Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T11:49:59.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Canada's Relations with War-Time Agencies in Washington

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Get access

Extract

This paper is primarily an account of Canadian relations with the War Production Board and with the Office of Price Administration, and with their antecedent agencies. Large sections of the Washington scene, with which the writers had no special familiarity, are completely omitted. In particular there is little reference to the agencies controlling shipping and overseas trade, or to the armed services themselves. Further, there is no account of relations with the War Food Administration, or with the Combined Food Board on which the United Kingdom is represented as well as the United States and Canada. Even the two Combined Boards dealing respectively with production and resources (on which Canada is represented) and with raw materials (where it is not) are omitted although relations with these Boards are almost indistinguishable from relations with the War Production Board which supplies their United States membership. In short, this paper is concerned almost entirely with relations between Canada and the United States in regard to supplies moving directly between them. In this all-important field the relations amounted to a co-operation so close, continuous, effective, and friendly that the two sovereign nations might in many respects have been two parts of one country.

It is convenient to consider first relations in the field of war supplies because it was in this field that war-time co-operation and collaboration first became necessary. Here a pattern was established for subsequent collaboration in the field of civilian supplies.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 However, the following comment, made by Mr. R. W. James, is of interest: “I have been groping for the precise content of the word ‘integration’ used in this context. It has a physical and geographical connotatation which seems to me to conceal its real significance. By this I mean that one should considier integration in terms of a specified end or aim, rather than in a more general sense implying spatial mobility of resources. Thus, it seems to me that two economies are more (rather than less) integrated if they can achieve a common goal with less (rather than more) social cost. By social cost I mean, the alternatives which the people of North America have to forego in achieving their aim. The issue, therefore, seems to me to be whether wartime controls in Canada and the United States have meant that the combined social cost of waging the war has been reduced or not. It seems clear to me that the narrowing of the disparity io changes in consomption levels relative to normal ar desired levels implies a reduction in total social cost. By this I am implying that equimarginal sacrifices lead to minimum total social cost. Therefore, export controls and any other devices intended to protect one economy or the other, while they may stifle or reduce commodity trade may, in fact, mean that the two economies are more closely integrated than if the controls were not in existence.”