Answers to those questions aren’t coming from OmniTrax, the Denver-based railway that operates the port, as company officials have remained mostly silent since issuing layoff notices July 25.

“It’s unfortunate that this is happening up there for sure, but we want them (residents of Churchill) to know there are a lot of people working hard to try and find a solution for them,” said Elden Boon, president of the Hudson Bay Route Association (HBRA) at Virden, Man.

Churchill, on the shore of Hudson Bay in northern Manitoba, is home to about 800 people. The port was North America’s only deep water Arctic seaport, and was the largest employer in the town, hiring about 10 per cent of the population during seasonal operations, the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees said.

“It’s about these communities in the North having a great economy, and their communities. It’s about people having jobs and a brighter future,” Boon said.

The federal government has listened to the HBRA’s concerns about the port’s closure, he said, but added there is no concrete solution in the works at the moment.

The port had been receiving federal funding through the Churchill Port Utilization Program. That program was set to run until the end of the 2016 shipping season.

The closure comes at an especially inopportune time, as harvest nears and old-crop grain sits loaded and destined for the port, said Dan Mazier, president of Manitoba farm group Keystone Agricultural Producers.

“Those contracts were established, they were signed, sealed, and just not delivered on. We closed the port, so what does this do to our reputation as far as exporting?”

Farmers have been directly impacted by the closure of the port, and long-term it will have an effect on the value chain, he said.

The port had been touted for eliminating time-consuming navigation for the Prairie farmer, reducing handling costs of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and avoiding congestion at other Canadian ports.

The port moves a relatively small amount of grain, but has supported movement during backups. The Port of Churchill had a long-term average of moving about 500,000 tonnes of grain per season.

However, the port only moved about 184,000 tonnes of grain in 2015.

“No matter what kind of jam there was, it was an outlet. If anything it’s going to add more pressure to the Eastern and Western ports,” Mazier said.

Farmers are expected to start harvesting near the end of August and into September. The Western Grain Elevators Association says grain harvest could reach 74 million tonnes this year, which is near 2014’s record-level 76.8 million tonnes.

“We obviously will have a pretty good crop coming off very soon, and here we are closing off our export port now. I don’t think that bodes well for the grain industry,” Boon said.

OmniTrax officials did not respond to a request for comment.

— Jade Markus writes for Commodity News Service Canada, a Winnipeg company specializing in grain and commodity market reporting. Follow her at @jade_markus on Twitter.

The post Churchill layoffs in effect, uncertainties remain appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Both are important to Canadian sovereignty in the North and are vital to the economies of Churchill and other northern communities.

From a farmer’s perspective the more shipping options available the better. But if Churchill — Canada’s only northern deepwater port — ceases to export grain it won’t have much impact on the grain business because the volumes are so low.

Last calendar year just 186,000 tonnes of grain were exported from Churchill by OmniTrax, the American company that in 1997 bought the port and rail line that runs 810 miles from The Pas.

In the 2014-15 crop year, ending July 31, 2015, Churchill exported 472,000 tonnes of grain. The Port of Thunder Bay, which is where most of that grain would move otherwise, handled 8.2 million tonnes. Bottom line: Thunder Bay could’ve handled all Churchill’s traffic in just two weeks.

The West moved 37.86 million tonnes of grain. Churchill saw just one per cent of it. Moreover, those exports were subsidized.

Still, many farmers have a soft spot for Churchill and rightly so. Traditionally, Churchill, which is closer to some European, African and South American markets than Thunder Bay, has given grain farmers a freight advantage of up to $30 a tonne. But the ability to capture those savings disappeared Aug. 1, 2012, when the previous federal government ended the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly.

Economic theory holds savings will be captured by grain companies and OmniTrax because farmers in the Churchill catchment area don’t have cheaper alternatives to force companies to share the benefits.

Cheap ocean freight has also eroded Churchill’s advantage. More ‘salties’ (smaller ocean-going ships that can navigate the St. Lawrence Seaway’s locks) are coming to Thunder Bay, reducing the handling costs associated with moving grain via lakers to the lower St. Lawrence where it is unloaded, only to be loaded later on larger ocean-going ships. The double handle costs money.

