To the Point for the Week of September 14, 2025

Bonnie Crombie out as Ontario Liberal Party leader. The Prime Minister’s first week back upends a honeymoon summer.

ONTARIO 

Bonnie Gets Sauced

Last week we predicted a low probability that Bonnie Crombie would be turfed as leader at the AGM. Hindsight is 20/20. The chances were low, but never exactly zero.

Here’s how it went down. Section 9.5 of the Ontario Liberal Party’s constitution requires a resolution calling for a leadership race no later than two years following the last election. The threshold to trigger a leadership race is over fifty percent. However, it was the grassroots campaign by the New Leaf Liberals (closely linked to Nathaniel Erskine-Smith) that insisted Crombie must secure at least 66% support against triggering a leadership race.

While that 66% may sound arbitrary, it is an unofficial convention in Canadian politics. Joe Clark famously called a leadership race against himself after winning 66.9% support at the 1983 Progressive Conservative convention in Winnipeg, three years after the 1980 election. Clark believed 66.9% was not “a clear and decisive mandate.” His costly gamble backfired—he lost to Brian Mulroney on the fourth ballot, 54.5% to 45.6%. Talk about scoring on your own net.

Since then, the 66% has been held as an unwritten convention. Unfortunately for Crombie, she only managed to secure 57% of the vote (“sauced” is a hat-tip to Heinz 57 steak sauce). Crombie defiantly emerged after the vote to declare she would stay on as leader, but the party cancelled a media availability with her following the outcome of the vote.

Backroom discussions were underway. Hours later, Crombie emerged dejected. As is typical with these difficult decisions, Crombie advised that she had consulted her family, allies, and party executive, ultimately deciding her continued leadership was not in the cards. The party will now hold its third leadership race since 2020.

It was unrealistic for Crombie to continue as leader after the election. As the party’s post-election analysis demonstrated, there were critical issues plaguing the campaign before the writs were drawn. One could argue the issues identified were a result of a failure of leadership. The buck stops with the leader, and Crombie was seen as invisible and unimpactful—irrelevant almost—and couldn’t recover legitimacy for a second chance. It would’ve been better for the party had Crombie resigned on election night or in the days following and subsequently re-elected John Fraser as interim leader.

This scenario would’ve meant avoiding a divisive leadership vote and political humiliation for Crombie. It also would have allowed for potential leadership hopefuls to emerge and assemble their exploratory committees ahead of the AGM. The AGM could then have served as a moment of unification, energy, and optimism. Leadership hopefuls could have worked the room and rallied support for their campaigns. Crombie would also have been freed up to begin her comeback as Mayor of Mississauga.

Our advice: take your time. Don’t rush to fill the vacuum. John Fraser has proven himself a highly capable, steady hand at the wheel following the departures of the two previous leaders. The Liberal grassroots need to find a candidate with deep red bona fides who is also highly skilled in retail politics. The next leader needs to be social-media savvy and tap into the economic angst and insecurities facing younger generations. Perhaps a dark horse or unforeseen outsider who can capture the attention and confidence of the party faithful. Not a Mark Carney type of candidate—that would be too obvious an attempt to capture lightning in a bottle. The ideal candidate would be someone affable, but with a substantial policy vision that challenges Ford’s perceived economic and fiscal leadership.

Ontario’s economic and housing crises may tee up 2029 as a change election. But the next leader shouldn’t bet on it—they’ll have their work cut out. If Ford’s latest approval numbers hold, it might make this all moot. 

FEDERAL

It’s Only Been a Week

Canada’s House of Commons was buzzing again as MPs returned to Ottawa for the first full sitting since the election. Over the summer, the Prime Minister was riding high. He moved quickly to fulfill signature commitments: speeding up approvals for major projects, eliminating the consumer carbon tax, implementing a middle-class tax cut, and locking in a GST rebate for first-time home buyers. Even without a breakthrough on a U.S. trade deal, Canadians rewarded him with goodwill and gave him the typical honeymoon period new governments enjoy.

That began to change in August. President Trump’s influence as a political issue faded from top-tier concerns. Cost of living, economic anxiety, and housing affordability surged back to the forefront, joined increasingly by worries over criminal justice and immigration. Younger Canadians in particular grew restless, looking for proof that their government could deliver results that directly affect their standard of living.

The government bet that momentum could be carried into the fall sitting with the rollout of its first projects under the Build Canada Act. The announcement was designed to show resolve, pragmatism, and a government capable of executing a multi-phase plan. Instead, the fall session has opened with cracks forming in the very foundation of that strategy.

The Build Canada Homes rollout, pitched as bold action, was immediately met with skepticism. Conservatives framed the new Crown agency as another layer of bureaucracy, duplicating what provinces and municipalities already do. Housing advocates questioned the pledge of 4,000 modular homes, pointing out that without timelines it was just another headline. Provinces complained that the $1.5 billion Affordable Housing Fund top-up overlapped with money already committed through bilateral agreements. Economists flagged taxpayer risk in the financing model. And critics seized on the math: $13 billion to deliver 45,000 homes averages about $289,000 per unit, but on the first 4,000 modular homes the implied cost soars to more than $3.25 million each. Those numbers risk defining the program more than the promise itself.

Then came Carney’s deficit dilemma. Early leaks painted a bleak picture: deficits projected at more than $71 billion annually for the next three years—triple earlier forecasts. The delay in releasing the budget until fall fueled doubts about credibility. Analysts warned of record bond issuance, ballooning debt-servicing costs, and the absence of a fiscal anchor. RBC suggested combined federal and provincial deficits could hit $88 billion, pushing the fiscal impulse to nearly three percent of GDP, a level typically reserved for recession-era stimulus, not steady-state growth. Watchdogs warned of long-term risks: higher servicing costs crowding out investments in health, education, and infrastructure.

For Conservatives, the messaging was easy. Pierre Poilievre wasted no time branding the budget “reckless Liberal spending” and promising to oppose any plan that doesn’t rein in six-figure deficits. The bigger challenge is for Carney himself: whether he can frame the red ink as a necessary investment in growth, or whether the deficit narrative hardens into the defining signal of his first budget.

As if fiscal and housing headwinds weren’t enough, the government chose this week to refer Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to the Supreme Court. This move could, unironically, begin the beginning of the end of Confederation as both Alberta and Quebec will viscerally reject the implications of the review: encroaching on provincial sovereignty. The move freezes politics around the clause and invites charges of politicizing the judiciary. Quebec’s long-standing use to protect language laws could be upheld even as Western ambitions are constrained, feeding both alienation in the Prairies and new friction with Quebec. For sovereigntists in both regions, this is fertile ground. For Conservatives, it is political gold: a ready-made narrative of Ottawa using unelected judges to strip power from legislatures.

The Liberals hoped this fall would showcase a pragmatic government that could deliver on promises and keep the summer’s momentum going. Instead, in the first full week, three separate cracks have emerged: housing, deficits, and constitutional politics. These cracks threaten to dominate the sitting and shape the government’s standing with Canadians.

It’s only been a week, and already the shine is wearing off. The test now is whether the government can patch the cracks, or whether this foundation continues to split wide open as the fall sitting grinds on.

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.