In Winnipeg Nov. 22 Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Chris Martin heard from lawyers representing the plaintiff and defence on how the case that began almost nine years ago should proceed.

“The purpose of the process here is so that the judge can ensure that this case moves forward in a way that serves the best interest of the farmers,” Anders Bruun, one of the lawyers for plaintiff, Brookdale, Man., farmer Randy Dennis, said in an interview Nov. 23. “So our proposal has to be one that we think is in the best interests of the farmers in terms of publicity on how they can claim money (if the case is won) and so forth. That’s the test. What’s the best way to move this case forward in the interests of farmers?

“Is it best to certify as a class action instead of requiring 70,000 farmers to sue individually?”

Based on a Manitoba Court of Appeal ruling Dec. 2, 2020, Bruun said he is confident the proposed class-action lawsuit seeking more than $160 million in compensation to farmers who sold grain through the CWB pool accounts in 2010-11 and 2011-12, will be certified.

“Now it’s a question of determining what the protocol for moving the action forward is going to be,” Bruun said.

“It’s essentially, what should the terms of certification be?”

If the class-action lawsuit is certified the plaintiffs will then have to prove the federal government and G3, which took control of the CWB’s assets in 2015, misused farmers’ money.

Why it matters: If the lawsuit is certified, allegations that the Harper Conservative government misused farmers’ money to privatize the Canadian Wheat Board will be tested.

The suit alleges the federal government improperly used $151 million that should’ve gone to farmers to cover some of the costs transitioning the CWB from a statutory, single-desk wheat and barley marketer, to a private grain company.

Of the $151 million, the suit claims $145.2 million ended up in the CWB’s contingency fund and $5.9 million was withdrawn from the CWB’s pool accounts.

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 normally 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,” the lawsuit 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 agriculture minister at the time, said the government would cover the costs of transitioning the CWB to an entity that could be acquired by 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 2011-12 crop year,” the claim alleges.

“The plaintiff 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 case is simple, Bruun said. Under the wheat board act the CWB was obliged to buy all wheat “offered by a producer for sale and delivery.”

After the CWB sold the grain farmers delivered, the earnings went into the pool accounts. The CWB deducted the costs incurred in marketing the grain and by statute was obliged to return what was left to the farmers who delivered the grain.

“The case is really that simple, which may be why we’ve seen one feeble delay tactic after another (by the federal government’s lawyers),” he said.

The Conservative government ended the CWB’s single-desk marketing authority Aug. 1, 2012.

In 2015, G3 (Global Grain Group), newly formed to subsume the CWB, agreed to invest $250.5 million and in return received the CWB’s assets from the federal government.

G3 is a joint-venture firm majority owned by the state-owned Saudi Agricultural Livestock Investment Company (SALIC) and Bunge.

After taking over the CWB, the new G3, renamed G3 Canada Limited, was 50.1 per cent owned by SALIC and Bunge and up to 49.9 per cent potentially owned by farmers, depending on how much grain they delivered to the new firm.

Farmers were to earn $5 of G3 equity for every tonne.

G3 Canada had two shareholders — G3 Global Grain Group and the farmers’ equity trust.

Farmers who deliver to CWB own units in the trust and the trust owns shares in G3 Canada Limited.

After the farmers’ equity is fully allocated, or in seven years (2022), G3 Canada Limited can buy the equity, but isn’t obliged to.

In 2016 Reuters reported SALIC’s ownership within G3 Global Grain Group jumped to 75 per cent from 49 per cent, according to an April 28, 2016 Bunge filing.

The post Proposed CWB class action suit takes another step appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Furthermore, Manitoba MP Dan Vandal, who was named minister of northern affairs, is the lone cabinet representative from the Prairies. That’s despite the Liberals having four seats in the province.

The rest of Trudeau’s western contingent includes Harjit Sajjan at national defence, Carla Qualtrough in employment, Jonathon Wilkinson in environment and Joyce Murray at digital government.

Altogether the Liberals have 17 MPs west of Ontario, with 11 in British Columbia, along with two more from the Northwest Territories and Yukon.

Jim Carr, a Manitoba MP who is battling cancer, was left out of cabinet this time around, but appointed as Trudeau’s special representative for the Prairies. That’s something of a consolation with Carr having Trudeau’s ear, but more western voices are needed to be around the cabinet table. In fact, other than Ontario and Quebec, B.C. is the only other province to have more than one cabinet minister.

