Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T10:29:13.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Independence to Integration: The Corporate Evolution of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, 1904–2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Dimitry Anastakis
Dimitry Anastakis
Affiliation:
DIMITRY ANASTAKIS assistant professor in the Department of History atTrent University in Peterborough, Ontario.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the century since its founding, the Ford Motor Company of Canada has evolved from a relatively independent entity within the Ford empire, with a strong element of minority ownership and its own overseas subsidiaries, to a fully integrated and wholly owned part of Ford's North American operations. The unique emergence and transformation of Ford-Canada among Ford's foreign enterprises is explained by Canada's changing automotive trade policies, the personal relations of the Ford family with its Canadian offspring, and a corporate strategy pursued by Henry Ford's successors and the American Ford company, which sought to bring Ford-Canada more directly under Detroit's control.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , Summer 2004 , pp. 213 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The terms “Ford of Canada,” “Ford-Canada,” and “FMCC” are used when referring to the Canadian firm, and “Ford of America,” “Ford-U.S.,” and “FMC” for the American company. When “Ford” alone is used, it refers to the U.S. company.

2 “Brief presented by the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., to Tariff Inquiry Commission, November 30, 1920,” Benson Ford Research Center (hereafter BFRC), Acc. 284, Henry Ford Office, Box 13, File 7, Branches–Canada.

3 On Ford's other foreign companies, see, for example, Estape-Triay, Salvador, “Economic Nationalism, State Intervention and Foreign Multinationals: The Case of the Spanish Ford Subsidiary, 1936–1954,” Essays in Economic and Business History 16 (1998): 78–94Google Scholar; Tignor, Robert L., “In the Grip of Politics: The Ford Motor Company of Egypt, 1945–1960,” Middle East Journal 44 (Summer 1990)Google Scholar; Church, Roy A., The Rise and Decline of the British Motor Industry (Basingtoke, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 The classic study of Ford and his times is the three-volume biography by Nevins, Allan with Hill, Frank, Ford (New York, 1954–1962)Google Scholar. A small sample of the literature on Henry Ford and his company includes: Brinkley, Douglas, Wheels for the World: Henry Ford, His Company, and a Century of Progress, 1903–2003 (New York, 2003)Google Scholar; Bonin, Hubert, Lung, Yannick, and Tolliday, Steven, eds., Ford, 1903–2003: The European History (Paris, 2003)Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., ed., Giant Enterprise: Ford, General Motors, and the Automobile Industry: Sources and Readings (New York, 1964)Google Scholar; Collier, Peter and Horowitz, David, The Fords: An American Epic (San Francisco, 1987)Google Scholar; Gelderman, Carol, Henry Ford: The Wayward Capitalist (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Robert, Lacey, Ford: The Men and the Machine (Toronto, 1986)Google Scholar; Lewchuk, Wayne, “Men and Monotony: Fraternalism as a Managerial Strategy at the Ford Motor Company,” Journal of Economic History 53 (Dec. 1993): 824–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 A noteworthy exception is political scientist Maria-Isabel Noguez's, SruderThe Global Strategies of Multinational Enterprises and Government Policies: Ford Motor Company and the Automobile Industry in Canada and Mexico (New York, 2001)Google Scholar. In 2003, James Mays produced a chronology of the company with the assistance of Ford-Canada, Ford and Canada: 100 Years Together (Montreal, 2003)Google Scholar, but there is no detailed examination of the company or its evolution.

6 Wilkins, Mira and Hill, Frank Ernest, American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents (Detroit, 1964)Google Scholar.

