To the Point for the Week of January 18, 2026

ONTARIO

“It Started Out with a Kiss. How Could It End Up Like This?

Well, not quite.

The relationship between Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Mark Carney started out a little different than The Killers’ hit song “Mr. Brightside.” The budding political bromance, if you will, started over a cordial breakfast at Wally’s Grill in Etobicoke in March of last year. Mark Carney had been sworn in days earlier. The US Canada trade war was in full swing. Both politicians framed their respective election campaigns, Ford’s general and Carney’s leadership (and later general), as the only candidates able to fight back against Trump’s tariffs, create a more self-reliant economy, and turn the country into an energy superpower.

The two seemed like natural political allies. Ideologically dichotomous, on paper, but with shared interests. While it didn’t start off with a kiss, the relationship blossomed into a politically beneficial partnership that appeared built on shared objectives, trust, and mutual respect.

And yet, with the emerging tensions between the federal and provincial government following Carney’s trip to China last week, we harken back to “Mr. Brightside” and ask ourselves: how could it end up like this?

The cracks in the foundation began in mid-October. Premier Ford, perhaps dissatisfied with the progress of trade talks between the two countries, took it upon himself to initiate a $75 million anti tariff ad buy featuring remarks from the late President Ronald Reagan. The ad was not well received by the Trump administration. Trump called it “fraudulent.” At the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit later that month, President Trump used the ad to justify axing further trade talks with Canada. He went as far as accusing Ford of attempting to influence an upcoming Supreme Court decision on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs.

The ad did have an impact. It just wasn’t the impact for which Ford had hoped. “We were close to a deal,” the Prime Minister said in French to a group of reporters at the time. “Then there were the ads, and everything changed. The position of the American government changed, that’s obvious. It’s not more complicated than that.” Clearly, the Prime Minister believed the ads were consequential. Carney has not met with President Trump since.

Ford, perhaps channelling the Trump within him, said the ad was the most successful in North American history and claimed it garnered over one billion views. The Premier also claimed he had tacit approval from Carney himself. Ford told reporters that Carney and his chief of staff reviewed the ad before it aired, with no feedback on the content or a demand that it not air. He went on to say that the Prime Minister later called him from Asia and asked that it be removed. Ford refused.

On the surface, everything continued to appear cordial. In December, the Prime Minister and Premier announced an agreement to further unlock the potential of the Ring of Fire’s critical mineral deposits. Cooperation appeared to remain the name of the game. The agreement eliminated duplicative environmental reviews, accelerated road construction, and removed additional regulatory burdens on critical mineral development. Everything seemed fine. Fences were mended. Pleasantries exchanged.

And yet, the Prime Minister was later seen on camera rolling his eyes and shifting his body language as the Premier defended his decision to run the ad.

There’s a real possibility that Ford’s ad buy was so disruptive to the efforts of federal negotiators including Minister Leblanc and the Prime Minister himself that it forced Carney and his team to upend their political strategy. What began as an effort to seek a deal with the United States to eliminate, or at the very least significantly reduce, tariffs imposed on Canada may have shifted toward something else entirely: a warmer embrace of America’s explicit adversary.

Think about it. Ford scuttles trade talks. Carney has no leverage to restart negotiations with the US unless he is earnestly prepared to ditch supply management, the Online News Act, and the Online Streaming Act. All nonstarters. Everything comes to a halt. How does Carney now justify his position as Prime Minister of a Liberal government if the chief reason he was elected to office has no plausible or realistic pathway to success? He pivots to China.

It explains why the pivot seemed so abrupt. To be sure, the Prime Minister had previously spoken about thawing relations to improve market access for Canadian goods, particularly agricultural products. What followed, however, appeared to be something more symbolic: an embrace of a new global economic order increasingly dominated by China.

There’s a lesson here for Premier Ford: trust but verify the position of your political allies. Both Ford and the Prime Minister, as elected officials, share a primordial interest in political self-preservation. The Prime Minister leads a minority government. While he has legitimacy, his government lacks stability. If keeping the Premier in the dark about a forthcoming agreement to allow Chinese EVs into the Canadian market and arguably sabotaging Ontario’s auto industry improves the odds of securing a majority government in the near term, the Prime Minister is likely to take that risk. The Premier would do the same.

It appears that trust but verify is now the Premier’s operating principle. With one of the Prime Minister’s chief 2025 election campaign promises being increasing housing affordability as a shared provincial priority, our sources are signalling that the Premier is preparing to follow through on his promise to remove the provincial portion of the HST on the sale of new homes in the 2026 provincial budget. This was once conditional on the fed’s implementation, but they have failed to translate its campaign promise into law. Bill C 4, An Act Respecting Certain Affordability Measures for Canadians and Another Measure, which contains the GST rebate, remains stalled after third reading in the House of Commons. With Parliament still in recess, it remains uncertain when Bill C 4 will receive royal assent.

We believe Ford’s intent is to use the provincial removal as a forcing function on the federal government. The Premier is signalling that he trusts the Prime Minister’s commitment but intends to verify it.

That instinct appears to extend beyond housing affordability. Ford offered measured support for the Prime Minister’s intent to diversify Canada’s trade opportunities, but once again framed it through a trust but verify lens, saying, “Talk is cheap. We want to see tangible outcomes.” He has also come out strongly against the federal government’s gun buy back program, and even more forcefully against the Prime Minister’s intent to allow Chinese EVs into the Canadian market.

If trust but verify does move the needle in the Premier’s direction, Ford may conclude rightly or wrongly that leverage still beats trust. He’s tried ads before.

