Canada and Britain—The Invisible Links

MR. GRIFFIN: Members and guests of The Toronto Board of Trade and The Empire Club of Canada: in 1914, when "the war to end wars" broke out, Great Britain had no domestic source for those essentials of war-nitrates and dyes. The four years' progress of that great struggle showed the tremendous need for the establishment of such industries in Britain. In 1939, when the Second World War began, the picture was a very different one--the British chemical industry was able to supply all the synthetic nitrogen required for the manufacture of explosives in Britain. It is thus obvious that the British chemical industry is relatively new so it is not surprising that Imperial Chemical Industries Limited was formed as recently as 1926 by the union of a number of well-established chemical firms. Today it is a world giant in this field and its one hundred and ten thousand employees, working in eleven manufacturing divisions, make twelve thousand products in over eighty factories in the British Isles. In 1946, following a tremendous contribution to the Allied war effort, it embarked on a 50 million pound expansion programme, designed to spread its knowledge and research facilities and products around the Empire and the World. An example close to home which is of particular interest to us is this: on April 1st, I.C.I. announced plans for the construction of a new plant near Kingston, Ontario, in which it will manufacture a synthetic fibre which is used in the making of clothing fabrics.

At the head of this tremendous enterprise is our speaker of today. Mr. John Rogers was bom in Glasgow and began his career as a chemist with Nobel's Explosives Company in 1899. In 1908 he was appointed to the position of technical liason officer at Nobel's head office in Glasgow. When Imperial Chemical Industries Limited was formed in 1926, one of its constituent companies was Nobel Industries Limited. Mr. Rogers was made a Joint Technical Director, which position he held until 1940 when he was appointed a Deputy Chairman. In the early days of the war he was given the post of Deputy Director-General of Explosives and then Director-General and subsequently became Chairman of the Ammunition Board at the Ministry of Supply. When the War was in its final stages he returned to I.C.I. and took up his former duties. In December, 1950, he succeeded Lord McGowan to the position of Chairman of the Board of this great world-wide organization.

The chemical industry, so little known to the general public, is fundamental to almost every activity of comtemporary man. We are honoured to have as our speaker one whose career covers the whole era of modern industrial chemistry and who crowns a lifetime of achievement with the highest post that his chosen field can offer.

MR. ROGERS: First, I wish to thank you for the great honour you do me at this time, and to say how much I appreciate it. When one considers the list of eminent people who have addressed this distinguished gathering in the past, the striking thing--to me at any rate--is the wide field that has been covered. Such a range of interests indicates, of course, the breadth of mind of your members and their determination to hear all sides of every subject.

To an ordinary, unassuming industrialist like myself, however, this is somewhat alarming. For I am no orator--or evangelist--and I am somewhat diffident as to my capacity to give you any useful message or information. God forbid that I should attempt to give you advice.

In the course of a long and reasonably sinful life I hope I may have acquired a little knowledge, together with a number of views and opinions of more or less doubtful value. However, you do not, I am sure, wish me to give you views of that kind about your own country. For my part, I shall be happier and on safer ground talking about Great Britain. Nevertheless, because of my interest-past and present-in Canada, I should like also to say something about possibilities which arise from the relations between our two countries.

Numerous attempts have been made by a great variety of people to explain how Great Britain achieved the important position which she has held for so many years in the industrial world. And--let me say--the position she still holds. Some kind friends, of course, saw our country in a state of rapid decline and were ready to read the burial service over us. Well--like father in the old song--we may be dead, but we won't lie down. In fact, I am prepared to maintain quite stubbornly that what Britain is suffering from is not old age but growing pains.

Doubtless a great many causes contributed to the process which our history books label 'the industrial revolution'. Personally, I prefer to over-simplify the process and to trace Great Britain's rise to a position of industrial leadership to one single fact which I learned about in school-the steam engine invented by James Watt and erected in Birmingham in the year 1788.

You may say there is nothing new about that idea--and I quite agree with you. But in the years during which I have travelled about England and Scotland-and even about the world--it has always fascinated me to trace back to Watt's steam engine so much of the development that I saw about me. The size and position and even the shape of some towns, the prosperity of the population, the means of transportation, the mechanical skills, the nation's trade--there is no end to the far-reaching effect of that legendary steaming kettle and rattling lid.