With Trudeau in a minority situation, the next federal election may only be two years away, three if his Liberals are lucky. Needing to boost their western seat count, another Manitoba MP, a couple more from B.C. and perhaps one from the North could be helpful for the Liberals. However, the prime minister chose to do otherwise, which has become one immediate shortcoming for his fledgling second-term government.

Moving Chrystia Freeland from global affairs to intergovernmental affairs could be seen as somewhat patronizing. Freeland, who has Alberta roots, is to deal with the provinces on tough issues such as pipelines. That loose connection to the Prairies could blow up in Trudeau’s face, if Freeland can’t generate positive results as she did with other countries.

A more solid move was putting Seamus O’Regan into natural resources. Although O’Regan has a troubled past, both politically and personally, he is from oil-producing Newfoundland and Labrador. That could bode well in finding common ground with the Alberta and Saskatchewan governments.

The post Federal cabinet may need more tweaking appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This declaration is still in force and sometimes rears its head causing bureaucrats, farmers and others in the grain trade to scratch their heads as to how this rule came about and what it means to the issue at hand. While the ink-stained wretches who write for the Manitoba Agricultural Museum can not address what this rule means in relation to current and future issues, we can cast some light, however dim, on how this ruling came about.

Readers will remember that the “no mixing” rule meant that when grain was graded it was to be stored in bins with only grain of that grade. No other grades of that grain were allowed to be mixed into these bins. This rule was in force during the early days of the western Canadian grain trade, finally disappearing in the 1940s.

Towards the end of the First World War, rumours began to circulate among farmers that the public terminals at the lakehead were making large profits from grain surpluses. The farmers believed that the only way the public terminals could make this sort of money was from violating the rules governing the terminals which included the no mixing rule. The farmers were not pleased with this development and the discontent grew to the point that the Government of Canada investigated the issue.

The investigation revealed that an important source of income for public terminals was “overages” in grain grades, that is after the port terminal had returned grain in terms of tonnage and proper grade to those people and companies that had shipped grain into the port terminal, the port terminal was still in possession of a significant tonnage of grain.

These overages occurred chiefly in the higher grades of wheat. Further investigation pointed out that the chief source of overages was the result of the dockage assigned to the grain as a result of “rounding up.” For example, when inspected, a carload of grain might reveal foreign matter from two to three per cent but the inspector would assign dockage of three per cent. While a small difference on a carload, over the hundreds of thousands of tons of this grade of grain that a port terminal may handle in a year, the difference would come out to a significant tonnage. And while the percentage of dockage assigned to a car was calculated to eliminate all foreign matter, it was known that the grain left the port terminal with a small percentage of dust or foreign matter even though the grain was deemed as commercially clean. Again, while a small difference, over the many tonnes of grain shipped out, the tonnage involved became a significant amount so adding to the overages.

As to why the higher grades of wheat consistently showed overages, this came about as carloads of higher grades of wheat were consistently assigned a dockage of one per cent when in fact the dockage was usually much less in these grades.

Investigation also showed further sources of overages came from shrinkage and from the recovery of grain from the screenings which were paid to the public terminals in lieu of charges for the service of cleaning grain unloaded into the public terminal.

While the government accepted the port terminals’ contention that overages were a normal, if accidental, result of normal operations, the Canada Grain Act was amended in 1919 to require the public port terminals to take stock of the quantity of each grade of grain in the terminal in August of every year. If, in any crop year, the surplus of grain was found to be in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the gross amount of the grain received by the port terminal during the crop year, then the surplus was to be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners, with the proceeds to be paid to the board and applied to the cost of administering the Canada Grain Act.

The validity of this amendment was soon challenged by a port terminal which had produced an overage that was in excess. This overage was sold by the board with the monies realized applied to board expenses. The port terminal took its case all the way to the Exchequer Court of Canada, pointing out that it had delivered to the owners of grain all grain inspected and weighed into their terminal so extinguishing the right and title of all persons in both the grain and screenings. So the remainder, represented by the overage, was the port terminal’s property. The port terminal held that the title to this grain could not be taken from the company by any legislation enacted by the Government of Canada.

The Exchequer Court of Canada judge, after hearing the arguments of both sides, held that the 1919 amendment was obviously meant to limit the amount and value of the grain surpluses earned in a crop year and was an attempt by the Government of Canada to regulate profits by public terminals. This attempt was in conflict with property and civil rights powers assigned to the provinces. So the judge dismissed the case against the public terminal as the 1919 amendment was not within the powers of parliament. The government then appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court which agreed with the Exchequer Court. The government then appealed to the Privy Council.