7 Mira Wilkins, “Ford Among Multinational Companies,” in Ford, 1903–2003 (see note 4), vol. 1, 74.

8 For instances of these policies, see Stubbs, Peter, The Australian Motor Industry: A Study in Protection and Growth (Melbourne, 1972)Google Scholar; Shapiro, Helen, Engines of Growth: The State and Transnational Auto Companies in Brazil (Cambridge, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bennett, Douglas C. and Sharpe, Kenneth E., Transnational Corporations Versus the State: The Political Economy of the Mexican Auto Industry (New Brunswick, N.J., 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 On the spread of multinational enterprises, see Vernon, Raymond, Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Wilkins, Mira, The Maturing of the Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from 1914 to 1970 (Cambridge, Mass., 1975)Google Scholar; Behrman, Jack N., U.S. International Business and Governments (New York, 1971)Google Scholar. On the impact of multinational enterprises in Canada, see Litvak, I. A., Maule, C. J., and Robinson, R. D., Dual Loyalty: Canadian–U.S. Business Arrangements (Toronto, 1971)Google Scholar; Levitt, Kari, Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada (Toronto, 1970)Google Scholar; Clement, Wallace, Continental Corporate Power: Economic Elite Linkages between Canada and the United States (Toronto, 1977)Google Scholar.

10 For a view of the early auto industry in America, see Hyde, Charles K., “The Dodge Brothers, the Automobile Industry, and Detroit Society in the Early Twentieth Century,” Michigan Historical Review 22 (Fall 1996): 49–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 14–20; “Gordon McGregor,” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 15 (Toronto, 2002)Google Scholar.

12 McGregor's brother recalled in an interview with Mira Wilkins that Gordon “walked the streets selling stock. Lots of people wouldn't take a chance.” “Interview with Basil O. Stevenson, 24 April 1961,” “Interview with Donald McGregor, 17 May 1961,” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3, File FMCC, 1904–07.

13 This reflected a half-share of the Detroit company, in which Ford held 25 percent.

14 Directors included Ford-U.S. president John Gray as Canadian president, with Ford as vice president. “List of Original Shareholders: Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., August 4,1934,” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3, File FMCC, 1904–07.

15 For the early years of the FMC, see Nevins, Ford, vol. l; Brinkley, Wheels for the World, 113–98; Lacey, Ford: The Men and the Machine, 87–179.

16 Walker Inquiry testimony, Brief presented by the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., to Tariff Inquiry Commission, November 30, 1920, 4,6; Wilkins, and Hill, , American Business Abroad, 41, 42, 77–80Google Scholar.

17 Wilkins concisely explains McGregor: “[T]he stocky manager from Walkerville was the creative pilot and complete boss of the corporation he had brought to life.” Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 22, 43.

18 Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 42, 114.

19 Steven Tolliday, “The Origins of Ford of Europe: From Multidomestic to Transational Corporation, 1903–1976,” in Ford, 1903–2003, vol. 1, 159.

20 Mays, Ford and Canada, 13.

21 By 1956, the Canadian-owned subsidiaries had generated $107.9 million in dividends for Ford of Canada. “Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd. Overseas Companies (All Wholly Owned): Our Investment in Shares of and Dividends Received from These Companies,” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3. The founding dates are as follows: Ford-Australia, 1925; Ford–South Africa, 1923; Ford-India, 1926; Ford-Malaya, 1926; Ford–New Zealand, 1936. “Subsidiary Companies Data,” BFRC, Ace. 713, International Division Correspondence, Box 3, Canada-1949. For Ford-Canada production and imperial exports, see Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, Appendix 6.

22 Tolliday, “The Origins of Ford of Europe,” 159.

23 Tolliday, Steven, “The Rise of Ford in Britain,” in Ford, 1903–2003, vol. 2, 19Google Scholar.

24 Traves, Tom, The State and Enterprise: Canadian Manufacturers and the Federal Government, 1917–1931 (Toronto, 1979), 101Google Scholar.

25 The original agreement was found in a grease-covered cardboard box in Windsor's engine plant in 1996 as the company prepared to shut the facility down. A. Priddle, “History Comes Home: Original Documents Showing the Birth of the Canadian Auto Industry Are Ready for Viewing,” Windsor Star, 18 Mar. 1997, B1; “An Agreement made and entered into at the City of Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., this tenth day of August A.D., 1904,” BFRC, Ace. 284, Henry Ford Correspondence, Box 13, File 13–7.

