Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 34–60 | Cite as

Chaff with the wheat: the Anglo-Canadian wheat contract of 1946 in its North Atlantic setting

  • Hector Mackenzie


This paper examines the negotiation, implementation and impact of the four-year contract for delivery of Canadian wheat to Britain (July 1946). The notion of such an agreement was controversial within government and industry, not only in Canada and the United Kingdom but also in the United States. This assessment concludes that, in spite of its negative reputation, especially in Canada, the wheat contract met the principal aims of both sides. For the Canadian government especially this episode interwove many of its anxieties and ambitions in an uncertain financial, commercial and political situation after the Second World War.


wheat trade Britain Canada agreement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A version of this paper was delivered at the annual conference of the Transatlantic Studies Association in Cork, Ireland, in July 2007. The author would like to thank the organizers of that conference, Professor Alan Dobson and Dr David Ryan, as well as the organizer of the panel, Dr Tony McCulloch. My friend and colleague, Professor Norman Hillmer, has encouraged the larger study of which this article forms a part.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W.K. Hancock and M.W. Gowing, British War Economy (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1949)Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    R.J. Hammond, Food, Volume I, The Growth of Policy (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1951)Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    Alec Cairncross, Years of Recovery: British Economic Policy 1945–51 (London: Methuen, 1985)Google Scholar
  5. 2c.
    L.S. Pressnell, External Economic Policy Since the War, Volume I, The Post-War Financial Settlement (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1987).Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    On commercial policy, see Robert Bothwell and John English, ‘Canadian Trade Policy in the Age of American Dominance and British Decline, 1943–1947’, Canadian Review of American Studies VIII, no. 1 (Spring 1977): 54–65Google Scholar
  7. 3a.
    R.D. Cuff and J.L. Granatstein, American Dollars — Canadian Prosperity: Canadian-American Economic Relations, 1945–1950 (Toronto: Samuel-Stevens, 1978)Google Scholar
  8. 3b.
    B.W. Muirhead, The Development of Postwar Canadian Trade Policy: The Failure of the Anglo-European Option (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992), 17, 23–5Google Scholar
  9. 3c.
    Michael Hart, A Trading Nation: Canadian Trade Policy from Colonialism to Globalization (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2002), 150 (which mistakes the floor prices in the third and fourth year for actual prices). On the grain trade, seeGoogle Scholar
  10. 3d.
    D.A. MacGibbon, The Canadian Grain Trade 1931–1951 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1952)Google Scholar
  11. 3e.
    G.E. Britnell and V.C. Fowke, Canadian Agriculture in War and Peace 1935–50 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962)Google Scholar
  12. 3f.
    C.F. Wilson, A Century of Canadian Grain: Government Policy to 1951 (Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books, 1978)Google Scholar
  13. 3g.
    Charles F. Wilson, ‘C. D. Howe: An Optimist’s Response to the Surfeit of Grain’, manuscript printed by Grains Group, Ottawa, October 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 3h.
    On the protagonists, see Nathaniel Benson, None of It Came Easy: The Story of James Garfield Gardiner (Toronto: Burns & MacEachern, 1955), 174–5Google Scholar
  15. 3i.
    Leslie Roberts, CD.: The Life and Times of Clarence Decatur Howe (Toronto: Clarke Irwin, 1957, 162)Google Scholar
  16. 3k.
    Robert Bothwell and William Kilbourn, CD. Howe, A Biography (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979), 232–4Google Scholar
  17. 3l.
    Norman Ward and David Smith, Jimmy Gardiner: Relentless Liberal (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 259–60, 266–8, 308Google Scholar
  18. 3m.
    Mitchell Sharp, Which Reminds Me … A Memoir (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), 28–9. With respect to coverage in diplomatic history, it does not help that the foreign ministries were marginal players in this affair. The Department of External Affairs, the State Department and the Foreign Office all objected to an exclusive Anglo-Canadian deal on wheat. These interventions delayed the signature of the contract but did not alter its terms.Google Scholar
  19. 4.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain. More than 1000 pages long, this narrative at times is more akin to an edited collection of documents, with personal recollections added.Google Scholar
  20. 5.
