Another study of the Canadian Wheat Board is causing a stir in the grain industry.
History professor David Bercuson and political science Barry Cooper, both from the University of Calgary, were commissioned by Alberta Agriculture last fall to write a report on the history of the board from 1935 to 1967.
The report has been quoted this summer by farm groups critical of the wheat board’s monopoly.
Darcy Willis, of Alberta Agriculture’s policy department, said the government wanted the report to help it prepare for upcoming legal actions.
Read Also
Supreme Court gives thumbs-up emoji case the thumbs down
Saskatchewan farmer wanted to appeal the court decision that a thumbs-up emoji served as a signature to a grain delivery contract.
“It was ordered in part to provide material support for the court cases the province has against the federal government and the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as a part of the province’s ongoing analysis of the grain marketing in Canada.”
Bercuson and Cooper conclude the wheat board’s monopoly powers have been extended because federal governments have seen “wheat as a national strategic resource that ought ultimately to be controlled by the federal government.”
The report covers the history of the board through cabinet documents, British public records, provincial and federal politicians’ archival papers and numerous books and academic theses.
Controlled sales
Cabinet documents from 1945 to 1951 are cited heavily in the report, indicating federal politicians used the monopoly powers controlling wheat sales to support post war Britain at the expense of ie farmers.
The authors also argue that the government didn’t have the knowledgeable support of farmers when it formed the wheat board.
“The organized producers, as represented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the three prairie wheat pools, were in part ignorant of the government’s aims but supported a monopoly CWB in large measure because of ideological considerations, mainly an age-old hatred of the ‘speculators’ on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.”
The wheat board and its supporters have taken exception to many of the report’s conclusions, arguing the report speaks selectively about history and is critical of the wheat board by design.
Brian White, director of market analysis for the wheat board, said the illegal birth argument doesn’t work.
Changed their ways
“Even if the birth of the monopoly for the board was illegitimate, the result was we grew up to be a good citizen of western Canada,” he said. “Opinions like these tend to ignore the grassroots movement that called for the board’s creation in 1935.”
Bill Morris, author of a history of the board and retired Manitoba Co-operator editor, questioned why the report was commissioned.
“This was written to further a constitutional fight against the wheat board,” Morris said.
“The authors have very selectively chosen their material to support the premise of the Alberta government that the board must go, despite what actual farmers might think.”
Bercuson disagreed: “We were hired as expert witnesses and authors of this report because if you are going to challenge Section One of the Charter then you have to have a full history of how we arrived at the monopoly we have today.”
But he did admit the report has its limitations.
