Victor van der Linde of the Van der Linde Rubber Co. expressed the opinion that while he believed the RAA could do a great deal for Canadian manufacturers along general lines, he also believed that a distinctly Canadian organization was needed to deal with the specific problems of Canadian manufacturers such as traffic and transportation situation, export challenges, industrial relations, and the commercial practices of Canadian manufacturers. After further discussion, it was mutually understood that the Canadian organization, whatever its connection with the Rubber Association of America, would have to operate as a distinctly Canadian association.

C.N. Candee presented a motion that the Canadian manufacturers represented at the meeting place themselves on record as desirous of forming an Association. The motion was seconded by Mr. van der Linde and, when put to a vote, was unanimously adopted. Sensing that the group was prepared to move forward quickly, A.D. Thornton moved a motion, duly seconded, to create a temporary Executive Committee to consist of a Chairman, Vice Chairman and five members be appointed to handle the details of forming an organization to be called “The Rubber Association of Canada”.

In quick succession, the group decided to strike a temporary Executive Committee to empower them to apply for a Charter, hire a General Manager, and prepare a draft Constitution and By-laws. 

On March 17, 1920, the still-temporary Executive Committee received its Letters Patent, officially incorporating The Rubber Association of Canada.

On April 12, 1920, the provisional Board of Directors met at Goodyear’s offices in Toronto to formally elect its Founding Firm Members:

The Board of Directors also agreed to hire its first General Manager and Secretary, A.B. Hannay at an annual salary of $5,000, payable in equal monthly instalments.

The business conditions in Canadian rubber industry of the 1930s were characterized by high labour costs and difficulty competing with low-cost imports from the U.S. and Hong Kong. The decade became known as the Dirty Thirties due to a crippling drought in the Prairies and Canada’s dependence on both raw materials and farm exports.

Canada was one of the countries most affected by the Great Depression, and the Association felt the full impact of the 1930s in similar fashion as its Members. Due to difficult business conditions, the Board of Directors was also forced to cancel the Annual Meeting Banquet Dinner in 1932, and by 1939 its revenues dropped by 75% from the high watermark of 1927-28.

While operating in economic conditions more severe than those of U.S., the association still made important contributions to its membership on two fronts: It successfully lobbied for a reduction in Excise Tax on crude rubber coming from the British Overseas Territories, which translated into $175,000 of annual savings for the Association’s members. In addition, the Association also lobbied successfully to keep high tariffs on imported finished goods and worked with the Federal Government to improve industry statistics reporting.

Rubber was a critical material in virtually every aspect of wartime manufacturing, and the rubber industry and the Association made great efforts to support the War Effort.

The government deemed rubber so important that the rubber industry was completely coordinated and controlled. Prices were frozen and many products were forbidden so the industry could focus on producing goods designed for war. National War Services promoted the salvaging of rubber on a massive scale and, in 1942, Canada moved to tire rationing for the general public with exemption of essential vehicles.

Women’s participation on the home front was essential to the War Effort. With men fighting overseas, women stepped up to fill vacant positions in essential jobs en masse and excelled in these roles. Work in factories during the war was the most important role played by women on the home front, though the largest overall contribution by the majority of Canadian women was through unpaid volunteer work, where women began collecting recycled items such as rubber, metal, paper, fat, bones, rags, and glass.

Many senior rubber executives were seconded in support of the war. For example, R.A. Martin, Manager of Dominion Rubber Company was appointed Deputy Controller of Rubber Control, a key section within the Department of Munitions and Supply, a post he held from circa 1940 until the unit was disbanded in 1947.

The Association worked very closely with Rubber Control as a liaison between Government and industry to ensure each company received a proper allotment of rubber and produced the necessary goods for both the War Effort and domestic consumption. The government also created a Crown Agency named Fairmont Corporation with the purpose of coordinating the rubber supply into a common pool and acquisition of scrap rubber. Meanwhile, the Department of Munitions and Supply allocated the production of rubber goods for the War Effort not only for Canada’s military but also other members of the coalition. While tires for warplanes, army vehicles, and essential purposes continued to be produced from high quality rubber, scrap rubber was mixed with crude rubber to make items for domestic use.

