Auto union should do more....

ANYTHING GOOD HAS COME FROM THE TURMOIL on Parliament Hill, it could well be that it has taken the focus off the plight of the auto industry, which is due back in Ottawa Friday with more detailed plans on what it would do with government support. Without the spotlight, we can hope the three North American manufacturers have found meaningful ways of salvaging a future.

The answer, of course, is measured in human terms, such as the number of people at these companies who will lose their jobs, the number of people who make parts for these companies, the number of people who sell clothing, furniture and groceries to all those people. Like it or not, we have come to rely on the auto industry for far more than our transportation.

To show such imagination would be to believe the folks at GM, Ford and Chrysler are capable of the kind of insight they've not shown since Duesenbergs were the rage. There's no evidence to suggest any such thing. Looking beyond traditional markets and products is as foreign a concept as understanding there might be merit in streamlining two-thirds of cumbersome management out of their collective bureaucracy.

We can hope to learn, for instance, that General Motors has decided to retool a soon-to-be-idled plant in Oshawa to make, say, blades for wind farms, which now have to be imported from Europe. Maybe they'll propose to retrain workers from making transmissions to making the wind turbines themselves. Dare we dream that the executives decide merger is the key to the future, as William Durant did 80 years ago when he cobbled a handful of struggling marques into what became GM?

Instead, we'll probably be stuck with a plant closing here, some consolidation there and smaller taillights lenses on Cobalts and Chargers. Politicians will be left to wonder why we shouldn't let such wanton ineptitude disappear once and for all.