logo
As gas cars began to hit the streets of Toronto, the city was already an EV manufacturing hub

As gas cars began to hit the streets of Toronto, the city was already an EV manufacturing hub

Dumaresq de Pencier is the exhibit and project coordinator for the Canadian Automotive Museum in Oshawa, Ont.
While Tesla may be credited with popularizing modern electric vehicles, they are far from being the first to develop an EV. And I'm not talking about General Motors's EV1 from 1996.
EVs appeared decades before the first gas-powered car, going back nearly 200 years. And around the time gas cars began hitting the streets of Toronto the city was already an EV manufacturing hub.
From 1893 to 1913, four Canadian companies and one American company built or tried to build electric vehicles in the Greater Toronto Area. Two of these companies still exist, though most people likely wouldn't recognize them today.
In an era when gasoline engines were a novelty and steam power was inconvenient for automobile use, electrics were the next big thing.
British engineer William Joseph Still was an inventor of steam and electrical technologies whose patent batteries sold well on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1890s.
In 1893, he approached Toronto patent lawyer Frederick Barnard Fetherstonhaugh with a new lightweight battery design. The two had already worked together for several years and Fetherstonhaugh, a tinkerer and inventor himself, thought the new battery would be perfect for an electric automobile.
Fetherstonhaugh worked with Still and the Toronto-based Dixon Carriage Company at the corner of Bay and Temperance Streets to build the car. It was a 320-kilogram technological marvel that could manage an hour of driving at 24 kilometres an hour. This speed was comparable or even slightly faster than most passenger cars being introduced at the time.
Fetherstonhaugh used it as his daily driver for 15 years, charging it at his home in southwest Toronto neighbourhood of Mimico and demonstrating it at the Canadian National Exhibition in 1893, 1896 and 1906. The vehicle vanished from the historical record after the 1912 Toronto Auto Show.
In 1897, Still established the Canadian Motor Syndicate to build and sell his car designs. The company's first vehicle was an electric delivery tricycle, shown at the 1898 Canadian National Exhibition. By 1899, Still had invented a more efficient electric motor, better suited for large vehicles.
His business was reorganized as the Still Motor Company Limited (SMC) and began selling vehicles in earnest. Its factory on Yonge Street was a hive of activity, helped by one of the City of Toronto's first commercial telephone lines.
SMC generally didn't build vehicles from scratch; clients brought them commercial carriages, which the factory retrofitted with motors and batteries. Parker's Dye Works (known today as Parker's Dry Cleaning) was an early adopter and, by 1900, many of Toronto's biggest industrial and commercial concerns had at least one or two SMC vehicles in their fleets.
SMC electrics were light, reasonably fast and easy to control, but almost all of them were custom jobs, resulting in high costs and low profits for the company.
Financial support came in the form of a buyout from a group of British investors who renamed the company Canadian Motors Limited (CML). In late 1899, Still had developed a moderately successful line of two- and four-seater passenger electrics: the Ivanhoes and the Oxfords.
The new owners wanted to sell them in England and CML became the first British-owned car company in Canada and Canada's first car exporter.
The company sent dozens of vehicles to England in late 1900 and early 1901, but CML's success in British road trials didn't equate to sales. By 1904, the organization was shuttered on both sides of the Atlantic and Still had moved on to other more lucrative projects.
The CML factory in Toronto didn't remain closed for long. In 1903, it was bought by bicycle manufacturing conglomerate Canadian Cycle & Motor Company, which turned it over to the manufacturer of an American electric car, also named the Ivanhoe. These vehicles never sold well and in 1905 the company dropped the brand to focus primarily on gasoline cars.
A small side business making hockey equipment under the brand 'CCM' would prosper and still exists today.
These Canadian manufacturers had competition. The Fischer Equipment Company of Chicago demonstrated its twin-engine Woods Electric cars and trucks in Toronto in 1898, gaining so much interest that by 1899 the whole enterprise had reorganized as the Woods Motor Vehicle Company.
This company had a mostly Canadian board of directors that included representatives from Canadian General Electric, the Dominion Bank and Canadian Pacific Railways. Woods cars were planned to be built at the General Electric plant in Hamilton, which would provide Toronto with an electric taxi network.
Woods shifted its focus south of the border in 1901 and kept producing electrics in the U.S. until 1918.
Canadian demand for electric cars continued. In 1911, the wealthy McLaughlin Motorcar Company of Oshawa began marketing luxury electric cars on the American Rauch & Lang chassis across southern Ontario. There were plans to build the cars in 1912, but it is unclear if those plans materialized. Within a few years, McLaughlin would become General Motors Canada, though the company has yet to attempt EV production in Oshawa a second time.
A smaller-scale local contender was the Peck electric, built on Jarvis Street and marketed at the 1912 Auto Show as the car that 'Keeps Pecking.' Despite cushy interiors, easy-to-use controls and lavish colour ads in the pages of Motoring Magazine, the car's whopping $4,000 sale price – more than $109,000 in today's dollars – was a deterrent, and the company folded in 1913.
It would take around a century, and dramatic improvements in technology, for EVs to return to Toronto. Still, every electric car driven on our streets today forms the latest link in a chain that extends back in time more than a century to the era of steam and brass.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Canada's financial regulators need to reduce money laundering. A task force review might speed that up
Canada's financial regulators need to reduce money laundering. A task force review might speed that up

