One thing I have always wondered. Why did Canada never develope an auto industry of it's own? You know, NOT a division of a US company.
We Bail Em' Out....
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
One thing I have always wondered. Why did Canada never develope an auto industry of it's own? You know, NOT a division of a US company.
I guess we just did not have any Henry Ford type guys?....
some interesting reading tho
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/mufonontario/avro/avrocar.html
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But see there was no Canada division, it was a separate entity from GM, the same as Ford of Canada is not part of Ford Motor Company's entity.
Ford can tomorrow decide to sell Ford of Canada to say Renualt and that would be a simple transaction. This was done because of the laws of Canada and the tariffs were setup in such a way that they could not sell in the dominion competitively.
Canada should have part of the GM of Canada company, not of the parent company, that's the real problem. Co-ownership of that entity seems to be proper. It was all explained to me but I can't go into the explanation I got from GM, it is convoluted and rather boring and I an tired of them anyway.
Regardless, the tax payer got screwed. There was no cleaning up of GM and still isn't, the government paid back the UAW and the CAW and much of the unsecured and secured debt holders were cast into the old GM to deal with the debt that the same leadership of the new company created in the first place ... and all the while they are still on the decline in their home market.
Ford can tomorrow decide to sell Ford of Canada to say Renualt and that would be a simple transaction. This was done because of the laws of Canada and the tariffs were setup in such a way that they could not sell in the dominion competitively.
Canada should have part of the GM of Canada company, not of the parent company, that's the real problem. Co-ownership of that entity seems to be proper. It was all explained to me but I can't go into the explanation I got from GM, it is convoluted and rather boring and I an tired of them anyway.
Regardless, the tax payer got screwed. There was no cleaning up of GM and still isn't, the government paid back the UAW and the CAW and much of the unsecured and secured debt holders were cast into the old GM to deal with the debt that the same leadership of the new company created in the first place ... and all the while they are still on the decline in their home market.
McLaughlin automobile
The McLaughlin automobile company began life as the McLaughlin Carriage Company, a blacksmith's shop in the village of Enniskillen, located 20 kilometres (12 mi) north east of Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. The company began making horse-drawn carriages in the mid 19th Century, moving to Oshawa, Ontario in 1876. The most successful of their time, producing more than 25,000 carriages a year, the company incorporated as the "McLaughlin Carriage Company, Ltd." in 1901.
Under the guidance of "Colonel" Sam McLaughlin, in 1907 the company began the manufacture of automobiles, eventually forming an alliance for 14 years with William C. Durant, who had acquired the Buick Motor Company that later would become General Motors Holding Company.
During their first few years of operation, the automobiles were known as "McLaughlins". The name was changed to "McLaughlin-Buick" until 1942, after which the McLaughlin name was dropped, leaving the "Buick" marque still in use today. Until 1914, the cars were finished with the same paints and varnishes used on carriages. This meant each vehicle required up to fifteen coats of paint. McLauglin revolutionized the industry with their painting process.
In 1918, the McLaughlin family sold their interests to General Motors, but Sam McLaughlin would continue to run the company in his capacity as chairman of the board of General Motors of Canada, in addition to being vice-president and director of the parent company.
The McLaughlin automobile company began life as the McLaughlin Carriage Company, a blacksmith's shop in the village of Enniskillen, located 20 kilometres (12 mi) north east of Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. The company began making horse-drawn carriages in the mid 19th Century, moving to Oshawa, Ontario in 1876. The most successful of their time, producing more than 25,000 carriages a year, the company incorporated as the "McLaughlin Carriage Company, Ltd." in 1901.
Under the guidance of "Colonel" Sam McLaughlin, in 1907 the company began the manufacture of automobiles, eventually forming an alliance for 14 years with William C. Durant, who had acquired the Buick Motor Company that later would become General Motors Holding Company.
During their first few years of operation, the automobiles were known as "McLaughlins". The name was changed to "McLaughlin-Buick" until 1942, after which the McLaughlin name was dropped, leaving the "Buick" marque still in use today. Until 1914, the cars were finished with the same paints and varnishes used on carriages. This meant each vehicle required up to fifteen coats of paint. McLauglin revolutionized the industry with their painting process.
In 1918, the McLaughlin family sold their interests to General Motors, but Sam McLaughlin would continue to run the company in his capacity as chairman of the board of General Motors of Canada, in addition to being vice-president and director of the parent company.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well that's all great but I don't see the point, what is it?
I didn't see Layout's question. OPPs.
This is kind of wrong. Here's why.
Back in 1911 there was this odd kind of guy who worked on the railroads, actually he was production manager for some locomotive company but was hired to "fix" one of the companies that was bought by this loony tune guy named Durant but the banks kicked out Durant because he kind of over bought and rant he company into the ground (sound familiar?) Well this odd railroad guy sat one day at the Flint plant where they made the Buick and saw all these cars going out for 'test drives' but not many coming back. So he instituted one change - test drives will be done on site.
Then one day he noticed that it took a week to paint the chassis' of the cars they were building - believe me I had one and it was just really great workmanship - he changed that around to be fast and improved the time from one week to one day.
So this leads me to what I am puzzled by, McLauglin was following the instructions of that odd railroad man who later bought another company - Maxwell - and build Chrysler from it.
I had three Buick's, two of them were McLaughlin. What remains of my collect is a GM of Canada built Chevrolet and a Canadian Willys/Overland Whippet.
I didn't see Layout's question. OPPs.
