following. Parties ignore that kind of infrastructure at their own peril.
Outside Toronto and highly engaged Liberal circles, however, his profile drops off quickly. That’s a problem. The path back to government runs through suburban ridings and smaller communities the party has been bleeding for years. Analysts openly question whether his message resonates with older voters, small-town Liberals, and pragmatic swing voters who are less interested in democratic reform debates.
There’s also lingering anxiety around electability. Internally, some worry his instinct to push the party left on housing, climate, and social policy risks reopening wounds the Liberals haven’t fully healed. Business-friendly moderates and centrist voters are watching closely. The concern isn’t ideology for its own sake, but whether he can broaden the tent rather than narrow it.
Experience doesn’t help him here either. He has never governed. Critics continue to frame him as a principled ideas guy rather than an executive leader. Fair or not, that perception feeds doubt about how he would handle the grind of opposition politics, message discipline, and a sustained head-to-head fight with Doug Ford. Leading a movement is one thing. Leading a big-tent party under daily pressure is another.
Finally, there’s the unity question. His critiques of past Liberal decisions have energized reform-minded members, but they’ve also made parts of the establishment uneasy. Party insiders worry about internal friction, message control, and whether old wounds get reopened at exactly the wrong time. That tension won’t disappear once a leadership vote is over.
In other words, Erskine-Smith represents both the party’s most compelling argument for renewal and its most obvious risk. The upside is real. So is the downside. The question Liberals must answer isn’t whether he’s smart or authentic. It’s whether he’s the right bet to win back power, not just reshape the party in opposition.
FEDERAL
Belt and Road: Canadian Edition
Columnist Terry Glavin had a striking column in the National Post this week about Ottawa’s new “strategic partnership” with China. He describes how the Chinese Communist Party often uses agreements that look harmless on paper, but in practice give Beijing more say over politics, the economy and information inside other countries.
Glavin argues that the federal government is focusing public attention on trade deals for cars, canola and energy, while the more important story is in the side agreements. He points to cultural and media deals with China Media Group and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which critics say give Beijing more influence over Chinese-language media and digital content in Canada. He also raises concerns about a new cooperation agreement between the RCMP and China’s Ministry of Public Security, which the Prime Minister presented as normal police work against organized crime and drug trafficking, but which Glavin links to reports of secret Chinese “police stations” used to pressure Chinese Canadians and dissidents to return to China.
His broader point is about leverage. In his view, these arrangements are not just about culture or policing, but about how much room Canada leaves China to shape what happens inside our borders. That same question now applies to Chinese investment in key parts of our economy, including advanced manufacturing and natural resources.
This is where recent comments from Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson come in. On CTV’s Power Play, Hodgson said he would not rule out allowing Chinese state-owned companies to buy majority stakes in Canadian oil and gas projects. He stressed that any deal would be tested under the Investment Canada Act, which lets Ottawa block or attach conditions to foreign investments that are not a “net benefit” to Canada or that raise national-security concerns.
On its own, that sounds like a cautious, case-by-case approach. The challenge, however, is the wider context. Canada is exploring closer economic ties with China at the same time as relations with the United States, our main ally and customer, are tense. Allowing Chinese state-owned enterprises into more of our strategic sectors could bring in capital and jobs, but it also raises questions about how much control Canada keeps over critical assets and how Washington might respond.
To understand those risks, it helps to look at China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Launched in 2013, it is a large program through which Chinese state-backed banks and companies finance and build infrastructure overseas, such as ports, railways, roads and power plants. The aim is to improve trade links, open markets for Chinese firms and secure long-term access to resources and shipping routes.
China often presents this as a modern version of the ancient Silk Road, the trade network that linked China to Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe for centuries. There are similarities, but there is also one major difference: the old Silk Road grew up over time and was not run by any single power, while today’s Belt and Road projects are planned, funded and largely controlled by the Chinese state.
The record of Belt and Road projects is mixed. Some countries have gained useful infrastructure. Others have struggled with high levels of debt and projects that do not generate enough income to pay for themselves. Sri Lanka is often cited: after heavy borrowing and broader financial stress, it agreed in 2017 to give a Chinese company a 99-year lease on Hambantota Port in exchange for much-needed cash. In some cases, resource-backed loans and long-term contracts have given Chinese entities strong claims over future production and revenue, and requirements to use Chinese technology, labour and standards have created dependence on Chinese suppliers.
None of this means Canada should never accept Chinese investment. Many countries facing problems with Belt and Road projects also had weak institutions, limited transparency and few safeguards when the deals were signed. Canada starts from a stronger position: it has more experience with foreign investment reviews, stronger courts, and a clearer public debate.
But the basic issue Glavin highlights still matters. Letting foreign state-owned firms buy into strategic assets can shift power over time, even if the deals look commercially attractive at the outset. For Canada, the question is how to balance the benefits of new investment with the need to protect national security, keep control of key sectors of the economy and manage relations with both China and the United States.
A cautious approach would include clear limits on foreign state ownership in critical infrastructure and resources, full transparency around major deals, strong conditions on governance and data security, and a willingness to say no when a proposal poses more strategic risk than economic gain. Those are the kinds of guardrails that can help Canada stay open for business without drifting into the kinds of debt and dependency problems seen in some Belt and Road countries.
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."
About ONpoint Strategy Group:
ONpoint Strategy Group is all about helping clients make an impact where it counts. Specializing in government relations and strategic execution, our team—Nico Fidani-Diker, Mariana Di Rezze, David Morgado, Christopher Mourtos, Ellen Gouchman, and Brandon Falcone—works closely with clients to navigate complex political landscapes and bring their goals to life. With a practical, results-driven approach, we build strong relationships, craft winning strategies, and make sure every step brings clients closer to meaningful outcomes. We’re passionate about making sure our clients are heard, supported, and positioned for success.
