Spooky season may be over, but voting begins on Monday to decide which leadership hopeful is tasked with bringing the Ontario Liberal Party back from the dead. Carney unveils an affordability focused budget that does nothing of the sort.
ONTARIO
Let the Voting Begin
This coming Monday, November 9th, Ontario Liberal Party faithful, roughly 55,000 members, well short of the more than 100,000 members eligible to vote in the 2023 race, are set to begin voting online for their choice to lead the third party at Queen’s Park...again. You are forgiven if you forgot that the Ontario Liberal Party was holding a leadership race, or that the party still existed. Half of their party members from the last go-around may have also forgotten about the party.
Well, either they forgot, or they are not inspired by the choices available to them. The race has remained a four-way battle since outsider candidate Eric Lombardi ended his campaign on September 30th. That leaves Navdeep Bains, Stephanie Bowman, Lee Fairclough and Dylan Marando as the four candidates on the final ballot.
To his credit, Lombardi may have been the only candidate who creatively thought outside the box, both in policy terms and in framing a new way to be a Liberal in this political climate. After the final leadership debate on November 4th, it was obvious that the candidates were all aligned on the typical policies: improving health care, education and affordability; improving public services; building more homes, etcetera. The real distinction between the four of them is how they intend to deliver and pay for all they agree on.
On taxes and spending, Bains and Bowman have been clear they oppose tax increases, with Bowman even proposing specific middle-income and small-business tax cuts. Fairclough plans to review spending and implement tax reform. Marando, who has taken Lombardi’s place as the candidate with unconventional proposals, wants to eliminate provincial income tax on earnings under $50,000 for people under 35.
Bowman wants to build homes more easily and cheaply by promoting fourplexes as of right, co-op housing and zero development charges for projects with at least 20% affordable units. Fairclough wants to create a public housing builder, restore rent control and provide “housing-first supports.” Bains also takes a supply-side approach to housing, but his proposal lacks clear details.
Bains wants to create an Ontario Jobs Fund to support strategic industries, specifically manufacturing, critical minerals, the automotive sector and defence. Bowman’s economic policies are centred around small-business tax relief, regulatory reductions and support for businesses to commercialize products or services and expand. Marando wants to eliminate provincial corporate income tax for small businesses in their first five years of operation. Fairclough suggests competitive loans and equity investments in Ontario businesses.
On Ontario–municipal government relations, Fairclough promises to stop downloading provincial costs onto municipalities, roll back strong-mayor powers and end provincially appointed regional chairs. Dedicating one percentage point of provincial HST revenue to municipal infrastructure is Marando’s pitch. Bowman’s commitments include finishing electrified GO Expansion and reimbursing municipalities for her proposed development-charge exemptions. Bains wants broader investment in transportation, energy and public infrastructure.
If we’re being frank, there is little being proposed by the remaining four candidates that makes supporters say “Wow! I like that idea.” Outside of Marando, a lot of what’s being pitched is kind of the same old Liberal policies. There’s no real vibe or energy driving this leadership race, compared to the last federal Liberal leadership race. The candidates are largely unknown, even though two are sitting MPPs and Bains was a Trudeau minister. In fact, in Bains’ case, a read through his economic platform sounds a lot like Doug Ford. Bains, the perceived front-runner, wants programs to fund strategic industries, supports expanding nuclear power and the infrastructure to deliver it to the grid, and backs broader public infrastructure investment. If general election campaigns are about contrasts, Bains may have a harder time drawing one with Premier Ford on economic policy.
The failure to draw more Ontario Liberal supporters into the membership and voting process presents a missed opportunity for the OLP. Even without a permanent leader, the Ontario Liberals are the second-place party in recent Abacus and Liaison polls, trailing the Progressive Conservatives by roughly seven to eight points. While the next election is still a long way off (though not too long in this business), the smaller membership pool points to a much tougher task for whoever is announced as the winner on November 21st.
FEDERAL
Masters of our Destiny
“Maîtres chez nous” is a well-known slogan in Quebec. Quebec Liberal premier Jean Lesage used it during his 1962 re-election campaign to rally support for bringing private electricity companies under a single public owner—Hydro-Québec. The phrase means “masters in our own house” and reflected his ambition for a stronger, more autonomous Quebec within Confederation—not separation. It became synonymous with the Quiet Revolution and the push for greater Quebec control over its economy.
It’s no surprise, then, that Carney borrowed and tweaked the phrase for his second federal budget—“Masters of Our Destiny.” The message is straightforward: Canada needs greater control over its economy to withstand threats from abroad. But the budget makes a substantial bet. Borrowing today is supposed to produce the investment, productivity and growth that will leave Canadians better off tomorrow. If revenues weaken or those gains don’t arrive, Canada could end up with higher debt costs and fewer options when the next crisis hits.
The budget was billed as addressing affordability, supporting small and medium-sized businesses, and attracting investment. Here are the highlights:
Affordability
A one-time payment in early 2027 for more than 12 million low- and middle-income households.
An additional $13 billion over 10 years for Build Canada Homes, with a stated goal of 200,000 homes, plus $11.2 billion over four years for supportive and transitional housing, rent assistance and related services.
A proposed “RRSP-for-life,” a May 15 tax-filing deadline, and an increase in deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
Small and medium-sized businesses
Flexibility to defer capital-gains taxes when business-sale proceeds are reinvested in another eligible Canadian business.
$930 million over five years to expand tax support, including eligible testing and intellectual-property protection costs.
The focus is on targeted deductions and incentives. There’s no across-the-board cut to corporate tax rates.
Attracting investment
Businesses can immediately write off the full cost of eligible equipment, software and other capital investments with a Productivity Mega Deduction, rather than spreading the deductions over several years.
Up to $15 million exemption in qualifying capital gains from investments in eligible Canadian-controlled private companies.
Extended clean-energy tax credits, $4 billion over 10 years for electricity infrastructure and renewable energy, and $1.5 billion over four years to prepare federal land for housing.
There are worthwhile measures here. But the size of the deficit is a choice, not simply the unavoidable cost of a difficult economy. University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe estimates that, without new policy measures since last year’s budget, this year’s deficit would have been $28.1 billion. Instead, Ottawa projects $62.3 billion. Next year, the difference is even larger: less than $15 billion without those measures, compared with the government’s projected $62.5 billion.
And some of the money Ottawa is counting on comes from circumstances it doesn’t control. Higher oil prices have boosted federal revenues, but that windfall won’t necessarily last. Tombe estimated that oil was adding more than $1 billion a month beyond expectations, even as futures markets pointed to lower prices next year. Ottawa is spending that improvement now. If revenues weaken, there’s less room to absorb the hit.
The borrowing costs don’t end on budget day, either. Federal debt charges are projected to rise from $53.5 billion in 2025–26 to $85.5 billion by 2030–31. By then, almost 14 cents of every federal revenue dollar would go to interest. Canada isn’t facing an imminent fiscal crisis. But more money going to interest means less available for services, tax relief or the next emergency.
The Mega Deduction deserves credit. Giving businesses a reason to invest is a meaningful step, and economists critical of the wider budget have welcomed it. But those investments still have to become completed projects, stronger productivity and higher incomes. Announcing funds and creating agencies is not the same as delivering those results.
That’s the test for Carney’s budget: will Canadians see enough growth to justify the borrowing? Being masters of our destiny means having choices when circumstances change. If the promised gains don’t arrive, this budget risks leaving Canada with fewer of them.
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."