The former Conservative government wrongly allowed the transfer of $151 million that should have gone to farmers who delivered CWB grains during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 crop years, Brookdale, Man., farmer Andrew Dennis alleges in a statement of claim seeking certification of a class action lawsuit.

The claim, filed in Court of Queens Bench in Winnipeg April 24, names the Government of Canada, G3 Global Grain Group (a joint venture between American and Saudi-Arabian agri-food companies) and G3 Limited as defendants.

G3 is the private entity which acquired 50.1 per cent of the CWB following a July 31, 2015, transaction.

Of the $151 million Dennis claims should’ve gone to farmers who delivered to the CWB, he alleges $145.2 ended up in the CWB’s contingency fund and $5.9 million was withdrawn from the CWB’s pool accounts. The allegations have not been tested in court.

The CWB set up a contingency fund to cover losses that occurred when farmers opted to price grain sales outside the CWB’s pools. It was funded when transactions earned more than the price farmers sold at. The fund was meant to break even over time.

“In order to fund the transformation of the board to a privately held entity, the defendants engaged in a course of conduct intended to reduce payments to farmers who had sold and delivered grain to the board during the class period and to increase the monies in the contingency fund,” Dennis’ statement of claim alleges.

The CWB act didn’t allow the wheat board to use money earned from its pool accounts for anything other than covering its operating expenses. Gerry Ritz, who was federal agriculture minister at the time, said the government would cover the costs of transitioning the CWB to an entity that could be sold to a private company.

“Nevertheless, the board improperly charged $5.9 million in transition costs to the pool accounts, which reduced the amount that was available to producers upon payment of their contracts during the 2011-2012 crop year,” the statement of claim alleges.

“The plaintiff (Dennis) pleads that the board breached its duty of good faith to the Class (farmers who delivered to the CWB) by ignoring its obligations to the producers, and by allocating money to the Contingency Fund that otherwise would have been paid to the pool account contract holders.”

The lawsuit is backed by the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB), which opposed the Conservative government ending the CWB’s single desk marketing authority Aug. 1, 2013.

“This claim is about establishing accountability for the disposition of the Canadian Wheat Board, allocating financial responsibility to the appropriate parties, and ultimately getting any funds recovered back to prairie farmers,” FCWB chair Stewart Wells said in a news release.

In addition to the $151 million the suit says is owed to farmers, it seeks $10 million in punitive damages, pre and post-judgment interest, legal costs and other relief the court might award.

Andres Bruun, one of the lawyers representing Dennis, said a decision on whether the class action can proceed could be made in six months.

“We have a strong case for the class action and on the merit of the claims,” he said in an interview.

The post Lawsuit alleges farmers short changed $151 million as CWB wound down appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“This is going to be where your role is going to be very important,” Agriculture Minister Ralph Eichler told more than 100 people gathered for the day-long agricultural industry consultation. “These comments are all going to be recorded and I take them all very seriously.”

He added criticism was welcome as well, stressing that creating a robust dialogue was the first step in fulfilling his mandate.

“People want to be heard, they want to have the ability to be able to say, ‘I talked to the minister about this,’” Eichler said. “So again, it comes back to that conversation.”

Last week’s consultation was the second held by the Tory government since coming to power this spring. Previous governments also held industry consultations, but did not permit media to attend.

Some themes were immediately apparent as participants brainstormed and discussed issues they face in their respective sectors. One resurgent theme was maintaining consumer trust and social licence in a world where social media allows for a vast number of opinions to be expressed by those without first-hand farm experience.

“So the other word that comes up a lot of course is education,” said Eichler, reflecting on the desire of industry stakeholders to be heard amid the online din, either by individual producers telling their stories, programs like Ag In The Classroom, or the possibility of government initiatives aimed at giving consumers more information.

“Transparency is no longer an option,” added Deputy Minister Dori Gingera-Beauchemin, who spoke about how the idea of trust has evolved. Participants were then asked to give feedback and direction on the issue.

Consumer challenge

Jake Wiebe operates a chicken farm near New Bothwell and said producers are often at the mercy of public opinion, noting that he has worked to open his farm up to consumers by installing an observation window in his broiler barn.

“This topic is a pretty passionate topic, anyone involved in animal agriculture realizes that,” he told other industry stakeholders. “But it’s good to have a variety of people at the table, because you’re challenged to think outside of your farming zone.”

However, even when public opinion backs farmers it doesn’t mean that trade barriers won’t stymie production or exports, he said, referring to the BSE crisis that saw the U.S. close its border.

