[DavidJamesTO]

Please, the idea that the company's nationality is decided by the make-up of its employees is silly. It's who owns the company that matters. For example, CN is owned by a Chicago-based company, so it's American. Bombardier is still Canadian-owned.

Other way around; CN bought a Chicago-based company, Illinois Central. It also bought a Proctor, Minnesota-based company, a Wisconsin-based company, and a Detroit-based company, and has an American CEO, but the company's still operating primarily in Canada and has its HQ in Montreal. Same with Canadian Pacific; it owns several railways in the Great Lakes region and a railway in New England, but it's run out of Calgary.

Kind of a sweet bit of revenge for all the American acquisitions that CN and CP are buying American regionals and shortlines left and right

 

[Railization]

Other way around; CN bought a Chicago-based company, Illinois Central. It also bought a Proctor, Minnesota-based company, a Wisconsin-based company, and a Detroit-based company, and has an American CEO, but the company's still operating primarily in Canada and has its HQ in Montreal. Same with Canadian Pacific; it owns several railways in the Great Lakes region and a railway in New England, but it's run out of Calgary.

Kind of a sweet bit of revenge for all the American acquisitions that CN and CP are buying American regionals and shortlines left and right

There's nothing sweet about it. When CN was sold off by the Crown, it was bought by a Chicago-based business led by a man named Harrison. Where CN's operations are and where its HQ is isn't the point. The same is true for Air Canada. It's owned by an American, too. Doesn't matter where it's HQ is, or where it flies, Air Canada is an American company since the Crown sold it off. RCAF did a good bit on Air Canada once upon a time:
"Maybe you should be running Air Canada!"
"Well, that's nice of you to say, but I'm afraid I don't qualify."
"And why's that?"
"I'm Canadian."

Bombardier's Canadian-owned. I believe CP is, too. They could have their HQ in Madagascar, it wouldn't change the country they belong to as long as the company is owned by Canadians.

 

[jks]

What?? It wasn't bought by anybody. It is a publicly traded company. It is listed on the S&P/TSX, it is headquartered in Montreal, it posts its profits in Canadian dollars. It operates mainly in Canada...shall I go on?? provide one shred of proof that it is American-Owned. Harrison just happens to be the president of the company. As a matter of fact, he was the president of the Illinois Central Railway until CN acquired it. All its operations are still run out of Canada.

 

[junctionist]

There's nothing sweet about it. When CN was sold off by the Crown, it was bought by a Chicago-based business led by a man named Harrison.

That would have been impossible, since the CN Commercialization Act stipulates that no one could by more than fifteen percent of CN stock. I have not found any information that suggests he owns the railway today.

 

[golodhendil]

There's nothing sweet about it. When CN was sold off by the Crown, it was bought by a Chicago-based business led by a man named Harrison. Where CN's operations are and where its HQ is isn't the point. The same is true for Air Canada. It's owned by an American, too. Doesn't matter where it's HQ is, or where it flies, Air Canada is an American company since the Crown sold it off. RCAF did a good bit on Air Canada once upon a time:
"Maybe you should be running Air Canada!"
"Well, that's nice of you to say, but I'm afraid I don't qualify."
"And why's that?"
"I'm Canadian."

Bombardier's Canadian-owned. I believe CP is, too. They could have their HQ in Madagascar, it wouldn't change the country they belong to as long as the company is owned by Canadians.

If a company's "nationality" is based on ownership, then is Husky Energy a "Hong Kong" company, even though it is incorporated and based in Canada and has barely any operation outside Canada, but owned by the HK billionaire Li Ka Shing? Is Citgo a "Venezuelan" company? Is 7-Eleven a "Japanese" company? Did Adidas switch from being a "German" company to a "French" company then back to a "German" company?

As far as the idea of a company's "nationality" means anything, it should be based on where it is incorporated/domiciled and definitely not who it is owned by. In this sense, CN and AC (and Husky, and HBC for that matter) are still Canadian companies.

 

[afransen]

What about GM Canada?

 

[jks]

^Well unfortunately, not HBC, because it is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRDC Equity Partners through the Hudson's Bay Trading Company.
^Plus GM Canada, being a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors.

 

[nfitz]

The same is true for Air Canada. It's owned by an American, too.

I'm curious as to your motive for telling us such tall tales, that are so clearly wrong.

Are you going to tell us next that Stephen Harper is black? Or that light I will see in the sky rising sometime shortly after midnight is the sun.

 

[golodhendil]

What about GM Canada?

I am not very sure about the corporate history/status of GM, but I think the best way to describe it would be a "Canadian" company, constituting a branch of an American corporation (GM), that is formed from the merger of a Canadian company (McLaughlin) and another Canadian branch of an American company (Chervolet). The original Canadian company has ceased to exist, so whether GM Canada is Canadian would depend on how exactly it was incorporated at the beginning.

^Well unfortunately, not HBC, because it is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRDC Equity Partners through the Hudson's Bay Trading Company.

Again, as far as I know, HBC is still an incorporated entity of Canada. It maybe owned by HBTC/NRDC, but it has not ceased to exist as the same Canadian entity as before.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Took a closer look at the 2009 Recommended Capital Budget and found this:

Purchase of 204 low floor accessible Light Rail Vehicles to replace existing streetcar fleet plus 21 growth cars with delivery to start in 2010 (2009 $81.261 M, 2009 –2013 $656.025 M)

So the budget is for 225 streetcar, not 204, over 4 or so years until 2013. The first delivery should be next year, 2010.

We'll see which manufacturer, on or before the April 27, 2009 TTC meeting.

 

[jks]

Service improvements?? New routes?? This could be good news. Finally we have a due date for the contract.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Can they really deliver vehicles next year if they haven't even picked a design?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Can they really deliver vehicles next year if they haven't even picked a design?

Ah, you beat me to it.

As long as the City sticks with this goal, I don't see much reason to complain. I just hope Bombardier gets it!!!

 

[nfitz]

Can they really deliver vehicles next year if they haven't even picked a design?

If they go with a vehicle already in production, with only slight modifications necessary, then 18-months to have the first vehicle here for testing doesn't seem unreasonable. Even if they are going to manufacture here, they can still meet the Canadian-content requirement by manufacturing the first few units elsewhere - like they did with the CLRVs.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Took a closer look at the 2009 Recommended Capital Budget and found this:



So the budget is for 225 streetcar, not 204, over 4 or so years until 2013. The first delivery should be next year, 2010.

We'll see which manufacturer, on or before the April 27, 2009 TTC meeting.

So thats 4 years just to replace our existing streetcars. What about all these new LRT lines that they are planning whats the timetable on delivery of those trams. 10-20 yrs.