The seemingly endless back-and-forth between the Canadian Wheat Board and grain companies over new transportation rules continued last week, but this time there was a difference.
The two sides didn’t have much to say about it.
For months, they’ve been engaged in a highly public debate over how the new grain shipping system should be organized.
Just two weeks ago, the Western Grain Elevator Association called a press conference to release with much fanfare its proposal to end the impasse. Later that same day, the board put out a press release criticizing key aspects of the WGEA plan.
Read Also
Stock dogs show off herding skills at Ag in Motion
Stock dogs draw a crowd at Ag in Motion. Border collies and other herding breeds are well known for the work they do on the farm.
Last week, the board submitted a formal counter-proposal to the grain companies.
But rather than calling a press conference or issuing a news release, the board kept details of its plan secret.
“We have assured the WGEA that we will not negotiate in public on this,” board president and chief executive officer Greg Arason said in a Nov. 30 speech to delegates attending Agricore’s annual meeting.
All he would say is that the board’s plan addresses the needs of both farmers and grain handling companies, and is within the guidelines laid out in the transportation legislation passed by the federal government earlier this year.
Arason added that he can see light at the end of the tunnel in the often acrimonious debate: “We feel the proposal should be well received.”
The WGEA didn’t issue any public response to the board’s proposal, but spokesperson Ed Guest doesn’t think a resolution is in sight.
“I’m not as optimistic that what they’ve put forward moves us to the light at the end of the tunnel,” he said in an interview. “There are very basic fundamental issues that are at stake … that are extremely important to all parties.”
He said the association is disappointed that the board “rejected out-of-hand” the WGEA’s proposal, which he said met most of the board’s concerns.
Under that plan, railways, shippers and marketers would devise short, medium and long-term forecasts of grain movement. Grain companies would acquire cars from the railways and offer them to marketers, including the CWB. The board would be guaranteed a base level of rail car and terminal capacity based on a percentage of its five-year average capacity.
The board says farmers would not be well-served by a system under which the board has to rely on others to provide its transportation needs, especially since CWB grain accounts for 70 to 75 percent of all export movement.
Guest said the grain handlers will meet this week to “further review matters” and consider their next move.
While declining to discuss the board’s counter-proposal in any detail, wheat board spokesperson Trish Jordan did identify one significant difference.
Under the WGEA’s proposal, the grain companies would acquire cars from the railways and dole them out to the board as needed. Under the CWB’s counter-proposal, the board would negotiate directly with the railways for car supplies.
That’s important, she said, because the board’s plan follows the guidelines laid out by the federal government in the memorandum of understanding it signed with the wheat board, while the WGEA’s plan doesn’t. Under the board’s plan, it would be the official shipper of wheat board grain, while under the WGEA plan, the grain company would be the shipper.
“The MOU says the board is responsible for securing its entire capacity to move board grains to meet sales,” Jordan said. “The WGEA proposal is in contradiction to the MOU.”
The board and grain companies disagree on what the MOU says about the board’s role in transportation, but Arason told Agricore delegates, it’s time to put that to rest.
“We spoke with the federal government to clarify the intent of the MOU and were informed our interpretation is correct and we are to move forward with implementation,” he said. “We see no need to open up discussion or interpretation of the MOU.”
