Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Flaherty favours aid for long-term auto plans

HEATHER SCOFFIELD AND GREG KEENAN

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:20 PM EST 09/11/08

His top priority, however, is to ensure that banks are lending and that credit is available at a decent price ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Warren Asweater from Canada writes: What about the buggy whip makers?
  2. Rain Couver from Canada writes: I've already said that if a company is committed to R&D, design, manufacturing and marketing in Canada, especially alternative fuel and power plant designs, then go for it.

    If this just a bailout, forget it. Build cars that people want to drive and things would change. Japan did it, germany did it, Korea did it, the US can do it too.
  3. BaB EmImE from Canada writes: ..//

    Not with my tax money.

    ..//
  4. J Kooman from Canada writes:

    Bad judgement.

    Automobile manufacturing (assemblying) is an industry of the 20th century. Unless Canada has our own Toyota company (with design and engineering), we don't want our children to compete with workers in India, China for USD6/hour jobs.

    Some stop gap assistance should be provided to substain Ontario in the migration and preparation of our work force to new industries of the 21st century.

    What is a Long term Aid Plan for? We need a finance minister with vision, and we shall appreciate if he can come up with better idea.

    ...
  5. Just In from Canada writes: There is no point in bailing out big three by Canadian tax payers until President-Elect Obama puts meat on the table and demonstrates that he can actually rescue those companies. If the mother ship sinks, our relatively small budget will simply be completely wasted on GM creditors or shareholders. Since the recent problem is caused by lack of U.S. consumer spending or credit and therefore car sales, it may just be (sadly) that the supply side of the auto industry has to shrink, especially if consumers decide to buy more durable cars i.e. permanent down sizing of the market. If U.S. auto makers cannot produce cars that last as long as Toyota and Honda, we will be looking to a bail out every 10 years. Let us hope that Obama realizes this problem and make any support package contingent on durability targets, not just initial quality. If the U.S. support package is unconditional, then Canada should look to getting out of partnership with Big Three and seek auto plant investments that are more world class.
  6. S G from Canada writes: Get over it warren - that bad joke is growing old.

    Cars are here to stay and a lot of people's families depend on those jobs.

    I'm never one to argue for more government intervention, quite the opposite in fact, but this crisis is bigger than most of us have ever seen in our lifetime and watching from the sidelines just isn't an option right now.
  7. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    Rain Couver: couldn't agree with you more. The North American Industry is too busy telling us what we want to buy.... Glitz, power, big stereo systems.
  8. edgardo moreno from Canada writes: It is time to stop wasting tax payers money. It smells of corruption.
    Use the money to retrain workers or to help create alternative industries. The car industry is dying and it needs to die. Enough already!
  9. Silent Buddha from Montreal, Canada writes: For decades the BIG 3 North American Car Companies have had ample time to change their products and adapt to new competition. Blinded by their egos...they continued to produce products far inferior to their Japanese & Korean counterparts. Now they want tax payers money to give them a life line. I think the finance minister should not use canadian taxpayer $$$ to bail out any company.

    If the finance minister does use canadian tax payers money to bail out the auto workers, the minister should impose very strict conditions as to how money should be spent :

    - not 1 penny used to be used in executive compensation
    - not 1 penny to be used in funding executive/employee R&R activities
    - not 1 penny to be used to executive severance
    - not 1 penny to be used for employee salary raises
    - employees must accept lower wages (12$ - 15$ / Hr )
    - the company will cease to all operations to the employee health & retirement program
    - government must review all financial spending
    - government must be represented in board of directors
    - government must impose conditions as to when the it should be paid back the loan and how much interest
  10. Carl Baldin from Canada writes: So GM, Ford & Chrysler are mismanaged companies that don't get it (i.e. building quality cars...Toyota, Honda, Mercedes) and we now bail them out to save some jobs for overpaid, unproductive union people.

    It will come down to buying votes in Ontario! A great use for my hard earned money (taxes).
  11. Keyser Soze from Canada writes: The CAW will need to be brought under control and forced to smell the coffee as part of any sustainable assistance package.
  12. uf65ca B from Canada writes: Rain Couver from Canada writes: I've already said that if a company is committed to R&D, design, manufacturing and marketing in Canada, especially alternative fuel and power plant designs, then go for it.

    ----------------
    couldn't agree more, BTW I don't understand why big 3 is 'domestic'?
  13. Mister Fartleberry from Toronto, Canada writes: Well there goes another hundred national portrait galleries. Those new shiny 'fuel efficient' V8 pickups sure are purdy though.
  14. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    J Kooman: long term sustainable .... means with vision. The Japanese build in better efficiency ... where the NA market generally put on new sheet metal and a paint job spending their money on marketing.

    Another example of the lack of American sustained vision is their Refrideration and water heating models ..... same old product with a little more insulation.
  15. I learned from that from Why compare Mr. Obama to a shadowy bootlegger?, Canada writes: I am confused.

    Has any consideration been given, if assistance is granted, to limiting the bonuses, perks and salaries paid to the executives of these companies?

    Perhaps all the top people should go in 50% salary.