However, Justice Duff of the Supreme Court, in his opinion on the appeal to this court, pointed out that the Government of Canada could acquire authority to regulate a local work, such as a public port terminal, by declaring elevators as a work for the general advantage of Canada. An amendment to the Canada Grain Act in 1925 contained this declaration along with a re-enactment of how overages in port public terminals were to be treated. When the appeal to the Privy Council came up for hearing, the case was not argued as the appeal dealt with legislation that had been replaced by the 1925 amendments. The 1925 amendment was not challenged in court.

While the case dealt with public port terminals and this class of terminal is now extinct, the 1925 declaration remains in force and firmly places elevators, both port and country, within the power of the Government of Canada to regulate.

The Manitoba Agricultural Museum is open year round and operates a website which can provide visitors with information on the museum and the Threshermen’s Reunion, including location and hours of operation.

The post Grain elevators as ‘works for the general advantage of Canada’ appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture elected its first female president, Mary Robinson.

While the name might be new to western Canadian members she’s well known in Atlantic Canada agriculture.

She’s managing partner of a sixth-generation family farm company on Prince Edward Island, and came up through the ranks of farm organizations. She is past president of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture.

While she’s the first woman to take on this particular high-profile leadership role, there have been plenty of earlier precedents in the sector.

Leaders like JoAnn Buth who headed the Canola Council of Canada, was appointed to the Senate of Canada and now heads up Cigi. Or Patti Miller, chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.

Other names that spring to mind include the University of Manitoba’s Karin Wittenberg, former provincial agriculture minister Rosann Wowchuk, and the Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association’s Pam de Rocquigny, just to name a few.

While there may be some work remaining to achieve full equality, the train has clearly left the station and women appear to be accepted in leadership roles in agriculture, and that acceptance grows every day.

In fact, when Robinson’s hometown newspaper the Truro News covered her appointment it led with the critically important fact that “For the first time in the 84-year history of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, an Islander has been elected president,” and only later mentioned she also happened to be the first woman in the role.

It was in Ottawa, however, where the glass ceiling has lingered longer and the real strides were made.

Swept up in the post-SNC-Lavalin cabinet shuffle intended to paper over the dramatic departure of former minister of justice and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould from cabinet, Lawrence MacAuley moved to Veterans Affairs.

In his stead was appointed the first woman to hold the agriculture portfolio in Canada’s 151-year history, Marie-Claude Bibeau.

The Quebec MP is an unknown quantity not only in Western Canada, but the entire Canadian agriculture sector.

She hails from Sherbrook, Quebec, represents the riding of Compton-Stanstead since the 2015 election that swept the federal Liberals to power, and has been minister of international development.

Prior to politics she worked for the Canadian International Development Agency, before returning to Canada and going into business.

Her thin agriculture credentials have led to some speculation she may be nothing more than a placeholder minister until after the next election, slated for later this year.

If that is the case, it does the portfolio, Bibeau herself and the political aspirations of rural Canadian women a profound disservice. Too often women in Canada have found themselves in positions of leadership only to find they’re piloting a doomed ship.

Perhaps the most glaring example of that is the story of the 19th Canadian prime minister, Kim Campbell.

During her time in politics she was minister of justice and attorney general, and held the Veterans Affairs and Defence portfolio and earned a reputation as able and hard working.

But it was only when the federal Progressive Conservatives of the time were facing almost certain electoral defeat that she was handed the reins of power, and served only four months. The subsequent election saw the government reduced to an ignominious rump party, represented by only herself and Jean Charest.

Judging from the reaction I’ve seen, people are willing to give Bibeau a chance. A longtime reader gave me a ring after news of the appointment broke. He’d been down at the local coffee shop and they’d been talking it over.

He called not to decry the appointment of an outsider, or wonder if a woman would be up to the job in a sector that’s still largely perceived as male dominated. Instead, he was wondering how you might get in touch with someone like the minister of agriculture and invite her out to rural Manitoba.

“We realized we haven’t seen any agriculture ministers out here in quite a while, at least not outside the cities,” he explained. “I think she’s probably got a lot of learning to do, and maybe coming out here would be a good start.”

Coming from rural Quebec, he reasoned, she probably knew a fair bit about supply management, but little about grain or beef production.

Nobody, including Marie-Claude Bibeau, knows how long or successful her tenure will be. But one thing is certain.