Jean-Marc Ruest of Richardson International said the provincial government has an important role to play in navigating trade issues — a role that begins by talking to stakeholders.

“On the export side of things, the province has to ensure that obstacles to trade internationally or domestically are addressed in a reasonable fashion,” Ruest said. “And the provincial government is a very effective advocate to the federal government with respect to issues that impact provincial agriculture.”

Ruest also stressed that the provincial government has to create a regulatory environment that allows for innovation, something that many other stakeholders echoed.

“I think the issue of supporting science-based innovation and regulation is very important, that is the way to send a clear signal that we’re prepared to attract investment in Manitoba,” he added.

Daryl Domitruk, Manitoba agriculture’s director of research and marketing intelligence, asked stakeholders to discuss how they want to use technology as an industry.

“Do we want to be discovering new technology? Developing new technology? Or do we just want to be adopters? What are our values on this continuum? And more important, what are our risk profiles?”

Eichler said the next step for him will be to work with staff to distil the feedback provided during industry consolation, so he can bring that information to his counterparts at the upcoming federal-provincial-territorial ministers’ meeting.

“This is an opportunity to get it right,” he said. “We want to just take it to the next level.”

The post Manitoba’s ag industry gives Eichler a wish list appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Other priorities include determining if farm aid programs are adequate, investing in infrastructure to protect soil and water and refocusing the government’s role in scientific research.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not coming back, but the Liberal government will dig into its apparent ‘giveaway’ to a foreign company and perhaps release the CWB’s 2012-13 annual report and financial statements that former agricuture minister Gerry Ritz kept secret.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet, including an agriculture minister, were to be sworn in Nov. 4 — two days after this week’s Manitoba Co-operator went to press.

Grain transportation is a priority, Goodale said in an interview last week, noting that a review of the Canadian Transportation Act led by former cabinet minister David Emerson is supposed to be done by the end of the year.

“This presents an opportunity for significant improvements in the system. It will be important to seize that opportunity to put in place a system that will not be prone to the kind of disaster that happened in 2013-14.”

Canada produced a record crop that year, but a backlog developed in railway grain shipments. Farmers and grain companies blamed the railways for not investing in enough surge capacity; the railways blamed the big crop and the coldest winter in 100 years.

Although the new government will consider Emerson’s recommendations, it’s on record as supporting subjecting the railways to commercial penalties for failing to fulfil service agreements with grain shippers. That’s just normal contractual law, Goodale said.

“This is the only case where it doesn’t apply,” he added. “What seems astounding is that the railways seem astounded when you say the basic principles of business and contract law should apply to them.”

It’s also time to calculate the railways’ costs of shipping grain — something last done in 1992, Goodale said. The formula used to set the railways’ maximum revenue entitlement is based on those 1992 costs, adjusted annually for inflation. However, it’s widely believed by farm groups that many railway costs have declined due to increased rail and grain-handling efficiency, resulting in farmers paying much more than intended.

“It is reasonable I think, to update the arithmetic,” Goodale said.

TPP review

The new government is also keen to review the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before endorsing it.

While former minister Gerry Ritz was widely praised for his many trade missions to boost Canadian farm exports, Goodale isn’t impressed.

“The previous government seemed content to go from one trade negotiation to the other without a heck of a lot of followup,” he said.

“Once you’ve got the market access then you’ve got to make use of it and this government has not had a marketing or sales strategy. The end result is we’ve had 55 months of trade deficits under the Harper government.”

Ritz’s efforts lack the “pizzaz” of the Team Canada trade missions conducted by former Liberal government, according to Goodale.

The Conservative government cut farm program budgets and made it harder to trigger payments from AgriStability. Goodale said the new government will consult with farm groups and the provinces to see if the programs can meet farmers’ needs when commodity prices fall.

Some of the Liberal government’s infrastructure spending is intended for natural resources infrastructure, Goodale said.

“With the onset of more and more consequences from climate change we are very likely to have more frequent and more severe cycles of floods and droughts,” he said.

“The frustration is some years you have a flood and a lack systems to control it or save it and then next year you have a drought.”

More basic research

The Liberals plan big changes to government scientific research, including in agriculture. There will be more basic, curiosity research, not just applied research tied to a commercial outcome, Goodale said.

“Science within the Government of Canada is totally messed up and the scientific community within the government is obviously muzzled and intimidated,” he said. “The whole thing needs to be examined from top to bottom to get science policy right.