    They took the easy road - big SUVs and big cars - that required little engineering as people bought almost by the pound.

    Now it has come back to haunt them. Mileage is more important than leather trim.
  16. F. Trevor from Somewhere in the Sonora, Canada writes: If I've learned one valuable lesson over the years, it's that rescuing a company with interest-free loans in inevitably cheaper than paying out the EI and welfare that would be required when 30'000 people lose their jobs.

    Pick your flavour of socialism. Either way, your tax dollars are going to fix this problem. Or... at least put a bandaid on it. I just hope the 'big three' learn from their mistakes this time around.
  17. Cheap Skate from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mr. Flaherty said most economists would consider a bailout unwise, since such a package puts government in the dicey business of choosing winners and losers. Rather, he said, he would be guided by which plants have the best chance of remaining viable over the long term.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... lol

    So, Flaberty is intending not to choose, but he will choose which is going to be viable over the long term? Which company I wonder? Ford? GM/Chrysler? Which of the three will still be in business after the merger? Will any?

    Why for heavens sake are we yet again looking to the U. S. to solve our problem? President elect Obama (yes THE US ONE) will only do what is right for the U. S. Flaberty and his teflon boss need to do what is right for Canada. In six months, at least one of those big three companies will no longer exist and the merger funding will be used to pay out the executives.
  18. Linda Dial from Canada writes: Sustainable means government shares in greenshift company vehicle manufacturers.
  19. D K from Canada writes: Wow now we are bailing out American companies. Canada must be rich!
  20. mechone 1 from Canada writes: The US unions agreed to cut wages and benefis ,the CAW held out and were pretty smug about it.Then the closures were anounced within a couple of weeks.Honda and toyota are paying $30.00 per hour less than CAW plants of the big 3 including benefits.Instead of offering wage cuts ,so they can compete ,the CAW negotiates huge sevrences,driving the companies into bigger losses.I do not support
    goverment loans or grants unless wages and benefits are brought into line with the competition and cars that people actually want are made.
  21. Tor Hill from Canada writes: I don't know anything about any of this. But I must be in the same league there as Mr. Flaherty. Why is Mark Carney always in every photo showing Mr. Flaherty at all these important events?
  22. Just In from Canada writes: After this economic down turn, the customers that the Big Three have lost will not be coming back long after a shrinkage to Big Two or even One, and long after the U.S. Auto Maker reinvents itself and make cars that last as long as Japanese. By the time this happens, China and India (Tata) may become the largest auto markets and manufacturers simply because of a rising middle class and a large domestic market. Auto industry will go the way of the smoke stacks. Don't throw good money after bad to buy votes short term.

    http://www.tatamotors.com/
  23. Just In from Canada writes: Tor Hill from Canada writes: I don't know anything about any of this. But I must be in the same league there as Mr. Flaherty. Why is Mark Carney always in every photo showing Mr. Flaherty at all these important events?

    -------------------------------

    Chaperone.
  24. Matthew Harper from Toronto, Canada writes: Our gov't should favour auto-makers that have already designed vehicles that people want to buy over those that are planning to pull their heads out of their asses some time in the next decade or so.
  25. Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: mechone 1 from Canada writes: 'I do not support goverment loans or grants unless wages and benefits are brought into line with the competition and cars that people actually want are made.'

    That's chicken and egg argument mechone. If these teetering corporation produced cars that people actually want, they would not need government help. You don't hear Toyota crying for a hand-out are you? And what do the workers' wages have to do with this? Does anybody care what Toyota workers earn? If a company produces a product people are willing to buy, and the price is set at a level people are prepared to pay, then it really does not matter what wages they pay their workers.
  26. Bob Hawkins from Vancouver, Canada writes: mechone 1 is absolutely right. If the CAW union moves all its hourly rates and benefit packages EXACTLY n line with the Japanese auto plants, then we can consider some kind of bailout. Failing that we have no deal. That is because the unions have placed the manufacturers in an untenable position. There is no way they can compete with existing union contracts. I would prefer to help the Japanese build more and better plants here in Canada than throw good money into three sinking ships.
  27. Mad Canuck from Calgary, Canada writes: Until the workers at the big 3 are prepared to put a bit of their own skin ie take pay cuts, there should be no government money. The autoworkers make a huge hourly wage and most other workers in Canada would be prepared to work for much less. An auto job is not that difficult--we are just used to Buzz Hargrove talking about how we can't lose high paying manufacturing jobs. The news is that most manufacturing jobs pay nowhere near what the autoworkes make.
  28. Island Man from Victoria from Canada writes: Tor Hill from Canada writes: I don't know anything about any of this. But I must be in the same league there as Mr. Flaherty. Why is Mark Carney always in every photo showing Mr. Flaherty at all these important events?

