Categoría 3: Percepción de los enfoques teóricos de aprendizaje

(President), Jean Julien Perrault, J. B. Ward, and Wilfrid Gagnon. Standing (L to R): Goodwin Gibson, F. O. Peterson (Secretary-Treasurer), A. T. O’Leary, and R. D. Purdy. Source: LAC, RG101, Vol. 1, File: R-1-1-8, War Assets Corporation – Historical, Board of Directors.

Automobiles.77 However, Berry relinquished these other jobs shortly after replacing Pettigrew. When Carswell resigned as President of the WAC in May 1945, Berry was the natural choice to replace him. Thus, from 16 July 1945 onwards Berry occupied the two most important positions in Canada’s disposal administration until 31 July 1949, when he resigned to become President of Canadian Arsenals Limited (CAL).78

The Corporation’s Board of Directors was also selected around the same time as the CAAC’s membership. On 28 December 1943, eleven men were sold shares in the company and named to its Board of Directors, which first met in Montreal on 6 January 1944. According to an unpublished history of the WAC written in 1950, “the directors were chosen as representatives of a cross- section of business, labour, and agriculture and of the country geographically.”79

In reality, though, it was dominated by businessmen who became associated with the WAC by virtue of either their work as “dollar-a-year-men” or because of their professional backgrounds. The business experience of the WAC’s Directors encompassed mining and colliery agents, knitting and clothing, beds and bedding, architecture, motor vehicles, merchandising, and real estate.

77

LAC, RG32,Vol. 598, File: Berry, John Hatton, “Employees History Record – Questionnaire,” 1-2, “Civil Service of Canada – Application Form,” 1-4; Cox, Canadian Strength, 85-87; SCWEE, 20 November 1945, (No. 1 Book 2), 4-5.

78

Ibid, File: Berry, John Hatton, “Employees History Record – Questionnaire,” 1-2; PC1872, 20 March 1944; Cox, Canadian Strength, 85-87; SCWEE, 20 November 1945, (No. 1 Book 2), 4-5.

79 _{LAC, RG101, Vol. 1, File: R-1-1-9, “History of War Assets Corporation, Later – Crown Assets Disposal} Corporation,” (unpublished) 15 July 1950, 32 (hereafter “History of War Assets Corporation”).

65

Wilfred A. Gagnon, who became the WAC’s first Vice-President, is a typical example. In the 1930s, he was Quebec’s Minister of Commerce and Industry in Adelard Godbout’s government. His company, Aird & Son Ltd., specialized in footwear manufacturing and therefore had a vested interest in disposal operations as his industry was particularly susceptible to ruin, given the amount of footwear produced for the war effort. The

Canadian Encyclopedia noted that Gagnon used his business experience and wartime connections to become one of the most successful industrialists in Canadian history.80

As important as PC9108 was in the development of the government’s disposal policy, it was not perfect. Perhaps the biggest initial problem involved the ambiguities and overlap between the two organizations. Under PC9108 both the CAAC and WAC could formulate policies about specific surplus stores and make recommendations about disposal to the Minister and so, presumably, there was an opportunity for duplication or conflict. However, the authors of PC9108 dismissed this overlap and ambiguity. They did so because they were aware that the officials, representatives, and staff of the two organizations were being handpicked and therefore, despite the potential overlap on paper, they had “full confidence that both the Committee and the Corporation would be composed of, or headed up by, officers with sufficient common sense to ensure that no narrow interpretation would be given” to PC9108 and “that no grasping for power and authority at the expense of the other body concerned would take place.”81

In doing so, they envisioned both organizations working together as teammates, a fact best exemplified by the employees who occupied dual positions in both organizations. For example, in October 1945 when the WAC was reorganized to form a new Procurement Division, its manager, R. P. Saunders, was also named the CAAC’s executive secretary. This overlap was necessary because the Procurement Division dealt exclusively with the

80 _{At the time of his death in 10 June 1963 Gagnon was “associated with more than 30 industrial concerns,} banks or trusts companies, either as chairman of the board, president, or director.” “Former Cabinet Minister Wilfrid Gagnon Dies, 64,” The Montreal Gazette, 11 June 1963, 8. See also: “Wilfred Gagnon” by

J. Lindsey, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca.

81 _{LAC, RG2, Vol. 12, File: W-45, “Crown Assets Allocation Committee, War Assets Corporation Limited,} P.C. 9108, Nov. 29, 1943,” 5 January 1944, 1.

66

consignments and transfers from the CAAC and having the same person in charge at both ends helped streamline the process.82

The authors of PC9108 were intent on avoiding a power struggle. The Committee and Corporation were envisioned as “two autonomous bodies operating on the same plane” both reporting to the Minister and neither reporting to the other as subordinate. The CAAC did not “instruct” the WAC nor did the Corporation “give orders” to the Committee. Instead they worked cooperatively on a common problem, one that the CAAC dealt with at an earlier stage.83 This cooperative and common-sense approach was on full display at the CAAC’s first meeting on 5 January 1944, when confusion over roles and responsibilities came up. However, Committee members felt that although “PC9108 was somewhat ambiguous” they would “at least try to iron out this question and get underway” instead of requesting further clarification.84

The decision to establish a single administration composed of two organizations working in tandem and not in direct competition turned out to be a very sound idea, especially when compared to developments in the United States.