“There’s a lot of work to do to repair the damage that has been done.”

Although the Liberals won a strong majority Oct. 19, outside of Atlantic Canada they have few rural seats. Asked how the new government will avoid becoming city-centric Goodale replied: “We’ll just have to work very hard at it.

“The prime minister elect has made it very clear that he wants to be a prime minister for all of Canada and we’ll work very hard to achieve that.”

allan@fbcpublishing.com

The post New Liberal government has lots on its ag ‘to do’ list appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

As the debate was unfolding at the Château Laurier in Ottawa, leaders from the 12 Pacific Rim countries were meeting to discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership in Atlanta, Georgia. The day before farmers drove a convoy of tractors in downtown Ottawa to protest the potential implications of the trade deal.

Supply management is a set of policies that control the price of milk, cheese, eggs and poultry in Canada through marketing boards. The TPP would put that system at risk if negotiated to increase access for other countries into the Canadian market.

Other trade-focused groups are generally in favour of implementing the deal.

Agri-Food critic and NDP party member Malcolm Allen began and ended the debate by saying his party has unequivocal support for supply management.

He continued to ask Conservative agriculture minister Gerry Ritz why domestic markets are on the table in international trade agreements.

“Everything is on the table at the beginning,” said Ritz.

Ritz went on to say that if TPP final negotiations make any concessions to supply management that farmers would be compensated accordingly, leaving “zero impact on producers at the end of the day.”

Ritz was further challenged by Bloc Quebecois representative Yves Lessard who said Conservatives were sacrificing a piece of supply management with each trade deal.

Green Party member, Andrew West said the TPP doesn’t benefit farmers on any level.

“Simply put this hurts farmers.”

As for transportation within Canada, the Conservatives, NDPs and the Green Party touched on the importance of transportation infrastructure, especially to Prairie farmers.

Infrastructure in rural communities is lacking, making it difficult for western Canadian farmers to move production from the farm to processors, Allen said.

“The NDP is going to stand up to railway companies.”

The Green Party plans to fund transportation infrastructure by cutting subsidies to oil sands.

Ritz briefly touched on rural investment, saying the Conservative government plans on supporting it through better broadband access, roads and ports.

Mark Eyking, Liberal Party representative, said the party plans on working directly with farmers to develop plans that work for then, especially in research and agribusiness sectors.

Drought in Western Canada means farmers are going to want to trigger risk management programs, he said.

The Liberals plan to fund research and programs that would help with market volatility, saying the current government doesn’t do enough to help farmers, citing Conservative government cuts to the AgriStability program.

“Every other developed country helps farmers when they’re in need,” he said.

Allen said he has heard farmers complain about AgriStability, and that their dislike is founded.

He said the NDP would sit down with farmers and see what they need, and build a program beyond bureaucracy.

The post Federal candidates debate supply management as TPP talks continue appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The democratic deficit from the Conservative government’s roller-coaster ride of signing trade agreements is further aggravated when the terms of the agreements are considered. These agreements, including CETA, lock in negative outcomes for Canadians far into the future.

Agriculture Minister Ritz is boasting about the possibility of new sales of beef and pork into Europe. What is certain, however, is that Canada has never fully utilized our existing tariff-free quotas for hormone-free beef exports into Europe, that Europe will not change its position on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and that its borders will not open for meat that is produced with feed additives that for health reasons are banned in Europe.

In an exchange that gains little real new access for its farmers, Canada has committed to increased imports of European cheese which is produced with heavily subsidized European milk. Consequently, Canada’s domestic milk production and processing sectors will see a substantial reduction in their valuable cheese market.

The seed-related Intellectual Property Rights provisions in CETA are very concerning, as Canada has committed to making it possible for corporations to ask courts to seize farm assets and freeze farmers’ bank accounts for alleged infringement of patent rights or Plant Breeders’ Rights — even before the case is heard in court.

CETA offers new powers to corporations through Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. If laws and government regulations result in reduced profits, ISDS empowers corporations to sue governments and be compensated.

Local governments, schools, hospitals and prisons that have adopted policies to buy food locally as a way to support community values are no longer allowed to do so. Procurement provisions in CETA force government institutions to accept competitive offers from European businesses for any contracts above fairly low thresholds.

There is, at best, no gain for Canadian farmers in CETA. From a societal perspective, the so-called “trade” agreement gives corporations a rope to tie the hands of our elected representatives and a sword to slash laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits.