    Employment and Income with Special Reference to the Initial Period of Reconstruction (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1945). Hector Mackenzie, ‘The White Paper on Reconstruction and Canada’s Postwar Trade Policy’, in Uncertain Horizons: Canadians and Their World in 1945, ed. Greg Donaghy (Ottawa: Canadian Committee for the History of the Second World War, 1997), 167–88.Google Scholar
  21. 6.
    ‘During the crop year 1943/44 the United States imported 160 million bushels of Canadian wheat largely to supplement feed supplies for livestock, as against normal imports closer to 10 million bushels’, Britnell and Fowke, Canadian Agriculture, 216.Google Scholar
  22. 7.
    Jones, ‘Wheat’, July 1946. United Kingdom National Archives [UKNA], Records of the Ministry of Food [MAF] 84/[Volume]811. According to a letter on the same file from Jones to Liesching, 22 August 1947, this account by the Head of the British Food Mission in Ottawa [BFMO], Sir Andrew Jones, was written while the talks were suspended pending the outcome of the Congressional vote on the American loan to Britain. Gardiner, who had been Premier of Saskatchewan, served as Minister of Agriculture from 4 November 1935 to 20 June 1957. He entered the House of Commons after a by-election on 6 January 1936 and he was re-elected five times before his defeat in the general election of 31 March 1958. Ward and Smith, Gardiner, 255; Bothwell and Kilbourn, Howe, 229–30; Sharp, Which Reminds Me, 25–6.Google Scholar
  23. 8.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 798–9, 813–4. Two different officials in the Department of Finance had suggested a long-term contract for wheat with a limited price range in discussions with BFMO prior to Gardiner’s talks in London. BFMO to Ministry of Food [MF], PUNIC 1409, 21 December 1945 (Croome to Broadley). MAF 83/1523. A recent history of the finance department overlooks its strategic backing of the ultimately unpopular contract. Robert B. Bryce, Canada and the Cost of World War II: The International Operations of Canada’s Department of Finance 1939–1947 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005), ed. Matthew J. Bellamy, 320–1.Google Scholar
  24. 9.
    Gardiner was elected in Melville by 28 votes. Only one other candidate was elected by the Liberals, who had won 12 out of 21 seats in the wartime general election (1940). The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) won 18 of 21 seats contested in Saskatchewan in 1945.Google Scholar
  25. 10.
    Hector Mackenzie, ‘The Path to Temptation: The Negotiation of Canada’s Reconstruction Loan to Britain in 1946’, Historical Papers /Communications historiques 1982 (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1983): 196–220; Pressnell, External Economic Policy I, chapter 11.Google Scholar
  26. 11.
    Britnell and Fowke, Canadian Agriculture, 219.Google Scholar
  27. 12.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 847.Google Scholar
  28. 13.
    Shorthand Notes of meeting, 17 January 1946. MAF 83/1524. BFMO had warned that Gardiner ‘is such an adroit politician that he can put the most surprising interpretations on apparently innocuous statements’ and consequently advised the Ministry of Food ‘tominute carefully all meetings’. That advice may account for the existence of a shorthand record as well as minutes for the meetings in January. Croome [BFMO] to Harrison [MF], No. 3869, 5 January 1946. MAF 83/1524.Google Scholar
  29. 14.
    Note of meeting (of British officials), 9 January 1946. MAF 83/1524.Google Scholar
  30. 15.
    Harwood, Minute, 24 January 1946; Tribe, Minute to Minister, 24 January 1946. MAF 84/806.Google Scholar
  31. 16.
    MacKinnon’s statement was carried in the Ottawa Citizen on 25 January 1946. See the report in BFMO to MF, PUNIC 1418, 26 January 1946. MAF 84/806.Google Scholar
  32. 17.
    Harwood, Minute, 1 February 1946. MAF 84/806. Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 848–9.Google Scholar
  33. 18.
    Note of Meeting between Mr Gardiner and Minister of Food, 1 February 1946. MAF 83/3014. Harwood, Minute, 5 February 1946; Harwood to Copleston [Treasury], 7 February 1946. MAF 84/806.Google Scholar
  34. 19.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 849–50. The other country mentioned was France, which the advisers did not believe should be given a priority over others simply because it had struck a bilateral deal with Canada on the same price basis as was proposed for the British pact.Google Scholar
  35. 20.
    Harwood to Copleston, 7 February 1946; MF to BFMO, PUNIC X1016, 9 February 1946. MAF 84/806.Google Scholar
  36. 21.