If she finds herself in Manitoba and wants to learn a bit about the business, she’ll likely find no shortage of farmers willing to fill her in.

The post Editorial: About time appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Honourable Ahmed Hussen, Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, announced the new five-year pilot program January 24, saying it will be aimed at both attracting and retaining skilled immigrants to Canada’s rural and northern communities.

The Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot will work with communities and selected provincial and territorial governments to help participating communities gain access to a range of supports to help newcomers settle in as part of the local community, a federal news release stated.

“Immigration is a central pillar of Canada’s economic success,” said Hussen. “The economic and social benefits of immigration are apparent in communities across Canada. By creating an immigration pilot aimed at rural and northern communities, we’re looking to ensure that the benefits of immigration are shared across the country.”

The initiative has potential to benefit the agricultural sector.

“Our government has identified the agriculture sector as a primary driver for the Canadian economy, particularly in our rural communities,” said Minister Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Lawrence MacAulay.

“Increasing the labour workforce on Canadian farms and primary processing is critical to the success of our agri-food businesses and will help meet our Government’s ambitious target of growing our food exports to $75 billion by 2025.”

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is applauding the initiative and sees it as a way to begin addressing the sector’s chronic labour shortage.

CFA has specifically communicated to government officials the critical importance of increasing pathways to permanent residency for farm workers and other rural occupations since 2014, a CFA news released noted.

In that year alone, Canada’s primary agriculture sector faced $1.5 billion in lost sales as a result of 59,000 job vacancies in primary agriculture alone, and the figure is expected to nearly double by 2025, the release stated.

“In order for the Canadian agricultural industry to meet its immense potential and to grow as a globally competitive industry, which benefits all Canadians, the agricultural industry requires access to a robust, skilled labor force across our rural communities to sustain our industry and allow it to flourish,” said Ron Bonnett, president of the CFA.

“International workers are an important part of the diverse Canadian AgriWorkforce team,” said Portia MacDonald-Dewhirst, executive director with Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council (CAHRC) in a separate news release announcing that their organization, meanwhile, been chosen by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to lead a new program — the Quality AgriWorkforce Management Program: International Phase (QAMP) — investing $279,239 the nine-month project.

The QAMP will support employers who hire international workers to supplement their Canadian workforce, a CAHRC news release said noting that “the intent of the program will be to provide employers with the information, training and tools needed to efficiently and successfully hire and manage international workers.”

Research has shown that each international worker that is hired, following a stringent process to ensure qualified Canadian workers do not wish to apply, results in 2 to 4 full-time Canadian agriculture related jobs up and down the Agri-Food supply chain.

The post New program aims to attract skilled immigrants to rural Canada appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

He’s included in a group Angus Reid called the ‘middle ministers,’ many of whom are relatively new to federal politics, compared to MacAulay who was first elected in 1988 and held several cabinet portfolios in the Chretien government. MacAulay ranked in the bottom half of this group.

Twenty-four per cent said he was doing a good job, 20 per cent gave him a bad job rating while 56 per cent offered a mixed review. His overall performance score was plus 4, down from plus 6 for 2017.

Every cabinet minister but Finance Minister Bill Morneau saw their performance score drop in 2018.

The cabinet stars are Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and Transport Minister Marc Garneau. With 49 per cent of Canadians saying she has done a good job this year, Freeland’s performance score is plus 20, the highest for any cabinet minister.

Other cabinet ministers of interest to the agri-food sector didn’t fare well. Trade Diversification Minister Jim Carr, only a few months into this portfolio, had almost the same awareness level and approval and disapproval rating as MacAulay.

Among ministers of other departments of special interest to agri-food, Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains received more awareness than MacAulay but a much worse minus 20 performance score. Health Minister Ginette Petitpas-Taylor’s ranking was slightly better. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is much better known but only Garneau and Freeland recorded better performance ratings.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau is the most recognized member of the Trudeau cabinet but only 23 per cent say he is doing a good job while 43 per cent think he isn’t.

Garneau, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, who was one of Jean Chretien’s agriculture ministers, are the two other cabinet members whose awareness is above 62 per cent and who received a net positive score from Canadians.

The post Lawrence who? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

So says the Canadian Agri-Food Human Resources Council (CAHRC) which says the sector needs to understand the labour shortages facing farm operations across the country to determine the extent and cost of them.