Wheat board supporters predicted Churchill’s demise, but it didn’t take great insight. Grain companies — even the farmer-owned pools — repeatedly said they preferred to ship grain through their own terminals. It makes sense to maximize your own assets and capture the value earned from grain blending and screenings.

Before OmniTrax bought the 140,000-tonne-capacity Churchill terminal, it was owned by the federal government. The wheat board told grain companies where to deliver board grain.

OmniTrax lacks a country elevator system to feed its northern facility and grain companies aren’t excited about the prospect of feeding it.

“Of course we want to ship as much into our own terminals as we can,” Richardson International spokeswoman Tracey Shelton said in an interview July 28.

“We want to use our facilities that we are investing money into and we are continuously upgrading. And certainly Churchill does have some disadvantages.”

The list of disadvantages is long:

• The port has a short, three-month season, due to ice. The wheat board held grain back filling Churchill in late winter giving the port a running start when its season began in August.
• The terminal, opened in 1931, is old, but has had some upgrades.
• The rail line to Churchill, built on shifting permafrost, is in poor shape. Sometimes trains can only travel nine m.p.h. Derailments and delays are common.

“We just completed a massive expansion (of our terminal) in Vancouver where we nearly doubled storage capacity,” Shelton added.

“We are putting through grain and setting records for unload and loading times and really turning the facility many, many, many times a year.”

Their 170,000-tonne terminal moves five million tonnes of grain a year and Richardson expects to crank it up to six million.

The Port of Churchill has never had it easy. Getting it built was a struggle. The Canadian Northern Railway started to lay track from Winnipeg to Hudson Bay Junction in 1908, but declined to go north, despite federal government aid. With more government funds the next year, the railway headed to Nelson, which is farther south than Churchill, but work ceased during the First World War.

When construction resumed it was decided to go north to Churchill where the water was deeper. The Hudson Bay line was completed in September 1929 at a cost of $45 million, but it wasn’t until 1931 that the grain terminal began operating.

When the news broke last week that the port, which is up for sale with the railway, wouldn’t ship grain this year, a lot of people were surprised given it’s easier to sell a “going concern.” It looked like a tactic to pressure governments. Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister later confirmed that it was.

Governments have already spent $130 million on the port and railway and Pallister said July 28 he wouldn’t give in to a private, American company seeking more bailouts.

The Port of Churchill and the railway are much more than the sum of their parts. They account for an estimated $40 million in economic activity. It’s unthinkable that the Manitoba and federal governments would abandon the line. And without the 70 or so direct jobs the grain terminal provides, employing about 10 per cent of the town’s population, some question Churchill’s viability.

Sinclair Harrison, the former president of the Hudson Bay Route Association, which has lobbied for the northern port longer than it has existed, believes Churchill can succeed if it handles a million tonnes of grain a year. Climate change is already making the shipping season longer, but also makes the rail bed less stable.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper pledged to establish an Arctic naval port. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should consider building it in Churchill. It would be a better use of government money than subsidizing grain exports from a port grain companies don’t want to use.

The post Analysis: Canada needs Churchill, but do grain farmers? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Legislation to create Churchill Arctic Port Canada Inc., a non-government agency, to develop economic opportunities, spur job creation and ensure the viability of Churchill, was introduced in the Manitoba legislature Nov. 21.

OmniTRAX Canada, which owns the port and the railway that serves it, supports the move, its president Merv Tweed said in a news release distributed late Friday afternoon.

However, earlier in the day the Winnipeg Free Press reported Tweed as saying OmniTRAX was caught flat footed about the announcement.

“It just seems odd as the sole owner of the port and the rail (that serves it) that we would not be more intimately involved,” Tweed was quoted as saying.

Calls requesting an interview with Tweed were not returned by press time Monday. But Sinc Harrison, president of the Hudson Bay Route Association (HBRA), said he was told OmniTRAX was not consulted.

“That isn’t fair to OmniTRAX since it is the major player,” Harrison said.

The HBRA was created to promote Churchill. If the new corporation will do that the association supports it, Harrison said. However, the devil is in the details and they won’t be spelled out until the regulations are prepared, he added.

The Manitoba government’s news release the Churchill Arctic Port Canada Inc. legislation, included words of support from Lloyd Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg and chair of the board of directors of the Churchill Gateway Development Corporation and Diane Gray, president and CEO, CentrePort Canada Inc., but not a peep from OmniTRAX.

