Same old story, doesn't matter who you send to Ottawa:
Railway issues again off track
Source: Murray Mandryk, The Leader-Post
Published: February 6th 2007
For all the fuss and bother over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board,
there has been another simmering grain issue equally critical to western
farmers.
It's a familiar story about grain transportation and Western Canada's
seemingly never-ending battle with the railways.
And what it again demonstrates is that despite all the sway western MPs supposedly have in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government
eastern- based institutions and political interests continue to have even
more influence.
For a while last spring, it actually looked as if Harper's new
Conservative MPs in the West (David Anderson, Cypress Hills) were making
headway in the long-standing issue of regulatory transportation reform in the grain-handling industry.
"We felt we were making very good progress," said Wade Sobkowich,
executive director of the Winnipeg-based Western Grain Elevator
Association, in a recent interview.
The association representing all the western grainhandlers, including
Agricore United, Cargill Ltd., James Richardson International Ltd., Louis
Dreyfus Canada Ltd., Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., Paterson Global Foods
Inc., the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Weyburn Inland Terminal Ltd.,
had even successfully solicited support from the mining, forestry and
petroleum industries on a package of regulatory and legislative reforms,
Sobkowich said.
Also onside were western Conservative MPs, including the dozen from
Saskatchewan, who -- according to Sobkowich -- vowed they were equally
determined to address the "shortfalls, inefficiencies and failures" of the
railway system affecting grainhandlers. Those problems are too numerous to
list, Sobkowich said, but one big regulatory issue has been ensuring that
rail companies face the same penalties as grainhandlers.
For example, grainhandlers have a mere 24-hour period to load 100-car unit
trains, he explained. (You may recall that one of the railways' arguments
for the demise of the country elevator system was the better servicing of
the more efficient unit trains). Failure to meet these obligations results
in penalties or loss of incentives, which means inland terminals can't
take deliveries during that period.
However, if the rail companies don't supply the unit trains on the day
they are required, grain companies wind up losing deliveries for a day or
three. Yet the railways don't face reciprocal penalties.
Sobkowich argued that rail "cycle times" (the period between a grain car
leaving an inland terminal and returning to another) have become less
reliable, despite improved efficiency of the grain companies. The
regulatory changes agreed to last spring included a "Commercial Dispute
Resolution" process with an effective legislative backstop that would have
forced the railways to address these inefficiencies.
Proposals were made to Transport Canada and an agreement was reached on
May 5, 2006 on changes to the Canada Transportation Act. The agreement
also included a commitment that the minister of Transport would undertake
a more detailed review of service and railway accountability concerns
within 30 days of the passage of the bill -- a major step that Sobkowich
says would have reversed the trend of declining railway service.
But while the federal government seemed initially eager to implement the
changes, that quickly changed early last summer and the changes have not
been adopted, Sobkowich said.
Now, the Conservative government and Transport Canada are suggesting that
the grainhandling companies should reach a consensus before any such
changes regulatory changes are implemented.
So what happened? Sobkowich won't speculate. But it's worth noting that CN
Rail made it known early last summer that it opposed these changes. It's
also worth noting that CN is headquartered in Quebec, where Transport
Canada Minister Lawrence Cannon resides. It's also worth noting that
Quebec is where Harper's Conservatives want to win more seats.
For Saskatchewan people, this may be the latest in a disturbing trend.
The Conservatives campaign on a major issue to western stakeholders and
commit to making needed change.
Then they claim they can't make the changes because all the parties
affected can't agree.
Sound familiar? It should. This is the exact tactic the federal government
is using over its promise to Saskatchewan to remove non-renewable
resources from the equalization formula. Make a promise to West and when
it displeases eastern interests, claim it can't be kept because there's no
consensus.
Sadly, it's the same old story.
- Mandryk is the political columnist for the Leader-Post.
Railway issues again off track
Source: Murray Mandryk, The Leader-Post
Published: February 6th 2007
For all the fuss and bother over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board,
there has been another simmering grain issue equally critical to western
farmers.
It's a familiar story about grain transportation and Western Canada's
seemingly never-ending battle with the railways.
And what it again demonstrates is that despite all the sway western MPs supposedly have in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government
eastern- based institutions and political interests continue to have even
more influence.
For a while last spring, it actually looked as if Harper's new
Conservative MPs in the West (David Anderson, Cypress Hills) were making
headway in the long-standing issue of regulatory transportation reform in the grain-handling industry.
"We felt we were making very good progress," said Wade Sobkowich,
executive director of the Winnipeg-based Western Grain Elevator
Association, in a recent interview.
The association representing all the western grainhandlers, including
Agricore United, Cargill Ltd., James Richardson International Ltd., Louis
Dreyfus Canada Ltd., Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., Paterson Global Foods
Inc., the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Weyburn Inland Terminal Ltd.,
had even successfully solicited support from the mining, forestry and
petroleum industries on a package of regulatory and legislative reforms,
Sobkowich said.
Also onside were western Conservative MPs, including the dozen from
Saskatchewan, who -- according to Sobkowich -- vowed they were equally
determined to address the "shortfalls, inefficiencies and failures" of the
railway system affecting grainhandlers. Those problems are too numerous to
list, Sobkowich said, but one big regulatory issue has been ensuring that
rail companies face the same penalties as grainhandlers.
For example, grainhandlers have a mere 24-hour period to load 100-car unit
trains, he explained. (You may recall that one of the railways' arguments
for the demise of the country elevator system was the better servicing of
the more efficient unit trains). Failure to meet these obligations results
in penalties or loss of incentives, which means inland terminals can't
take deliveries during that period.
However, if the rail companies don't supply the unit trains on the day
they are required, grain companies wind up losing deliveries for a day or
three. Yet the railways don't face reciprocal penalties.
Sobkowich argued that rail "cycle times" (the period between a grain car
leaving an inland terminal and returning to another) have become less
reliable, despite improved efficiency of the grain companies. The
regulatory changes agreed to last spring included a "Commercial Dispute
Resolution" process with an effective legislative backstop that would have
forced the railways to address these inefficiencies.
Proposals were made to Transport Canada and an agreement was reached on
May 5, 2006 on changes to the Canada Transportation Act. The agreement
also included a commitment that the minister of Transport would undertake
a more detailed review of service and railway accountability concerns
within 30 days of the passage of the bill -- a major step that Sobkowich
says would have reversed the trend of declining railway service.
But while the federal government seemed initially eager to implement the
changes, that quickly changed early last summer and the changes have not
been adopted, Sobkowich said.
Now, the Conservative government and Transport Canada are suggesting that
the grainhandling companies should reach a consensus before any such
changes regulatory changes are implemented.
So what happened? Sobkowich won't speculate. But it's worth noting that CN
Rail made it known early last summer that it opposed these changes. It's
also worth noting that CN is headquartered in Quebec, where Transport
Canada Minister Lawrence Cannon resides. It's also worth noting that
Quebec is where Harper's Conservatives want to win more seats.
For Saskatchewan people, this may be the latest in a disturbing trend.
The Conservatives campaign on a major issue to western stakeholders and
commit to making needed change.
Then they claim they can't make the changes because all the parties
affected can't agree.
Sound familiar? It should. This is the exact tactic the federal government
is using over its promise to Saskatchewan to remove non-renewable
resources from the equalization formula. Make a promise to West and when
it displeases eastern interests, claim it can't be kept because there's no
consensus.
Sadly, it's the same old story.
- Mandryk is the political columnist for the Leader-Post.
Comment