In April 1945, Carswell was invited by the US Senate’s Special Committee to Study and Survey Problems of Small Business Enterprises to speak at a meeting of its subcommittee on Surplus War Property. After outlining a brief on Canada’s disposal agencies and the policies adopted for machine tools he answered several questions. Aside from how prices and preferential sales were established for machine tools, the American senators were interested in the centralization of authority and the division of responsibility between the CAAC and WAC. They were particularly focused on how they functioned together as Canada’s “sole disposal agency.” In clarifying the arrangements, Carswell stated “we compare with your team of eight horses, I think it is, in the United States. We only have one horse.” Having numerous agencies involved was causing problems in the US, as major duplication, rivalries, and administrative delays hindered

82 _{LAC, RG101, Vol. 1, File: R-1-1-9, “Supply Department Bulletin – Organization,” October 1945.} 83 _{LAC, RG2, Vol. 12, File: W-45, “Crown Assets Allocation Committee, War Assets Corporation Limited,} P.C. 9108, Nov. 29, 1943,” 5 January 1944, 1-2.

84 _{LAC, RG101, Vol. 4, File: 1-1-13, CAAC Meeting Minutes, 5 January 1944. The exact division of} powers and responsibilities between the two organizations was a subject of repeated questions by the SCWEE. SCWEE, 13 and 22 November 1945, (No. 1 and No. 2, Book 2), various pages.

67

disposal operations. On this point one senator cynically remarked, in reference to the CAAC’s American counterpart, “Our Surplus Property Board here has, itself, almost been declared surplus.”85

Before thanking Carswell for his briefing, a Senator complemented Canada on its administration, “I just wanted to observe that you seem to me to have a very well worked out plan there, in your country. Ours should be as simple as yours.” Another senator added, “It was apparently given a lot of thought.”86

Another limitation of PC9108 was not immediately apparent and only came to light in early 1944 when Pettigrew and Carswell got to work. Although PC9108 did not cancel any of the government’s other disposal arrangements it did supersede them, effectively rendering them redundant. By its terms and legalities, government departments were now required to vet their inventories and requirements, declare surplus the unneeded items and property, and relinquish custody of them to the WAC (via the CAAC). This new set up prevented any other salvage committee or organization from dealing with disposal since it vested the powers to sell, destroy, or otherwise dispose of surplus assets with Howe and through him, the WAC. Accordingly, PC9108 threatened the existence of the ASDB, the Chief Salvage Officer, and the Scrap Disposal Branch. However, after some investigation, Pettigrew and Carswell felt that eliminating these organizations would cause catastrophic problems.87 In fact, an early January meeting with Brigadier W. Mavor, the Master General of Ordnance (MGO), and Colonel Dailley had impressed upon Pettigrew the importance of these organizations. He later reported to the Committee that if these three operations were terminated or replaced by PC9108, “we would be unable to get anywhere fast.”88

The key issue was the experience and type of surpluses handled by the ASDB, Scrap Disposal Branch, and Chief Salvage Officer. These organizations primarily

85 _{United States Senate, Hearings before the Surplus War Property Subcommittee of the Special Committee}

to Study and Survey Problems of Small Business Enterprises, 79th Congress, First Session, Part 63: Machine Tools Industry, “Statement of J. B. Carswell President, War Assets Corporation, Ltd. Montreal, Canada,” 27 April 1945, 7586.

86

Ibid, 7590.

87 _{LAC, RG101, Vol. 4, File: 1-1-13, CAAC Meeting Minutes, 5 January and 23 February 1944, Schedule} F.

68

handled sales of smaller lots and less valuable items on a regular basis, but PC9108 was drawn up mainly considering the bigger and newer items destined to be surplus at the end of hostilities. If Howe cancelled these existing arrangements (as was his prerogative) the CAAC “would be hopelessly bogged down as a committee through requiring everything, no limit, to come forward to [it].”89 Furthermore, in their fact-finding meetings, Pettigrew and Carswell found other problems with PC9108. All three disposal organizations used special arrangements that greatly streamlined the paperwork associated with weeding out obsolete assets. All three organizations required special approval for larger or out-of-the- ordinary sales, but for all regular transactions they were given a free hand. The Chief Salvage Officer could sell anything below $10,000, but if the transaction surpassed that threshold it required approval from the Treasury Board. The ASDB could sell anything less than $5,000 without seeking approval, but anything over that and below $50,000 required approval from a Deputy Minister, and Ministerial approval was needed for anything more expensive. The Scrap Disposal Branch operated under a blanket sales authorization from Howe’s office, but every effort was made to recycle the materials back into production.90 There were no such limitations built into PC9108: every sale, no matter how big or small, required approval from the Privy Council.

Clearly some adjustments were necessary. In early 1944, the CAAC recommended to Howe that anything declared surplus and valued under $15,000 would not need approval from the Privy Council for disposal. The CAAC also suggested that the chairman’s powers be increased so he could determine what could be classified as scrap so he would not have to seek Council’s permission at every instance. A third recommendation suggested that the WAC assimilate the three existing disposal agencies into its operations.91 All three recommendations were approved by PC1342 and PC4013 and shortly thereafter the WAC integrated them into its operations as agents. Fortunately, this happened right as the first waves of surplus stores (mainly from the RCAF) were declared in early 1944. Although the ASDB and Scrap Disposal Branch were assimilated rather seamlessly, the Chief Salvage Officer resisted. Kelley and his staff were not

89 _{Ibid, 23 February 1944, Schedule F.}

90 _{Ibid, 5 January and 23 February 1944, Schedule F.} 91 _{Ibid, 5 January and 23 February 1944, Schedule F.}

69

thrilled with the new regulations and felt that the proceeds of all sales should be remitted back to the declaring department, not the Corporation or government’s consolidated revenue fund. However, Kelley lacked support from Council and by May 1944 these matters were settled and Kelley, his staff, and their experience were absorbed into the new disposal administration.92