The rubber shortage also led Canada and the United States to establish the Polymer Corporation in 1942, which was tasked to develop synthetic rubber. In February 1944, the company started synthetic rubber production in Sarnia, Ontario, making 3,300 tons of oil-based synthetic rubber per month. The production rendered rubber reclamation unnecessary; however, the demand for synthetic rubber was so great that the company still needed to introduce an allocation program for Canadian manufacturers, a system which remained in place until the 1950s. The company was renamed Polysar in 1976. For its importance in the war effort, the Polymer Corporation plant was featured on the $10 bill between 1971 and 1989.

The Honourable C.D. Howe, Minister of Department of Munitions and Supply sent a letter to the then Chair of the Association, Mr. Paul C. Jones, dated September 12th, 1945. The letter reads:

In the 1950s, the Canadian rubber industry and economy were in line with high global growth and new investment spurred on by consumer demand for cars, houses, and consumer goods. The suppressed demand for consumer goods in the 1940s meant a boom for the rubber industry and the general economy. The automobile was king, and prospects and opportunities seemed limitless. Then came the Korean War, which led to the North American Defense Production Sharing Agreement. The initiative encouraged the resurgence of Canadian manufacturing from the decline which accompanied the shift and adjustment from global war footing to the peace time of the late 1940s. The government saw the economic boom as a prime time to impose additional taxes on select consumer goods, including vehicles, and tires and tubes.

The Association’s efforts during this period focused on several fronts, notably on lobbying the Government to lower Excise Taxes, securing more favourable freight rates from the railroads and steamship lines, and fighting dumping from low-cost producers such as Czechoslovakia, Norway, and Germany. In his Report to Members (circa 1954) G.B. Smith notes: 

The association also took up the issue of excessive ocean freight rates of Canadian footwear sold to British West Indies. Government took up the issue with Steamship Companies and matters were resolved to industry’s satisfaction.

In a response to 15% Excise Tax on tires and tubes, Association’s General Manager G.B. Smith writes:

Marking its 50th anniversary in 1970, the now highly-respected industry Association continued to build its industry relationships and footprint. Its work included stakeholders such as the Canada Safety Council and Canadian Council of Motor Transportation Administrators (CCMTA). The Association also started to expand its reach internationally by taking up the offer to work with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The Association continues to work with all these organizations to this day.

The industry and the government continued to work on creating Canadian tire standards. This topic grew into prominence in the industry during the 1970s, with conversations ranging from manufacturing to on-road safety. One of the main goals for the Association was to create a standard that would encompass the whole federation rather than individual provinces. The Association worked closely with both the CCMTA to create standards that would meet the needs of the Canadians and the RMA to create standards that would work across North America. 

The Association has been working with the ISO since it first represented Canada at the plenary session of the Technical Committee 31 (TC31) in 1971. The Association’s current Tire Technical Committee is responsible for development of Canadian tire standards and coordinating its work with the U.S. and the RMA (today’s U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association); and the two organizations had established a subcommittee to keep abreast of the international standards being developed by the ISO.

Due to Canada’s strong market presence in production and development of earthmover tires, the Association also took on a leadership role as the Chair and Secretary of the Subcommittee 6 (SC6, established in 1980) which is responsible for earthmover tire standards. In 1982, Canada hosted its first international meeting of TC31/SC6 in Ottawa and has since hosted delegates from the international tire community on five separate occasions. The Association continues to represent Canada and the industry at the regular TC31 and SC6 international plenary sessions.

Free trade and tariffs remained the main topics the Association tackled in the 1970s as well. Canadian manufacturing continued its struggle to compete in the global markets with higher production and distribution costs, and higher taxes. The rubber industry was seeing low-cost imports and “dumping” in the consumer products category (such as footwear), as well as an influx of competitive tire products from the U.S. and Japan. Facing these challenges, the industry and the government continued the discussion of free trade vs. protectionism. While the tire companies saw tariff reduction as a challenge to the industry, the government was not interested in creating import restrictions or tariff schemes, and rather sought ways to make the Canadian tire and rubber industry more competitive through increased manufacturing productivity.

At the same time, the Canada-US Auto Pact (the Automotive Products Trade Agreement of 1965) continued to grow the Canadian automotive industry. Canada’s share of North American auto production rose from 7.1% in 1965 to 11.2% in 1971 and moved from an automotive industry trade deficit to a modest surplus in 1970.