I am well aware that in these days of complex economic theorising such simple thoughts as I express may sound definitely old-fashioned. There is, however, a train of thought I would like to follow through to the present day--that is my excuse for going back about 150 years. Or, let's go back further to Archimedes. Since Archimedes, hardly any power assistance of a notable kind had been given to mankind until the steam engine was invented. With the aid of that steam engine and our mechanical skill, England, rich in coal and iron ore, soon became the workshop of the world.

We made and sold everything from pins to locomotives. We built steamships, established railways, developed countries, invested money in them and eventually reached the pinnacle in world trade upon which we sat rather smuggly. I have to confess, looking back, that the behaviour of our predecessors, although dignified, was not always distinguished by much beyond the making of money out of a new thing. Their foresight--in some directions--must have been rather weak or they would have seen how precarious was their perch on the pinnacle. However, I see no particular virtue in hindsight wisdom. We cannot afford ourselves to be too critical of the past. Even when the rate of industrial progress in the United States began to be clearly apparent, we seemed to believe that cheap labour maintained by exporting manufactured goods and importing food would render us invulnerable to American and other competition.

To the best of my knowledge the father of invention has managed to remain anonymous, but the mother is so well known as to be notorious. Necessity-mother of so much good and evil-drives all of us to deal with difficulties in some way or another according to the intelligence with which we have been blessed. The United States had to counter their high labour cost--it always has been a high labour--cost country--by using more and more machinery and labour-saving devices. While we, in Britain, concentrated on skills and quality, the United States and other countries developed engineering methods and applied them to industry in their determination to become as self-supporting and independent as possible. Add to that state of affairs the nationalistic views held by most governments, coupled with the effect of the war upon individual countries and upon international relationships, and you begin to have the measure of what Great Britain is competing against today.

Concerning the British and their future-a great deal of talking and writing has been based upon the belief that, through economic theories, there is some easy and clever way to bring the country back to prosperity. This may be so, but I doubt it 'very much. I have always noticed that whenever a learned economist writes to 'The Times' to advance his pet theory, he is immediately followed by one of similar eminence who flatly contradicts him. There is an old saying which, to my mind, has not lost its significance--"Pay as you go, and if you can't pay, don't go".

In Great Britain we have, in my opinion, pursued and spent money upon things very praiseworthy in themselves, but not feasible in a nation which has had so many grievous losses. Perhaps, by way of excuse, we can plead that there is no precedent for the existing state of affairs. No such destruction and damage ever took place before, no such upsetting of national and international values. We like to believe we are able to deal with such conditions by putting on our thinking caps and producing what have been called 'brain-waves'. Not to be confused, of course, with 'brain-trusts'. Now in my view-and I have had many years in which to think about it 'brainwaves' are mostly the result of the mind sorting out precedents, very often unwittingly. Sometimes the 'brainwave' is not unlike opportunity-something simple which is frequently missed because it goes around disguised as hard work. Of this I am convinced, without hard work there is no way of getting out of the sort of difficulties which we are up against in Great Britain. And, what is of equal importance, an appreciation of the real necessity for hard work.

Already there is evidence that we have proceeded quite a way along that road. I think you will agree that Mr. Butler's recent Budget reflects some of the progress we have made. I do not wish to speak as a politician or a party man, but in the last months changes have taken place in the outlook of a great many people. It is my conviction that if continued by all groups and parties, those changes must lead to conditions which will undoubtedly bring back--or should I say lead forward--to a greater measure of prosperity in our land. When I speak of groups, I should like to add this tribute. Personally, I recognize that the very statesmanlike attitude of our trades union leaders has gone a long way to bring to the people for whom they have responsibility an awakened appreciation of the need for effort. It was thought that, following our last change of Government, there would be more strikes and labour troubles. That has not been so because the trades unions will not allow their powers to be used for political or party purposes. They know their members must support prosperity in industry. Admittedly, through unwise behaviour on both sides, some quite troublesome unofficial strikes have taken place, but they have been few in number.

