In a tightly focused and civil exchange moderated by Steve Conaby, past president of the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce, two of Oshawa’s federal candidates—Sara Labelle (NDP) and Isaac Ransom (Liberal)—went head-to-head on April 16, 2025, in a televised debate that drilled deep into the economic issues top of mind for the city’s small business owners.
Produced in partnership with Rogers Television and the Central Lakes Association of Realtors, the forum was a chance to compare competing visions for Oshawa’s business climate, economic growth, and community well-being. Missing from the stage were the Conservative Party candidate, Rhonda Kirkland, and the Green Party’s Katherine Matthewson, both of whom declined the invitation due to scheduling conflicts.
This article outlines the key takeaways for small business owners across Oshawa who may not have had time to tune in live but want to understand what’s at stake—and what their vote on April 28 could mean for their business, their workforce, and their city.
The State of the Economy: Competing Narratives
The economy, naturally, was the first topic—and both candidates brought distinct frames.
Isaac Ransom emphasized the need for economic stability and certainty as a foundation for small business growth. “Any businessperson will tell you—you’re looking for a stable business environment,” he said, noting that Canada has solid fundamentals but needs to maintain focus on infrastructure and regulatory predictability. He stressed the importance of continuing investment in core sectors, particularly those under existential threat, while reinforcing Canada’s trading capacity.
Sara Labelle approached the issue from a public services lens, insisting that investment in the social determinants of health—housing, education, transportation—must be prioritized. She cited Canada’s consistent ranking among the top G20 countries for ease of doing business and pointed to corporate tax avoidance and privatization as structural threats to small business equity and public confidence.
Taxation and Red Tape: What’s Fair and What’s Not
When asked about tax reforms and red tape, both candidates called for pragmatism—but drew sharp contrasts.
Ransom pushed for simplicity and clarity in the tax system. “People are getting dinged just for filing on paper,” he said, sharing stories of local entrepreneurs overwhelmed by bureaucratic language and forms. He called for “plain language reform” at the CRA and better support for business owners navigating compliance.
Labelle countered with a deeper critique of structural inequity, asserting that “the people who are most burdened by taxes are those living at or near the poverty line.” She called for fairer corporate tax policies, stronger enforcement of labour standards, and an end to what she framed as costly public-private partnerships that “cost three or four times more than public delivery.”
On the Red Tape Reduction Act and the controversial prospect of a “one-in, two-out” rule, both candidates rejected simplistic sloganeering. Ransom said regulation is “often necessary and protective,” particularly in emerging tech and privacy sectors. Labelle, drawing from her healthcare background, reminded viewers of the Walkerton tragedy as an example of what happens when regulations are cut indiscriminately.
Energy, Sovereignty, and Procurement Policy
Energy independence and national sovereignty were central themes—and both candidates came armed with positions that intersect directly with local employment.
Sara Labelle highlighted Bruce Power’s upcoming refurbishment project as a test case. She argued that Canadian steel and unionized labour should be prioritized, and that projects like Candu Monark offer an opportunity to keep jobs in-country. “If the government shows leadership, we can ensure that procurement serves Canadian businesses, not foreign ones.”
Isaac Ransom echoed the importance of local energy jobs but focused on capacity building, citing a Liberal plan to provide $40 million annually to help Indigenous communities engage with energy projects. He also emphasized the importance of circular economy principles and accelerating clean energy investment.
Trade, Tariffs, and the Supply Chain Challenge
The candidates were asked tough questions about Canada’s place on the global economic stage, and what could be done to improve supply chains and boost trade competitiveness.
Ransom touted Canada’s deep trade relationships and said the country must “further leverage existing trade agreements” to reach new markets. He spoke of the need for east-west electricity corridors and logistics infrastructure to support these ambitions. “We’re a trustworthy partner. We just need to do a better job of capitalizing on what we already have.”
Labelle emphasized local manufacturing and domestic resilience. “We send our lumber away, only to buy it back at a premium,” she lamented. “Let’s reopen our mills and make our own two-by-fours.” She called for cross-jurisdictional strategies to bolster infrastructure without depending on foreign-owned construction consortia.
Both candidates expressed optimism about Oshawa’s unique logistical advantages—an international deep-water port, rail links, an airport, and a strong corridor along the 401—but differed on how to finance and control the buildout of that infrastructure.
Immigration and Labour Shortages: Filling the Gaps
With labour shortages gripping sectors from healthcare to trades, both candidates acknowledged the urgency of credential recognition and immigration reform.
Ransom spoke about balancing immigration intake with housing and service capacity. He committed to expanding mobility supports for tradespeople, and apprenticeship grants of up to $8,000 for registered apprentices. “We need to shift how we value trades—and back that up with real support.”
Labelle recounted personal experiences writing letters of support for colleagues without permanent resident status who worked in hospitals during COVID-19. “We must fast-track the people who already work in our systems,” she said, especially in healthcare and skilled trades. She emphasized the need to respect the lived realities of immigrants and ensure their skills are recognized efficiently.
Housing: “Crisis” or Chronic Underinvestment?
Housing affordability, availability, and workforce development dominated the final segment.
Labelle questioned the term “crisis,” calling it a long-standing failure of investment. She unveiled the NDP’s pledge to build 3 million new homes and sharply critiqued investor-driven models of development. “We don’t just need homes—we need true affordability, transitional housing, and infrastructure that supports communities.”
Ransom, meanwhile, framed housing as an existential issue for young people. “Today’s market is not like it was 20 years ago. It’s scary for first-time buyers.” He advocated for the Liberal plan to build 500,000 homes annually, including prefab housing, and emphasized development charge reform and municipal zoning support to enable faster construction.
Where They Landed: Contrasts in Vision, Alignment on Urgency
Throughout the debate, both candidates demonstrated a commitment to Oshawa’s future and spoke passionately about the city’s potential. But their philosophies diverged clearly:
Ransom focused on stabilizing markets, leveraging existing systems, and enabling growth through measured federal investment.
Labelle pushed for a more systemic realignment—advocating for bold public investment, structural tax fairness, and community-first procurement.
For small business owners, the discussion offered critical insights into how each party envisions Oshawa’s economic future: one grounded in responsive government partnership, the other in public-led systemic transformation.
With mail-in and advance polls open—and the general election on April 28—this forum served as a vital window into what’s at stake.
📺 Watch the Full Forum Below
Couldn’t catch the broadcast? You can watch the full Oshawa 2025 Federal Election Forum right here:
For more about the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce’s candidate forum events, including how we determine which candidates are invited, please refer to our article Election Candidate Debates – Who Gets Invited?
