To the Point for the Week of September 28, 2025
Doug Ford’s draft special economic zones aim to slash red tape and jolt long-stalled projects like the Ring of Fire into motion. Meanwhile in Ottawa, Mark Carney is boarding another flight to Washington—reminding Canadians that despite all the talk of diversification, our economy is still chained to an unpredictable trading partner.
ONTARIO
Time for the Rubber to Hit the Road…to the Ring of Fire
Doug Ford’s draft criteria for special economic zones (SEZs) land at a moment when Ontario has a choice to make; keep perfecting processes while projects collect dust or finally get shovels in the ground. The government’s message is clear: speed up or get left behind.
Critics are worried about democratic oversight, Indigenous consultation, and ministerial power. Valid concerns. But Ontario isn’t operating in a bubble. Trump’s tariffs are hitting Canadian industries. China still controls 80% of global critical mineral processing. Quebec is moving fast on resource development while Ontario debates timelines. Meanwhile, the Ring of Fire—holding an estimated $77 billion in critical minerals—has been stuck for 15 years. The economic math is simple. Develop it and you’re looking at 70,000 jobs and $22 billion in growth over 30 years. Keep waiting, and those benefits vanish into someone else’s ledger.
That urgency is what makes the SEZ framework interesting. The criteria aren’t a free-for-all. Projects have to prove they deliver GDP growth, job creation, and supply chain benefits, plus tangible advantages for Indigenous communities. Proponents face compliance checks on safety, environment, labour practices, and financial health, with accountability running down to contractors. This isn’t a rubber stamp. The point is to move credible projects faster without lowering the bar. Ontario’s track record is the opposite: Darlington’s nuclear refurbishment took 13 years. The Ring of Fire hasn’t advanced since 2007. At some point, delay becomes its own form of failure.
That’s also where the consultation debate over Indigenous engagement comes in. The framework doesn’t erase it—it requires it. Companies have to show experience, commit to ongoing consultation, and provide clear community benefits. The bigger question is what kind of consultation actually leads to results. For many First Nations, the priority is jobs, training, and revenue sharing. Several have already signed agreements in principle on resource projects if environmental standards are met. What they’ve mostly gotten from the current system are endless meetings and little development. Partnership means building prosperity, not just more process.
The draft also raised eyebrows by asking whether Ontario should consider “moon shot” projects—big, risky ideas with huge upside. Cue outrage. But it’s a legitimate question: how do you weigh ambition against risk? Ford’s Highway 401 tunnel might be more political theatre than practical plan, but the framework itself is designed to sort winners from losers. If a project can’t demonstrate benefits and feasibility, it won’t make the cut. That’s how you balance vision with discipline.
Then there’s the issue of ministerial discretion. The loudest critique is that the framework puts too much power in the hands of politicians. But here’s the tradeoff: Ontario’s current system leans on appeals, reviews, and red tape, and that has given the province some of the slowest project timelines anywhere. “More oversight” sounds nice until it turns into “no progress.” Democracy isn’t broken because elected governments make decisions. Ford ran on speeding up development. He won. The Legislature passed Bill 5. That’s accountability. Regulations can be updated as lessons are learned—far more flexible than rigid statutes that lock policy in place for decades.
The consultation is open until November 16, and the government will take feedback. But the big picture hasn’t changed: Ontario is either going to act decisively, or it’s going to watch critical projects get built somewhere else. The SEZ framework isn’t perfect—it never was going to be. But it’s a serious attempt to balance speed with standards. The alternative is the same old story: projects announced, reviewed, debated, and eventually shelved.
The world isn’t waiting for Ontario to sort out its process. Time to stop revving the engines, throw it in drive, and put pedal to the metal.
FEDERAL
Mr. Carney Goes to Washington…Again
Mark Carney heads to Washington on October 7 for another round of meetings with Donald Trump. It’s a reminder of how little room Canada has to manoeuvre: seven months into office, the promised pivot away from American dependence hasn’t materialized, and the U.S. still dominates the trade file.
The Asia diversification strategy has delivered one tangible outcome so far: the Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu says it could double bilateral trade within six years. That would be a win, but the baseline is small with just over $5 billion in 2024. Even doubling or tripling those numbers barely dents Canada’s $1 trillion in annual commerce with the U.S.
The broader ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) negotiations, meanwhile, have slowed again, with completion now pushed to 2026. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Yasir Naqvi, points to 9.2% growth in ASEAN trade, but the total remains $42.3 billion, which is roughly 4% of U.S. volumes. The math is hard to escape: North American trade still dwarfs Canada’s Asia-Pacific efforts, and meaningful diversification will take decades, not years.
That gap is beginning to show up politically. Carney’s approval ratings dipped in September, with disapproval climbing as Canadians express unease about the removal of retaliatory tariffs and the lack of visible progress with the U.S. Opposition voters are the most skeptical, but even among NDP and Bloc supporters, doubts are rising about whether Ottawa can secure a fair deal. The trade file, once seen as a Carney strength, now risks becoming a drag.
The Washington trip raises the stakes further. Trump imposed 35% tariffs in August after Canada missed his deadline, and despite reassurances from Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc that talks are ongoing, there has been little sign of a breakthrough. If the meeting produces more headlines than substance, Canadians may conclude the government is stuck in the same cycle that plagued previous negotiations. Long on theatre, short on outcomes.
LeBlanc’s emphasis on sector-specific agreements—lumber, aluminum, agriculture—offers a pragmatic path to narrow relief. But it does not resolve the underlying imbalance. The U.S. can impose across-the-board tariffs at will, leaving sectoral deals vulnerable to political shifts in Washington. For Canadian businesses, it means uncertainty remains the baseline.
The challenge for Carney is that trade isn’t an isolated problem. It joins housing and nation building projects as part of a trio of files where expectations may be outpacing delivery. His economic credentials were a key part of his pitch to voters, but the demands of political leadership are different. Central bankers manage equilibrium; prime ministers contend with volatility and disruption. That tension is becoming more visible as complex files collide with the short timelines of electoral politics.
The bigger question may be structural. Canada’s trade relationship with the U.S. changed fundamentally under Trump, and there is no guarantee it can ever return to the relative stability of the past. If that’s true, Carney’s October 7 meeting won’t unlock a solution so much as underline a new reality: that Canada’s economic future is defined as much by managing U.S. unpredictability as by pursuing diversification abroad.
The Indonesia agreement is a genuine achievement, but its impact is long-term and incremental. Political timelines demand quick results, and that mismatch may prove harder to navigate than any tariff. For now, Canada’s trade strategy remains caught between aspiration and reality that can be characterized as seeking diversification abroad while being pulled back to Washington again and again.
The October 7 meeting won’t resolve that contradiction. At best, it will buy time. At worst, it will reinforce just how narrow Canada’s options really are.
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 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.
