To the Point for the Week of May 24, 2026
To the Point for the Week of May 24, 2026
It’s been a howl of a week in Ontario politics. Carney’s confusing position on Canada’s relationship with the United States.
ONTARIO
A Busy Week in Ontario Politics
Premier Doug Ford dropped a “bombshell” that many political observers didn’t see coming this week. In a scrum inside Queen’s Park, a reporter asked the premier about two recent coyote attacks in York Region, one in which a child was left with bite marks on their head. The premier, in perhaps one of the more memorable responses we’ve seen, demonstrated his preferred method of shooing away wild canines: howling. Ontario politics may never be the same.
Okay. It wasn’t a bombshell story, but it was funny in a typical, folksy Doug Ford sort of way. There were, however, other political developments in Ontario this week that have made a somewhat muted political environment a little more interesting.
Unsurprisingly, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith’s appeal of the results of the Scarborough Southwest Ontario Liberal Party nomination was dismissed. The party’s three-person arbitration committee found no evidence of irregularities in the nomination process and considered the matter closed. Interim Liberal Party Leader John Fraser issued a statement accepting the decision and said the party’s objective is now to focus on winning the riding by-election whenever it is called by the premier. He also said that NES failed to prove any of the claims in his appeal.
The chatter from Queen’s Park and Liberal circles is that there is a sense of relief that the door has been closed on the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith era. For some, his appeal was a last-ditch effort to remain relevant in politics at any level, and the committee is said to have treated NES’s grounds for appeal as a quick, open-and-shut case.
The low probability of success always made this appeal a long shot, and it reinforces the sense that the leadership hopes he’s had since before 2023 are now dashed for good. On May 12, Erskine-Smith reiterated his intent to resign his federal seat at the end of June as he originally committed to, regardless of whether he won the nomination, so his time in federal and provincial politics is coming to an end. We do leave open the possibility that he changes his mind about resigning his seat, just as he did when Trudeau offered him a cabinet position in 2023. He also has until August 21 to register as a candidate for Toronto City Council.
Sticking with the Ontario Liberal leadership race, two anticipated entrants made it official this week. Navdeep Bains, as expected, officially launched his leadership campaign just a day after Erskine-Smith’s appeal was dismissed. Bains launched via social media with a formulaic biographical campaign video built around his upbringing, motivation to run, and a pledge to restore the “Ontario Deal.” Similar vibes as Pierre Poilievre’s pitch to restore the “Canadian Promise,” but with a Liberal tinge.
With NES presumably out of the picture, Bains becomes the “outsider” candidate, having been a two-time MP and federal cabinet minister under Trudeau until he left politics in 2021. He doesn’t have a formal connection to the Ontario Liberal Party, but his name carries strong recognition and reputation. Being out of politics for five years may be a hindrance for some but could be an asset for Bains: long enough in cabinet to gain experience, not long enough to wear major controversies.
The other anticipated contender that made the jump this week was rookie Ajax MPP Rob Cerjanec. Like Bains, Cerjanec launched his campaign via social media, with a narrative built around, well, “Let’s Build Ontario.” Before entering politics, Cerjanec served as chief of staff to former Toronto deputy mayor Ana Bailão and ran a small public relations firm focused on the education sector.
Our view is that this race is now wide open. Unlike in 2023, when Bonnie Crombie was considered the front-runner from the outset due to her profile as mayor of Mississauga, this race currently has no heir apparent. Polling has shown that, other than Erskine-Smith, the other contenders have no recognizable profile among voters. The Ontario Liberals’ competitive positioning in recent polls is entirely brand-driven, not the result of a downstream effect from a front-runner’s profile.
The last major development in Ontario this week was the surprise resignation of Ontario PC MPP for York–Simcoe and Treasury Board President Caroline Mulroney. Mulroney announced she will be exiting politics on June 5. She was first elected when the PCs formed their majority in 2018 and served as attorney general (2018–19), minister of transport (2019–23), and president of the Treasury Board (2023–present). Like many other elected officials leaving office, Mulroney cited a desire to spend more time with family as her core reason for stepping away.
Mulroney’s departure is peculiar. Many have interpreted her move to leave politics now as a way to insulate herself from the controversies dogging the PC government and preserve her reputation for a potential future federal or provincial leadership run. Others suggest her exit reflects the PCs’ earlier downward polling and that leaving now could give her an “outsider” edge if she decides she has a shot at becoming leader when premier Ford’s time comes to an end.
Abacus Data released a poll this week suggesting the Ontario PCs are rebounding from the jet controversy and the preceding months of slumping numbers. Premier Ford may want to firm up that position with a refresh of faces on the front bench. A cabinet shuffle would both distract from recent controversies and create opportunities for ambitious backbenchers to prove themselves in a portfolio. It may also be more necessary than it appears, as other MPPs are rumoured to be planning their exits in the coming weeks.
FEDERAL
Carney’s Trade Contradiction
The Prime Minister declared in his now-famous speech before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 20th that “you cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.” It quickly came to be a defining speech for the Prime Minister, framed as his government’s operating principle in its relations with the United States and the rest of the world.