FEDERAL

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks at the World Economic Forum were a fitting capstone to a whirlwind tour that began in Beijing and ended in Davos. Gushing. Enamoured. Effusive. Fawning. Rapturous. These words capture the collective reaction of the political and business elite gathered for the annual WEF meeting. The reaction was not limited to the global elites in the room who have anointed Carney as the global figurehead of the international community’s resistance to President Trump’s geopolitical and geoeconomic ambitions. Even Conservatives here at home, such as former Harper era cabinet minister James Moore, gave praise for Carney’s words. Moore went as far as to suggest Canadians put aside their partisanship to recognize the speech as a historic moment.

Carney’s provocation could be simply viewed as the culminating moment of a diplomatic world tour. The final touch to what is mostly viewed as successful meetings in Beijing and Doha, Qatar, where Carney affirmed his commitment to look beyond the United States and succeed in securing economic agreements and memorandums of understanding. What would otherwise be considered typical diplomatic interactions carried extra significance under the current geopolitical environment.

Alternatively, you could view his diplomatic tour as the first stops of the Prime Minister’s re election campaign, with the spring emerging as the expected timeline to drop the writ. The Prime Minister’s accomplishments will be framed as campaign promises. Re-elect the Liberals and reap the benefits of these agreements, with more to come as Canada re-emerges as a global leader. Elect the Conservatives and put all these economic agreements at risk by aligning with Donald Trump’s power plays.

The Canadian domestic political environment can be defined by oscillation, instability, and contingency on external shocks that the Liberals interpret as opportunity to call an election.

The horse race shifts from a Liberal five-point lead to a statistical tie with the Conservatives. Moreover, the electorate is whipsawing back and forth between fears of the Trump administration and concerns regarding the economy, housing affordability, and cost of living. The former is an advantage for the Carney Liberals and the latter a boost for the Poilievre Tories. Carney’s tour was as much about keeping Trump in the forefront of Canadians’ minds through both direct instigation and a careful reinforcement of the public’s perception of Carney as an elder statesman with the skills and temperament to navigate a turbulent world. Thus, the Davos speech.

Two types of instability are apparent in the current political context. First, the Liberals’ coalition is held together by Carney’s personal brand, not partisan loyalty. The Conservatives have a support ceiling despite consolidating their base. The NDP is marginalized as a threat to the Liberals and irrelevant for the Conservatives to rely on to siphon votes from the Liberals.

The second element of instability is Carney’s minority government. Carney was on the verge of a majority in late 2025 when MPs Chris D’Entremont and Michael Ma crossed the floor to the Liberals, not to mention Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux’s resignation. Only one seat separates Carney from an effective majority. It is just out of reach but could pull further away as high profile Liberal MPs are expected to depart for diplomatic posts, including BC MP John Wilkinson and Toronto MP Bill Blair, weakening the Liberals’ standing in the House of Commons.

The potential for external shocks is now ever present, and one could argue the most recent grand diplomatic overtures to both China and Qatar are a means of instigating the President to keep him in the news and increase the likelihood of eliciting an over-the-top response from the Trump administration. Additional threats to annex Canada, impose tariffs, or subtle nods to the Alberta separatist movement keep the administration framed as a clear and present danger to Canada.

All these elements align with a potential majority opportunity for the Liberals, coupled with Canadian political sentiments. Carney’s personal brand continues to be the steady manager. Anxieties around President Trump are driving support for incumbents. A desire for stability among voters is emerging as polling suggests Canadians are open to an election if it is framed as a need for political stability in the form of a majority government. The environment is primed for the Liberals to call an election. The narrative is being set to seek a majority.

Of course, all of this comes with risk. It is not a slam dunk for the Liberals. If it were, we would already be in a writ period. This presents opportunity for Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives.

Pierre Poilievre is not going to magically close the gap on preferred prime minister ratings. He is not going to win the next election on likability. Poilievre’s opportunity lies in framing Mark Carney’s government as operating in the interests of global political elites rather than the average Canadian.

The Conservatives must place Carney firmly among that global elite and establish a narrative that his international travels are intended to protect and reinforce an economic order that has been extraordinarily lucrative for its beneficiaries. In other words, Carney’s speech in Davos was not about forming a beachhead with like-minded middle powers to prevent being squeezed by the United States, China, or Russia. It was about preserving a system that has worked very well for those inside it and remains largely irrelevant to the lives of most Canadians.

Poilievre would be wise to relentlessly drive home the fact that not one major project is closer to completion since Carney became Prime Minister. His principal housing affordability measure in Bill C-4 remains stalled in the House of Commons. While the economy appears resilient, it lacks long-term structural stability, and inflation, particularly food inflation, continues to burn a hole in the average Canadian’s pocketbook.

Moreover, Poilievre would be wise to emphasize the fact that Carney’s election mandate was to build Canada up from the inside out rather than the outside in. The government quickly pivoted from focusing on developing internal resources, championing domestic industries, and making life more affordable to allowing foreign adversaries to penetrate domestic markets and hold financial interests in critical infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. It is a question of whether Mark Carney is nation building Canada or stabilizing the international system. It is a question of whether Mark Carney is signalling Canada is open for business or put up for sale.

Ultimately, the question is not whether Mark Carney’s Davos moment was well received. It clearly was. The question is what it was for. If the speech was intended to project steadiness abroad while sharpening political contrasts at home, it succeeded. Whether that strategy translates into a majority mandate will depend on whether Canadians view Carney as a necessary steward in an unstable world or as a leader more attuned to managing the international system than addressing pressures closer to home. That tension will define the coming campaign, and it is one both parties now appear eager to test at the ballot box.

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.