A CAHRC report in 2014 forecast the 26,400 farm jobs that went unfilled that year would grow to 114,000 in 2025. The shortage cost the sector $1.5 billion in lost revenues, or 2.7 per cent of product sales and the damage will only grow if more workers aren’t found.

“Resolving the labour crisis is imperative for the agricultural industry to move forward and reach its potential,” said Portia MacDonald-Dewhirst, CAHRC executive director. “Understanding the evolving needs of producers, farm workers and industry stakeholders is key in resolving the labour challenges facing the agricultural sector.

“The agriculture industry is constantly adapting and progressing,” she said. “We need to clarify the impacts of new technology, new production techniques, expanding demand, modified regulatory regimes and continued labour constraints in order to know what jobs and skills are required in the future.”

To build on the results of their 2014 survey, CAHRC has launched a comprehensive Labour Market Information (LMI) survey to examine Canada’s agricultural workforce that will run to Nov. 30.

“The survey will provide up-to-date labour market information including national, provincial and commodity-specific forecasts of agricultural labour supply and demand to 2029. The Conference Board of Canada will conduct the survey on behalf of the council and is seeking participation from more than 1,000 producers, farm workers and stakeholder organizations.”

The recent report from the Agri-Food Strategy Table called for a plan to deal with the sector’s struggle to find sufficient workers including promoting agriculture as a good career choice.

It also said the federal government needs to modernize Canada’s immigration and foreign workers programs to access the global labour force, both skilled and untrained. It called for a new labour market survey along the lines of what CAHRC is launching.

Meanwhile the Senate agriculture committee has opened public hearings on the agriculture worker shortage and in particular the challenges in getting sufficient foreign workers in Canada. The committee is expected to report on the issue.

“This survey will augment the previous LMI research and will provide valuable data to track ongoing employment needs of farmers and farm workers so that policies, programs, tools and resources can be developed to meet those needs,” said Debra Hauer, CAHRC’s AgriLMI project manager. The survey results will be made available next spring.

Funded in part by the Government of Canada’s Sectoral Initiatives Program, the council is collaborating with producers, farm workers, federal and provincial government departments, leading agriculture organizations and agricultural colleges and training providers to ensure that the labour needs of the agri-food industry are fully understood and addressed.

The council said, “Retirement and transition planning along with the inability to find people interested in farming is a huge problem. The primary barriers to recruiting and retaining farm workers have been identified as the seasonal nature of the work and that farms are often located in rural areas. As a result of this labour shortage, farm businesses are increasingly unable to produce to capacity or expand to meet growing market demand.”

The results will “help industry, governments and educators come up with labour shortage solutions.”

Among the issues the survey might provide answers to are how can farm employers identify, hire and develop qualified workers who enjoy working on farms and are willing to stay, the council said.

As well, it could identify what farm workers want to make their work more satisfying and enjoyable, so they will stay, it said. “What are the economic impacts of Canada’s agricultural labour shortage nationally, provincially and by commodity? More needs to be known of Canada’s farm labour crisis and what policies, programs and tools are needed to resolve it.”

The post Ag labour in the next 10 years appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

For weeks the Liberal government shut out farmers, ranchers, agri-food businesses, processors and even health experts from providing input on the discussion surrounding Canada’s Food Guide. Thankfully, due to the support from our agricultural health partners and pressure from independent health experts across the country the Liberals reversed this ideological decision.

Health Canada is currently doing a substantial revision to Canada’s Food Guide, one of the most downloaded documents from the Government of Canada website. However, critical information from stakeholders was being ignored. Their expertise on the nutritional value of the food we eat was not being considered.

Liberal members on the Standing Committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food shut down debate on studying the food guide and having witnesses from the agriculture sector appear before the committee. The Health Committee voted down the motion altogether.

We raised this issue because it was clear the new Canada’s Food Guide was based on ideological activism and bad science. In fact, it can be argued it is currently headed in a direction that is inaccurate and could be counterproductive, encouraging Canadians to make unhealthy food choices.

Doctors, nutritionists, dietitians, health experts and stakeholders across the country agree animal proteins and dairy products are healthy, which is contrary to what is being said by Health Canada. In fact, hundreds of doctors signed letters raising concerns with the direction of the Canada’s Food Guide because it is being based on out-of-date data and is not science based.

Not only would this impact Canadian consumers, but it would also impact our ability to access the global marketplace.

The Liberals claim to promote global market access for our agriculture commodities and claim to defend supply management, but at the same time they are telling Canadians to eat less meat and dairy. How can we possibly ask other countries to purchase Canadian products when the Liberals do not even stand behind Canadian producers here at home? The Liberals are sending very mixed messages.