The post Does CETA offer any real value to Canadian farmers? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Danny Penner has been advocating for one “super” farm group to speak with one voice. That idea has been around for as long as there have been farmers.

It’s easy to feel disassociated with the groups that are left, such as the commodity groups and the astroturf wheat-barley growers, Grain Growers of Canada and the Canada Grains Council, all of whom have a long record of being lapdogs of the industry and the present Conservative government. They cannot speak against Ottawa and industry for fear of losing funding or their place in the prime minister’s sunshine.

Penner states, “While it is widely agreed that changes in an open market will continue to benefit producers” it seems ironic he also contends a supergroup is needed in an open market. He can’t have it both ways.

He also states, “If Canadian farmers want to maintain control of the agriculture industry, they need to work to form a unified voice.”

What he has missed is that Canadian farmers presently do not control the agriculture industry. Groups like his have ensured that the industry is firmly in control of agriculture in Canada, not farmers.

Many of the present groups are ineffective as farmer voices as they have been infiltrated by the industry. In some cases, industry representatives even sit on the executives of these groups.

Groups such as the National Farmers Union, who actually believe in farmer control, and do not have any corporate sponsorship membership are seen as “old fade.”

It was people like Penner who naively believed industry propaganda and helped to undermine our independent institutions. Industry and farmers will never have the same vision or voice. Farmers certainly need an independent voice to balance industry power, but we will not find that in the current crippled commodity and astroturf groups Penner seems to favour.

Eric Sagan

Melville, Sask.

Canadian role in fighting deserts

Regarding the April 4 editorial by John Morriss “Fighting more deserts,” it was probably a bad idea for the Harper government to drop its modest annual contribution to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, regardless of how little the committee seems to achieve. Similarly, it was almost certainly a bad idea for the UN to send its representative to Canada last May for a week of press conferences, declaring that Canada has a “food security” problem. An overeating problem maybe?

We can be proud of Canadian progress in the perfection of zero-tillage equipment and technology “… which has done so much to preserve Prairie soil.” Some Former Soviet Union countries can use this technology because their agronomic conditions and farming methods have similarities with our own. But once you get into parts of the world where most of the population is found, most of the food is produced, and much of the water scarcity and drought problem occur, you find that there is no place for 400-horsepower tractors and equipment designed for farming huge dryland fields.

As was noted, there is a market for such equipment in parts of the Former Soviet Union so it can be said without exaggeration that this Canadian technology is presently helping other parts of the world. Parts of Africa may have some potential in the not distant future. These markets develop largely on their own through market forces.

Bill Anderson

Forrest, Man.

Letters

The post Letters, April 11, 2013 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Please forward letters to Manitoba Co-operator, 1666 Dublin Ave., Winnipeg, R3H 0H1 or Fax: 204-954-1422 or email: news@fbcpublishing.com (subject: To the editor)

Supreme Court ruling shuns farmers

It is a clear blow to farmers and Canadian democracy that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the farmers’ appeal on whether the Conservative government had followed the law in abolishing the farmers’ single-desk marketing system.

The Supreme Court usually hears cases which are of national importance. But look at the amazing number of farmer-related issues the Supreme Court apparently thought were not important.

The farmers’ right to vote, enshrined in law, was taken away.

Over $200 million of assets that farmers paid for were confiscated by the Conservatives without compensation.

The federal minister defied a court decision, but then hypocritically appealed that decision at the same time.

There is a question of whether or not the minister of the day in fact had to follow the CWB Act.

And finally what about the integrity of a minister who promised a vote by farmers before any move would be made on the single desk while he was campaigning and then changed his mind after the federal election?

Apparently none of these things are of national significance. I would wonder what would happen if the Conservative government confiscated $200 million of Canadians’ RRSPs?

Would that be of national importance and deserve a Supreme Court hearing?

Susan Korneychuk

Emerald Park, Sask.

How to destroy a community

First, the NDP government tried to bully smaller municipalities into amalgamating. If bullying doesn’t work, the NDP will then resort to changing legislation to force the mergers of smaller municipalities.

It would appear the NDP seems intent on destroying communitiesthroughout Manitoba. The NDP has labelled smaller municipalities as “dysfunctional.” They proudly use the example of merging regional health authorities from 11 into five as an example of efficiency and cost cutting.

Perhaps the NDP is embarrassed that local governments balance their books each and every year, something the province has been unable to do. Perhaps, through forced amalgamations, the province has discovered yet another way to download even more costs to remaining local governments and ratepayers. Policing costs come to mind.

