J ohn Channon remembers well the 1972 telephone call from Hugh Horner that made him the first chair of the Alberta Grain Commission.
It was the beginning of a farm policy revolution in the province
He had been a disgruntled federal employee, unhappy about the grain policies he was supposed to promote.
Horner, agriculture minister in a new government, was unhappy about the impact of national policies like the Crow rate and central desk selling that he thought inhibited diversification.
He was frustrated by the power of Alberta Wheat Pool which supported those policies.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Early in the mandate, Horner decided to create an alternative voice – the Alberta Grain Commission.
It would include government-chosen farmers, bureaucrats and a government MLA.
“That is my take on history,” Channon said during an interview in late 1993, a decade after retiring as chair. “In 1971, the Conservatives came in with the idea of diversifying the economy. Agriculture was one of the targets but the pool was dominant and it seemed to be opposed to many of the government ideas.”
Current deputy agriculture minister Doug Radke has his own version of that same history.
“My guess is the judgment was made there wasn’t sufficient debate available because no one was capable of competing with the Alberta Pool and its resources,” he said.
The commission became, and still is, the key government grain policy advisor. These days, it mainly promotes open markets and a reduction in Canadian Wheat Board powers.
“Everything is on the table as far as we are concerned,” says current chair Ken Moholitny of Alberta Agriculture. “We are prepared to take policy positions and go out and debate them. We will challenge anyone who thinks the status quo will get us through the next few years. We support a dual marketing concept with a continental market for both wheat and barley.”
Agriculture minister Walter Paszkowski says the commission will be an invaluable source of advice in the battles ahead.
Over the years, the council also became a key link between the government, commodity groups and the Conservative Party. One Alberta agricultural economist calls it a “finishing school” for conservative politicians.
Channon, for example, was an active Conservative and Paszkowski was once a farmer-member.
A s the 1970s wore on, the government decided the commission alone was not enough to challenge the pool.
On commission advice, the government decided to help commodity groups which were forming to promote the specific interests of canola, barley and wheat growers. It would give them credibility and in some cases, money.
“The commodity groups were aided and abetted to give the government another point of view from the industry,” said Channon.
Beginning in the 1970s and lasting into the mid-1980s, Alberta funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association (originally Palliser Wheat Growers) and Western Canadian Barley Growers Association.
It was “start-up funds” says Tim Harvie of Cochrane, Alta., chair of the Alberta Barley Commission and former president of the Alberta Barley Growers Association.
“It was very much sympathetic views between barley growers and the government,” he said. “They needed us to be visible. They were sympathetic to us. They wanted another voice … to balance the pool view.”
In time, direct funding was replaced by commodity check-off legislation which would raise millions of dollars for research and promotion of product and political views.
Alex Graham, president of Alberta Wheat Pool, caustically describes the process as “a small group of people getting together, without a vote, to convince the government to allow creation of a commission to represent the industry. Not very democratic.”
Stuart Thiesson, whose National Farmers Union is not on the list of preferred government advisors, calls the commissions “dummy organizations to support government policy.”
Government representatives say they are voices of the producers, created on request from barley, soft white wheat and canola producers.
Whatever the motive for their creation, the commissions and the check-off-funded Alberta Cattle Commission have become the voice of Alberta farmers to government.
Gary Sargent of the Alberta Cattle Commission says a close relationship has grown between commodity groups, the bureaucracy and the government. “A good part of the relationship is based on how well the philosophy of the group and the government mesh.”
Meanwhile, the NFU is ignored. Alberta Pool has taken itself out of the debate.
“Whether it was deliberate or not, the effect of government policy has been to promote and create commodity voices,” said Graham. “Governments can be more successful in setting their own direction if there is a wide variety of split opinion on an issue.”
In fact, consultations that have been organized by government would suggest there are few policy splits among farmers.
Whether on a departmental business plan or safety nets policy, the focus groups and public meetings that are part of the most extensive farmer consultation process in the country are drawing the opinion that farmers mainly want to be left alone, without government support or interference.
It has become the government’s policy direction.
“We seem to have a very high acceptance rate on this and I have to assume the consultative process is working,” minister Paszkowski said.
In Ottawa, the Reform party promotes the Alberta model as the best way to tap farmer opinion.
Is the government shaping opinion?
But the process isn’t without controversy. Critics are suspicious this is just the latest way for the government to mold farm opinion.
Liberal agriculture critic Ken Nicol says that public reports from consultations do not always reflect what farmers really said. “I was at a meeting in Red Deer where that was the case. Some consultation.”
Beyond the political sphere, there are other concerns.
Is the information given to farmers presented in a way to elicit certain responses?
Ken Stickland of Edmonton, vice-chair of the Alberta Agriculture and Food Council, said he is suspicious of the consultation process, even though pro-market views reflect the fact that prices are good, government finances are limited and Alberta is a right-wing province.
“Still, I think the grain voice, in a collective sense, is weak and the government is strong,” he said.
“We are vulnerable to the Alberta government setting the agenda through the way they set up consultations.”
Deputy minister Doug Radke readily concedes the government lets farmers know what it wants to do before it asks their opinion.
He said it does not bias the result.
“These farmers would expect the government to be showing some leadership,” he said.
“To start with a clean piece of paper and expect to arrive at a simple answer to a complex set of questions is not going to work. You are up front that this is what we got elected on. Tell us if you have an opinion on it.”