    Tor, it very simple.. Take a look at the picture over the story. Flaherty looks like an idiot without a clue...Carney looks confident and he has the knowledge to lead him by the nose like he did with Income Trusts.
  29. gao gao from Canada writes: This is craziness. Why invest in something that has no return? The big three is going to fold (at least the Canadian plants) soon after they take our money.
  30. dave charlston from toronto, Canada writes: the new CAW guy wants to know how we got to this point. They should know it was in part the lazy union workers that drove them to where they are
  31. Warren Asweater from Canada writes: SG - agreed, bad joke, cars are here for a while. But not the Big 3. They are dead, and rightfully so. The jobs lost will move over to the Toyota, Honda & related auto manufacturers, where they will pay $20 per hour, not $30 per hour. CAW fat cats will cry for a bit, trying to deflect attention from the impact that extra $10 per hour had on the fate of the Big 3. But we'll forget about Buzz and Bob and Jim and the boys, just like we forgot about buggy whips. It won't take long now.
  32. dave charlston from toronto, Canada writes: The government is going to decide what's sustainable? Oh oh. My definition of sustainable are companies like Honda and Toyota not GM or Ford. Why do taxpayers have to support overpaid workers in these plants and not others.
  33. double mike from Mississauga, Canada writes: .
    Daimler tried and fell miserably. Why anybody can ever imagine that government can do better is above me.
  34. J. Michael from Canada writes: Just In from Canada - You are right – we need to see what Obama does. The Democrats could put conditions on bailing out the big 3 by shifting production into the USA.

    You couldn't blame them if they did.
  35. IT'S BCFORME from Canada writes: Ford, GM and Chrysler auto sales are about to drop off a cliff. Who will want to buy a car from a company that may be out of business in a year or two? Who will service the cars? Where will the parts come from? What good will the warranty be? Consumers are now going to steer away from 'domestic' cars big time and go for the 'imports' which are manufactured by companies that have a stronger financial footing. The billions spent on a bailout are going to disappear into a black hole. That money might be better spent helping displaced workers transition and creating jobs in other sectors. The slack in the auto industry will eventually be picked up by other companies...that's the way other sectors work (eg. other airlines fill the gap left by the Zoom collapse).
  36. Kevin Sawatsky from Vancouver, Canada writes: I think Flaherty is right: the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.

    People need to keep in mind that the forestry industry also supports thousands of jobs in several provinces. Some towns are completely reliant on its jobs and yet they don't get any attention, either from the federal government nor the national media. Ontario manufacturers aren't the only ones suffering from the US downtown and near collapse.
  37. David Stevens from You know it, Canada writes: Scrap any aid to the US companies that make failed decisions and products. Allow Honda and Toyota to set up here with incentives and have them only build Hybrids and cars like the Yaris.

    And throw a little money Zenn's way. A true Canadian Auto make should be rewarded not killed off.
  38. Leslie Grauer from Canada writes: Well, I hope any money from ME, the taxpayer, will have LOTS of strings attached. Like making reliable, efficient cars in Canada - plants that are not cut by US firms. NONE of these companies make the right kind of cars in Canada, so I do not support this effort without MANY MANY strings attached.

    For years, I have purchased ONLY imports (3 since 1980) because I do not like to have a car in the shop, I want it to start every time and I only need enough HP to go up a mountain with spirit at 110 max and pass cars safely on 2-lane roads. I do not want adjustable memory seats or even cruise control (useless in BC). And I want a blue car. My 4-cyl 130 hp 1991 Acura at age 11 consistently passed all the other struggling North American-built cars on the Coquihalla.

    I do want a bit of bling, though, but manufacturers so far do not put really nice stereo and leather in the 4-cyl, low-gas guzzler models. MISTAKE! And, can we have words back on the dashboard - I do not get the symbols and they are too small to read in the dark. Lots of the expensive features add no value and confuse people. I should not have to pull out the manual to find out how to turn on the emergency flasher lights. Why does my car not have a back windshield wiper? And, I want an real ashtray, not an unsafe, disgusting cup.

    It is the fault of the big US 3 for doing lousy market analysis. For the plant workers, I am sorry for you, but what were you thinking? Have you been asleep during the environment discussions? Have you not read the reliability reports? Did you also vote NDP for nothing? Was the extra $ worth it? Collect UI, which you duly paid for, and go work for Honda or Toyota or start a new business!
  39. Fred Draper from Kingston, Canada writes: How does a company burn though $7.7 billion in a quarter, and NOT even pay its suppliers?

    No company can survive that burn, even with a bailout package. The exonomy won't turn around that quick.

    Find out what the cancer is in the cash flow statement, and FIX IT! (thanks SNL)
  40. Rain Couver from Canada writes: uf65ca B from Canada writes: I don't understand why big 3 is 'domestic'?