Local governments and ratepayers have always been astute to changing local dynamics. When mergers are proposed by local governments, it is the duty of the province to assist, not the other way around. Bullying by the province is not acceptable and changing legislation to achieve their goal of forcing amalgamations will destroy many communities across the province.

The NDP government needs to show respect for hard-working local governments and their ratepayers. They need to show respect for the value of communities across Manitoba. Bullying is never acceptable.

Blaine Pedersen

MLA Midland

When gospel becomes reality

Throughout history belief has often trumped truth. Galileo, the father of modern science, proved by observing the nearby planets that the earth revolved around the sun. The church would hear none of it. Proof was irrelevant, or worse, blasphemous if it upset man’s central place in the universe. In 1633, Galileo was forced to recant and the evidence was suppressed.

I worry that we haven’t come so very far since the end of the Dark Ages. One has to go no further than the CWB debate to find half-truths and opinions vigorously defended as ‘gospel.’

Some blamed the CWB for not being able to ship the whole harvest right off the combine. But a glance at a map will soon show that that is just not possible. CP officials actually laughed when the notion was brought up at a Canada Grains Council meeting.

The CWB and its supporters have been disproving many of the same spurious arguments for years. For some people it seems veracity is irrelevant; they just shut their eyes and believe.

Many ‘believers’ will hold to an unproven but rational sounding assertion or anecdote or some statistical anomaly and ignore the bulk of provable truth.

At times the American price for wheat was higher than ours, but in a recent U.S. Department of Commerce study CWB wheat delivered to northern U.S. points was higher priced than the local stuff 59 out of 60 months.

Some farmers may have been underpaid slightly for protein, but now the protein and grade premiums are just a fraction of what they used to be. Now we are all underpaid. We also have to expensively reinvent all the marketing and development work the old CWB used to do for us.

It’s long past time for rationality. The earth really revolves around the sun. Elvis died in 1977. There’s no nicotine in Tim’s coffee. And on the whole the CWB, the CGC, and the PFRA did just what they were supposed to do on behalf of the farmer. They increased knowledge and power.

Glenn Tait

Meota, Sask.

Letters

The post Letters, Feb. 28, 2013 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Canada’s Conservative government plans to introduce legislation this fall giving all shippers more clout in ensuring consistent rail service, and improve ways to resolve disputes.

The rail companies are concerned that the legislation could end up dictating or imposing levels of service that don’t take into consideration existing commercial arrangements with customers.

Claude Mongeau, the CEO of Canadian National Railway Co., said the imposition of service obligations on rail companies might give relief to one unhappy shipper but that may come at the cost of upsetting service for others down the line as railroads are large, interconnected networks.

“It doesn’t take many to create a ripple effect… I say beware of what you ask for as you may just derail the efficiency that we have been able to gain,” Mongeau told Reuters in an interview after speaking to a business audience in Vancouver.

The planned legislation stems from a rail service review conducted for the government by an independent panel following years of complaints from shippers, such as farmers and forestry companies, about poor rail service, including damaged rail cars and unpredictable pickups.

Railroads have defended their service track record saying it is fairly good overall and that additional legislation is not the answer, especially in a free market economy.

Mutual trust

Mongeau said legislation could poison relationships built up between customers and railroads over many years, and stop them from sharing information and data for fear it could be used against them in a dispute. “It is difficult to have mutual trust with a gun to your head,” he said.

Representatives of shippers and railroads spent four months in a government-sponsored committee this year trying, but ultimately failing, to develop both a template for service agreements and a dispute resolution process that could be used commercially.

Mongeau said that if the government is bent on introducing legislation it should be “balanced” and “targeted.” That could be achieved by requiring mediation as a first step to resolve disputes, rather than imposed arbitration, he said.

If cases did end up in arbitration, it should take place under the aegis of the Canadian Transport Agency, a government regulator that has a duty to ensure transportation efficiency in Canada, instead of a roster of arbitrators who don’t have rail industry experience, Mongeau said. Arbitration should also only be available to rail customers whose access is limited to a single railroad, not to those who can switch service providers if they are unhappy with their service, he said.

The post CN Rail CEO says legislation could derail service appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The commission’s operating costs “must be driven down through a more comprehensive streamlining of operations than the current amendments facilitate,” said Gordon Bacon, CEO of Pulse Canada and spokesman for the Canadian Special Crops Association.