26 “Brief presented by the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., to Tariff Inquiry Commission, November 30,1920,” BFRC, Ace. 284, Box 13, File 7, Branches–Canada.

27 Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 39.

28 The Michigan company was also granted exclusive rights “in the remainder of the world's territory.” “An Agreement made and entered into at the City of Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., this tenth day of August, A.D., 1904,” BFRC, Ace. 284, Box 13-7, FMC Branches–Canada.

29 As quoted in Tolliday, “The Origins of Ford of Europe,” 155.

30 On the early Canadian auto industry, see Davis, Donald F., “Dependent Motorization: Canada and the Automobile to the 1930s,” in McCalla, Douglas, ed., The Development of Canadian Capitalism: Essays in Business History (Toronto, 1990)Google Scholar; Traves, Tom, “The Development of the Ontario Automobile Industry to 1939,” in Drummond, Ian, ed., Progress Without Planning: The Economic History of Ontario from Confederation to the Second World War (Toronto, 1987)Google Scholar.

31 Tolliday, Steven, “The Rise of Ford in Britain: From Sales Agency to Market Leader, 1904–1980,” in Ford, 1903–2003, vol. 2, 10Google Scholar.

32 Ford-Canada held 99.9 percent of all the shares of its companies in Australia (both the manufacturing and sales companies), South Africa, India, Malaya and New Zealand. The remaining shares (between two and nine in each company) were held by directors or by locals for legal reasons. “Subsidiary Companies Data,” 1 Apr. 1949, BFRC, Ace. 713, Box 3, Canada, 1949.

33 Robertson, Heather, Driving Force: The McLaughlin Family and the Age of the Car (Toronto, 1995), 113–14, 166–7Google Scholar.

34 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, Facts and Figures of the Automotive Industry (Toronto, 1969)Google Scholar; Moritz, Michael, Going For Broke: The Chrysler Story (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Hyde, Charles K., Riding the Roller Coaster: A History of the Chrysler Corporation (Detroit, 2003)Google Scholar. American Motors did not begin production until 1946, under the name Nash Motor Company. Studebaker Canada was another wholly owned subsidiary, which folded in the 1960s.

35 Ankli, Robert E. and Frederiksen, Fred, “The Influence of American Manufacturers on the Canadian Automobile Industry,” Business and Economic History 9 (1981): 101–116Google Scholar.

36 Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 114–16.

37 Tolliday writes that “[Perry’s] prominence aroused jealousies among the hard-bitten production men in Detroit, who were instinctively suspicious of outsiders who wanted to do things differently, especially if they were independent and strong minded.” McGregor was all of these things, of course, but was clearly not seen in the same light as Perry. “The Origins of Ford of Europe,” 157.

38 “Directors Meetings,” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3.

39 In buying out his remaining partners in 1919, his stock purchases totaled an astounding $105 million. Collier and Horowitz, The Fords, 68–9.

40 Various correspondence regarding the stock sales between Henry Ford's personal secretary, E. G. Iiebold, Campbell, and Ford's brokers, Watling, Lerchen and Co., 1919–20. BFRC, Ace. 284, Henry Ford Office, Box 13, Files 1–7, and Ace. 62, Henry Ford Office Papers, Box 90, Ford Motor Company of Canada.

41 Owing to their status as the only “Ford” securities on the market (they were listed in Toronto and Detroit), Ford-Canada shares were targeted in the mid-1920s by unscrupulous stock speculators, who sold “fractional shares” to unsuspecting investors keen to have a stake in a Ford company (though it was not the Detroit firm). The scam spread as far as Europe, and snared thousands. See the correspondence regarding this issue in BFRC, Ace. 75, Box 84, Folder FMC of Canada Stock, 1925.