    >>Funny, I never thought of that. You are right to point out that Chrysler, GM and Ford are just as foreign as Honda, Toyota and VW. We had Bricklin.
  41. Mark Baigrie from Toronto, Canada writes: Most of the naysayers on this topic are from the west - figures. The 'let the Ontario ba*****ds freeze in the dark' types we know so well from the past. The 'offshore' auto plants pay almost as well as do the 'big 3'. I have no idea where you get the idea that they pay cheap wages. Their 'unions' aren't nearly as strong as the CAW and they have to co-operate with management much more and their jobs are in jeopardy much more too due to the lack of protection from 'bad' types in management who fire people at will. Their workers, although more 'under the gun' than the CAW are no better or worse than thos of the 'big 3' - I was one of them for 30 years, and the BS about 'lazyness' is just that, BS !! The idea that the 'big 3', especially GM don't build long-lasting vehicles is not true and the gas mileage is just as good as the imports on quite a number of their vehicles. I happen to own a Pontiac Vibe(which is of course, a Toyota Matrix), BUT it's made in N.A. which is vitally important. The Japanese should be legislated in Canada and the USA to have to build MORE vehicles in N.A. as their importation of vehicles to N.A. is one of the main reasons we have lost so many auto manufacturing jobs. It should be a case that if you want to sell it here, you build it here. There are a number of plants already doing so and many more would have to be built and then GM and the likes would have to compete with them on a level playing field where the 'jobs' are here and not in Japan or Korea. To consider the devastation that a collapsing 'domestic' market would have on the N.A. economy for the sake of building here what is sold here is utterly relevant to our survival,, meaning ALL of us in N.A., not just the auto sector. Your mean-spirited posts have no foundation in truth any more. Hopefully Obama will do just what I have said and cause the Japanese and Korean companies to build more, lots more vehicles in N.A. with Americans and Canadians building them, or to get out !!
  42. wilfred mcintyre from MapleRidge, Canada writes: I understand that car sales are down and this is the problem for the auto industry as people are not buying new veichles.Rather than giving our hard earned tax dollars going directly to the outo industry such as gm and ford and others, so the government don't pick and choose who gets money they should give the canadian people 5 to 10 thousand dollars or what ever the amount maybe, for every new veichle that they buy so the canadian tax payers play a roll in keeping the economy going.
  43. Former 2 Time CIBC Staffer from North Vancouver, Canada writes: We already give the 'Not-so-Big' 3 a huge subsidy compared to their US plants... it's called free healthcare for their emloyees and retirees. First it was the financial industry that got a bailout (which I disagree with), next it was the Real estate industry, now it's the American auto industry.... I don't see the Japanese companies who manufacture here asking for a handout... I hope the Japanese make a WTO complaint for any bailout of American automobile manufacturers.

    Seems the more delusional and reckless an industry, the more it needs the government to save their skin... Who will be next? On what basis can those industries be refused?
  44. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: I guess that the message here is that if the US decides to jump off a bridge, Canada now has to follow...

    Harper must be Obama's puppet...

    This idea is just so WRONG at so many different levels !!!!
  45. RS IslandReader from Canada writes: “Ottawa is willing to go to the aid of teetering auto companies, but will consider help only for plants that are thought to be “sustainable,” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Sunday.” LOL, and who you Mr. Flaherty going to ask which plants are sustainable???? Mr. Wagoner, Alan Mulally or maybe Ken Lewenza.

    There is enough evidence in the past that governments throw enough taxpayers money away. There is not much I can do about it, but I know one thing for sure, I will not buy GM, Chrysler or Ford and I am certain I can do that with ease.
  46. Mark Baigrie from Toronto, Canada writes: 'CIBC' - You're a fool to say what you have. The Japanese are lucky to be here, period. They should NOT be allowed to import vehicles nor should the Koreans taking jobs from Americans and Canadians as I have said.
    They have 'protectionist' policies and so should we !!
    At least I have suggested a compromise that if they build their vehicles here that they sell here, it's OK. Otherwise - NO MORE IMPORTS to take jobs away !! The CAW, of which I am a retired member agree with that and want imports banned until 'reason' comes to the Japanese and Koreans that they MUST build in our market at a level concurrent with what they sell here and employ our people to build their vehicles. That is fair and just. Anything else would be 'suicide' if both our govt's allowed it to continue as it is with 'them' selling here and taking OUR jobs away !!
    To suggest that we in N.A. give the Japanese and Koreans full 'shrift' to cause the ruination of our auto industry by the importation of their vehicles here instead of having to build them here is heresy !!
  47. RS IslandReader from Canada writes: Mark Baigrie from Toronto, I would expect that precise of answer from someone misinformed as you.
  48. david tarbuck from uzhgorod, Ukraine writes: The government has it half right; SUSTAINABILITY is a must and the banks (not government) ought to be the main source of credit, but the market is not, should not come back to 16-17 million units. That is three times a realistic sustainable number of 5-6 million. Ergo, any government aid to these corporate welfare bums should be post chapter 11!
  49. Misery No one from Toronto, Canada writes: Let's face it the big 3 have failed the consumer with their shoddy products and recalls. So along came another producer Honda and Toyota for example.

    I don't care who makes it but it must work has always been my motto.

    So now Flaherty is bowing to the corporate failures, of course it also means keeping these bloated union packages that have so squeezed the companies over the years and made competitiveness almost impossible.

    And he sugar coats it by saying we must save jobs. Well if the unions hadn't demanded so much by squeezing the manufacturers till they were dry, then we would have lots of jobs.