Under a world-class food safety regime, our farmers have put their heart, soul and knowledge into growing an abundance of wonderful products not only ensuring we have food on our table, but also to feed the world.

The Liberals need to end their ideological attack on Canadian agriculture.

New warning labels on dairy and meat products, a Canadian food guide discouraging people from eating healthy animal protein and dairy, asking Canadians to base their food choices on carbon footprint not nutrition, small-business tax changes targeting the family farm, critical trade agreements in jeopardy and a punitive carbon tax which disproportionately impacts rural Canadians. This has been the track record of the Liberal government thus far.

I congratulate the Liberal government on following through on trade agreements negotiated by the previous Conservative government including the Canada-Europe free trade agreement (CETA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). These are integral agreements for Canadian agriculture, especially the CPTPP, which would mean more than $3.4 billion in benefits for the Canadian economy including a boost in $300 million in pork sales, $200 million in beef, and $780 million in canola.

Now, we need the Liberal government to be among the first six signatories of the CPTPP to ratify the agreement and table the implementation legislation before the end of the spring session so we can take full advantage of this opportunity.

However, it appears the Liberals have other priorities and the CPTPP could be sitting idle until next fall, meaning we could miss out on achieving preferential access to these key markets like Japan.

For all our farmers, ranchers, processors and agribusinesses do for us each day we need a government that supports them as well – they have earned that much.

John Barlow is the Conservative member of Parliament for the Alberta riding of Foothills and associate shadow minister for the agriculture and agri-food portfolio.

The post Opinion: Government actions must match rhetoric in supporting agriculture appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

One of these so-called “colonization” railways was the Great North West Central Railway (GNWC). The GNWC built and operated a rail line from Chater, which is just east of Brandon on the CPR main line, to Hamiota.

The original plan for this railway was more ambitious. The railway was to be called the Souris and Rocky Mountain Railway and the route to the Rockies to be taken was roughly the same as what the CPR main line follows today. The Souris and Rocky Mountain came into existence in 1880 when the CPR was considering a route farther to the north, however, the CPR changed its mind and proceeded to build its main line where it is today.

In 1880, the knowledge of the Prairies indicated that farming on the southern Prairies was going to be a difficult proposition but the northern Prairies were wetter and farming was feasible there. So the changing of the CPR main line route was a momentous decision.

One result was that the Souris and Rocky Mountain was pushed off its original route. However, it was then awarded a route to Battleford along with a 6,400-acre land grant for every mile built. Considering it was projected that this rail line would be 450 miles long, the land grant would have been substantial. At this time the railway’s name was formally changed to GNWC Railway.

• Read more: The Manitoba and North Western Railway

English money was behind the GNWC and construction began in 1887. One source indicates that construction of the line did not begin from Chater but rather from Gautier which is a location west of Rapid City. A railway called the Saskatchewan and Western Railway had built a line from Minnedosa to Gautier in 1886 and probably brought in material for the GNWC. The Saskatchewan and Western Railway is very much unknown and appears to have been connected to the Manitoba And North Western Railway (M&NW) which was in the process of being built from Portage to Yorktown. Just why the M&NW would choose to build a branch line to Gautier when its main line was unfinished, is an interesting question.

GNWC began building west from Gautier in 1888 and reached Hamiota in 1890. In 1889, the GNWC began to build south from Gautier to Chater where the GNWC connected with the CPR main line. The GNWC appears to have finished construction on this line in 1890. The GNWC also built a 3.5-mile line from Gautier into Rapid City in this period.

During this time, the GNWC came into dispute with the M&NW Railway. The GNWC wanted to run its line in the vicinity of Birtle and the M&NW objected to the GNWC being located close to its line. This may account for why the GNWC took two years to build from Gautier to Hamiota.

It appears the GNWC’s charter stated that the GNWC line to Battleford had to pass by the “mouth of the Qu’Appelle River” which appears to mean where the Qu’Appelle River empties into the Assiniboine River. No information is available as to why the change was desired. The GNWC may have wanted to move its line to the north to obtain a better crossing of the Assiniboine.

However, by 1890, the GNWC was in financial trouble. The English owners of the GNWC wanted the completed mileage turned over to them, however, the contractor who built this mileage was declining to do so. While the owners had advanced the contractor 100,000 British pounds, the line had cost the contractor 200,000 British pounds.