42 Campbell famously kept a pass that allowed him unlimited access to the Rouge plant.

43 There is some suggestion that Henry did not realize that Edsel was acquiring Ford of Canada stock, and that he was “miffed” to discover his son's purchases. Various files, “Ford shares: Edsel B. Ford,” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3. Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 131.

44 Toronto Stock Exchange Review (Toronto, 1930), 515Google Scholar; “F.G. Batters interview, May 16, 1961,” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3, File FMCC, 1904–07.

45 Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 200–1.

46 W. R. Campbell to E. G. Liebold, 21 June 1929. BFRC, Ace. 285, Henry Ford Correspondence, Box 970, File FMCC.

47 “Proposed Ford Agreement,” “Proposed ‘Voting Trust’ Agreement,” W. R. Campbell to E. G. Liebold, 21 June 1929. BFRC, Ace. 285, Henry Ford Correspondence, Box 970, File FMCC.

48 W. R. Campbell to E. G. Liebold, 21 June 1929. BFRC, Ace. 285, Henry Ford Correspondence, Box 970, File FMCC.

49 The revised working agreement strengthened Ford-Canada's rights to Ford products, and retained the territorial divisions between the two companies, confirming the Canadian firm's operational independence. W. R. Campbell to E. G. Liebold, 21 June 1929; Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 200–1.

50 Chandler, Giant Enterprise, 97–9.

51 “Ford shares: Edsel B. Ford,” “Ford Controlled Shares,” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3. Litvak, Maule, and Robinson, Dual Loyalty, 63.

52 For views of Ford's rebirth, see Hounshell, David A., “Assets, Organizations, Strategies and Traditions: Organizational Capabilities and Constraints in the Remaking of the Ford Motor Company, 1946–1962,” in Learning by Doing in Markets Firms and Countries, eds. Lamoreaux, Naomi R., Raff, Daniel M. G., and Temin, Peter (Chicago, 1999), 185–208Google Scholar; McKinlay, Alan and Starkey, Ken, “After Henry: Continuity and Change in the Ford Motor Company,” Business History 36 (Jan. 1994): 184–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Of 18,231 shareholders, 13,560 were Canadian, holding 730,687 of the 1,658,960 outstanding shares, or 44 percent. “Report of the Annual Meeting of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., 28 April 1947,” BFRC, Ace. 285, Box 2958, File Ford Motor Canada, 1947–49.

54 Russel I. Roberge to G. K. Howard, 26 Aug. 1948. BFRC, Ace. 713, International Division Records, Russell I. Roberge, Box 3, File Canada 1947–48, 1–49.

55 In 1950, the board was again expanded to eight members. “Report of the Annual Meeting of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., 29 April 1946,” “Annual Report, Year Ended December 31,1946, Ford Motor Company of Canada,” and “Report of the Annual Meeting of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., 28 April 1947,” BFRC, Ace. 285, Box 2827 and 2958, File Ford Motor Canada, 1946–47 and 1947–49.

56 Wilkins writes, “Following the Dearborn pattern, the Canadian executives tried to train men in leadership, to make organization charts, and to introduce modern methods of financial planning.” Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 400.

57 “Annual Report of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., 1949,” BFRC, Ace. 1012, Ford Motor Company of Canada Annual Reports.

58 “Charges and service fees under new agreement with Ford Motor Company of Canada,” Donald Kehl to Robert S. McNamara, 14 Oct. 1949. BFRC, Ace. 713, Box 3, File Canada 1949. The exchange of information was a two-way street. In the early 1930s, Campbell had gone across the river to Dearborn to help with the development of the V-8 and to assist the company in gaining control over its disorganized inventories.

59 “Re: Conference re: Industrial Relations Services performed or Ford of Canada,” Victor Z. Brink to R. I. Roberge, 8 Dec. 1949. BFRC, Acc. 713, International Division Records, Russell I. Roberge, Box 3, File Canada 1949, 1–51.

