To the Point: For the Week of February 16th, 2025.
To the Point for the Week of February 16th,
Ontario party leaders squared off in the main debate of the election. Candidate comments come back to haunt the campaigns and both the Liberals and NDP release their full costed platforms. The Liberals turf Dhalla from the race and the scrutiny of Mark Carney begins.
ONTARIO ELECTION 2025
Leaders Spar at Debate, Kind of
What better way to spend Ontario’s Family Day evening than to watch the party leaders duke it out at the CBC debate on Monday night. While it opened with tariffs, healthcare, housing, and affordability dominated. However, if you were expecting a WWE-style match like Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Harris, you were in for a letdown. The debate featured few, if any at all, memorable soundbites, knockouts, home runs or other debate-related cliches.
Marit Stiles gave the weakest performance of the group. She went all in on affordability and took shots at the Premier, accusing him of cuts to education, failing on the housing file, and being responsible for the affordability crisis in the province. Unsurprisingly, Stiles saved her deepest cuts for Bonnie Crombie as the two leaders have turned their attention towards each other in vying for Official Opposition. Alleged donations from “private health care insiders” was Stiles’ main attack vector on Crombie, but the exchange didn’t materialize into anything meaningful for the NDP leader.
As anticipated, Crombie focused her performance on healthcare. She did her best to land some good sound bites, like when she implored the Premier: “Look into the camera, and I’d like you to tell the people at home who lost loved ones while they were on the wait list, what you did over the past seven years to fix our health care system because it’s broken.” Unfortunately, her debate performance was clearly aimed at showcasing strong female leadership. Still, some moments landed with more 'tough talk, tender ego' vibes—assertive, yes, but with a sharpness that came off more combative than commanding.
Premier Ford gave the best performance of the night, not because he put on a clinic for political debates, but because he was just calm and demure. He never looked rattled or unsure and stuck to emphasizing the government’s successes. There was one exchange with Crombie over the government’s fiscal track record, but Ford managed to skate by unscathed. Overall, the Premier did what he needed to maintain the party’s positioning with less than two weeks left in the race.
So, what are we to make of the debate? Who won? Who lost? The ONpoint team’s sense is that the debate was a draw. No one really won, but no one lost either. It was, to get to the point, boring. The debate was almost a formality, something the candidates were obliged to do but would rather be campaigning. Overall, the impact on the debate will be minimal.
Candidate Controversies
Toward the end of every election, those who practice in the political dark arts get to see the fruits of their labour on full media display. It is the part of the election where past comments, behaviour, dealings and actions are exposed for maximum political impact. Voters may call it “digging up dirt” or “mudslinging”. The parties and their candidates will call them “hit jobs” and “smear campaigns” or “dis/misinformation.” Political operatives call it “oppo(sition) research.” Call it cynical, but uncovering damaging information on your political opponent is a function of any political campaign at any level.
The job of a “political hitman” was much more difficult decades ago, but those in that role were highly skilled. A combination of creativity and a talent of knowing what information to get from where, or whom, was the key to stockpiling political ammunition. Now, with the internet and social media, candidates are making it exceptionally easy for these folks. A comment made years ago, even when a candidate was in their youth, is still fodder for political parties.
The week saw several stories of candidates who made outrageous online comments in the past. Let’s see who found themselves in hot water this week:
Morris Beckford, Liberal candidate for Scarborough—Rouge River, asked in a tweet “Was Hitler a leader? (It’s a Burns question).”
Oshawa Liberal candidate Viresh Bansal in 2023 tweeted “@theJagmeetSingh you can thank India for cleaning trash people. Ask your gay friend @JustinTrudeau to do the same.” (Bansal apologized on Tuesday)
Liberal candidate Rick Ellsmere vying for the Timiskaming—Cochrane seat was busted for two incidents, one misogynistic tweet in 2015 and a comment made in 2019 many considered to be transphobic.
Liberal candidate for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Jason Cherniak, had one blog post in 2006 and a tweet in 2010 that seemed to make light of drunk driving.