    Smith’s principal destination was Washington, where he participated in meetings of the Combined Food Board. His purpose there and in Ottawa was to urge North America to increase its production of wheat, so as to ease a worldwide shortage of wheat and rice. Bevin to Halifax, No. 1150, 4 February 1946; Bevin to Halifax, No. 2086, 5 March 1946, in Roger Bullen, M. E. Pelly, H. J. Yasamee and G. Bennett, eds, Documents on British Policy Overseas [DBPO], Series I, Volume IV, Britain and America: Atomic Energy, Bases and Food, 12 December 1945–31 July 1946 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1987), 82–5, 140–3.Google Scholar
  37. 22.
    MF to British Food Mission Washington [BFMW], Amaze X7025, 11 March 1946 (Tribe to Broadley); BFMW to MF, Amaze 6844, 16 March 1946 (Minister to Tribe). MF 83/1524. MF to BFMW, Amaze X7082, 18 March 1946 (Tribe to Hutton). MF 84/807.Google Scholar
  38. 23.
    BFM Ottawa to MF, PUNIC 1460, 26 March 1946; Bevin, Minute to Prime Minister, 27 March 1946; Smith, Minute to Prime Minister, 1 April 1946; Bishop, Minute, 5 April 1946; Harwood, Minute, 6 April 1946; Tribe, Minute, 11 April 1946; Bishop, Minute, 12 April 1946. MAF 84/807.Google Scholar
  39. 24.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 851.Google Scholar
  40. 25.
    Mackenzie to Robertson, 29 April 1946, enclosing Canadian Wheat Board [CWB], ‘Observations on Proposed United Kingdom Wheat Contract’, 26 April 1946. Library and Archives Canada [LAC], Records of the Department of External Affairs [RG25] Volume 3835 File 8925–40 Pt 1.; Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 853–6. When the CWC reviewed the position on 2 May 1946, the only ministers present were Gardiner and MacKinnon, as the Minister of Finance, J.L. Ilsley, was absent and there was a vacancy arising from the appointment of Thomas A. Crerar to the Senate. Without ministerial support, it was impossible for the officials to check Gardiner’s advance.Google Scholar
  41. 26.
    Cabinet Conclusions: 30 January 1946; 19–20 June 1946. LAC, Records of the Privy Council Office [RG2].Google Scholar
  42. 27.
    CM. (46) 32. 10 April 1946. DBPO, I, IV, 217–22.Google Scholar
  43. 28.
    Extract from Cabinet Conclusions, 10 April 1946; Memorandum by Minister of Food [‘Negotiation of Long Term Wheat Contract with Canada’], 11 April 1946; Extract from Conclusions of World Food Supplies Committee of Cabinet, 16 April 1946. MAF 84/807. The proposal was presented personally by Smith to McIvor on 11 April 1946. The memorandum was circulated to the Cabinet sub-committee as WFS. (46) 92.Google Scholar
  44. 29.
    Sir Ben Smith resigned as Minister of Food on 27 May 1946. The new minister’s immediate task was to implement his predecessor’s scheme for bread and flour rationing.Google Scholar
  45. 30.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 857.Google Scholar
  46. 31.
    The text of the letter to Sir Andrew Jones was copied to the Canadian High Commission in London. Secretary of State for External Affairs [SSEA] to Canadian High Commissioner in the United Kingdom [CHC(UK)], No. 915, 3 May 1946. Donald M. Page, ed., Documents on Canadian External Relations, Volume 12, 1946 [DCER 12] (Ottawa: Department of External Affairs, 1977), 1429–30.Google Scholar
  47. 32.
    BFMO to MF, PUNIC 1478, 4 May 1946; Notes of Meeting to Discuss Offer of Long Term Wheat Contract by Canada, 9 May 1946; Extract from Minutes of Meeting of Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies, 10 May 1946. MAF 84/807.Google Scholar
  48. 33.
    Chief Commissioner, CWB, to Minister of Trade and Commerce [MacKinnon], 21 May 1946, enclosing [CWB], ‘Comments on British Counter-Proposal as transmitted on May 16, 1946’. RG25, volume 3835, file 8925–40 pt. 1. E.G. Harwood of the Ministry of Food, who accompanied the Lord President of the Council, Herbert Morrison, on a visit to Montreal and Ottawa, sounded out Wilson and others about the Canadian reaction to the British counter-proposal and accurately anticipated how the political context would influence the outcome of any bargaining. Harwood, Minute, 22 May 1946. MAF 84/807.Google Scholar
  49. 34.