    So let the big 3 fall on their swords.
  50. Andrei Popov from NYC, United States writes: No taxpayer money for them.
  51. Black Gold from Corpus Christi, United States writes: Mark Baigrie - my commie friend. Just because Obama is a Democrat doesn't mean he's socialist. As the US President, he is going to protect American jobs even if it's at the expense of Canadian ones and he's most likely to do just that especially as the UAW have agreed to major concessions that the CAW haven't matched. That's Obama's mandate and he cannot be faulted for it.

    Mr. Baigrie, if you think it's just western Canadians who want the US car makers to self destruct, just check out a US grassroots blog like Newsvine
    and savour the venom our American friends spew at their own automakers. Hate to break it to you, but very many Americans seem to prefer imports too and any action by Obama, especially something as profoundly stupid as to dictate to his people to only buy certain products will have him branded as a confirmed socialist after which the American right wing will ensure he's a single term president.
  52. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: But this is not 'share the wealth' right?
  53. RS IslandReader from Canada writes: Just a little addition Mr. Mark Baigrie from Toronto, When I was employed as a young chap by one of the North American dealerships, many years ago, repairing squeaks and rattles for general public (Guinea pigs for automotive sector), I found empty coke bottle welded up in the quarter panel of a North American built car. This was during a time when assembly line workers were demanding raise in wages. Who knows it could have been put there by one of your CAW colleagues. Some days, I feel I should write a book about all the things I saw during this part of my life. This likely would be very appropriate time.

    Your statement “The Japanese are lucky to be here, period” is lowest of the lows when I consider the source.
  54. Black Gold from Corpus Christi, United States writes: Mark Baigrie - If Canadians and Americans consider the Asian product superior and buys the latter even if it initially costs more, what makes you think the Japanese and Koreans are going to choose a UAW/CAW product over yours. In spite of what you think about quality comparisons, the level of fit and finish, refinement, NVH of a 2009 Corolla or Civic is far superior than that of a UAW/CAW/Mexican built 2009 Focus or G5. And then the resale value - let's not even start that debate...
  55. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: RIP, laissez-faire Conservative government. 2004-2008.

    Another one bites the dust.
  56. C K from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is freaking socialism pure and simple! If the Big 3 produced quality vehicles, they wouldn't be in half this mess. If they had not caved repeatedly to CAW and UAW they would also have been better off. This is what we get from a so-called 'Conservative' government in Canada. I shudder to think what a left-wing Canadian government would do... though we only ever get left-wing interventionism is this country!
  57. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Left wing/Right wing.. makes no difference.
  58. Square Root Of 69 from Edmonton, Canada writes: Why would anyone believe the 'advice' of a Finance Minister who hasn't a care in the world, regardless of what happens?

    Our politicians, who claim to be in 'public service', have ensured that THEIR pensions are indexed to inflation, funded at twice the legal rate, and covered by the Government of Canada (the taxpayers), so why should they worry?

    So, we have a Finance Minister who has no 'skin in the game' telling us what we should do. The most disturbing part of this scenario is that Canadians voted these money-grubbing a**holes back into office after they called aun unnecessary $300 million election!!!

    Excuse me while I leave the room to puke.

    .
  59. Derek Lambert from Edmonton, Canada writes: Why doesn't the CAW open its own car company?
  60. Ken Ginn from Wiarton, Canada writes: There seems to be a lot of anti-union hype in these comments. Perhaps we should all return to minimum wage, work 60 hours a week, with no benefits except the slight chance of surviving another day, and allow our 'superiors' to use us as they wish, or risk dismissal. Like, back in the good old days. Surely, we would all be better off.

    If you don't like the things that union workers have fought and died to provide YOU and all workers (ie. standard 40 Hr. work-week, two-day weekends, annual vacations, better wages, and a host of other benefits) then perhaps you should take a serious cut in pay and give your employer a much needed break.

    While we're at it, forget the minimum wage, if YOU wish to work for less... then YOU are welcome to it. This would certainly be a big boon to the auto industry, ... Except for one little detail, if the majority of people are making sub-survival wages who would the big three sell their cars to?

    A bail-out? If it is the only way to keep us GAINFULLY emplyed, then so be it. but of course there will be conditions. The first should be to stop producing inefficient gas-guzzlers here. If people need to prove their dog is bigger than mine, let THEM import.
  61. Warren Asweater from Canada writes: Governments want to appease the auto industry while slamming the producers of the fuel automobiles burn?

    Auto workers have become so prosperous, they can't afford to support the NDP?

    The biggest single discretionary source of green house gases is tailpipe emissions, yet our governments want to throw money at the least fuel efficient auto makers to subsidize their premium labour costs?

    Mr. Flaherty needs to drop back and find a coherent plan on this issue. Feeding the CAW is not something Canadians want to see a Conservative government start doing.



  62. Just In from Canada writes: Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Left wing/Right wing.. makes no difference.

    ------------------------------------------------

    They join hands to pick your pockets.

    Like you, I had a hard time understanding why a Conservative government would bail out a business failure caused in large part by a labor union. Then I came upon this article or opinion 'No bail out for auto industry'

    http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/nobailoutfortheauto_industry/

    from which I recognized the name Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

    http://www.cerberuscapital.com/index.html

    and I remembered Brian Mulroney had some association with it, so googling 'cerberus mulroney' yielded a whole lot of stuff:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=cerberus mulroney&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
  63. Warren Asweater from Canada writes: Ken - another alternative to minimum wage is to invest in education and training to obtain valuable skills.
  64. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: So, where exactly is the Canadian taxpayers supposed to pledge their allegiance to a dying automobile industry that most no longer even support with their purchasing power...

