Most farm groups are heralding the ruling against CP Rail as vindication of their belief that farmers were discriminated against in 1996-97.
“We thought that the railroads were at fault all along,” said Don Dewar, president of Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers.
“We’re certainly satisfied,” said Neal Hardy, of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. “We were not served as we should have been.”
The National Farmers Union, the wheat board advisory committee and the Saskatchewan government are also praising the ruling.
But the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association is not joining the celebrations. It has always argued against the wheat board’s case, saying it was getting in the way of reforming the grain transportation system.
Read Also
StatCan stands by its model-based crop forecast
Statistics Canada’s model-based production estimates are under scrutiny, but agency says it is confident in the results.
And even though CP Rail has been found guilty of discriminating against prairie grain shipments, the wheat growers say little has been achieved.
“You can’t look at it in any other way than that this whole procedure has accomplished very little,” said wheat grower president Larry Maguire.
Someone responsible
But the finding of guilt is enough for Dewar, who is pleased to see a railway held accountable.
“The railroads were acting then, we thought, with a sense of arrogance, that they could do no wrong and it was their business and they could do with it what they wanted,” said Dewar.
Publicly finding CP guilty of discrimination allows farmers to prove to the Estey review that farmers need protection in the grain transportation system, says the wheat board advisory committee.
“The successful ruling by the CTA further emphasizes the need for regulation in the transportation of grain and that the CWB must be completely involved in the process,” said advisory committee member Lorne Pattison.
Dewar said he thinks the most important part of the wheat board’s case has been achieved, regardless of how much compensation farmers receive.
“Proving discrimination and inadequate service was more important than money,” said Dewar. “That part of it’s done, and we’re looking forward to getting on with the post-Estey adjustments.”
But others are focusing on making CP pay up.
The costs of 1996-97 “came out of farmers’ pockets and should go back into farmers’ pockets,” said Hardy. “The wheat board has an obligation to go and get the compensation.”
Most farm groups said they were not surprised at CP being found guilty of discrimination against grain. Both Dewar and Hardy said they viewed CN Rail’s decision to settle with the wheat board as an admission that the railways were guilty and CN feared losing the case.
CN spokesperson Jim Feeny said his company’s deal with the wheat board is confidential and CN did not admit wrongdoing.
The wheat growers were surprised, Maguire said, because they had always assumed the railways were innocent, or no more responsible than the wheat board for the problems.
“I’m not trying to let the railroads off scot-free here, in any way, shape or form, but certainly we’ve got to have a more reliable transportation system down the line,” said Maguire.
“There may be some small moral victory here, but I think we continue to dwell on the fighting.”
Nettie Wiebe, president of the NFU, said fighting is sometimes necessary to protect farmers’ interests.
“Today’s ruling should make the railways think twice before acting this way in the future,” said Wiebe.