Globe and Mail

time18 minutes ago

  • Globe and Mail

Canada's financial regulators need to reduce money laundering. A task force review might speed that up

Canada's financial regulators are about to find themselves in the hot seat. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global body that sets standards to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, is conducting a review of Canada's efforts to combat financial crime. One topic that will figure prominently in that evaluation is the effectiveness of regulators, including the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada – the federal financial intelligence unit – and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions – the country's top banking regulator. Both FinTRAC and OSFI, as they are known for short, are responsible for supervising the anti-money laundering compliance of banks. The FATF has cited issues with Canada's approach to regulation, supervision and monitoring in past reviews, but this year's evaluation comes in the wake of financial-crime scandals including one involving Toronto-Dominion Bank. 'Supervisors play a crucial role in preventing money laundering and terrorist financing,' states the FATF's guidance. 'Effective supervisors also ensure that these businesses comply with their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations and take appropriate action if they fail to do so.' The FATF's last review of Canada in 2016 recommended that FinTRAC and OSFI co-ordinate more effectively on the supervision of banks. Specifically, it said FinTRAC had increased its supervisory capacity but still had 'somewhat limited' expertise about banking, adding OSFI was conducting its supervision with limited resources. Ottawa to overhaul financial-crime laws in new border security bill Recent money laundering scandals, however, have caused both FinTRAC and OSFI to lose face. Last fall, TD became the first bank in the United States to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering and the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to failing to maintain an anti-money laundering (AML) program that complies with federal regulations. American banking regulators and the U.S. Department of Justice imposed more than US$3-billion in fines and various non-monetary penalties. The Federal Reserve Board also required the Canadian bank to relocate to the United States the parts of its anti-money laundering compliance program that are responsible for complying with U.S. law. 'This program will be subject to oversight by U.S. regulators,' stated its release. Months before publicly announcing that requirement, U.S. regulators privately questioned their Canadian counterparts about why they previously failed to spot and remedy problems with TD's anti-money laundering risk controls, The Globe and Mail reported in May 2024. On Thursday, meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reported that Norway's US$1.9-trillion sovereign wealth fund was placing TD 'under observation' for four years over financial-crime concerns. There have also been separate allegations of wrongdoing involving Wealth One Bank of Canada and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Canada). As a result, OSFI's stop-start approach to supervising financial-crime compliance in recent years will naturally be probed by the FATF. OSFI returned to AML oversight in 2024 after taking a three-year hiatus. In 2021, OSFI rescinded its guidance on deterring and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing, and handed over its regulatory responsibilities to FinTRAC. At the time, the objective was to make FinTRAC the exclusive overseer of banks' financial-crime compliance obligations. Task force to evaluate Canada's ability to fight money laundering and terrorist financing But OSFI did an about-face in 2024. Not only did it issue a new integrity and security guideline, but it stressed that it considers money laundering and the financing of terrorism third-party and foreign-interference risks that could harm the safety or soundness of banks. Trouble is, banks are once again confused about which federal regulator is in charge. They are also understandably frustrated that their massive spending on compliance programs has failed to yield successful convictions in court. Total financial-crime compliance costs for financial institutions hit US$2-billion in Canada, according to a 2023 study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Regulators, meanwhile, are also suffering from a breakdown in trust with the public because they operate behind a veil of secrecy. And, unlike their U.S. counterparts, they are barred from discussing problems at individual banks – even the widely publicized case involving TD. 'I would like to be forthcoming about our involvement in this case because I think that information would contribute to public confidence in the Canadian financial system,' OSFI Superintendent Peter Routledge told a Parliamentary committee in November. 'That said, Canadian law prohibits me or any OSFI official from disclosing confidential information obtained from federally regulated financial institutions in the course of OSFI's regulation and supervision activities.' Recent money laundering scandals have provided a withering assessment about the effectiveness of Canada's regulators. Maybe the FATF will finally persuade Ottawa to set them up for success.