    The most outspoken, but certainly not the only, dissenter among British officials was the acknowledged expert on the grain trade, J.V. Rank, Director of Imported Cereals in the Ministry of Food, who would ordinarily have led the British negotiating team but who declined to travel to Ottawa as a result of his assessment that a long-term contract was not ‘in the interests of the country’. Rank to Tribe, 27 May 1946; Rank to Strachey, 11 June 1946. MAF 84/807. On the Canadian side, the Chief Commissioner of the CWB also opposed such a lengthy agreement, though he led the official negotiators. Other than these specialists, the most consistent opponents of the pact were those in the foreign ministries and trade departments who dealt with multilateral efforts to reduce barriers to international commerce.Google Scholar
  50. 35.
    Between Smith’s visit in March and Strachey’s in June, Morrison had travelled to the United States and Canada in May for discussions about the risk of famine, British food consumption and North American wheat production. Report on Mission to the United States and Canada by the Lord President of the Council, n.d. [May 1946], DBPO, I, IV, 309–14. See also CP(46)215. Lord President of the Council, ‘Notes on some overseas economic and publicity problems’, 24 June 1946. CAB 129/10. Bernard Donoughue and G.W Jones, Herbert Morrison (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973), 380–2. Other than enabling Harwood to get a better sense of the Canadian mood, this visit had no impact on the wheat negotiations. On Strachey’s commitment to a long-term contractGoogle Scholar
  51. 35a.
    see [Tribe ], ‘Canadian Long Term Contract’, 26 June 1946, MAF 84/807. The Minister of Food was ‘not impressed’ by the objections to such a deal.Google Scholar
  52. 36.
    ‘Canadian Long Term Wheat Purchase Agreement. Instructions for U.K. Delegation’, [11 June 1946]. MAF 84/807. BFMO to MF, PUNIC 1504, 17 June 1946; BFMO to MF, PUNIC 1505, 17 June 1946; BFMO to MF, PUNIC 1507, 19 June 1946 (Harwood to Tribe). MAF 84/809.Google Scholar
  53. 37.
    Clutterbuck to Machtig, 20 June 1946. DO 121/112 (Sir Eric Machtig’s Private Papers). Jones, ‘Wheat’, July 1946. MAF84/811. Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 858.Google Scholar
  54. 38.
    Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 15 August 1946, 4834–5 (Gardiner). Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 859.Google Scholar
  55. 39.
    Jones, ‘Wheat’, July 1946. MAF84/811.Google Scholar
  56. 40.
    Clutterbuck to Syers, 18 December 1946; Syers to Broadley, 7 January 1947; Broadley, Minute, 9 January 1947; Liesching, Minute, 10 January 1947; Broadley, Minute, 13 January 1947. MAF 84/811. Harwood’s account is cited by Broadley in the last minute in this series, which was prompted by Gardiner’s contrary interpretation of the clause.Google Scholar
  57. 41.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 859.Google Scholar
  58. 42.
    N. A. R[obertson], Memorandum for the Prime Minister, 17 June 1946, with enclosure. DCER 12, 1430–2. Wrong to Clark, 12 June 1946; Wrong to Robertson, 12 June 1946; Canadian Ambassador to the United States [CA(USA)] to SSEA, WA-2447, 14 June 1946, RG25 volume 3835 file 8925-40 pt 1.Google Scholar
  59. 43.
    King Diary: 19 June 1946 [LAC, Papers of William Lyon Mackenzie King, Diary]. Cabinet Conclusions: 19–20 June 1946.Google Scholar
  60. 44.
    L.B. Pearson to N.A. Robertson, 27 June 1946, enclosing Memorandum of conversation, 27 June 1946, DCER 12, 1439–42. That the loan would facilitate a multilateral approach to the global economy had been a key argument advanced in its favour, though arguably the more important consideration for Congress ultimately was the need for a strong ally to counteract the Soviet threat. Richard N. Gardner, Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy: Anglo-American Collaboration in the Reconstruction of Multilateral Trade (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 236–54.Google Scholar
  61. 45.