60 That a new era between had begun in the relationship between the two companies became clear in a note by International Division head Russell I. Roberge to Breech regarding the setting of car prices: “The writer would like to know whether you consider a proposed price change affecting a major product of Ford of Canada requires consideration by the American directors of the Canadian company, or whether a matter of this kind could be considered a management decision by Ford of Canada.” Breech responded only that the Canadian pricing was “satisfactory.” “Regular Monthly Financial Summary of FMCC and its Overseas Subsidiaries for November and December, 1949,” R. S. McNamara to E. R. Breech, 18 Jan. 1950; “Canadian Pricing for Models to be Produced by FMCC,” R. I. Roberge to Henry Ford II and E. R. Breech, 2 Mar. 1950. BFRC, Acc. 713, International Division Records, Russell I. Roberge, Box 3, File Canada 1949, 1–51. R. S. McNamara to G. G. Kew, 3 Nov. 1948, BFRC, Acc. 713, International Division Records, Russell I. Roberge, Box 3, File Canada, 1950.

61 Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 399; Henry Ford II and E. R. Breech to R. M. Sale, 13 Jan. 1950. BFRC, Acc. 713, Box 3, File Canada, 1950. “Interview with R. M. Sale, 26 April 1961,” Acc. 880, Wilkins Papers, Box 3. “Executive Communication, Henry Ford II,” 29 Nov. 1949. Acc. 536, Box 44, as noted in Mira Wilkins Papers, Acc. 880, Box 3.

62 Litvak, Maule, and Robinson, Dual Loyalty, 67.

63 The list included information on customs, tariffs, organization of the companies, dividends, dealer lists, quarterly financial reports, and even photographs of body types and models produced by the overseas companies that differed from those in the United States. R. S. Milliken (export manager, FMCC) to R. I. Roberge (Ford International), various dates. BFRC, Ace. 713, International Division Records, Russell I. Roberge, Box 3, File Canada 1949, 1–50.

64 “Regular Monthly Financial Summary of FMCC and its Overseas Subsidiaries for November and December, 1949,” R. S. McNamara to E. R. Breech, 18 Jan. 1950; “Canadian Pricing for Models to be Produced by FMCC,” R. I. Roberge to Henry Ford II and E. R. Breech, 2 Mar. 1950. BFRC, Acc. 713, International Division Records, Russell I. Roberge, Box 3, File Canada 1949, 1–51.

65 Ford International itself was downgraded to division status in 1949. Wilkins and Hill, American Business Abroad, 374-6. The Mira Wilkins Papers at the BFRC contain notes and material on this issue not available in the accessible records. See “Canada Windsor FMC Canada Ltd. 1948–50–Agreement Relationship, Corresp.,” in Ace. 880, Box 3, FMC-Canada (also FMC-Ford International).

66 To this day, however, Ford of Canada retains official ownership of its “subsidiaries.” Litvak, Maule, and Robinson, Dual Loyalty, 61.

67 Brinkley, Wheels for the World, 570–3.

68 Litvak, Maule, and Robinson, Dual Loyalty 62; “Ford Controlled Shares,” A. D. Battersby to M. Wilkins, 6 June 1961. BFRC, Acc. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3.

69 For the difficulties facing the Canadian industry in this period, see The Report of the Royal Commission on the Automotive Industry (known as the Bladen Commission) (Ottawa, 1961)Google Scholar.

70 Ibid.

71 For more on the remission scheme, see Donaghy, Greg, “A Continental Philosophy: Canada, the United States, and the Negotiation of the Auto Pact, 1963–1965,” International Journal 53 (Summer 1998): 441–64Google Scholar; Anastakis, Dimitry, “Auto Pact: Business and Diplomacy in the Creation of a Borderless North American Auto Industry” (Ph.D. diss., York University, 2001)Google Scholar.

