To the Point for the Week of June 15, 2025
To the Point for the Week of June 15, 2025
Has Premier Ford remembered how to fly? The Prime Minister establishes a bureaucracy to avoid conflicts.
ONTARIO
“Oh, There You are, Peter”
Hook (1991) isn’t just a nostalgia-fueled fantasy film that reimagines the story of Peter Pan. It’s a lesson in recognition, redemption, and remembering who you are inside. In one of the film’s most poignant scenes, a doubtful Peter Banning (played by the late Robin Williams), now a grown-up and out-of-touch version of the boy who never wanted to grow up, is finally seen. A young Lost Boy smooths the worry lines on Peter’s face and softly says, “Oh, there you are, Peter.” It’s a moment that breaks through cynicism and memory loss, reminding us that identity, once lost, can still be found.
The scene hits harder when viewed through a political lens. In a province full of people wondering if the Ford government remembers how it claimed to be – For the People – we’re all watching closely for a moment of recognition.
Doug Ford’s brand of populism was forged at Toronto City Hall, where he and his brother Rob cast themselves as champions of the suburban taxpayer battling downtown elites and bureaucratic bloat. Their message was simple, combative, and anti-establishment. It resonated with working-class and immigrant voters who felt shut out of the city’s power structures. It wasn’t driven by ideology so much as pragmatism, retail politics, and an instinct for drawing clear lines between “the people” and “the elites”. That formula became the foundation of Ford Nation and the blueprint for his provincial rise.
Many Ontarians, particularly those on the right, had their own 'Oh, there you are, Peter' moment this past week, as Premier Ford made controversial comments that harkened back to his style during his tenure as a Toronto city councillor.
First, the Premier found himself in hot water after telling First Nations communities to stop coming “hat in hand” to the government if they oppose mining projects. Speaking at an event in St. Catharines, Ford stated “there’s going to be a point that you can’t just keep coming hat in hand all the time to the government, you’ve got to be able to take care of yourselves.” His comments were in response to Indigenous communities who should support resource development on their land if they want continued funding, citing access to gold and nickel as economic opportunities. The backlash was swift, prompting an apology, but not a walk-back.
Second, the Premier gave impassionate remarks during a press conference this week regarding crime in Ontario in response to a failed attempt by thugs to steal his car from his own driveway as well as in reaction to the story of a Vaughan man who fired warning shots to ward off criminals who intended to steal his Lamborghini during an early morning home invasion. Ford railed against the current state of Canada’s criminal justice system. He attacked “weak-kneed judges” and current bail laws on the books as well as advocated for US-style “castle laws”, legislation that provides legal protection to individuals who use force to defend their home from home invasion.
Of course, the Premier could have chosen his words more carefully in the first instance, but both comments touched upon a populist nerve that exists below the surface of the Ontario body politic that made him popular in the first place. It’s not Make America Great Again type of populism, but a growing sentiment amongst Ontarians who are becoming frustrated with the pace of progress and the experience of having six degrees (or less depending on where you live) of separation between you and someone you know who has become a victim of crime, violent in many instances.
Just as Peter Banning rediscovers who he is in Hook, the Premier must rediscover what made him successful as a councillor and businessman. For many Ontarians, this is exactly what they signed up for. Ford’s bluntness, his willingness to speak plainly, even if it ruffles feathers, isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Voters are tired of politicians who tiptoe around tough issues, and who apologize before they’ve said anything worth debating. They want passion. They want direction. They want someone who will get things done.
Ford’s brand of populism was never about polished speeches or political finesse. It was about tapping into real frustrations about crime, affordability, and a sense that the system is rigged against the little and then turning that into action. When he rails against “weak-kneed judges” or calls for tougher laws, he’s speaking to a growing anxiety in communities that no longer feel safe. And when he urges First Nations to seize economic opportunity, however clumsy the delivery, he’s reinforcing a broader demand: that governments deliver outcomes, not platitudes.
This kind of rhetoric isn’t for everyone, and it comes with risks. But for Ford’s base, it’s a reminder of the Premier they elected. Someone who doesn’t flinch. Someone who fights. Someone who, if he remembers how, just might learn how to fly again.
FEDERAL
Managing Conflicts: Carney’s Ethics Under the Microscope
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s early months in office have been defined as much by ambitious legislative moves as by persistent questions about ethics, transparency, and the management of personal conflicts of interest. This week, those questions moved to the centre of Ottawa’s political conversation, raising the stakes for both the government’s legislative agenda and its credibility with the public.
Carney and his wife’s extensive private sector ties, which span directorships and executive roles at major firms like Brookfield Asset Management, Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg, and Stripe, as well as advisory work with federal contractors, have created a complex web of potential conflicts. Notably, Carney’s wife served as a senior advisor to Terramera Inc., a company that received millions in federal grants, while Carney himself held significant stock options in Brookfield, a major federal contractor and commercial landlord.
The government’s official line is that all declared conflicts are being “managed” in close coordination between the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office. Yet, questions persist about the adequacy and transparency of these arrangements. When pressed by opposition MPs, senior officials could not point to a concrete, public ethical screen in place for the Prime Minister, leaving critics and Canadians alike to “trust” that the system is working as intended.
Carney has repeatedly asserted that his assets have been placed in a blind trust and that appropriate screens are being established in consultation with the Ethics Commissioner. In theory, this means that any file directly implicating his former business interests—especially Brookfield—should be intercepted by senior officials and handled by other ministers. But experts and critics note that the effectiveness of such screens depends on the nature of the issues at hand and the willingness of the Prime Minister to fully recuse himself, especially on matters of national importance where avoidance may not be feasible.
The situation is further complicated by the breadth of Brookfield’s operations, which intersect with key government portfolios, including energy, infrastructure, and climate policy. As one observer noted, “all three of the primary remedies for conflict of interest—divestment, recusal, and disclosure—are necessary. Any one by itself wouldn’t suffice.”
The timing of these ethical concerns is particularly sensitive, as Parliament debates Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which grants sweeping discretionary powers to the Prime Minister and cabinet to fast-track industrial projects deemed in the national interest. Critics warn that such authority, combined with unresolved questions about the Prime Minister’s private interests, risks eroding public confidence in the fairness and integrity of government decision-making.
Opposition MPs have been quick to connect the dots, raising the spectre of insider dealing and pointing to the lack of a visible, enforceable ethical firewall. The government’s response, deferring to the Ethics Commissioner and promising internal management, has so far failed to quiet the controversy.
Compounding the government’s credibility challenge is a broader pattern of procurement irregularities highlighted by Auditor General Karen Hogan. Her recent testimony before Parliament revealed serial breaches of contracting rules, a lack of clarity around accountability, and a culture in which even basic requirements are sometimes overlooked. The GC Strategies and McKinsey contract scandals have underscored the risks of inadequate oversight and the need for robust, transparent systems to protect the public interest.
For Carney, his appeal as a leader rested on his reputation for competence and integrity. Yet, the current ethical cloud threatens to undermine both. Without clear, public accountability mechanisms beyond assurances of compliance, questions about conflicts of interest will persist, especially as the government moves to centralize power and accelerate project approvals.
The lesson from this week’s developments is clear: in politics, perception is reality. Managing conflicts of interest is not just a legal or procedural matter. It’s foundational to public trust. The Carney government’s ability to deliver on its ambitious agenda may ultimately hinge on whether it can convince Canadians that its decisions are above board, and that the rules apply to everyone, including the Prime Minister.
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, Krystle Caputo, 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.
