To the Point for the Week of September 21, 2025

Municipal speed cameras show Premier Ford has a spending problem but not the dollars and cents kind. The feds’ gun buyback program jams, exposing the government’s ideological roots.

ONTARIO

Doug Ford’s Spending Problem

Yesterday, Ontario’s Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy and Treasury Board President Caroline Mulroney released Ontario’s public accounts with numbers that looked like good news. Ontario closed the 2024–25 fiscal year with a deficit of $1.1 billion, far lower than the $9.8 billion originally forecasted. On paper, this is a win for the province and a sign of fiscal prudence in a difficult economic climate. It can also be read as a case of under promising and over delivering.

The province’s balance sheet improved thanks to higher-than-expected tax revenues and stronger returns from the public sector. Ontario even beat the Financial Accountability Office’s (FAO) forecast of a $1.3 billion deficit. Still, the outlook remains challenging. The FAO projected a $12 billion deficit in 2025–26 and $10 billion in 2026–27, with no balanced budget on the horizon.

These numbers highlight the tension in the government’s fiscal story. While the current year was better than expected, the longer-term path shows persistent deficits. That creates political pressure on Premier Ford, both from critics who argue the government has not distinguished itself from its predecessors and from voices inside the conservative movement who say it is not doing enough to rein in spending.

But the more immediate challenge for the government is not financial capital — it is political capital.

For the last two and a half weeks, the Premier has been focused on municipal speed cameras, spurred by reports of widespread vandalism. More than 800 incidents have been logged this year across Ontario, with Toronto at the center of the backlash.

Ford has framed the devices as a “tax grab, taking tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars out of taxpayers’ pockets.” The revenues are significant. Toronto has already collected over $45 million in fines this year, with one camera generating $7 million from more than 67,000 tickets. Ottawa collected $29 million in 2024. Waterloo anticipates $9.8 million in 2025. The cameras have evolved into a sizable revenue tool for municipalities.

The speed camera debate illustrates how the Premier chooses to spend political energy. Sustained focus on this issue can divert attention from broader policy priorities, create friction with municipalities, and highlight the trade-offs inherent in pursuing headline-grabbing measures.

We have seen this pattern before. Buck-a-beer faded after four months. Booze in corner stores consumed government energy with limited impact. Eliminating license plate stickers in 2022 reduced revenues by $1 billion. Each of these measures drew attention, but their long-term value was more limited.

There is also irony in the fact that Ford’s government created the legislative framework that allowed municipalities to adopt speed cameras, with rules requiring revenues to be reinvested in road safety rather than general coffers. The expectation was that revenues would decline as safety improved. Municipalities invested significant resources to implement the program. Now the province is preparing to put just as much effort into dismantling it.

Even if municipalities were using the money more broadly, there are implications. At the same time the province is pressuring municipalities to reduce development charges to spur housing construction, it is also questioning another revenue stream. That leaves cities with fewer options to fund roads, transit, and infrastructure without provincial help, and risks straining relationships with municipal leaders who may otherwise share common goals.

There is also a knock-on effect for developers. If municipalities can rely on speed camera revenues to fund growth-related infrastructure, they are less dependent on development charges. Removing this source of revenue changes the bargaining dynamic and could complicate efforts to accelerate housing supply.

The larger issue is where political attention is directed. Legislative initiatives to expand interprovincial trade, shield Ontario’s economy from trade shocks, and accelerate housing have not received the same intensity. Removing HST on new housing, a measure that could reduce costs and unlock supply, is another file where sustained political capital could deliver long-term returns. Yet none of these issues have drawn the Premier’s focus the way speed cameras have.

His criticisms of the federal government on criminal justice reform or the Notwithstanding Clause quickly faded. Even housing, the government’s stated top priority, has not commanded the same level of sustained attention.

Ford’s emphasis on speed cameras may resonate with some drivers, but the political return on investment is uncertain. Political capital is finite. Focusing it on narrower issues leaves less capacity to tackle the structural challenges that will shape Ontario’s future — housing, interprovincial trade, and competitiveness. In politics, spending choices matter, and the biggest test is whether political capital is spent to realize a worthwhile return on investment.

FEDERAL

This Looks All Too Familiar

In last week’s To the Point, we argued that cracks were starting to show in the federal government’s façade. The months-long effort to frame its major policy initiatives as pragmatic rather than ideological began to unravel as Parliament returned from summer recess. The political atmosphere in Ottawa suddenly felt familiar—like we’d seen this movie before. That impression was reinforced this week when a hot mic moment suggested the Carney government wasn’t merely drifting back toward ideology-driven policymaking but had been guided by it from the outset.

A leaked recording of Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree captured him in conversation with his tenant, reportedly a lawful gun owner. In it, the Minister admitted the government’s gun buyback program for “assault-style” rifles was motivated primarily by political considerations in Quebec, not evidence of effectiveness. He acknowledged that local police services lacked the resources to administer the program as designed and that his instructions were to follow through on the promise before pivoting to other criminal justice issues.

Some might dismiss this as standard politics—decisions made to shore up seats or fulfill regional promises. But the leak underscores that this wasn’t just politics as usual. The buyback’s ideological roots matter, particularly because the Minister himself admitted doubts about its practicality. The policy was shaped not only by Quebec’s electoral importance but also by the influence of PolySeSouvient, a Montreal-based advocacy group formed by survivors of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre.

PolySeSouvient has evolved into more than an advocacy organization—it functions as a highly effective political actor. Over three decades, it has turned personal tragedy into sustained legislative influence, pressing successive governments to adopt stricter firearms laws. Their methods are strategic: submitting policy briefs, maintaining steady media pressure, and leveraging Quebec’s electoral weight to demand action. Their influence is evident in Ottawa, where one of their leading spokespersons, Nathalie Provost, now sits in Carney’s cabinet as Secretary of State.

What sets PolySeSouvient apart is not just moral authority but political leverage. The group has shown a willingness to criticize Liberal governments when progress slows, warning about “wasted taxpayers’ money” or threatening to exclude party leaders from commemorative events. The outcome of this sustained pressure is a $742 million buyback program that even the Public Safety Minister privately concedes will not work as intended—yet it continues, because abandoning it could cost support in Quebec.

The leak therefore highlights more than one minister’s doubts. It illustrates the broader method behind the Carney government’s approach. When political considerations consistently outweigh evidence, when regional voter preferences override crime statistics, and when advocacy groups with deep government ties shape the agenda, it reflects not isolated decisions but a governing philosophy.

The gun buyback may only be the first sign. Expect this pattern to reappear as the government advances on other contentious files where ideology and constituency management may matter more than outcomes.

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.