72 Review of Corporate Profit Improvements Attainable Through Increased Integration of Ford US and Ford of Canada Automotive Operations,” 30 Jan. 1964. “Supplemental Study of Corporate Profits Improvements Attainable Through Increased Integration of Ford US and Ford of Canada Operations,” 27 Feb. 1964. Ford Company of Canada Archives, Oakville, Ontario.

73 Henry Ford II to Arjay Miller et al., 6 Mar. 1964. L. A. Iacocca to K. E. Scott, 19 Mar. 1964. Ben D. Mills to K. E. Scott, 17 Mar. 1964. C. R. Beacham to Arjay Miller, 18 Mar. 1964. “Washington D.C. Implications of Contemplated Changes in Ford of Canada Operations,” 13 Mar. 1964. Comments to the Executive Office from Ford-U.S. Staffs and Divisions Concerning the Proposed Increase in Integration of the Canadian and U.S Automotive Operations, Ford Motor Company of Canada Archives, Oakville, Ontario.

74 For a view of the business-government negotiations that led to the creation of the agreement, see Anastakis, “Auto Pact: Business and Diplomacy in the Creation of a Borderless North American Auto Industry.”

75 See Keeley, James F., “Cast in Concrete for All Time? The Negotiation of the Auto Pact,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 16 (June 1983): 281–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the situation faced by Ford and other companies in Australia, Mexico, and Brazil, see Stubbs, The Australian Motor Industry; Shapiro, Engines of Growth; and Bennett and Sharpe, Transnational Corporations.

76 Beigie, Carl, The Canada–U.S. Automotive Agreement (Montreal, 1970)Google Scholar; Kirton, John, “The Politics of Bilateral Management: The Case of the Automotive Trade,” International Journal 36 (1980–1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Ford-Canada's R. M. Sale stated, “Henry Ford's commitment to free trade had no effect on the Canadian company viewpoint. A company like ours was a separate company and had to formulate its own approach. We recognized that there had to be some Canadian tariff or there would be no industry. There was never any conflict with Henry Ford over tariff policy–for Henry Ford took the view that it was good business for the Canadian company to formulate its own approach–the approach best for Canadian interests. Ford-Canada has never taken a ‘high tariff position’ but rather a position favouring a tariff ‘sufficient to let our industry grow.’” “Wilkins interview with R. M. Sale, 26 Apr. 1961.” BFRC, Ace. 880, Mira Wilkins Papers, Box 3.

78 W. R. Campbell to Edsel Ford, 22 Feb. 1939. BFRC, Ace. 46, Executive Correspondence, Box 74, Ford of Canada Executive, Jan. 1939.

79 William Brubeck to McGeorge Bundy, 23 Sept. 1964. Bundy to Record (White House), 24 Sept. 1964. Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) Library, NSF, Country File, Canada, Box 164, Canada Memos.

80 Henry Ford II to L. B. Johnson, 16 Sept. 1964. LBJ Library, NSF, Country File, Canada, Box 164, Canada Memos.

81 “Statement of Fred G. Secrest, Vice President and Controller of the Ford Motor Company Before the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, On H.R. 6960,” 28 Apr. 1965. NAC, RG 19, vol. 3946, 8705–02, part 4.

82 Interviews of Alexander Vuillemin and Edward Stanger, Corporate Planning Division, GM. John F. Kennedy Library (hereafter JFK), Jack Behrman Papers, Box 14.

83 R. K. Joyce to C. D. Arthur, 2 Dec. 1964. “Auto Company Talks, 11 December,” R. Y. Grey to Joyce, 15 Dec. 1964. National Archives of Canada (hereafter NAC), RG 10 Vol. 5642, File 8705-04-02, Representations, Auto Parts, 1963–71; “Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Commitments,” Dec. 1964. Charles Drury to Simon Reisman, 22 Dec. 1964. NAC, RG 20, V. 2053, F.V. 1021-11, part 3, Proposed New Automotive Program, Oct.–Dec. 1964.