However, in his own release Tweed said OmniTRAX is pleased.

“We look forward to working with the province and to providing our input through the legislative process to ensure that the new corporation continues to build on the joint success we’ve had over the last 16 years,” he said. “This includes key infrastructure investments of over $110 million from OmniTRAX and $20 million each from the governments of Manitoba and Canada.”

The corporation will attract and co-ordinate investment linked to the Port of Churchill and support research, planning and partnership development, Infrastructure and Transportation Minister Steve Ashton said.

The idea for the new agency was first raised by the Canada-Manitoba Task Force on the Future of Churchill. The task force suggested a more inclusive governance model could enable the port to handle multiple commodities with multiple shippers.

The announcement prompted some observers to wonder if the new agency would take over ownership of the port.

That isn’t the case, a Manitoba government official said in an email.

Another official likened the new agency to Winnipeg’s CentrePort Canada.

Details about the corporation’s board of directors and definition of the land area involved will be in the regulations, an official said. OmniTRAX and other interested parties will be consulted, he added.

The port took a hit when the federal government ended the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk Aug. 1, 2012. The wheat board was the port’s biggest customer and observers predicted grain exports would decline because grain companies would prefer exporting through their own facilities, all located at other ports.

The federal government announced a five-year, $25-million subsidy for firms exporting grain through Churchill. There are three years of funding left. By then OmniTRAX hopes to have built grain exports and have found other products to ship, including light sweet crude oil.

Ashton is quoted in the Free Press as saying there are environmental and safety concerns with moving oil through the northern port.

One of Churchill’s best shipping seasons ended earlier this month when the last grain ship left the port bringing total grain exports in 2013 to 635,000 tonnes compared to 450,000 last year.

The post Churchill gets another booster appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Although Churchill is the nearest saltwater port for Prairie forage growers, a consultant’s analysis has ruled out its potential as a cheaper option shipping hay to other countries.

“We had hoped the Churchill port would be able to play an important part in the development of an overseas export market, but the study has proven otherwise,” said Brent McCannell, Manitoba Forage Council’s executive director.

Allen Tyrchniewicz, the author of the report, said that the port offers the lowest freight costs when on water, but that there are many challenges surrounding Churchill.

One of the biggest is the fact that compressed and baled forages are typically shipped in containers, and the port currently only handles container traffic within the Hudson Bay region, not overseas shipments.

“With the exception of a few very small container ships that move containers around to the communities around Hudson Bay, there are no ocean-going container ships that actually come in,” said Tyrchniewicz, adding that a minimum shipment for forages would require at least 10-20 containers.

With the United Arab Emirates contracting out for 400,000 tonnes of forages for the Middle Eastern country’s camel, horse and dairy herd, strong demand exists.

“That’s considerabley more than just a couple of containers,” he said.

Mark Cool, vice-president of terminal operations for OmniTRAX Canada, said that the port can handle containers, but enticing a container ship from a major importing nation like China to the port would require that a critical mass of volume must be achieved.

“If they got to the point where they had a full shipload of containers, that’s easily doable here,” he said. “It’s all about quantities. You need to get 500-600 containers in here that are destined for a certain point.”

For shippers offering small volumes, busier ports such as Vancouver are better able to accommodate their needs, he added.

Tyrchniewicz added that another problem is that shipping is a high-volume, low-cost game, and the companies involved are loath to see their “sea cans” idle for any amount of time. That’s why rates on very heavily used routes such as China to Europe are “ridiculously low” compared to other lanes.

With only a few dozen ships moving into the Port of Churchill every year, and virtually no inbound cargoes aside from a shipment of fertilizer from Russia a few years ago, Churchill is a hard sell for the big players. “When you graph that, Churchill doesn’t even show up because it’s such a small volume moved,” said Tyrchniewicz.

Livestock never takes a holiday from eating, so buyers such as the UAE need constant supplies year round. With Churchill’s shipping season only running from July to November, and high insurance costs at times when ice is an issue, the port faces serious challenges attracting such trade, he added.

With upgrades, improvements and/or some structural changes, Churchill could potentially become a shipping alternative in the future for forage producers in the eastern Prairies, depending on whether global warming extends the season, and if grain companies find the port advantageous for serving certain markets.

