Ontario’s auto era is over

All of this within the broader context that even the U.S. auto giants that helped build Ontario’s prosperity are struggling to adapt to a changing global market. Ford, GM, and Stellantis are losing market share to newer, more agile competitors like Tesla, BYD, and other Asian automakers. Many of the legacy auto companies exist only because of enormous subsidies from their own government. So while Ontario scrambles to keep legacy carmakers happy, those same companies are fighting to stay alive against newer and faster competitors. Brampton is not an isolated loss. It is the latest signal that Ontario’s auto manufacturing advantage, once built on low costs, reliable labour, and proximity to the U.S. market, has eroded. What remains is an economy that’s slower, more regulated, and less attractive to new capital. The province that once led Canada’s productivity now trails behind nearly every major American state. For cities like Brampton, Oakville, Windsor, Ingersoll, Alliston, and Oshawa, the coming years will be difficult. Thousands of workers who once assembled cars, engines, and parts will face an uncertain future. Municipal tax bases will shrink and the political temptation will be to double down on subsidies to “save” auto manufacturing at any cost. That would be a mistake. Public policy should support workers affected by the industry’s secular decline but without trying to halt the decline itself. A conservative response A serious conservative response to these trends starts with honesty. We cannot save yesterday’s economy with subsidies and threats. What we can do is create the conditions for tomorrow’s economy. That means having a government confident enough to get out of the way and clear the barriers that make Ontario uncompetitive and giving entrepreneurs and investors the freedom and incentive to rebuild. A pro-growth conservative agenda should start with three priorities. 1. Reward investment One of the most powerful reforms Ontario could introduce is a capital gains deferral for reinvestment. Pierre Poilievre proposed this in the last federal election. Ontario should steal this idea and implement it provincially. The policy would allow investors to defer capital gains taxes when selling assets if they reinvest the proceeds into another productive Ontario business or asset within a set period. It’s not a tax cut. It’s a way to unlock billions in frozen capital currently sitting idle on balance sheets and redirect it into new housing, manufacturing, and technology ventures. If designed properly, it can be revenue-neutral or even net positive for the government. The increased economic activity would more than make up for the short-term tax deferral. The message to investors would be clear: If you keep your capital working in Ontario, the province will let it keep working for you. 2. Compete to win Ontario’s combined corporate tax rate is higher than almost every U.S. state. That gap matters, especially in a competitive market where investors and companies can choose between Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, or Texas. A bold conservative government should cut Ontario’s corporate tax rate by 5 percentage points and challenge Ottawa to match that federally. At the same time, Ontario should introduce a regulatory sunset clause so that every new and existing regulation automatically expires after 10 years unless intentionally renewed, while also proactively spending the next year rolling back no less than 20 percent of all provincial regulations currently on the books. This is how policy becomes competitive again. Not by picking winners, but by fixing the rules so that everyone can win. 3. Enable rebuilding Ontario’s auto towns do not need another round of subsidies or government “transition plans.” They need the province to clear a path for private investment and job creation. That starts with faster approvals, simpler regulations, and clear rules that encourage risk-taking and construction. The province should identify the hardest-hit auto communities and designate them as special economic zones with two focused advantages: streamlined approvals and temporary tax relief tied to new investment and job creation. This would require superseding municipal authority to quickly implement these zones. These zones should not become permanent carve-outs or subsidy programs, but rather they should be time-limited pilots that prove what Ontario could look like if it were truly open for business again. The goal should not be for the government to decide what replaces the auto sector, but to make sure nothing stands in the way of those ready to build what comes next. The end of one era and the start of another Don’t call the end of Ontario’s auto era a tragedy. It’s a wake up call. The same creativity and skill that once built engines and assembly lines can now build data infrastructure, medical devices, construction systems, or modern energy technology. If Ontario embraces competition, rewards reinvestment, and restores a sense of urgency to economic policy, the province can reassert itself as a magnet for capital and talent. Stellantis leaving Brampton is as much a warning as it is an opportunity. It reminds us that no single company defines Ontario’s future. The next generation of prosperity will be built by entrepreneurs, investors, and builders who see Ontario as a place ready to compete again. Now, all we need is a government that is bold enough to make this happen.