To complicate matters the line was not constructed to the agreed-upon standards. Litigation ensued on this matter. However, until the law case was settled and the line turned over to the GNWC, the bonds the GNWC had hoped to float in the market to finance construction of the remainder of the GNWC could not be sold. The GNWC went into bankruptcy in 1891, was reorganized under new management and began operations in December of 1891.

It would appear the GNWC was not a terribly profitable operation given the length of line it operated. Today there is no definite information as to the cars and locomotives the GNWC owned and there is no information as to whether the railway even owned a shop to service the equipment.

The GNWC was leased in 1900 by the CPR. The CPR extended the line west to Miniota in 1900, built a line from Forrest to Lenore and a line from north of Forrest to MacGregor.

In the early years of CPR operation on these lines, all had daily passenger service to and from Brandon along with freight train service which was probably on an “as-needed” basis. The effects of the Depression in the 1930s was to reduce the service on each of the lines to twice-weekly “mixed” trains.

These trains left Brandon around 7 a.m. and returned to Brandon in the late afternoon. The train was called “mixed” as it consisted of passenger equipment and freight cars. Probably the passenger equipment varied according to demand and could consist of an express car, baggage car and a passenger car or a “combine” which was a car outfitted with a bulkhead in the middle with one half equipped to carry passengers and the other half equipped to carry baggage. The baggage could consist of passenger luggage, mail-order parcels, cream cans, egg crates, shipments of poultry, beer and about anything else the CPR could get into the car through the side doors of the combine or baggage cars used on these mixed trains.

If traffic volumes were large enough, then an additional express or baggage car would be added to a train. The passenger equipment used on mixed trains was usually wooden equipment retired from main line service.

Heat in the passenger cars could be supplied by steam taken off the engine, however, the cars probably were also equipped with pot-bellied stoves. Freight cars were usually marshalled in a mixed train between the engine and the passenger equipment as railways had found that it was safest to handle cars carrying passengers at the rear of the train wherever possible. As most freight cars did not come equipped with steam lines, when in a mixed train with freight cars, the passenger trains would need stoves for heat. Probably in the wintertime, there were few freight cars on these trains so steam heat could often be used.

The freight cars on the mixed trains on these lines were largely boxcars hauling grain but could also be tank cars hauling petroleum products, stock cars and flatcars hauling farm machinery. As the mixed train made its way down the line, it would stop at the stations on the line to pick up and drop off passengers and less than carload shipments.

While at the station the train crew would do any necessary switching of freight cars at grain elevators, dealerships and other locations around the station. So mixed trains were leisurely affairs. If a loaded stock car was included in the train then it could be quite a smelly one as well!

Stations along these lines served a number of purposes. As the stations were linked by telegraph the stations could aid in train control. While individual trains on these lines were probably governed by written train orders issued before a train left Brandon, changes to these orders did occur and could be telegraphed to a station or stations which would pass the revised order to the train crew.

The station and the agent would also handle less than carload freight such as mail-order parcels, cream cans and so on. The station agent also kept the car order book which grain elevators at this location had to use to order boxcars for the loading of grain. The agent would also notify the train dispatcher when cars were loaded and available for forwarding to the Lakehead. The agent would also notify the dispatcher when tank cars and other cars unloaded at a location were available to be picked up and returned to where they were needed for loading.

In the days before the modern telephone system appeared, the railways operated a public telegram service using their telegraph systems and the station agent was largely responsible for taking down the message, sending and receiving it and forwarding on to people any messages sent to them via the station. If a train was passing through a station without stopping, the agent was expected to inspect the train as it passed by to watch for anything that may be out of order.

With the development of modern roads in the area by the early 1960s, passenger service came to an end and mixed trains on these lines were discontinued. Freight service resumed, however, over time all of the lines were abandoned. The bulk of the trackage was gone in the first round of branch line abandonment in the early 1970s with the remainder gone by the early 2000s.

While few traces of the GNWC can now be found, this trackage should not be seen as a failure. It opened up a sizable slice of west-central Manitoba to settlement in a time period when the only transport alternative was a wagon which was slow, limited in capacity and hindered by poor or non-existent roads.

While settlers often did move into areas of the Prairies well in advance of the building of a rail line into the area, they often struggled with long hauls to market for the commodities they did produce. These long hauls were not only expensive but gave rise to bitter claims by the settlers that grain buyers would offer lower prices to them as the buyer knew the producer was not likely to haul the grain back home.