84 On the auto pact's implementation, see Anastakis, Dimitry, “Continental Auto Politics: The Failure of Opposition to the 1965 Auto Pact in Canada and the United States,” Michigan Historical Review 27 (Fall 2001): 131–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 The text of the agreement can be found in Canadian Automobile Agreement: Annual Report of the President to the Congress on the Implementation of the Automotive Products Trade Agreement (Washington, D.C., various years)Google Scholar.

86 Karl Scott to Drury, 14 Jan. 1965. Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, File 37-7-1-USA-2, Foreign Trade, Auto Pact (hereafter DFAIT), vol. 5, Jan. 1965; Keeley, “Cast in Concrete,” 243.

87 Karl Scott to Drury, 14 Jan. 1965. DFAIT, vol. 5, Jan. 1965; “File: Auto Pact, Ford Confidential” (response by Ford Company of U.S. officials to questionnaire), 1975. Dennis DesRosiers Papers, Private Collection.

88 Officials at Ford described the changes: “Previously the Canadian company decided how it should meet the content requirements and what it should manufacture and assemble. Now, all of this is decided in Detroit simply because the US company has to decide what the content in Canada shall be in order to integrate it with all the North American operations. Consequently, the Canadian company is really a division under the North American operations rather than being a separate company as it used to be.” Jack Behrman interviews with John Andrews (FMC, vice president in charge of European auto operations) and Percy Prance (formerly a director of Ford of Canada), 28 Apr. 1967. JFK Library, Jack Behrman Papers, Box 14; Ford Motor Company, Annual Reports, 1965–1967, Baker Library, Harvard Business School.

89 Joseph Scott (minister, U.S. embassy, Ottawa) to W. Park Armstrong Jr. (U.S. consul general, Toronto), 13 May 1965. Richard H. Courtenaye (U.S. consul general, Windsor) to Joseph Scott, 23 Feb. 1966. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), RG 59, Bureau of European Affairs, Country Directory for Canada, Records Relating to Economic Matters, 1956–66, Entry 5299, Box 6, File Foreign Trade, FT 4, Agreements, U.S.-Canada Automotive Products.

90 Department of Industry, Annual Report, 1969 (Ottawa, 1969), 36Google Scholar.

91 For an overview of these changes in the industry, see Halberstram, David, The Reckoning (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; Holmes, John, Divergent Paths: Restructuring Industrial Relations in the North American Auto Industry (Kingston, 1992)Google Scholar; Rae, John B., The American Automobile Industry (Boston, 1984)Google Scholar; Thomas, Kenneth P., Capital Beyond Borders: States and Firms in the Auto Industry, 1960–1994 (New York, 1996)Google ScholarWeintrub, Sidney and Sands, Christopher, eds., The North American Auto Industry under NAFTA (Washington, D.C., 1998)Google Scholar.

92 On the Canadian auto industry since 1965, see Holmes, John, “Restructuring in a Continental Production System,” in Britton, John N. H., ed., Canada and the Global Economy: The Geography of Structural and Technological Change (Montreal, 1996), 230–54Google Scholar; Molot, Maureen Appel, ed., Driving Continentally: National Policies and the North American Auto Industry (Ottawa, 1993)Google Scholar; Perry, Ross, The Future of Canada's Auto Industry: The Big Three and the Japanese Challenge (Toronto, 1982)Google Scholar.

93 See production figures from Ward's Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures (Southfield, Mich., various years).

94 For Ford's Canadian production, see Noquez, , The Global Strategies of Multinational Enterprises, and Des Rosiers Automotive Yearbook (Richmond Hill, Ont., various years)Google Scholar.