A word much used nowadays is 'productivity'. As applied to industry it does not, of course, necessarily mean much harder physical effort on the part of workers. The methods used are generally based upon making a better use of everything and everyone concerned in production. Those who sponsor the application of productivity methods know well that changes have to take place not only in the minds of operatives, but also in those of management. At home, now and then, we find in my opinion an undue emphasis on the methods used in the United States and an apparent belief that all we have to do is to copy them. Now, this is not the case. I know and understand the capacity of that great country to the south and the productivity of their industrial concerns, but it is necessary for us at home to remember the difference in conditions. By all means let us ascertain, by visits both ways; all that can be discovered regarding each other's methods of industrial production. But, we must be equally careful to study the different circumstances in which those methods are used.

Perhaps, in Britain, we seem slow, but we believe it pays to be steady and sure provided opportunities are not missed. We still have the determination to put things right. We do not wish to live in any way on loans or any form of financial aid. We wish to get business and we are equipping ourselves as fast as we can to that end. That end can be achieved only by providing the customer with what he wants at the right price. There is, of course, not the slightest objection on our part to other countries helping us by tariff alterations of a suitable kind--if they care to make them.

All who seek settled conditions of peace and prosperity within a free enterprise system must recognize the importance of the Commonwealth and the United States standing together. To do this successfully there must be an appreciation of each other's difficulties, and an understanding of each other's way of life. When opinions and views vary, as they must do from time to time, there should be the sort of friendship which makes possible frankness and helpfulness.

Canada, by its own desire, remains very close to the old country and, in view of its frontier with the United States, occupies an interesting position in the British Commonwealth. Sometimes I feel many of the people of Great Britain do not always appreciate how close you are to us. Certainly the war did much to enlighten them, but I think it would do some of my countrymen a lot of good if they were to come over here. Then they would experience what it has been my good fortune to know throughout a considerable number of years.

Your proximity to our American friends, with the easy coming and going across the border, has meant that the two countries have many things in common. In industry, business, transport--even in your sports-you speak much the same language. All this should mean that Canada, with its increasing development of natural and industrial resources, should as time goes on take a very important position with regard to the preservation of goodwill and cooperation between the United States and the Commonwealth. In fact, just as the war hastened Canada's progress industrially, so also did it increase Canada's stature and maturity in its relations with other countries. Thus we have lived to see the day when Canada takes a prominent part in what might be called "off-shore diplomacy"-advising and guiding the old country in its relations with the United States and vice-versa. In these remarks I am not forgetting the other members of the Commonwealth and their desires and efforts towards the same end. I am merely saying that Canada has an especially favourable position for efforts of this kind.

My experience of Canada began over forty years ago when I had the great privilege of living in your country for almost six months. Although some things have changed almost beyond belief since 1911, the time I spent here enabled me to ascertain quite a lot concerning Canadians, their industries and, to some extent, their politics. As most of us know--to our sorrow--many Britishers who visit another land for, say, two or three weeks, return full of knowledge and determination to spread their ideas throughout their homeland. On such a brief acquaintanceship they consider themselves entitled to pose as authorities on conditions in the country honoured by their presence for such a short period. Luckily my stay was long enough to teach me to keep clear of such behaviour.

Going back to 1911, I wonder how many of you remember the Reciprocity Election? I can clearly recall scenes in the St. James's Club, Montreal, at night when the results were declared. Men of usually staid disposition--and definitely stout build--danced on tables and generally acted as if a disaster had been averted. You, no doubt, could tell me what would happen today if such a reciprocity proposal were repeated and put to the vote. However that may be, you have managed through the years to build up your industries, to open up your resources and to become one of the world's great trading nations. And yet you are still a country of vast possibilities.

The developments which have taken place in all kinds of extractive industries have enabled you to become an important supplier to the United States and have caused capital to flow in from your next-door neighbour. Britain has not managed to keep step in recent years because of the difficulties well known to us all. But our Government at home has at least decided to allow capital to come this way so that such inventions and methods as may be known in Britain can be introduced to your country and developed here. Wherever possible, this should be done, I think, by Canadian companies with managements in Canada establishing their business for the benefit of Canada. I am sure this can be brought about to the mutual advantage of your country and mine if proper methods are employed. This is indeed the policy already adopted by various British companies looking towards Canada for investment and expansion. Speaking for the Company by which I have the honour to be employed, I can say positively there need be no fear that we shall do anything to try to get the cream off the top, leaving only skimmed milk. Naturally we shall expect that our friends here will not forget to help us to obtain the benefit of their inventions for Britain on reasonable terms.

