To the Point for the Week of October 11, 2026

As we head into the final week of Ontario’s municipal election season, we revisit our forecast of the Toronto Mayoral race to see if it has held up. Carney’s plans to juice immigration could be a big tell and an opportunity for the floundering Conservatives.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Into the Final Stretch

In the To the Point for the week of June 21, 2026, we examined what the early polling landscape looked like for the Toronto mayoral race and determined that Brad Bradford’s polling momentum was more indicative of the potential outcome of the race than his deficit to Olivia Chow early on. Bradford had successfully stacked momentum early on, growing from 17% to 38% among decided/leaning voters in a Mainstreet Research poll and trailing Chow by only six points, 44% to 38% (Bradford led Chow 52% to 48% in a head-to-head matchup). The mood of the electorate favoured an upward trajectory for Bradford. Sixty percent of voters at the time said the city was on the wrong track and 56% disapproved of Chow’s job performance. Moreover, Bradford aligned his campaign commitments to issues of central concern for voters: congestion, affordability, and public safety. Lastly, a Liaison Strategies poll at the time also indicated substantial room to grow, with only 33% of voters unfamiliar with him.

The polling landscape back in June did not simply show that Bradford was closing the gap by making marginal gains. Instead, it provided the conditions in which Bradford’s campaign could execute a strategy centred around stacking momentum throughout the campaign so that his peak hits on election day. In spite of Chris Alexander’s short run that ended about as quickly as it started, Bradford has been able to successfully translate a favourable political environment into real gains that are positively trending as we inch closer to election day.

We’re not citing an outlier poll or cherry-picking numbers to confirm Bradford’s steadily building traction. The October polling outlook does that for us: Five independent polls all showing virtually the same scenario: Chow still holds the lead, but Bradford is gaining on her. Bradford coalesced the anti-Chow vote shortly after John Tory confirmed he’d stay out of the race back in the summer and did so again when Chris Alexander dropped out. Chow, by all indications, has reached her ceiling and has little room for error.

The difference may come down to undecideds, and that pool of voters isn’t insignificant, as high as 17% according to Nanos. This is critical to Bradford, but also a challenge in and of itself. He doesn’t need to win them all, but he does need a clear majority of those folks while also ensuring his existing base votes.

This all bodes well for Bradford. He’s closed the gap and has become the principal vehicle for the anti-Chow contingent. However, only 37.3% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2023 mayoral by-election, handing Chow a victory with a plurality, not a majority. Consequently, this election will come down to whose coalition is more motivated to see their candidate win.

The coalitions are stark. Chow’s coalition is made up of renters, young voters, and downtown and Toronto–East York voters. This coalition is more motivated by Chow’s position on housing, tenant protections, transit, climate change and social supports. On the flip side, Bradford’s strengths lie with homeowners, men, older voters and those in the outer neighbourhoods—voters concerned with cost of living, crime, and congestion.

Perhaps the most consequential block of voters is renters versus homeowners: 48.1% to 51.9% of Toronto households, respectively. Among renters, Chow leads Bradford 57%–40%. Among homeowners, Bradford has a slight edge, 50% to 45%.

It’s clear that this isn’t a “renters versus homeowners” election. What it says is how these voters identify with the most pressing problems facing the city. Renters, understandably, favour Chow’s tenant protections, affordable/social housing, transit investments and public services. Homeowners are concerned about utilities, property taxes, and other costs of living. Congestion is a major factor for them. They are acutely aware of public safety issues and place value in responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The lines have been drawn, and the campaigns are hard at work identifying as many of their supporters as possible to drive them out to the polls. We anticipate at least one or two more polls to be released that may indicate a further tightening or a clearer picture of where undecideds are going to land and predict that this election will come down to which of these demographics is more motivated to cast a ballot. Our final call is that this race is too close to call, but Bradford may hold a sliver of advantage.

FEDERAL

Carney’s Immigration Plans

Before rolling out a significant policy change, governments often float trial balloons or send signals through the media that a change is coming. Sometimes the signal is overt, sometimes it’s subtle, but it’s rarely coincidental. Prime Minister Carney’s September interview with the New York Times was the first sounding of a policy shift that was reinforced this week: a signalled, “controlled” increase in immigration to stem the slide in GDP, which he attributed in part to his own policy changes after taking over from Trudeau.