95 As in the rest of the industry, Ford-Canada faced the cyclical nature of the automotive sector. For example, in 1984, Ford-Canada posted a profit of US$ 153 million, compared with a US$108 million loss one year earlier. In 1985 the company reported a profit of $179 million, which dipped to $104 million the next year. Oliver, Stephanie, “Canada Concerns,” Wall Street Journal, 21 Feb. 1984, 1Google Scholar; English, Robert, “Ford's Annual Report,” Financial Post, 11 May 1987, 39Google Scholar.

96 “Loss Forces Ford of Canada to Omit its 1990 Dividend,” Wall Street Journal, 27 Feb. 1991, 7. The company divested itself of its South African holding in 1987, selling 18 percent of Ford South Africa to the giant Anglo American Corp. and giving the remaining 24 percent of the company to the employees. Jim Jones, “Ford Finds Route Out of South Africa,” Financial Post, 30 Nov. 1987,11.

97 In 1991 the company lost C$85 million, C$363 million in 1992, C$161 million in 1993, and C$35 million in 1994. Yet in 1994, Ford's parent company had profits of over $5 billion, while GM-Canada alone earned more than C$1 billion. Susan Smith, “No Ford Dividend After Loss,” Financial Post, 26 Feb. 1991, 3; “Ford Canadian Operations Lose $85 million in 1991,” Ottawa Citizen, 25 Feb. 1992, D1; Laura Fowlie, “Ford Canada Posts Record $363M loss for 1992,” Financial Post, 23 Feb. 1993; Laura Fowlie, “Ford Canada Posts $161 M Loss,” Financial Post, 10 Feb. 1994.

98 In 1987, Ford-Canada shares reached a high on the Toronto Stock Exchange of C$202. By 1995, they were trading at C$125.

99 the offer was a 20 percent premium on Ford-Canada shares trading at C$125. Erik Heinrich, “Ford to Buy Out Ford Canada: Move to Acquire 6% Stake Ends 80-year Run as a Public Company,” Financial Post, 27 Apr. 1995.

100 “Ford Seeks Canada Buyout,” Automotive News, 1 May 1995, 8; Greg Keenan, “Ford Canada Ends Reporting,” Globe and Mail, 22 Jan. 1999, B2.

101 Erik Heinrich, “Ford Gets Bumpy Ride: Ford Canada Minority Shareholders Vent Anger over Company's Bid to Buy Them Out at $150,” Financial Post, 17 May 1995; “Canadian Unit Agrees to Accept Ford's Revised Offer,” New York Times, 6 July 1995, D3; Erik Heinrich, “Battle Heats Up over Ford Canada's Value,” Financial Post, 5 Aug. 1995, 8; Ian Jack, “Small Investors Fume as Ford Buys Them Out,” Montreal Gazette, 13 Sept. 1995, D5; “Ford War Escalates,” Financial Post, 21 Oct. 1995.

102 Ian Jack, “Rebellious Minority Wins Ruling against Ford,” and “Ford Canada Makes Interim Payment to Dissidents,” Financial Post, 4 Dec. 1996 and 10 Jan. 1997. For the court proceedings, see vol. 32 Ontario Reports (3rd), 124; and vol. 36 Ontario Reports (3rd), 384. See also Richard Pound, “Playing for More,” CGA Magazine 33 (Jan. 1999): 56; Greg Keenan, “Ford Executive Queried Low Earnings,” Globe and Mail, 20 Jun. 2001; “Ford of Canada Shares Undervalued by Transfer Pricing, Stockholders Complain,” Canadian Press, 30 Apr. 2002.

103 For the judgment see http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2004/20040nsc10133.html.

104 Tolliday outlines six phases in the evolution of Ford or Europe, during which Detroit swung from tightly controlling the companies, to granting them autonomy, to integrating the companies into a “genuine and effective European transnational corporation,” “The Origins of Ford of Europe,” 153–4.

105 On the end of the auto pact, see Anastakis, Dimitry, “Requiem for a Trade Agreement: The Auto Pact at the WTO, 1999–2000,” Canadian Business Law Journal 34 (Feb. 2001): 313–35Google Scholar.