Last fall, prairie grain shippers and farm groups were looking forward to a new and improved national transportation policy that would force railways to compete for their business and share productivity savings.
What they got was Bill C-26, which left many of them frustrated and disappointed.
Now some of those same groups are hoping that the bill will either be totally revamped or die and be replaced by new legislation that comes closer to fulfilling their wishes.
They’re pinning much of their hope on internal political pressures within the governing Liberals.
Read Also
Squid fertilizer draws interest at Ag In Motion
GreenFlow says its Squid Juice might elicit a smile or chuckle, but insists the fertilizer and its benefits are for real.
“We’d like to see it scrapped and then start afresh under Paul Martin,” said Neal Hardy, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.
“It’s not a good bill and there are too many things to change to make it acceptable.”
Western grain shippers say the bill failed on several counts: it didn’t provide for joint running rights, which would require a rail company to allow competitors to haul grain on its tracks; it didn’t provide a “reverse onus” rule that would require a railway opposing a running rights application to prove that it would not be in the public interest; and it failed to provide protection for sidings and spurs in rural areas.
There were also concerns about final-offer arbitration rules, the future of the federal grain monitor system, the timing of future reviews of the transportation system and funding for rural roads.
Canadian Wheat Board director Ian McCreary, chair of the board’s transportation committee, said the thought of returning to “never-never land” with no new transportation legislation in place for months or longer isn’t attractive.
But at the same time, in light of Liberal leadership candidate Paul Martin’s comments supporting the introduction of running rights, it might be worth waiting for a new bill.
“In the current environment it was going to be a stretch to get the things we wanted so starting clean might be just as good,” said McCreary.
“If you see a new environment emerging where the leader has made a commitment, you’ve got to figure you’ve got a shot at a bit better package.”
Last month, Martin said he supported running rights, although he hasn’t said whether that should include the right to solicit traffic along the line, seen by proponents as key to introducing real competition.
Saskatchewan transportation minister Mark Wartman said while anything said during a leadership campaign has to be viewed with some skepticism, Martin’s comments are encouraging.
“Once the Liberals have resolved their leadership issues … I’m hopeful the bill comes forward in a revised version that really pays attention to the issues we’ve raised.”
When the House of Commons adjourned for its summer recess, the bill was before the standing committee on transport, which had held several days of hearings that included presentations from SARM and the Saskatchewan government.
The CWB, the railways and a number of other interested grain organizations had not yet had a chance to appear.
When the House resumes sitting in September, the bill will still be in committee.
There had been pressure from some Liberals, including transport minister David Collenette, to wrap up the committee hearings and pass the legislation before the summer recess, but that didn’t happen.
Committee chair Joe Comuzzi, a Liberal MP from Thunder Bay and a Martin supporter, said that’s because it was clear that so many stakeholders were unhappy with C-26. He rejected suggestions that the bill was held up by Martin supporters on the committee as part of a power struggle within the party.
“Everyone is trying to put that spin on it, but that’s not the case,” he said. “This is not a leadership issue. It’s about a committee performing a job it should be doing.”
Comuzzi said assuming the bill is still before committee this fall, it will hold hearings across the country to provide stakeholders a say and gather as much evidence as possible.
“We had more than 200 people in Western Canada indicate they wanted to appear,” he said, adding that the committee’s current plans call for two weeks of hearings in the West and one week in the East.