    CA(USA) to SSEA, WA-2692, 3 July 1946; CA(USA) to SSEA, WA-2868, 19 July 1946. RG2 18 Volume 68, File D-10-1 (1940-48).Google Scholar
  62. 46.
    CM. 32 (46)8. 24 June 1946. DBPO, I, IV, 364–6. That instruction had been Strachey’s advice. Even with that postponement, the British Ambassador in Washington, Lord Inverchapel, reported in early July that ‘it is touch and go for the Loan in the House of Representatives’. Inverchapel to Bevin, No. 4353, 4 July 1946. DBPO, I, IV, 367–9.Google Scholar
  63. 47.
    McIvor to MacKinnon, 22 June 1946, DCER 12, 1436–9. Charles Wilson, the leading authority on wheat marketing in the Department of Trade and Commerce, stressed that the exclusive contract ‘marks the departure of Canada from its long-established and traditional policy of making wheat available to all countries on the same price basis’. Wilson, ‘Complications and Problems of the United Kingdom Contract’ [18 June 1946]. RG25 volume 3835 file 8925–40 pt 1.Google Scholar
  64. 48.
    Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, Memorandum [‘Re: Proposed Wheat Contract with the U.K.’], 19 June 1946, DCER 12, 1432–4.Google Scholar
  65. 49.
    Clutterbuck to Machtig, 28 June 1946. BT11/3274. Clutterbuck commented that ‘there is now a serious risk that the contract is lost to us’.Google Scholar
  66. 50.
    King Diary: 16–17 July 1946. Cabinet Conclusions: 16–17 July 1946. BFMO to MF, PUNIC 1515 NFR, 9 July 1946; Broadley, Minute, 19 July 1946, MAF 84/807. United Kingdom High Commissioner in Canada [UKHC(C)] to Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs [SSDA], No. 1104, 10 July 1946; UKHC(C) to SSDA, No. 1142, 17 July 1946. BT11/3274.Google Scholar
  67. 51.
    United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States [UKA(USA)] to Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs [SSFA], No. 4541, 13 July 1946, UKNA, Records of the Board of Trade [BT] 11/3274. The final vote in the House was 219 to 155, while in the Senate the margin was 46 to 34. However, the votes on some amendments were closer. Gardner, Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy, 252.Google Scholar
  68. 52.
    Canada Treaty Series, 1946. No. 30. Agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom for the Purchase of Canadian Wheat (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1946). Signed at Ottawa, 24 July 1946. In Force 24 July 1946.Google Scholar
  69. 53.
    Ward and Smith, Gardiner, 267.Google Scholar
  70. 54.
    MacGibbon, Canadian Grain Trade, 123, 133.Google Scholar
  71. 55.
    Clutterbuck to Syers, 18 December 1946. MAF 84/811.Google Scholar
  72. 56.
    Gardiner quoted extracts from Strachey’s remarks verbatim in a later debate on the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 8 March 1951, 1063 (Gardiner). See also Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 922.Google Scholar
  73. 57.
    One post-war analyst of the grain trade suggested that Strachey’s speech reinforced the ‘interpretation’ which had ‘gained currency’ to the effect that ‘the United Kingdom would recoup the Canadian producer during the last two years of the agreement for losses incurred under its terms during the first two years’. MacGibbon, Canadian Grain Trade, 126. See also: Robert A. Spencer, Canada in World Affairs: From UN to NATO 1946–1949 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1959), 205. Strachey reiterated his position in a speech to the British House of Commons on 1 July 1947 but that stance was ‘reinterpreted’ by Gardiner in a speech in Dauphin, Manitoba, on 27 July 1947, in which he argued that Canadian gains in the last half of the contract would match the benefits received by the British in the first half.Google Scholar
  74. 57a.
    Ministry of Food, ‘Canadian/United Kingdom Wheat Agreement’ [15 August 1947]. MAF 84/811.Google Scholar
  75. 58.
    ‘Biggest gamble in wheat we’ve ever known’, Regina Leader-Post, 12 November 1947.Google Scholar
  76. 59.
    Broadley, Minute, 9 January 1947. MAF 84/811.Google Scholar
  77. 60.
    Cairncross, Years of Recovery, 120–64.Google Scholar
  78. 61.