Finally, Amanda Zavitz, NDP candidate for Elgin—Middlesex—London dropped out of the race this week after a video surfaced of her (a white woman) bizarrely saying she wanted to “be a black woman” and to have the experience “of poverty and living in addiction.”
As easy as it is for oppo researchers to dig up past comments from candidates, it should be equally easy for campaign staff to vet their candidates thoroughly, especially in the social media age. The Liberals and NDP had to scramble to fill a full slate of candidates in this election, a strange occurrence since speculation of an early election went back as far as 2023. A snap election is not an acceptable excuse to so poorly vet these candidates. A young campaign volunteer with access to the internet could’ve dug up these comments and saved the trouble of putting these candidates’ names forward to carry the respective banners.
Although Zavitz initially refused to step down after the video came to light, we imagine pressure from party brass ultimately resulted in her stepping down as the candidate. Bonnie Crombie accepted the apologies of her candidates but decided to only turf Bansal in Oshawa. But why not the others? Oshawa has not been a winnable seat for the Liberals for almost a decade, but not removing any other candidates seems to be a clear sign the Liberals cannot afford to concede any riding without a fight, though it’s unclear if that makes any difference in this race.
On that note, we would like to impart a friendly reminder to individuals, particularly young ones, who have political ambitions, and we’re going to say it loudly for those in the back: The. Internet. Is. Forever. If you’ve said something online that is objectively bad, someone will find it. If you delete it, they will find it. And it might not be some shady campaign operative. Chances are it is going to be an X user with an avatar and ridiculous sounding handle that knows how to use Internet Archive or the Way Back Machine. If you think, even remotely, that what you are about to post is going to be perceived as unacceptable by a broad swath of the electorate, just don’t say it. No candidate has ever gotten in trouble for something they didn’t say or post.
Show Me the Money!
The Ontario NDP and Ontario Liberals have unveiled their costed platforms, and the price tags are big. Here’s the breakdown:
Ontario NDP
Total New Spending: Estimated at $55 billion over four years
Key Pledges:
Healthcare: $4.1 billion for primary care, hiring 3,500 doctors, and expanding mental health services.
Housing: 300,000 affordable homes and 60,000 supportive units.
Affordability: Monthly grocery rebates tied to inflation and income; real rent control.
Energy: Free/discounted electric heat pumps with rebates up to $19,500; income-tested EV rebates.
Revenue Plan: Luxury residence tax on homes over $3M ($33M/year), higher corporate taxes, and reversing tax cuts for the wealthiest Ontarians.
Balanced Budget Goal: Within five years.
Ontario Liberals
Total New Spending: $36.6 billion over four years.
Key Pledges:
Healthcare: $29.4 billion over four years; 3,100 new family doctors by 2029, two new medical schools, and mental health coverage under OHIP.
Affordability: “More For You Tax Cut” – 22% personal income tax cut for those earning $51,446–$75,000, saving $1,150 annually; elimination of HST on home heating and hydro.
Housing: Scrapping development charges, saving up to $170,000 per home, and eliminating land transfer taxes for first-time buyers.
ODSP: Doubling payments and indexing them to inflation.
Revenue Plan: No new taxes; aims to achieve $28.4 billion in savings via efficiency measures and creating an Office of Cost Control.
Balanced Budget Goal: Within six years.
While originally planning to release their costed platform Friday afternoon, the Ontario PCs have deferred the release until Monday.
The NDP is banking on taxing the top earners to fund ambitious social programs and housing projects, while the Liberals are pledging on middle-class tax relief, healthcare expansion, and affordability without new taxes, which seems like a stretch for the two left wing political parties. Crombie and Stiles are also adamant they will balance the books…eventually.
How do the Grits and Dipper platforms stack up to publicly available information on Ontario’s finances? Are their plans feasible?
The NDP is betting big on taxing the rich and big business. Bold move in a competitive market. Sure, projected revenues could help, but Ontario’s 3.9% revenue growth forecast might rain on this parade. Dropping $55B on new programs and still balancing the books in five years? Sounds like a tightrope walk without a safety net—unless the economy booms or tax dollars roll in better than expected (good luck). The bottom line is that the NDP platform is feasible, but only if Ontario hits best-case economic conditions (extremely wishful thinking) and avoids any major market shocks.
