BRANDON, Man. – It’s been a long haul for members of the Hudson Bay Route Association. For more than 50 years, the group has met annually to talk about why grain should be shipped through the northern Manitoba port of Churchill.
But recent developments including a new task force report on the fate of Churchill, the end of the Crow subsidy and the construction of a satellite launch site at the arctic town are giving these warhorses renewed conviction to fight for the port.
The task force called on the federal government to spend $27 million in the next two years upgrading the rail line and port and a total of $235 million in the long term.
Read Also
Short rapeseed crop may put China in a bind
Industry thinks China’s rapeseed crop is way smaller than the official government estimate. The country’s canola imports will also be down, so there will be a lot of unmet demand.
Many of the 100 members at the meeting became fiercely protective at any hint of lack of support for Churchill. Speakers from CN Rail and the Canadian Wheat Board were called to task for what many members perceive as a plot to keep grain out of the port.
Susan Dunlop of CN told the group that the railway is looking seriously at making more use of the port, and is testing the safety of using aluminum hopper cars on the line. She said they have not been used in the past because of concerns about derailment.
More and different types of grain could be shipped to the port if the aluminum cars could travel on the track.
But members accused CN of overplaying safety concerns. “That is an absolute fallacy,” said Arnold Grambo, president of the association. “In fact if we shut down every line that had a derailment, we wouldn’t run any trains in this country at all anywhere.”
Dunlop also said the rail line’s use of the port would depend on customer demand and return for investors. “We will only invest where we see the best chance of getting a return. That remains our bottom line today and tomorrow.”
John Benci, director of the wheat board’s Grain Transportation Division, took some heat from the crowd when he used overheads that showed information for Vancouver and Thunder Bay, but not Churchill.
Even an economist hired by the Churchill Task Force could not escape the wrath of the group. Heather Bradley, a Winnipeg-based consultant, said her analysis showed the port should target Northern European markets for canola and special crops.
No economic sense
Bradley looked at rail and ocean freight costs in her study and concluded that shipping to Mexico through Churchill does not make economic sense.
Louis Wolkowski of Canora, Sask., said he found Bradley’s report “shocking … We’ve had shipments going to Mexico and we can do it. We know we can do it. Remarks such as (Gregory’s) certainly degrades the port of Churchill and that is not right,” he said.
Bradley said many members are not used to looking at total costs of getting product to markets rather than simply rail freight costs and distances.
