Grain farmers need predictable, consistent and reliable rail service and it’s up to the Canadian Transportation Agency to make sure they get it, says Saskatchewan’s minister of highways and transportation.
But the province’s request that the agency issue an order for better rail service in the future infuriated a senior CP Rail official, who said his railway is being unfairly singled out in the wake of the settlement between the Canadian Wheat Board and CN Rail.
“Is CP left to defend CN in Western Canada?” railway vice-president Rick Sallee told reporters. “I don’t know what they want.”
Read Also
Canada’s plant hardiness zones receive update
The latest update to Canada’s plant hardiness zones and plant hardiness maps was released this summer.
Saskatchewan transport minister Judy Bradley told a CTA panel hearing the board’s complaint against CP that rail service in the province in the winter of 1996-97 was “pathetic and totally unacceptable.”
She urged the agency to find that CP Rail failed to provide reasonable and adequate service during that period.
She also said the agency should define what reasonable and suitable level of service should be, and should issue an order ensuring that branch lines receive the same consideration as main and secondary lines.
“Level of railway service is critical to every farmer’s business,” she said, no matter what kind of line is involved. “It is his lifeline and he is entitled to know what level of service he can expect.”
Others took action
Many branch lines received no service at all for periods of up to 120 days that winter, as the railways and the rest of the industry responded to the crisis by concentrating on moving grain off main lines.
“No service is not reasonable service,” Bradley told the three-member CTA panel.
#The provincial government’s presentation angered Sallee, who sought out reporters immediately following Bradley’s appearance to complain the Saskatchewan submission was full of contradictions and generalities.
“I’m not sure what the government’s complaint is,” he said. “It doesn’t help a professional like me that has the ability to do certain things, unless it’s clear what it is you expect us to do.”
He said the government’s request for an order requiring a reasonable level of service in the future makes no sense in the context of the secret agreement that saw the board drop its complaint against CN in return for financial compensation for farmers.
The province itself presented evidence showing there were as many complaints from producers and elevator managers on CN lines as on CP lines, said Sallee, yet the agency can issue an order only against CP.
“I am pissed off,” he said. “Once again, it’s the secret deal … it’s ‘see ya, CN’.”
He said the government seemed to be asking the agency for a general order that CP provide a reasonable service, something it is already required to do by law.
“This really steams me,” he said. “What do farmers expect us to do in the situation? Is this a political platform for everyone to hop on or is this a level of service complaint?”
While the province is formally supporting the board’s complaint, Saskatchewan officials acknowledged they couldn’t say whether the railways were to blame for the 1996-97 shipping fiasco.
Information not available
That’s because the agency had earlier denied the provincial government access to confidential documents outlining the railways’ operations during the period in question. That put the government at a “severe handicap” in presenting its evidence, said Bernie Churko, director of transportation planning.
“On the surface, the railways did not provide service as required by law,” he said in an interview. “(But) we do not have enough information to be able to say conclusively one way or the other whether it was the railways at fault.”
The fact remains, he said, that rail service was poor, particularly on branch lines, and as a result, farmers suffered financial hardship through no fault of their own.