    This is a very, very bad decision that is being made here...
  65. William J Gillies from Canada writes: C K from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'This is freaking socialism pure and simple!'

    You've got your labels mixed up. It's fascism aka corporate control of government ... which doesn't in any way support your hypothesis that 'we only ever get left-wing interventionism is this country!'
  66. Ken Ginn from Wiarton, Canada writes: Warren, I have valuable skills.

    Like most professionals, I also belong to an association. It's not the BAR association, nor is it the CMA, It is really very different: they maintain a monopoly and have complete control over their members livelihood, mine doesn't. I fail to see why it is that my decision to become a member of that association should not be considered a viable solution to my financial needs.

    Considering that union membership has declined from about 25% of the workforce a few decades ago, to less than 17% now, I find it hard to swallow the argument that unions have had such a major impact on industry. If the industry managed to thrive with the unions 20 or 30 years ago, why are unions such a problem now? Surely it can't be the declining number of unionized workers, nor can it be the declining compensation packages they have been accepting lately.

    I'm venting because I get tired of hearing that the simple solution is to disallow unions, the ONLY apparent check/balance available to prevent the large multi-national corporations from doing what-ever they wish, whenever they wish at our expense. I'm tired of being considered a part of the problem because I choose to stand united with my fellow tradesmen against the excesses of free enterprise when left to run rampant. I don't argue against the open 'free' market system, as long as it provides the PEOPLE of Canada with a better life. If an industry cannot perform this function, then it has no function at all.
  67. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: Sounds like a large dump truck load of stinky crap. Socialism, at it's finest. The Leprechan from the city thinks the hybrids are more important than the pickups. Well they are to the commuter, but it sure is hard to load a yard of gravel or lumber into a little hybrid.
    Let them fail something good will rise from the ashes. Or if they want to save them inflate the system big time and fast with some low interest rates. There is no other option that is fair to the taxpayers rather than to let them fail. Hyperinflation is big time bad but we have been duped into this system that requires continuous inflation. Time the Leprechan looks to the end of the rainbow and gets some real currency.
  68. Lord Cross of Blacks Harbour from BLACKS HARBOUR NB, Canada writes: Island Man from Victoria from Canada writes: Tor Hill from Canada writes: I don't know anything about any of this. But I must be in the same league there as Mr. Flaherty. Why is Mark Carney always in every photo showing Mr. Flaherty at all these important events? Tor, it very simple.. Take a look at the picture over the story. Flaherty looks like an idiot without a clue...Carney looks confident and he has the knowledge to lead him by the nose like he did with Income Trusts. Posted 10/11/08 at 12:01 AM EST It is rare these days to see an exchange of opinion which captures the destructive essence of past political behaviours. Mark Carney got the job as governor by virtue of his support for Flaherty's lying and misleading position on the Income Trust Betrayal. Mark Carney is also the famous son of Art Carney, of MoneyHoover fame. He, along with the famous Jack-o Layton and Tom Mulcair really put the boots to seniors. Tom Mulcair is noted for his 'brilliant statement' in an exchange with Carney. '39:2 Committee Evidence - FINA-14 (2007/12/5) (1615) Mr. Thomas Mulcair: “I want to begin by asking you a question about income trusts. In your previous position, as an expert, you played an active role in the economy, and that had a significant influence. **As you know, our political party was not favourably disposed towards income trusts.** ... Which put an END to the LIE the NDP care about seniors. **However, we never lied to people the way the government did.'**
  69. The Centrist from Canada writes: The headline should read 'If the Auto Plant is in a Conservative riding, the Harper Conservative government will GLADLY give money to it. If the plant is in a non-Conservative riding, YOU ARE OUT OF LUCK.'
  70. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: The Centrist from Canada----- We will have to watch them closely. This whole thing seems like a good cause to go see my MP and let him have it.
  71. Lord Cross of Blacks Harbour from BLACKS HARBOUR NB, Canada writes: Wall Street Journal--Auto Makers Force Bailout Issue

    The auto-industry crisis is forcing a broader debate over how far the government should go to prop up ailing industries.

    [[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122616278065311225.html]]

    Pelosi, Reed Letter to Paulson

    [[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/08/pelosi-reid-letter-to-paulson-on-auto-aid/]]

    Flaherty is a 'follow-on' guy. He won't do anything until/unless he sees proof the U.S. is willing to follow the same course. There are exceptions to that ... Most particularly in his 'election preamble' about Ontario being a poor place to invest. I think the prospect of very public, in-the-street, protests has moved to the forefront of his mind.
  72. earl pearl from Canada writes: Jim, put that money towards a Honda or Toyota plant. The 2 best automakers in the world are where 'sustainability' is.