Essentially, the Prime Minister labelled Canada’s highly integrated economic relationship with the United States as a hindrance rather than a benefit. This despite exports to the US support 4 million Canadian jobs, 72% of Canada’s goods went to the US in 2025 (down from 75.9% in 2024, but still an enormous share), and exports to the US account for up to 34% of provincial GDP. Despite the ongoing conflict around trade and tariffs under Trump administration 2.0, Canada has greatly benefited by its proximity to the world’s largest economy. Politics aside, Carney’s public musings about Canada’s economic relationship is not an argument backed by data.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister leaned into decoupling from the United States. Weeks after his Davos remarks, the Prime Minister announced a preliminary trade arrangement (not a free trade agreement) with China that would allow an annual quota of up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles at the standard 6.1% most-favoured nation tariff instead of a 100% surtax, while China committed to sharply cutting tariffs on Canadian canola seed from roughly 85% to about 15% and suspending punitive duties on other agri-food products such as canola meal, peas, lobster and crab.
The deal was highly symbolic. Carney’s overture (or concessions, depending on who you speak to) to China demonstrated that the Prime Minister was prepared to put his rhetoric into action, even to go as far as forming stronger bonds with America’s hegemonic rival. Strangely, to many Canada-US policy observers, he credited China with being “more predictable” than the United States and that Canada was reassessing that relationship.
In an address to the Canadian people in March, Carney declared the old relationship with the US “is over” and added kindling to the fire by comparing Canada’s lessening reliance on America to Canada’s wartime footing during the War of 1812. He didn’t stop there. In an April video posted to YouTube, the Prime Minister said ties with America amounted to a weakness that “must be corrected.”
None of this came as a surprise. Carney’s rhetoric and actions aligned with a domestic political environment that the Canadian people wanted, demanded even, economic transformation and diversification away from the United States. This was the mandate upon which the Prime Minister was elected and consistent polling showed he had the backing of a majority of Canadians to pursue this line of action.
And then, almost suddenly, that all seemed to change. Speaking at the Global Progress Action Summit in Toronto on May 9, Carney, for the first time publicly, stated that Canada is “open to deeper integration including options for ‘Fortress North America’ in certain sectors” and that “offers were on the table.” That is a stark contrast from months prior when Carney literally implied that integration with the US was a source of weakness for the country. Why the 180-degree turnaround?
Perhaps it was an attempt to project strategic pragmatism. The problem with that argument is that it’s still not consistent with his previous statements on the evolving nature of US/Canada relations. There were no mixed signals from the Prime Minister. Remember, he previously invoked imagery from the War of 1812, a conflict during which British forces set the White House ablaze.
Speaking at the Economic Club of New York before an audience of the most powerful people in American business and industry this past Thursday, the Prime Minister doubled down. He framed Canada’s frenzied trade diversification as evidence of Canada being a better ally to the United States. The Prime Minister proclaimed, “Canada Strong will help make America great again.”
This political framing was reinforced with a pitch for a new economic and security relationship with the United States. Carney revealed that “specific, practical proposals” have been sent to Washington regarding integration around automotive, critical minerals, agriculture and energy. There’s no ambiguity about it. Carney’s pitch this week represents a significant departure in tone, policy direction, and political messaging.
The 180-degree U-turn reveals the risks when political narratives don’t align with economic fundamentals. While promoting trade diversification, decoupling from the United States, and restructuring the Canadian economy make for appealing political narratives for voters, it doesn’t change the fundamentals.
There’s been limited progress on diversification despite the Prime Minister’s frequent trips abroad to promote Canada. The government has signed more than 20 “strategic trade and defence agreements” over the past year, but they don’t amount to comprehensive, enforceable deals remotely close to the size of the US market. Many are aspirational, not operational. Diversification also has structural limits: China’s deflation trap and geopolitical tensions limit its viability as a major alternative market, Europe is grappling with its own domestic and global trade challenges, and Canada’s fundamental trade dilemma with the United States remains one of proximity. We can’t replace that advantage.
We still do an enormous amount of trade with the US, despite the tariffs, and with continued enormous benefits. Canada’s exports to the US only fell by about 4% between 2024 and 2025. Provincial exports to the US account for up to 34% of provincial GDP, and only a small cluster of major cities – Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary – have benefited from more diverse market access according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Two-way trade is still about 67% of Canadian GDP.
There’s also a tremendous sense of anxiety among business leaders regarding future access to the US market. Eighty-eight percent say the greatest risk to their company would be losing current CUSMA protections. Seventy-three percent say they can’t afford the costs of exploring new markets, according to a March 2026 KPMG survey of Canadian business leaders.
The government spent months signaling it was serious about diversification. Access to alternative markets, the theory went, meant Canada would no longer be beholden to the United States. It was used as leverage in negotiations. However, whatever leverage Canada thought it had from diversification has been undercut by the pivot itself.
With Mexico believed to be far ahead of Canada in CUSMA discussions with the United States, the pivot could be perceived as not accompanied with a sense of urgency, but of panic. Couple that with yesterday’s news that Canada has officially entered a technical recession, and the Carney government is now scrambling to secure a deal before Mexico locks Canada out.
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.