Relying solely on operational savings and efficiencies to fund ambitious healthcare and housing promises is a high risk promise for the Ontario Liberals. The province’s interest on debt ($12.7B annually) limits room for miscalculation. The projected $28.4B in efficiencies would require unprecedented operational overhauls, given the government's current annual program expense growth rate of 3%. For all the trash talking Crombie has dished out to Elon Musk earlier in the campaign, her platform basically is banking on rapid efficiency gains rarely achieved at this scale by any government. She might need a maple Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to make her platform a reality.
FEDERAL
Ruby Red Rejection
In our Week of January 26, 2025 edition of To the Point, we discussed Ruby “the rabblerouser” Dhalla’s scorched-Earth style campaign for Liberal Party leader, with promises to broker a deal with President Donald Trump and deport all illegal immigrants living in Canada. Most significantly, Ruby had her sights set on Mark Carney. We also flagged for readers not to be shocked if Ruby got booted from the race.
Well, they did, and shocked we were not. News broke late Friday afternoon that the Liberal Leadership Vote Committee unanimously voted to disqualify Dhalla from the race based on what the party called “10 extremely serious violations”, including "certain other election finance matters, non-disclosure of material facts and inaccurate financial reporting." The Globe and Mail also reported this week that Dhalla was alleged to have been interviewed by the party over concerns regarding foreign interference from India.
The whole situation has the classic hallmarks of a political hit job. From what we know in news reports, it sounds like the party took simple donor errors and cooked up a narrative to remove her from the race. Several ONpoint team members have extensive experience in political fundraising and intimate knowledge of the rules at the federal and provincial level. Sometimes people get involved in political campaigns for the first time and don’t know the rules. A donor can mistakenly give beyond the contribution limit, give a donation using a corporate credit card, or give multiple donations on a single card in the names of other individuals. It can happen, but experienced people can spot problem donations quickly and refund contributions almost instantly. It’s almost impossible to get away with any of these violations without some kind of coordinated conspiracy to violate the law. Understanding this, it can be reasonably concluded that Ruby was simply too much of a risk to have participate in next week’s leadership debate and embarrass front runner Mark Carney.
The party was, however, more than happy to receive Dhalla’s last $350,000 instalment early this week before deciding to eliminate her. Only $50,000 is refundable. As well, the federal government pitched an increase in the CBC’s funding the day before the information was published by the CBC. Ruby was notified of her disqualification while watching Power & Politics. Isn’t that interesting?
The Bloom is off the Rose
The gloss is wearing off. The novelty has worn. The honeymoon is over. Whatever idiom or cliché you prefer to use, it is becoming evident that the Liberal Party’s and PMO’s boosting – as well as the fawning media coverage – of the Carney campaign has a diminishing rate of return. Surely, those who are all in on Carney didn’t think he could go this long without being placed under a microscope. Did they think Mr. Carney had no vulnerabilities or blind spots? Or that a favourable media environment was enough to allow him to coast through the leadership race and the general election all the way to 24 Sussex? The Carney campaign is beginning to get their head out of the clouds and face reality. While the leadership race may be a slam dunk, the pathway to holding on to power may not be as easy as the Liberals are praying it would be.
The first slip up came in the form of muddled messaging. The Conservatives discovered that Carney has been delivering contradictory message tracks depending on the audience. On resource development, Mark Carney has told English speaking audiences that under his leadership, the government would use emergency powers to develop natural resources and build infrastructure across the country necessary to getting those resources to international markets. For French audiences, Carney has been pledging not to forcefully impose projects that don’t have the blessings of provinces.
Carney was also caught speaking out of both sides of his mouth on eliminating the deficit. During his first French-Language television interview in early February, Carney, said the government needed to reduce operational deficits that would require cutting transfers to provinces and individuals. However, earlier this week, in an interview with Patrice Roy on Radio-Canada, he was asked about whether he would be willing to cut transfers to balance the budget. He answered, “no.” Roy pressed him again: “You do not cut transfers to individuals?” “No,” replied Carney.