Metal casket maker ready for trade war to end after steel hit with 50% tariff
Metal casket maker ready for trade war to end after steel hit with 50% tariff

CBC

time33 minutes ago

  • CBC

Metal casket maker ready for trade war to end after steel hit with 50% tariff

Social Sharing At precisely noon, the casket welders, sanders and paint sprayers are turned off and a quiet hum settles over the Magog Caskets factory floor in southeastern Quebec. "The new closing time," says one of the workers as he removes his ear buds. "New" as a result of the imposition of tariffs and counter-tariffs between the United States and Canada. "The Trump administration is charging me a tariff. It's like, whatever I do, [the U.S.] is trying to strangle me," said Nicolas Lacasse, the owner of Magog Caskets. "And when I try to defend myself, it's like Canada is holding my hand, so I can't defend myself." Magog Caskets is the only manufacturer of metal caskets in Canada, which it sells primarily in Quebec and the U.S. And the primary material used to make those caskets? Steel. Not only has the U.S. imposed a 50 per cent tariff on aluminum and steel, but Canada has imposed a reciprocal tariff of 25 per cent. So Lacasse has had to reduce his employee workload from 39 hours a week to only 15 to 20 hours because he no longer makes a profit. Best response in world of bad options Like thousands of businesses across Canada, Lacasse has had to come up with the least painful option when faced with tariffs and counter-tariffs. His first option is to continue buying Canadian steel but face a 50 per cent tariff on the finished caskets going into the U.S. Option 2, and the one he chose: buy American steel, eat the cost of the exchange rate and pay the 25 per cent counter-tariff on the raw material. "That was the most cost-effective one, actually," Lacasse said. "It's still creating trouble here, though. I'm running at a loss." According to an analysis by Statistics Canada, 53 per cent of import-export companies in Canada think the tariffs will have a high-to-medium impact on business within the next three months. April saw Canada's largest recorded merchandise trade deficit, as companies attempted to minimize the damage to consumer pocketbooks. "We are seeing a large number of companies take all sorts of aggressive steps to either cancel contracts, avoid shipping or otherwise renegotiate pricing, for example, with their customers or their suppliers," said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer with the firm McMillan LLP. "It's very destabilizing. There's no question about it." Option to pass cost to customer impossible Lacasse says while some businesses have the option to pass the increased tariff-related costs on to customers, that's impossible for him. As the only Canadian metal casket manufacturer, the company only competes with those in the United States. Those companies aren't raising prices, so he can't. As a result, he has appealed to the Canadian government to give his niche business an exemption. "Right now, it's only my cash flow that keeps me going," he said. "We need to get help from the government to at least avoid that 25 per cent tariff, like they did in the automotive industry. That's the only way we can make it survive at this point." The Canadian government has been giving exemptions, but there is a backlog in demands. In April, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said those exemptions are meant to help companies in the short term. "We're giving Canadian companies and entities more time to adjust their supply chains and become less dependent on U.S. suppliers," Champagne said. "There are definitely clients that have benefitted greatly from the various exemptions, including a remission, which is a large-scale exemption that the government of Canada offered in mid-April," said Pellerin, the lawyer. "The government's looking at it based on the best interests of Canada. These exemptions are retroactive, but we're expecting that they're going to take four to six months before they're granted."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store