This is kind of wrong. Here's why.
Back in 1911 there was this odd kind of guy who worked on the railroads, actually he was production manager for some locomotive company but was hired to "fix" one of the companies that was bought by this loony tune guy named Durant but the banks kicked out Durant because he kind of over bought and rant he company into the ground (sound familiar?) Well this odd railroad guy sat one day at the Flint plant where they made the Buick and saw all these cars going out for 'test drives' but not many coming back. So he instituted one change - test drives will be done on site.
Then one day he noticed that it took a week to paint the chassis' of the cars they were building - believe me I had one and it was just really great workmanship - he changed that around to be fast and improved the time from one week to one day.
So this leads me to what I am puzzled by, McLauglin was following the instructions of that odd railroad man who later bought another company - Maxwell - and build Chrysler from it.
I had three Buick's, two of them were McLaughlin. What remains of my collect is a GM of Canada built Chevrolet and a Canadian Willys/Overland Whippet.
Last edited:
so where'd the cars go?
It was Durant that is responsible for the cheap paint jobs of to-day?
It was Durant that is responsible for the cheap paint jobs of to-day?
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
I know cause Sherrod Brown and some others are bringing this tax break up for a vote maybe next week to do away with it and make it so the companies will get a tax break for bringing the jobs back to the USA.
Im not the one who does the complaining, its all of you spreading half truths against the unons and workers for what ever your agenda is.
NAFTA in its orginal thought was suppose to provide good jobs in mexico and hopefully bring up there standard of living, thuS making it possible for them to purchase products we make in the USA, be as usaul the corporatons just used it for greed and did nothing to help bring up there standard of living and just stuck the money in there pockets.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Uh Huh....well, 1% is 1% too much. No matter how much the UAW owns, it flies in the face of every last member who trusted them to represent the workers.. Eff them..
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
Just as they did with the tax breaks that Greg thinks should be renewed.....
exactly, and they talk about the pay n benes of the auto worker in the USA, how many jobs have been shipped overseas for cheap labor? 200,000 or 300.000? has the price of a car come down 1 penny?, and you guys actually believe the corporations? give me a break
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
OVM said:
"I think Canada got a share because if the Canadian division did not make it..they'd have their share of the Canadian bailout funds covered"....
yeah yeah....
"I think Canada got a share because if the Canadian division did not make it..they'd have their share of the Canadian bailout funds covered"....
yeah yeah....
Last edited:
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Just not really a big picture guy, huh?
Last edited:
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
And just what is the big picture, Cant wait to hear this.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Just as they did with the tax breaks that Greg thinks should be renewed.....
Take an economics class Cheri, learn how it really works in the real world.
Other countries have learned the lesson, we are the only one left who hasn't.
Oiler,
Facts are facts, the problem is that without companies and corporations, the world as we know it stops. The worker is just that, a worker and the american worker has had it easy for decades, where others haven't. I don't like BIG corporations, I despise them - BIG banks, Pharma, auto companies and so on but I also understand how they work, and experienced being screwed as many would put it by the company.
The real problem is the ignorance of many who blame this party of that party or better put the party of banks or pharma or big business. They just don't get that it is all the government who has allowed these companies to grow too big and ignored the laws. It is their fault for being only focused on what they can get out of these companies and listening like a bunch of sheep to their 'leaders' who tell them Bush did a bad thing by allowing taxes to be lowered on "rich people". Deflect to jealousy, deflect to hate the rich, cause the people to think they have no hope but to be in one class then convince the people to think that their class is the target.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
That has got to be one of the biggest generalizations in a sea of generalizations in this thread.
Take an economics class Cheri, learn how it really works in the real world.
Don't need an economics class to learn that theory [upon which the Bush tax cut were based] isn't reality. The money that was supposed to create jobs, was used to: buy other companies, invest in the stock market, increase dividends to shareholders, and create jobs outside the US.
Throwing more money at the same folks won't produce jobs, which is what we need most. And I'm not talking low wage, part time jobs, which is pretty much all anyone is finding these days.
Other countries have learned the lesson, we are the only one left who hasn't.
Oiler,
Facts are facts, the problem is that without companies and corporations, the world as we know it stops. The worker is just that, a worker and the american worker has had it easy for decades, where others haven't. I don't like BIG corporations, I despise them - BIG banks, Pharma, auto companies and so on but I also understand how they work, and experienced being screwed as many would put it by the company.
The real problem is the ignorance of many who blame this party of that party or better put the party of banks or pharma or big business. They just don't get that it is all the government who has allowed these companies to grow too big and ignored the laws. It is their fault for being only focused on what they can get out of these companies and listening like a bunch of sheep to their 'leaders' who tell them Bush did a bad thing by allowing taxes to be lowered on "rich people". Deflect to jealousy, deflect to hate the rich, cause the people to think they have no hope but to be in one class then convince the people to think that their class is the target.
That whole 'class envy' smokescreen doesn't fly, Greg - not when the income of the upper class has gone up by what? 300% [as opposed to the income of the working class], and it hasn't produced anything beyond more wealth for some, and precious little for the rest of us.
As you said, it's the govt's fault, for allowing it to happen, but politicians and the law are bought by those who can afford them, and they've all sold us out.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Didn't the subject of "banter" get covered quite extensively about a week ago? You quote me about my comment on generalization, and then ask how I am running? What's that have to do with anything in the thread or my comment?
That fox news bashing without any substance is getting old. Just saying.