Previously secret testimony about CP Rail operations was released to the public last week by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
It triggered another war of words in the increasingly acrimonious dispute between the Canadian Wheat Board and CP over rail service in the winter of 1996-97.
The testimony by a U.S.-based transportation analyst accused the railway of favoring other commodities over grain.
The issue of whether grain was discriminated against is described by both sides as crucial in determining the outcome of the board’s service complaint.
Read Also
AI expected to make itself felt in food systems
Artificial intelligence is already transforming the food we eat, how farmers produce it and how it reaches the consumer, experts say
“Clearly, grain train operations were managed during this period in a manner that emphasized the performance of other train types at grain’s expense,” David Hatzenbuhler told the CTA panel.
Fewer grain trains were operated than needed to meet guidelines and those that did run were subjected to “high rates of discretionary delay” associated with storage and staging, he said, adding no other types of trains experienced similar problems so consistently.
A former senior official with Burlington Northern and now an independent consultant in Texas, Hatzenbuhler was hired by the board to analyze railway operations from December 1996 to March 1997.
When he testified before the agency on May 4, the session was held behind closed doors at the insistence of CP Rail, which said his analysis was based on confidential commercial information.
But last week CP began presenting its own evidence in open session that contradicted Hatzenbuhler’s conclusions.
The railway presented charts, graphs and statistics that it said showed other commodities suffered as much or more than grain, and that while grain volumes fluctuated sharply on a week to week basis, it maintained a consistent percentage of total rail movement over the four-month period.
“In my opinion, there is nothing here that would paint a picture of discrimination against any commodity,” said Pat Pender, the railway’s vice-president of field operations.
CWB officials were infuriated the railway was introducing testimony and documents based on the same data that Hatzenbuhler used to prepare his report, and asked the agency to release his secret testimony to the public.
CP said it wouldn’t oppose the board’s request, as long as the raw data used by Hatzenbuhler was kept confidential.
And railway lawyer Paul Guthrie used the occasion to ask the board to agree to make public all evidence introduced in the seven weeks of hearings to date. While that request was rejected by CTA chair Marian Robson, she did order the Hatzenbuhler evidence be released, much to the board’s delight.
“I’m pleased that farmers will now have access to information that shows grain was treated unfairly,” said Adrian Measner, the board’s director or marketing, adding the testimony proved grain was “pushed to the back of the line.”
On the other hand
CP had a different view of Hatzenbuhler’s testimony, quickly issuing a strongly-worded news release describing the report as deeply flawed, biased and meaningless.
Railway vice-president Rick Sallee said the report makes selective use of CP’s raw operating data, ignoring information that doesn’t support the board’s case.
“(The CWB) elected to draw biased and self-serving conclusions from intentionally manipulated and selective data,” said Sallee.
In an interview, Sallee acknowledged the verbal jousting between the two sides has been heating up, but said he doesn’t think it will have any long-term negative impact on relations between CP and the board.
“Yeah, we’ve been taking shots at each other, but we all know we have to work together,” he said, adding the shared experience may even strengthen the working relationship between the two in the future.