    The British financial crisis and its implications for Canada are well covered in a selection of papers in Norman Hillmer and Donald Page, eds, Documents on Canadian External Relations, Volume 13, 1947 [DCER 13,] (Ottawa: External Affairs and International Trade Canada, 1993), 1255–329. The longer-term problem of which this was a manifestation has been analysed with wit and clarity in J.L. Granatstein, How Britain’s Weakness Forced Canada into the Arms of the United States (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  79. 62.
    John Strachey, ‘Note of Conversation with Mr. Gardiner, Canadian Minister for Agriculture’, 12 September 1947. MAF 84/811. In another part of London at this time, Douglas Abbott, Canada’s Minister of Finance, was meeting with Hugh Dalton, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the broader financial position. Bridges to Perrott, 12 September 1947; Eady to Liesching, 17 September 1947. MAF 84/811. Cabinet Conclusions: 20 August 1947; 30 September 1947. DCER, 13, 1305–6, 1327–8.Google Scholar
  80. 63.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 891, 24 September 1947; UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 901, 25 September 1947; SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 857, 26 September 1947; UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 908, 26 September 1947; SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 868, 29 September 1947; UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 919, 30 September 1947. MAF 84/811. Cabinet Conclusions: 30 September 1947.Google Scholar
  81. 64.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 926–7. Gardiner included this assertion in his later account of the history of the wheat contract. Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 8 March 1951, 1064 (Gardiner). See also his ‘History of the Wheat Position’ which was circulated to the Cabinet and reprinted as Appendix 6 in Wilson’s book.Google Scholar
  82. 65.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer groused privately that Clutterbuck ‘came over and persuaded ministers that Canada would go up in smoke if we proposed to pay her in sterling for her wheat etc. So that is postponed.’ Ben Pimlott, ed., The Political Diary of Hugh Dalton 1918–40, 1945–60 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1986), 457 (entry for 12 September 1947).Google Scholar
  83. 66.
    Cabinet. Balance of Payments. Overseas Negotiations Committee [BP(ON)]. Meetings 30 (3 November 1947) and 32 (5 November 1947). UKNA, Records of the Cabinet [CAB] 134/46.Google Scholar
  84. 67.
    For Canada’s involvement in the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva and later in Havana, see Hart, Trading Nation, 133–44. Hector Mackenzie, ‘The ABCs of Canada’s International Economic Relations, 1945–1951’, in Canada and the Early Cold War 1943–1957, ed. Greg Donaghy (Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1998), 215–50.Google Scholar
  85. 68.
    Hector Mackenzie, ‘Another Anniversary: King, the Royal Wedding and Canada’s Cold War Policies, 1947–48’, London Journal of Canadian Studies 23 (2007–08), 105–30.Google Scholar
  86. 69.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1115, 27 November 1947 (Liesching to Rowan). MAF 97/555. Cabinet Committee on External Trade Policy (CCETP), Minutes, 26 November 1947, RG2 18, Volume 61, File C-10-13-M.Google Scholar
  87. 70.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1116, 27 November 1947 (Liesching to Rowan). MAF 97/555. Interdepartmental Committee on External Trade Policy (ICETP), Minutes, 26 November 1947, RG2 18 Volume 106, File T-50-1-M. SSEA to CHC(UK), No. 1812, 28 November 1947. DCER 13, 1332–4.Google Scholar
  88. 71.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1128, 29 November 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1130, 29 November 1947 (Liesching to Rowan). MAF 97/555.Google Scholar
  89. 72.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1127, 1 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan). MAF 97/555.Google Scholar
  90. 73.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1129, 1 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1135, 29 November 1947; UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1136, 29 November 1947. MAF 97/555. SSEA to CHC(UK), No. 1812, 28 November 1947, DCER 13, 1332–4.Google Scholar
  91. 74.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1155, 3 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 1063, 2 December 1947 (Rowan to Liesching); UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1158, 3 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 1060, 4 December 1947 (Rowan to Liesching). MAF 97/555. CCETP/ICETP, Minutes: 1–3 December 1947. RG2 18 Volume 61, File C-10-13-M.Google Scholar
  92. 75.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1163, 3 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1174, 4 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan). MAF 97/555.Google Scholar
  93. 76.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1176, 5 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1179, 5 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan). MAF 97/555. SSEA to CHC(UK), No. 1838, 5 December 1947 (Pearson to Robertson). DCER 13, 1336-7. Pearson to Robertson, 6 December 1947, enclosing Pearson, ‘United Kingdom Food Contracts’, 5 December 1947. RG25 Volume 2100 File AR106/4/II.Google Scholar
  94. 77.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1202, 10 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1213, 10 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); UKHC(c) to SSCR, No. 1214, 10 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1220, 11 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan); SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 1135, 11 December 1947 (Rowan to Liesching). MAF 97/556. Under Secretary of State for External Affairs [USSEA], Memorandum to Cabinet, 9 December 1947; Cabinet Conclusions, 9 December 1947; King Diary, 9 December 1947. DCER 13, 1336-43.Google Scholar
  95. 78.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1241, 13 December 1947 (Liesching to Cripps). MAF 97/556. Cabinet Conclusions, 11–12 December 1947. DCER 13, 1344–7.Google Scholar
  96. 79.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 1242, 15 December 1947 (Liesching to Rowan). MAF 97/556. King Diary: 13 December 1947; Pearson to Robertson, 14 December 1947; Cabinet Conclusions, 15–16 December 1947. DCER 13, 1347–54.Google Scholar
  97. 80.
    SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 1168, 16 December 1947 (Chancellor of Exchequer to Liesching). MAF 97/556. For a gossipy account of how the Overseas Negotiation Committee specifically and the British government generally dealt with King’s offer, see Robertson to Pearson, 27 December 1947, RG25, Volume 2100, File AR106/4/II.Google Scholar
  98. 81.
    King Diary: 18 December 1947.Google Scholar
  99. 82.
    The best account of Canada’s relationship to the Marshall Plan is by Cuff and Granatstein, American Dollars, 83–139. There is a greater emphasis on the implications of American assistance for Anglo-Canadian economic relations in Hector Mackenzie, ‘Off-Shore in the North Atlantic: The Marshall Plan and Canada’s International Economic Relations’, a paper delivered at a conference of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States in Toronto, November 2007.Google Scholar
  100. 83.
    Cuff and Granatstein, American Dollars, 100. Initially, wheat had been specifically excluded from those commodities likely to be eligible for funding under the Marshall Plan. Ibid., 86.Google Scholar
  101. 84.
    Cuff and Granatstein, American Dollars, 89–90, 92–4.Google Scholar
  102. 85.
    Cuff and Granatstein, American Dollars, 134-5. On the talks generally, see Mackenzie, ‘Canada’s International Economic Relations, 1945–1951’, 215–50.Google Scholar
  103. 86.
    Notes of Meetings: 11 December 1948; 13 December 1948; 14 December 1948; 15 December 1948. MAF 84/813.Google Scholar
  104. 87.
    CAB 134/220. Economic Policy Committee [EPC], Minutes, 3 January 1949. SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 5, 4 January 1949, FO371/77759/UR125. Memorandum from Secretary of State for External Affairs to Prime Minister, 6 January 1949, enclosing Memorandum by United Kingdom High Commissioner, 6 January 1949, Hector Mackenzie, ed., DCER 15 (Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1995), 1125–9. CAB 134/221. EPC Document (49)12. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Memorandum, 17 February 1949, with enclosed Report by British members of United Kingdom/ Canada Continuing Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  105. 88.
    Minister of Agriculture to Prime Minister, 18 January 1949, DCER 15, 1134–6. See also his later account. Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 8 March 1951, 1064–5 (Gardiner).Google Scholar
  106. 89.
    In representations to the British and Canadian governments, American officials, particularly those with ECA, argued that apparent extension of the wheat contract through announcement of agreed quantities for shipment for the next crop year might undermine Congressional support for appropriations for ECA. The situation was further complicated by the likelihood that wheat would be declared surplus in the United States and therefore non-American supplies could not be financed by ECA.Google Scholar
  107. 90.
    UKHC(C) to SSCR, No. 19, 7 January 1949; SSCR to UKHC(C), No. 34, 11 January 1949. MAF84/813. Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 978–83.Google Scholar
  108. 91.
    Spencer, Canada in World Affairs, 173-4; Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 888–920, 929–31, 935–59, 988–1016.Google Scholar
  109. 92.
    Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 941–3.Google Scholar
  110. 93.
    Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 29 April 1949, 2781 (St Laurent).Google Scholar
  111. 94.
    Bothwell and Kilbourn, Howe, 230–1. The Cabinet Wheat Committee was ‘formally dissolved’ by Order-in-Council, PC. 1271, 17 March 1949. Wilson, ‘C. D. Howe’, 13. The CWC had been established by King soon after he took office, with Gardiner as one of its original members.Google Scholar
  112. 95.
    Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 12 March 1951, 1169.Google Scholar
  113. 96.
    Wilson, ‘C. D. Howe’, 13.Google Scholar
  114. 97.
    ‘United Kingdom/Canadian Wheat Talks May 1950. Agreed Record of Meeting in the Foreign Secretary’s Room in the House of Commons at 2.30 p.m. on Monday 22nd May 1950.’ RG25, Volume 6296, File 8925–40, Pt. II. The gist of this minute is conveyed in Howe’s report to the Canadian Cabinet. Cabinet Conclusions: 30 May 1950. Howe also later read it into the parliamentary record during a debate on wheat policy. Wilson, Century of Canadian Grain, 1306–7.Google Scholar
  115. 98.
    Cabinet Conclusions: 30 May 1950.Google Scholar
  116. 99.
    Cabinet Conclusions: 22 June 1950; 23 June 1950; 26 June 1950; 1 September 1950; 22 November 1950; 24 January 1951; 27 January 1951; 1 February 1951; 13 February 1951; 1 March 1951; 2 March 1951; 6 March 1951; 12 March 1951; 15 March 1951; 6 April 1951.Google Scholar
  117. 100.
    Cabinet Conclusions: 22 June 1950.Google Scholar
  118. 101.
    Cabinet Conclusions: 23 June 1950.Google Scholar
  119. 102.
    Aide memoire [Canada-United Kingdom Wheat Agreement Settlement Under ‘Have Regard To’ Clause], 9 January 1951, Greg Donaghy, ed., DCER 17 (Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1996), 1183–5. St Laurent, Memorandum, 30 January 1951, RG2 18 Volume 161 File G-70-1-U (Vol. 1).Google Scholar
  120. 103.
    Cabinet Conclusions: 1 February 1951, DCER 17, 1185–6.Google Scholar
  121. 104.
    Cabinet Conclusions: 13 February 1951. The text ofthat extraordinary memorandum was published as Appendix 6 in Wilson’s Century of Canadian Grain, 1092–103). Though it was dated 11 October 1950, it was not circulated to the Cabinet until four months later, when the unsuccessful efforts of the Prime Minister to get the British government to change its position were discussed.Google Scholar
  122. 105.
    Bothwell and Kilbourn, Howe, 233–4.Google Scholar
  123. 106.
    Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 2 March 1951, 833 (St Laurent). See also St Laurent’s remarks in the subsequent debate on the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 15 March 1951, 1281–5 (St Laurent). That debate was the occasion for the clash of views between Howe and Gardiner. Bothwell and Kilbourn, Howe, 234.Google Scholar
  124. 107.
    Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 8 March 1951, 1057–69 (Gardiner). His remarks included an account of his most recent and futile visit to London.Google Scholar
  125. 108.
    Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 12 March 1951, 1172 (Howe). Howe had used the same argument when the matter had been discussed in Cabinet in the previous June. Secretary to the Cabinet [Robertson], Memorandum to Prime Minister, 26 June 1950, DCER 16, 1315.Google Scholar
  126. 109.
    Table on page 1022 in Wilson, A Century of Canadian Grain. That compared to the contracted quantity of 600 million bushels for those four years. In that same period, actual exports of wheat by Canada totalled 891.8 million bushels.Google Scholar
  127. 110.
    Wilson, ‘C. D. Howe’, 31–2. One critic of the wheat deal has noted the considerable fluctuations in wheat yields in Western Canada in the 1930s and 1940s, with ‘variations in rainfall’ particularly important (and unpredictable). MacGibbon, Canadian Grain Trade, 223.Google Scholar
  128. 111.
    Gardiner’s margin of victory in Melville on 27 June 1949 was 4732 votes (compared to 28 in the previous general election), while the Liberals won 14 of 19 seats in Saskatchewan (up from 2 out of 21 in 1945). The Liberal share of the popular vote in the province had also increased significantly, from 32.95% to 43.41%. Results from past Canadian elections may be found on Parliament’s site at Scholar
  129. 112.
    MacGibbon, Canadian Grain Trade, 161.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Taylor & Francis 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hector Mackenzie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Foreign Affairs and International TradeCanada

Personalised recommendations