Immigration was considered somewhat of a third rail in Canadian politics, and questioning it was considered politically dangerous. For much of the past 25 years, the major political parties, despite marginal differences, generally stood on common ground when it came to immigration. After all, Canada has a long history of welcoming newcomers who arrived here seeking a better life and who have successfully integrated into Canadian society.

The Trudeau years fundamentally changed the consensus and discourse around immigration. It is clear now that immigration has increased in prominence in Canadian society. Trudeau sharply increased permanent immigration over his tenure, including a plan to admit half a million permanent residents by 2025, up from about 300,000 pre-pandemic. Temporary immigration grew with virtually no cap, with temporary residents topping 2.66 million by 2024. Among many other policies, he also allowed international-student numbers to increase exponentially and expanded low-wage temporary foreign-worker access that has arguably undermined the wages of working-class Canadians by significantly increasing the supply of low-wage labour.

Put simply, Trudeau’s policies added more workers and more consumers, making the economy look bigger and stronger in headline terms than it actually was for the average Canadian, while masking weak economic fundamentals. His policies kept headline GDP positive. In 2024, GDP grew by 1.6%, but population grew faster. They also masked falling living standards. Real GDP per person fell 1.3% in 2023 and another 1.4% in 2024.

By the end of 2025, multiple polling firms found that roughly 50% of Canadians thought immigration was too high, while few wanted immigration increased. A 2025 IRCC poll found that 63% of Canadians believed immigration strained public services. The Carney government recognized this shift in public opinion and responded accordingly. It cut planned new arrivals of international students from 305,900 in 2025 to 155,000 in 2026, a 49% reduction. Temporary foreign workers were cut 37% from 2025 levels to 230,000 in 2026. It implemented a targeted reduction to below 5% of Canada’s population by the end of 2027 and maintained permanent immigration at 380,000 for 2026 through 2028.

The perception was that Carney responded to Canadians’ changing views on immigration to limit its ability to hinder his political and economic agenda and keep his party well ahead of the opposition. It made him appear pragmatic and responsive, while appreciating that drastic cuts could have unintended consequences.

But this is what makes the timing of Carney’s signalled immigration increase very peculiar. High-wage workers—people with at least a year of eligible Canadian work experience in a high-wage occupation or a qualifying Canadian job offer in one—will now earn more points toward permanent residence starting next month. High-wage fields include health care, skilled trades, engineering, technology and education. A high-wage occupation is one with a median wage at least 1.3 times the overall national median. The government will also make it easier to hire these individuals by scrapping the Labour Market Impact Assessment requirement for qualifying job offers. Simply put, a business would not need to prove that no Canadian worker is available before a foreign worker can receive Express Entry points. Immigration Minister Lena Diab also signalled, in no uncertain terms, that overall immigration “will be going up.”

Carney has already acknowledged that lower immigration is dragging down headline GDP. Now, with the government signalling that it will raise immigration again, the political risk is obvious: Ottawa may look like it is reaching for the quickest way to make the economy bigger rather than doing the harder work of making it more productive. More workers and consumers will lift total GDP. But unless investment, productivity and GDP per person also rise, Canadians may see a larger economy without becoming any better off.

Moreover, it will feed into simmering perceptions that foreign-worker policies are taking jobs away from established immigrants and Canadian-born workers. The Bank of Canada found that an influx of youth from abroad between 2022 and 2024 intensified competition for lower-skilled and entry-level jobs. The youth unemployment rate for Canadians aged 15 to 24 rose from 9% in 2022 to more than 14% by 2026, while youth and newcomers represented roughly 75% of the increase in unemployment between 2023 and 2024.

While further details are to be determined, the high-wage entry point could have a similar political effect as the influx of low-wage, low-skilled labour—this time impacting high earners. The government may be playing with political fire if someone who has spent time, money and stress studying law, medicine or engineering sees the confidence of a future high salary undermined by a credentialed individual who arrived not long ago.

Maybe the Prime Minister feels politically insulated from any negative impacts of these policy changes, given the trade conflict with the United States continues unabated, and feels the timing is appropriate to pivot. He should tread carefully. An Abacus poll in September found that approval versus disapproval of the government’s handling of immigration was 37% to 36%, respectively. The next month, Abacus found that, of those who named immigration as a top-three issue, 61% believed the Conservatives would do a better job handling it than the current government.

The Prime Minister is taking a big political risk by pivoting on immigration. He’s had positive political fortunes for virtually every move that he’s made. A false start on this critical portfolio—both economically and politically—could be the opening Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives need to regain some ground and further erode Canadians’ perceptions of immigration.

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."