With the growing variety of tire products, and with winter tires starting to take their rightful place in the Canadian market, the Association also started to conduct winter tire testing.

The industry also saw Michelin opening a tire manufacturing facility in Waterville, Nova Scotia. The facility was built under very favourable conditions and support from the local and federal governments, which ended up creating a rift within the industry and Association membership as other manufacturers sought similar advantages from the government to remain competitive.

With massive fires in Hagersville, Ont. and St-Amable, Que., 1990 became the year of the tire fire in Canada. The Hagersville tire fire raged for 17 days in February 1990 and became a daily news feature on national and local TV, newspapers, and radio. This fire came with a final price tag of $10 million just to extinguish, and it is often credited for awakening governments, industry and public for the need to act on discarded tires. The fire became the pivotal moment and remains a continuous reference point that shapes tire recycling, end-of-life management, and tire sustainability efforts in Canada.

At the time, the Association had already created a Scrap Tire Committee to help industry find solutions and to work with provincial governments on funding models to support this effort. In 1989, Ontario instituted a Tire Tax in response to this problem. While the tire tax was ultimately rescinded in 1993, it spurred investment, drew entrepreneurs, ideas, and new technologies toward end-of-life tire management.

In the coming years, many provinces created scrap tire management programs to address this pressing problem. In 1994 the Association created and hosted its first biennial Rubber Recycling Symposium and brought together key industry stakeholders to work together on this serious issue.

Today, each province has a formal, mandated program for managing end-of-life tires. The Association is actively involved in the management of three such programs: British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. Through its relationship with the Canadian Association of Tire Recycling Agencies (CATRA) the Association takes a proactive role in all provincial tire stewardship programs across Canada.

In 2001, Bill 90 had received first reading in the Ontario Legislature, thereby creating Waste Diversion Ontario, which in turn would create Industry Funding Organizations for tires, electronics, paints, blue box, etc., and TRAC worked hard to contribute to creation of Ontario Tire Stewardship, which incorporated in 2003. It would take another six years (September 2009) before OTS received regulatory approval. TRAC was also working on launches of Tire Stewardship BC, and Tire Stewardship Manitoba. 

TRAC also worked with Transport Canada to better understand NHTSA’s rule-making provisions under new legislation referred to as the TREAD Act—legislation which would consume the tire industry for many years thereafter.

It was also during that time TRAC constructed a Health & Safety Guidebook, published in June 2002 and which became the educational manual to support our Safety Group Program, funded by the Workers Compensation Board and which ultimately returned hundreds of thousands of dollars back to members as rebates.

TRAC launched its Be Tire Smart consumer education campaign.

Nearing the end of the decade, the Great Recession was taking its toll. Key members like Gates and Dayco had mothballed their Canadian facilities, taking valuable allies and volunteers from TRAC membership. A comprehensive membership drive was put in place at the end of the decade which began to bear fruit and take hold over the coming years.

The final decade of TRAC’s first hundred years was a decade where the industry “woke” to its environmental stewardship and the imperative each member saw as their corporate social responsibility to leave the planet in a better shape for our children’s children. In fact, “corporate sustainability,” while perhaps a buzzword in some sectors, was for the rubber sector a real and important driver of R&D efforts. We began to see major tire manufacturers investing in large end-of-life tire processors and using recycled rubber material in new production. The industry saw an emphasis on substituting petrochemicals with renewable biogenic materials, investments in replacement for natural rubber, and also commitments to natural rubber sustainability. For TRAC, this member focus supported the earlier investments in Rubber Recycling Symposium, which began in 1994, and turned the event into an even more important vehicle for conveying the industry’s commitment to a sustainable future.

TRAC’s work with the provincial tire stewardship programs in Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. parlayed into an important role with the Canadian Association of Tire Recycling Agencies (CATRA) and a long-standing leadership role to guide and nurture Canada’s efforts in responsible tire stewardship. The numbers speak for themselves—Canada’s success in managing end-of-life tires (virtually 100% diversion rates according to CATRAs data) is unparalleled by world standards, and TRAC and its members can deservedly take some credit for it being so.