Another chink in the Carney armour exposed this week was his proposal for a revamped carbon tax. At the outset of the race, it seemed Carney had warmed up to scrapping the carbon tax all together, but it wasn’t long, perhaps after securing Stephen Guilbeault’s endorsement, until Carney walked back that position. Since then, Carney has pushed a revamped version of the carbon tax, stating the proposal would involve removing the consumer carbon tax in favour of an industrial carbon tax where large emitters can purchase carbon credits to offset the amount of pollution they emit. The plan, Carney assured, would not result in a trickle-down effect where the costs would be passed to consumers. This week, however, in an interview with CBC’s Rosemary Barton, Carney admitted that the effect on consumers would be “marginal.”
The carbon credit scheme Carney is proposing is fraught with problems. For starters, the carbon credit market is murky at best. A glaring lack of transparency means verifying whether those carbon offsets are actually doing their job is a challenge—good luck distinguishing substance from spin. Then there’s the questionable effectiveness of these offsets. Many projects don’t deliver the promised environmental benefits, leaving critics skeptical that these so-called solutions are anything more than window dressing. Speaking of appearances, the plan opens the door to greenwashing, letting companies look eco-friendly without cutting emissions. And don’t forget the market volatility—fluctuating carbon credit prices could throw a wrench in long-term environmental strategies.
And what are we to make of his carbon tariff plan? Mark Carney proposes a carbon border-adjustment tariff aimed at penalizing high-polluting imports, intending to level the playing field for domestic industries adhering to stringent environmental standards. This move seeks to incentivize global emission reductions by imposing costs on carbon-intensive foreign products entering Canada.
Carney’s carbon tariff plan might sound like a bold climate move, but the fine print raises some serious red flags. For starters, Canadians could face higher prices across the board, with added costs for goods and services trickling down to everyday consumers. The hits don’t stop there—Canada’s global competitiveness could take a beating, as businesses struggle to keep pace internationally, risking job losses and potential economic slowdowns. Plus, there’s the looming threat of trade retaliation; if trading partners strike back, Canada’s export economy could feel the squeeze. To top it all off, implementing the plan means navigating layers of bureaucratic red tape, driving up government spending and clogging the system with inefficiencies. Carney’s plan might aim for green, but it could leave Canadians seeing red.
Mark Carney’s latest pitch? Split government spending into two clear streams: operating expenses and capital investments. The idea is simple: operating budgets cover day-to-day costs (think Old Age Security and EI) that vanish quickly, while capital spending (like infrastructure, machinery, and clean energy projects) generates long-term economic returns. Carney promises to balance the operating budget in three years while allowing a small, strategic capital deficit—essentially betting on future growth to pay off today’s investments. The kicker? The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) would gain new oversight powers to ensure governments don’t slap the “investment” label on just anything. The upside, Carney argues, is greater fiscal transparency, reduced wasteful spending, and a sustainable budget structure tailored for long-term growth.
But Pierre Poilievre isn’t buying it, branding it a “sneaky accounting trick” that would let the government pile up “limitless inflationary deficits” disguised as investments. Poilievre likens it to Trudeau’s 2015 promise of small deficits that ballooned federal spending. If this sounds familiar, Alberta’s experience says why: under Alison Redford, a similar approach led to confusing financial reporting, hidden deficits, and a soaring debt, eventually becoming a political disaster for her government.
Carney’s front-runner status in the Liberal leadership race has been an asset—until now. His shine is slowly fading. What started as a polished campaign backed by glowing media coverage is now bogged down by contradictory messaging, controversial fiscal proposals, and mounting skepticism. And it’s only going to get harder from here. What is the candidate’s position on immigration? Criminal justice? Or his involvement as an advisor to the Prime Minister for the last several years? What about his business dealings and his refusal to disclose his financial statements? With two weeks to go, the magnifying glass is going to be all over the Carney campaign, inviting deeper scrutiny and sharper attacks. His mixed messages on key policies and risky fiscal proposals offer plenty of targets. The next two weeks won’t just test his lead—they’ll reveal if his candidacy can handle the heat or melt under pressure in a general election.
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, Brandon Falcone, and Mike Britton—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.