    Revisit the plan should the NA big 3 decide to build quality fuel efficient cars that people want. Until then they can use their own bond holders cash to survive.
  73. truth betold from Canada writes: Mark Bagrai, your hammer & sickle are showing. Protectionism helped deepend the Great Depression. Read a book, man.
    As for Wiarton Willie and his tearful tribute to his union brethren who 'died' to give me freedom to donate my tax money to his cr@ppy car company, spare me. If any auto worker thinks his $60/hr no-brains-required job has a shelf life of more than 3-6 months, he is seriously deluded.
    After the government has succeeded in stealing the taxes of working people and donating them to corporate welfare bums. And the central bank has inflated away what we've got left, we're going to find out that the people who survive will be those with a genuinely useful skill.
    The world has no shortage of auto workers, PR flaks, realtors, MBAs, and assorted d00cheb@gs.
  74. Cal Davidson from Kingston, Canada writes: The posters that are complaining about a possible investment by Ottawa for the auto sector are clueless. You just don't understand what an integral part of the economy vehicle production is. There are countless spin off manufacturing activities that come along with vehicle production so we're not just talking about the core automotive jobs, but also jobs in secondary and tertiary industries.

    As for government spending, well, that's what governments have to do in a depression, and besides, we have to drive something and I would much rather a hybrid or fuel cell card was produced here rather than in the US or Japan.
  75. Ron Eh from Halifax, Canada writes: So with all this government help - what does that do to NAFTA? Why don't we choose NOT to bail out our auto industry. Let the US bail out theirs and then sue them for violating NAFTA. Our winnings can then subsidize what's left of our auto industry.
  76. Blue Sky from Canada writes: It should come with conditions. You know like how the IMF treats a third world country? Since its our tax dollars the first instruction to GM and Ford is to BUILD BETTER cars.
  77. CallofDuty . from Toronto, Canada writes: There better be major conditions the automakers must meet to get this bailout.

    No CEO bonus
    Must make high MPG cars.
  78. Pete H from Canada writes: Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:

    It is becoming clearer and clearer by the minute that flatulent flaherty has absolutely no clue on how to proceed, and in which direction to proceed during these turbulent economic times.

    Well then why don't you give him a call. I'm sure he and the country could benefit from your vast knowlege and superior intelect. Think of it as a call to duty. Just what the country needs right now, a good constructive partisan rant.
  79. Cal Davidson from Kingston, Canada writes: William Harris from Tillsonburg - Essentially agree with you, especially on the aid to Honda and Toyota as well as the big three. I admit that the last two cars I've bought have been foreign (well one was made in Japan and the other in Canada) but no more. When I shop for my next vechicle it will be Canadian made.
  80. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: Any deal must have many strings attached - main one is keeping jobs in Canada as these main street workers also provide stimulus for the rest of the local economy in spinoff jobs and small businesses.

    Shareholders and executives have their packages slashed and their earnings slashed so that they are held responsible for greedy management and poor direction of a company. No dividend cheques going out or expensive buy out packages for those topdogs. That's where the real pork is.

    Their salarys will be now with 30% range of the shop floor worker and will be held there - no more Bay street greed.

    Producing and making vehicles that are green and good for the environment.
  81. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Where do you start with this one!

    Simple costly bailouts is only a short term solution to avoid inevitable monster EI payments next year. That's the reality!

    The big picture is that hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs (and homes) with millions more to come in the next 8-12 months once the trickle down or domino effect of the meltdown comes to full force.

    Demand for autos will be cut in half (at least) for a very long time. The flipping of a car every 2-4 years will be left to the financial elite. Those who need a 'vehicle' will use only financial considerations of getting from point A to point B.

    The industry needs a major shake-up and the job losses, both direct and indirect, will be horrific!

    I see many people holding on to their vehicle, downsizing to one where there are cost benefits, and waiting for the outright emergence of hybrids, electric vehicles, or some other solution. Whomever gets there first survives-the rest will die.

    I've mentioned this before and will again. We need a joint type of 'Manhattan Project' where business partners with government to make new eco-friendly cars. That is where money neeeds to be invested.
    .
  82. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes:
    If the government bails out the auto industry -- then it should come with the proviso that the executive bonuses be reduced to zero or by the equivalent of the bailout -- whichever is less.

