WINNIPEG (Staff) – An off-the-cuff comment more than four months ago by United Grain Growers president Ted Allen has renewed an old debate on a sensitive subject.
Does the Canadian Wheat Board reward its supporters and punish its detractors in its grain marketing and operational decisions?
It’s a subject that few people in the grain trade will talk about on the record, regardless of which side they favor.
However, Allen showed no such reluctance when he appeared before the House of Commons agriculture committee in November.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
“Without getting too deeply into it, there is a policy of retribution against those who disagree with the board at the commercial level,” he said. None of the committee members pursued the matter and the comment received no public attention.
Support accusations
In early March, CWB commissioner Richard Klassen wrote to Allen, saying there is no such policy at the board, and asking for specific cases in which UGG has been the victim of commercial retribution. Otherwise, he said, the comments would constitute defamation.
In reply, Allen said his comments reflected personal opinions which he believes are backed up by “a fair amount of anecdotal evidence,” adding that because many of the trade’s dealings with the board are done verbally it is difficult to document complaints.
He said UGG has experienced “inflexibility and lack of co-operation” from CWB operations staff since the company publicly supported a continental barley market. He said UGG introduced a Chinese customer to the board, but was shut out of a later sale to that same customer. And he said grain companies that support the board get advance notice of quotas.
Allen said he believes his views are widely held in the grain trade, but “fear of the consequences constrain people being more open with their concerns.”
In an interview last week, Allen said he wants the board to do two things: Circulate a directive to all board employees instructing them to treat all companies fairly and prepare a policy manual dealing with wheat board/grain company relations.
“Even if they feel there is no substance to my concerns, I can see no possible reason for them not to do that,” he said.
Klassen declined to be interviewed, but fellow commissioner Ken Beswick said he hasn’t seen any evidence to support Allen’s charge of favoritism.
“I really have no reason to believe it’s there,” he said. “I can’t guarantee it, it’s a big organization, but I really quite genuinely do not believe that it happens.”
If it did, he said, the only way the board could react is if someone made a detailed, specific complaint.
“I’m not interested in anecdotal evidence … If it happens to an individual or company I want to know from that company specifically what it was and where it happened and who did it, and I won’t tolerate it.”
Two senior executives from Winnipeg-based grain companies provided contrasting perspectives on the UGG/CWB debate. Both would comment only on condition their names not be used.
It’s probably not easy for the board to treat everyone with an even hand, given the harsh criticism often directed its way, said one executive sympathetic to the board, “but it’s never been apparent to me that anybody had any particular advantage or disadvantage.”
Board considered fair
The source noted the board was criticized for being unfair when it ran the car allocation system, yet nothing changed when it was taken over by the Grain Transportation Agency: “I think the board bent over backwards, was more than fair, but never got any credit for it.”
Asked why companies would claim to be unfairly treated if it wasn’t really happening, the source said it’s all part of trying to gain an competitive edge.
A vice-president with another company supported Allen’s view and expressed surprise he would go public with it.
“There is something to what Ted said, but I have no idea how you’d ever prove it. How do you prove that you didn’t get a boat at your terminal or didn’t get a rail car?”
The company believes there is unequal treatment based on policy positions, but “we’d never say anything like that in a million years. It’s not good for business,” said the official, adding that because the board is a monopoly, a “court of last resort” is needed to hear such complaints.