I feel I cannot possibly fail to use this opportunity to speak of the part your country played in so many ways in the recent war. In 1914 I was Technical Manager of Nobel's Explosives, which company, as many of you know, later became part of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited and had a very considerable interest in what is now Canadian Industries Limited. During that earlier war I was; of course, aware of the efforts made by Canada and of their value. However, in the last war, the calls made upon industry for all kinds of products and in all sorts of spheres, were far greater than could have been contemplated in 1914-or for that matter even in 1939.

Between the wars, Canada had expanded in many ways, and it was clear to those of us who had been in touch with things from 1914 to 1918 that heavy demands would be made upon North America. From the beginning, Canada was at our side and the speed with which your industries extended and increased their output was a source of much encouragement in those dark days. This is a matter I speak of with some considerable knowledge because I was away from Imperial Chemical Industries during the whole of the war and was at one time a member of the Supply Council and Chairman of the Ammunition Board.

I have never liked people who use the excuse of age to say things which might be considered patronizing. However, I am older than most of you here today and, therefore, can claim more years spent gaining experience and sorting things out. So do not take what I am going to say now in the wrong spirit.

I want to confess that during the war I--and many others--watched with growing amazement the success with which Canada undertook immense new burdens and responsibilities during those six strenuous years of warfare. We were astonished at the extent to which your country, your scientists, your industrialists and your universities were able to do things on their own initiative and experience. Perhaps that does not sound very complimentary, but I would like you to consider it as praise of the highest order. I have in mind, speaking of industry and universities and research, not so much the volume produced as the many discoveries and improvements that were worked out and applied.

Despite the fact that I thought I knew something about this country and its people--because of once having lived here--I had failed to realize the immense progress Canada had made in the years between. I knew that this country had the ability and capacity to do great thingsbut their magnitude did rather take my breath away: In fact, I suspect that you were a little surprised yourself when the score was finally counted.

To my mind, however, while recognizing the urgency of your impressive war record, even more important in the long run are the vital qualities of the Canadian people behind that effort. I refer to such qualities as your energy, your stamina, your virility--to give them their respectable names.

In recent years, I have made several visits to Canada. Each time I come, I seem to hear of new possibilities in the realm of natural resources and new developments in industrial progress. I cannot admire too much the energy with which you tackle these vast projects and the sound judgment you display in your plans regarding them.

But what impresses me most is the spirit of adventure which is in the air and the courage with which new ventures are undertaken. 'Safety first' is an excellent traffic regulation and a good rule to follow to avoid accidents while at work. I do not need to remind you, however, that 'safety first' has never been a maxim that has inspired the leaders of any great nation or explorers, pioneers, scientists, merchants or other men of achievement.

This thought has perhaps never been better expressed than by Her Majesty the Queen in her Christmas message. I feel sure many of us were very much moved to hear such wisdom from one so young. No doubt you remember the occasion, but the words are so appropriate to what I have been saying that I hope you will not mind my repeating them. This is what the Queen said:

"Many grave problems and difficulties confront us all, but with a new faith in the old and splendid beliefs given us by our forefathers, and the strength to venture beyond the safeties of the past, I know we shall be worthy of our duty. Above all, we must keep alive that courageous spirit of adventure that is the finest quality of youth."

It would not surprise me to learn that Canada, which she visited so recently, was in her thoughts when she used those words. For I am convinced that nowhere in the world today is there a people with a greater faith and a more courageous spirit of adventure than there is in Canada. The young man just beginning his career in this country is going to participate in a most remarkable period of national development. To see that he has the right tools for the job ahead of him is the duty of the older generation, and I firmly believe that, given the chance, Great Britain, through scientific research, technical knowledge and fine skills, can be of assistance in supplying those tools.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Mr. Neil J. McKinnon.