    That is the ONLY way that I could support this.
  83. Lord Cross of Blacks Harbour from BLACKS HARBOUR NB, Canada writes: Ron Eh from Halifax, Canada writes: Posted 10/11/08 at 5:44 AM Hey, good luck with that. Do you recall 'our forced settlement' on the $5.2 BILLION softwood lumber agreement? Of the $5.2 Billion duties collected, Harper and Emerson, under the terms of agreement DICTATED to them by the U.S., contributed $.5 BILLION to the U.S. softwood lumber lobby to help them 'defray' their legal costs, AND another $.72 BILLION on the understanding it was a 'charitable' contribution to the Katrina hurricane damage in Louisiana. The U.S. would 'accept' ONLY ON THE BASIS that Canada relinquish all prior legal claims which had been settled in Canada's favour. Look at the current unemployment in forestry ... despite the fact Harper-- Emerson claimed it was a very good deal which would resolve all our needs for the next seven years. Bald Tires invariably give 'spin.' Even the Wall Street Journal claimed the 'arrangement' smacked of PROTECTIONISM. The softwood lumber agreement was never part of NAFTA, because it wasn't part of the negotiations when the Last Great Emperor, Byron of Muldoon, Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching Dynasty, failed to include it in negotiations. Byron later became known as the 'go-to' guy when you had a #10 Kraft envelope and the compulsion to fill it with 1000-$ bills. It is yet to be proved what the 'consulting fees' were all about.
  84. Rusty Waters from Canada writes: The auto industry is the business to get into, waste and waste and produce products people don't want, pay big salaries to executives and don't worry, no pressure to produce, because the government will bail it out. GM burned through 7.5 billion dollars of cash. What kind of a bailout that's going to be needed. At the rate GM is burning cash that's just about 30 billion a year. Even with government money who is going to buy the cars with the massive layoffs. Its better to put cash in the pockets of the general population. Typical conservative government give money to big business, the banks and the auto industry.
  85. Brett DAmelio from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: Okay - so while this story is unfortunate I will seem coldhearted - I feel there is a huge correllation - so those interested - please read. I had an antique dealer/refurbisher who lives about 30 minutes outside of St. John's, who went out of business last year. The finished pieces he sells are 4-6x the cost of pieces I can buy in Toronto (4x w/ shipping incl.). Evidently sales were so bad - he'd fallen behind in his mortgage, had the cards maxed out couldn't operate his business any more. So he tells me that business is bad that it's been in the dumper for years (well at least the last 4 years I've known him). As I mentioned he lived outside St. John's - about a 30 minute drive. I asked him about that - why he worked out of his house instead of have a place in town. His response: Back in the 90's downtown St. John's was dead - people loved driving to the countryside to look for deals, etc, etc. Now they don't come - they stay in town, buy things there - I've got to raise my prices to make up the difference in sales. Now - I'm thinking it's 2008 (this was april earlier this year) - that this guy had about 15 or so years to figure out his business model was kaput to change - and he didn't because he liked what he was doing even though it wasn't profitable. Now he's got no house - no work - no money. I'll throw a few bucks his way when I need the antique work done - but I won't pay more for it than I would elsewhere. Basically this gentleman stuck his head in the sand - and his business died. I'm not going to bail him out - it's his own fault. Just because 250,000 people stuck their heads in the sand at the same desert, doesn't mean that I should support them. People need to use their brains more. To be innovative, creative, to adapt, to change, to make sure they're moving forward and attempt to be self sufficient. To take responsibility for their own actions. And to reap the repercussions/consequences of their own decisions.
  86. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: From the article: 'Mr. Flaherty said most economists would consider a bailout unwise, since such a package puts government in the dicey business of choosing winners and losers. Rather, he said, he would be guided by which plants have the best chance of remaining viable over the long term.'

    Hahaha Ohhh wow!

    PLEASE tell me that wasn't an actual quote from Flaherty? That somehow the G&M got this one wrong!

    So let me get this straight, Flaherty things it would be unwise for the government to pick winners and losers so instead the government is going to pick winners and losers.

    Wait.. this makes no sense!!! What kind of idiot do we have as a Finance Minster?!?!
  87. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: 'Mr. Flaherty said most economists would consider a bailout unwise, since such a package puts government in the dicey business of choosing winners and losers.'
    'The Harper government rewrote the rules of an economic development program in order to pay for a $2-million project in a Conservative Quebec riding that would otherwise have been left out.'

    So, Ottawa aid is predicated on what it means for votes for Harper.
    Stephen Flopper stands for nothing.
  88. Lord Cross of Blacks Harbour from BLACKS HARBOUR NB, Canada writes: Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:

    Think of a rooster atop a barn in a rural area. What does it do in high winds or a thunderstorm? It finds a natural direction in the wind ... and sometimes the lightning knocks it off the barn.

    My message; Harper/Flaherty will either make a poll-driven decision or entertain the prospect of massive public rallies by the unemployed in this country. As I've said before, the current situation is only the beginning of the beginning in terms of the downturn. None of us, including the economists, would venture to say how long or how deep this 'recession' will be. In one instance, an economist at UBC has suggested attempting to forecast the length and breadth is now a Mug's Game. In the short span of two weeks, Flaherty attached himself to an IMF forecast that Canada's GDP would only increase by 1.7% in 2009 ... Which has now become a .3% increase in GDP, with the U.S. and EU showing contractions.
  89. George Levecque from Fergus, Ontario, Canada writes: Good luck on finding a good quality and worth more on a trade in if you purchase a Domestic North American vehicle.

    What we make here is just a sop to the USA manufacturers,ie hewers of wood etc etc. there has never been a totally Canadian made and designed North American vehicle that I can remember, we are similar to Korea in that GM-Daewoo makes Cars in Korea and sells them to North America as GM Cars, this soon to be made in Poland instead of Korea for the European Market, to save shipping costs etc, and so it goes./
    v
  90. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    The best possible long-term solution for the automotive industry is as follows:

    1. NO government money from either