Others also expressed support for the changes when appearing before the Commons agriculture committee, albeit with reservations.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture “continues to have reservations with the changes to the Producer Payment Security Program,” said Humphrey Banack, the farm group’s second vice-president.

Government should ensure all reforms to the commission are completed before it introduces increased user fees next August, added Rick White, general manager of the Canadian Canola Growers Association. As well, licensing issues have to be resolved and the commission needs closer ties and more accountability with growers’ groups, he said.

Omnibus bill

The changes to the commission are contained in the Conservative government’s omnibus budget bill. After protests in Parliament and elsewhere last month, the government referred the commission changes to the House committee for study. The Senate agriculture committee has also held a session with Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz to review the proposed changes, which are supposed to save farmers and grain companies $20 million annually.

Bacon pointed out that until “things like modernization of the governance structure, and elimination of other costs from the CGC structure are done, a mandate to recover all costs will result in CGC operational costs that must be recovered through higher fees to grain companies, and lower returns to farmers.”

He urged the committee “to look at what additional changes need to be made to the CGC to ensure that it is as cost effective as is possible. It’s crucial to eliminate these costs before any move to full cost recovery by the commission.”

If the government proceeds with making budget cuts greater than $40 million to the commission, there should be a clear outline of what additional costs farmers will face, he added.

The commission plays a valuable role in protecting Canada’s reputation as a supplier of high-quality grain, he said. That has a major benefit to the Canadian economy, not just the farmers, and government should carry some of the cost.

Changes to the program that ensure farmers are paid for grain delivered to buyers who default must not undermine the trust farmers have in the system, said Banack. Moving that feature to an insurance-based program as the legislation proposes has merit, he said. “Additional details are required prior to the CFA fully endorsing the change and the new program,” he said.

“Details on the actual costs to run the program, cost savings to producers, percentage of grain covered, premium calculations, the structure of the insurance or how the program will be operated have not been forthcoming. The concept and the details of the program are first required prior to determining whether the industry will benefit under the new program.”

Key issues remain

The commission needs to work with farm groups and grain buyers to clear up these matters, he added.

White said the legislation didn’t address several key issues.

“Changes to the CGC governance structure are imperative and should be included in the legislation that strives to modernize the commission,” he said.

The commission has to be accountable to both industry and farmers, and third-party inspection of grain before it is shipped to a foreign customer should also be available.

“A final important area that needs to be considered is public versus private good,” White said. “The CGC provides a large number of services that benefit the good of Canada, and these costs should not be included in the proposed increased user fees, which will be paid solely by farmers.

“The grain research laboratory, policy development, the maintenance of grain quality standards and assurance system — to name a few — should continue to be funded by the government as we believe they are there for the public good not just for the benefit of farmers.”

White urged the government to cover one-quarter of the commission’s budget — nearly triple the proposed nine per cent.

The government should also introduce separate legislation in the spring “to complete the CGC’s progress towards modernization.”

“In the end it is farmers who will be paying for the majority of the costs of the CGC so they should have an institution that is lean, modern, efficient, and who advocates for them and understands their business,” said White.

The post Grains Act amendments get good grade but could be higher appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“We’re proposing legislation today to protect our recovering economy and resume rail services,” Raitt told the House of Commons a day after the latest round of talks broke down. “Simply put … the strike can’t go on. We need to get the trains running again.”

Some 4,800 locomotive engineers, conductors and rail traffic controllers at Canada’s second-biggest railway have been on strike since May 23 over pension issues, shutting down CP Rail freight operations across Canada.

The government fears the strike could hurt an economy still recovering from recession and Raitt has said a strike would cost $540 million in economic activity each week.

“It is very clear that the government of Canada must act now to resume rail service at CP Rail, as the prospect of ratified agreements in the short term is highly unlikely,” she said.

An accelerated back-to-work bill was expected to become law this week.

The majority Conservative government previously used legislation to end strikes at Air Canada and at the Canada Post mail service, prompting criticism from the New Democrats, the left-leaning opposition party.

“If employers know they can count on the government to intervene on their side to put an end to collective bargaining, then there is less need for them to have good faith negotiations at the bargaining table,” said NDP Finance Critic Peggy Nash.

The union, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, said the two sides could likely reach a deal if CP backed down on its pension plan demands.

“They don’t want to do that because they want to take the money from our pension plan and they want to give it to the shareholders,” Teamsters chief negotiator Doug Finnson told reporters in Ottawa.

The post Feds put CP back to work appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.