The Canadian Wheat Board is determined to make the railways pay for this winter’s grain shipping problems, whether or not Ottawa initiates a wide-ranging review of grain transportation issues.
“The bottom line is the CWB is seeking compensation for farmers,” said Tami Reynolds of the board’s corporate policy group.
The government has said it plans to set up a review of the transportation system, but has yet to announce anything. Some say the wheat board’s complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency could interfere with such a review.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
If the review has the authority to deal with the issue of compensation, the board might consider changing its plans, said Reynolds.
“But as it stands right now, as far as I know that is not being discussed,” she said last week. “As of right now the board is still proceeding with the CTA application.”
The board has asked the agency to find the railways have not provided adequate grain service over the past few months. The agency must issue a decision by Aug. 12.
The board could use a favorable ruling to go to court and seek millions of dollars in financial compensation for farmers.
The railways have until May 14 to formally respond to the wheat board’s complaint, but last week CN Rail tried to derail the process by filing a motion saying the transportation agency has no authority to deal with the case.
Some grain shippers have said the CWB should put its CTA application on hold if the government goes ahead with its promised review.
“I don’t think the two exercises can go on in tandem,” said Manitoba Pool Elevators president Charlie Swanson. “It’s one or the other.”
Application not necessary
Gordon Cummings, chief executive officer of Alberta Wheat Pool, said if a review is broad enough to include an examination of what happened this winter, the CTA case may be redundant.
“Hopefully then the CWB would decide, not to withdraw, but to suspend this action,” he said.
But if the review’s terms of references don’t include a look at 1996-97, that changes everything, said both grain company executives.
“Then we as shippers have to look very seriously with the wheat board as to whether or not we join them in this and what’s the best way to move the ball forward,” said the Alberta Pool executive.
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool president Leroy Larsen said he supports the board’s CTA case. The railways’ performance had to be challenged, he said, and the board was the appropriate body to do it.
But he also feared it could trigger more finger-pointing and recriminations if the railways counter with their own accusations about wheat board management and planning.
At the height of the grain shipping crisis in January, some grain shippers including the pools had talked about going to the CTA, but rejected the idea.
Cummings said he had serious reservations about the wisdom of taking a complaint to the agency for a number of reasons: It wasn’t exactly clear what would have to be proved in order to win; the first grain industry case to go before the CTA should be one which can’t lose to prevent a bad precedent; and it’s not clear what would be gained by winning a judgment against the railways.
Art Macklin, chair of the board’s producer advisory committee, said he supports a thorough review of the grain transportation system but doesn’t want the board to drop its CTA case.
“Farmers have taken a very large hit in terms of additional costs and lost revenue,” he said. “I think that is separate from any review and should proceed regardless.”
Method of accountability
Larry Maguire, of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, disagrees. He said the CTA appeal won’t move any more grain and will just result in more finger-pointing. He agrees the railways should be held accountable for their performance, but that should be done through negotiated contracts, not legislation.