When rail lines appeared, so did competition to purchase producers’ grain along with the opportunities to produce other commodities such as cream, hogs and so on as transporting them to market was now possible. In addition, the people in the areas enjoyed more competition for the sale of inputs, supplies and services to them as merchants followed the rail lines into various areas.

The post The Great North West Central Railway appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The bureau, the United States’ largest farm organization, also supports NAFTA.

“My message to you this morning is the Government of Canada is committed to working with you to strengthen Canada-U.S. relationship for the good of our people, our businesses and our economy,” said MacAulay, the first Canadian agriculture minister to address the 99-year-old farm organization.

“The fact of the matter is we’re friends whether we like it or not. We’ve worked together too long.

“No two nations depend on each other more for their prosperity and for their security than Canada and the United States. And today that is even more vital than ever.”

• Read more: Mexico will leave NAFTA talks if Trump triggers process to withdraw
• Read more: Better trade deals coming for U.S. farmers, Trump says

MacAulay emphasized NAFTA and trade are important for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Since NAFTA came into force 23 years ago NAFTA partners’ agricultural trade with each other tripled, while U.S. ag trade to Canada and Mexico quadrupled.

“Last year more than $47 billion worth of agricultural products passed over our borders,” he said. “That includes more than $600 million right here in Tennessee.”

Trade important

MacAulay said the U.S. has an $8-billion goods and services trade surplus with Canada; Canada is the top export market for two-thirds of U.S. states and trade with Canada supports nine million jobs — 170,000 in Tennessee alone.

“Any barriers to a huge volume of trade and investment between us, and any attempt to disrupt and dismantle the cross-border supply chain on the continent, would hurt our economies and our livelihoods as citizens,” MacAulay said. “You know as well that neither of our countries can afford to bring about policy changes that roll back about a quarter-century of predictability, openness and collaboration in North America.”

MacAulay’s speech wasn’t all facts and figures. He employed some ‘down east’ charm delivered in a warm Prince Edward Island lilt that garnered laughter and applause.

“I think you are fortunate to have Sonny Purdue as your secretary of agriculture in Washington,” MacAulay said. “And he’s a good friend of mine. And he’s a farmer and I am. And he knows what we think.”

Earlier MacAulay spoke about their first meeting after he heard Purdue wanted to meet.

“I can tell you if the secretary of agriculture for the United States of America wants to see me he’s going to see me,” MacAulay said. “That’s the way this works.”

Noting trade was a two-way street, MacAulay said Canada has exported “pretty important stuff” to Nashville “like Shania Twain.”

And with the Nashville Predators looking like they could be in the Stanley Cup playoffs thanks to former Montreal Canadiens player P.K. Subban, MacAulay said: “I can tell you I want the Predators to help me on any trade deal…”

Supply management supported

Later at a news conference in Nashville MacAulay said Canada will not forsake Canada’s supply-managed dairy sector, noting all countries have sensitive areas, especially in agriculture, including the U.S., which protects sugar production.

Former Canadian agricultural trade negotiator Mike Gifford, noting Canadian dairy production is rising, has suggested a Canadian compromise would be to allow more American milk to enter Canada by increasing tariff-rate quotas.

When asked about the idea by Canadian reporters Jan. 8 MacAulay said: “It has been made very clear to myself and our government that we are going to fully support the supply management system because it has been, without a question, a model for the world.

“We see absolutely no reason to change our system. All counties have certain things that they wish to protect.

“The fact is, why would you dismantle a system that is so efficient?” he said in response to another reporter’s question.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who is skeptical about trade deals and who has threatened to tear up NAFTA, was scheduled to speak to the farm bureau Jan. 8. MacAulay said that was an important move because the president will be in the same room as several thousand NAFTA supporters.

“Farmers are business people,” he said. “They fully understand what this has done for them over the last 23 years and they do not want anybody to do something in order to cripple that movement because it affects the GDP in whatever country you’re in.”

MacAulay also told reporters in Nashville, Canada continues to negotiate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal.

“We are a trading nation and we intend to proceed in seeking trade with any country around the world in an appropriate fashion,” he said. “That’s simply where TPP is.”

Some issues are unresolved, “… but are we going ahead? Yes.”

Asked by a Canadian reporter if Canada will sign on to TPP MacAulay said: “Any deal we make has to be a good deal for Canadians. It has to be a good deal for everybody and I think the NAFTA deal is a model for that.”

The post MacAulay takes case for NAFTA to U.S. farmers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.