“Also, if the CWB finds that the grain companies are charging them too much to move product, maybe they will end up using the Port of Churchill more,” said Tyrchniewicz.

“One never knows. In transportation, you have to watch closely and don’t blink.”

Sinclair Harrison, president of the Hudson Bay Route Association, a group dedicated to promoting the Churchill port, was in the northern city last week for a two-day symposium to discuss the port’s future after the CWB monopoly ends this August.

Harrison, who also sits on the Churchill Gateway Development Corporation’s board, said that plans are in the works to look at other commodities, as well as expanding warehouse space. Improving the port’s capacity for handling container traffic came up in discussions, he added.

“There’s no reason that container ships couldn’t dock at the port here just like grain ships,” said Harrison.

The post Churchill port no solution for forage exporters, report says appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But for this “new entity” to survive the federal government must make major concessions, including assuming CWB employees’ pension liability, says chair Allen Oberg.

“It’s our view that it’s the government’s responsibility to pick up that tab and it will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Oberg.

“There’s no way that farmers should be responsible for that.”

The issue has been raised with Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz’s staff, so the minister himself should be aware of it, Oberg said.

“Those things need to be dealt with whether the organization is just wound down completely or if it’s transitioned into something else because all those costs will come to bear,” Oberg said.

“If those costs were transferred to the new organization that would be a recipe for disaster. It will have enough disadvantages as it is.”

One of those disadvantages is not owning any country or port grain-handling facilities. The CWB has no retained earnings because all revenue, after expenses, is returned to farmers, therefore the federal government must provide it with working capital or give it regulated access to Canada’s grain pipeline, said Oberg.

Grain companies say a revamped CWB will be a new competitor, and shouldn’t get special treatment. But the Grain Growers of Canada, an open-market advocate, says the board needs government help to get established if an open market is created. Ritz has said he’s willing to provide limited support.

Fleshing out an open-market model will take up much of the CWB’s planning session next week, Oberg said.

“It will just be advice,” he said. “This is a change that they have initiated. They’re the ones who have been promising a strong and viable new organization. Clearly that responsibility rests with them.

“We’d be quite willing to offer our advice and suggestions as to what a new organization would need.”

He said that under the right conditions, a revamped CWB could succeed as a grain company or broker in an open market, but it isn’t clear whether such an organization will return any more value to farmers than any other private company.

It’s also unclear who would own the CWB. There’s talk of turning it into a farmer-owned co-operative, but nobody knows how many farmers want that or the financial risk that will come with it.

Meanwhile, the Hudson Bay Route Association says the federal government should allow farmers to vote on the CWB’s marketing mandate. The association promotes grain exports through the Prairies’ only ocean port at Churchill.

“We are concerned that any reduction in the volume of shipments, including grain, through the Port of Churchill, will have a detrimental effect on the port and all of Canada,” association president Sinclair Harrison said in a news release.

The Canadian Wheat Board Alliance also issued a press release in support of a plebiscite, while the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association (WCWGA) responded with one condemning the move.

“The federal government has been perfectly clear, reassuring farmers that they will be following through on their campaign commitment to provide us with marketing choice,” said Kevin Bender, WCWGA president.

“Instead of spending our money on a futile producer vote, the wheat board should be focused on developing a business plan that will allow them (sic) to become a competitive choice for farmers.”

The WCWGA says there are many examples of co-operatives operating price pools, including Sunkist (citrus fruits), Sun-Maid (raisins), Blue Diamond (almonds) and Ocean Spray (cranberries). At least four grain companies in Australia offer grain pools, according to the WCWGA. allan@fbcpublishing.com

———

“It’sthegovernment’sresponsibilitytopickupthattabanditwillbeinthehundredsofmillionsofdollars.”

– ALLEN OBERG

The post CWB Working On Open-Market Model appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A huge monument now stands over the harbour in recognition of the fanatical defenders and their battle to keep open a vital route bringing in weapons and supplies to the rest of the country.

Today, Russia’s northernmost port and “Hero City” is touted as the European terminus of the Arctic Sea Bridge.

Compare that dramatic history to the other end of the link: Canada’s own Port of Churchill.

Completed in 1931, Churchill’s fortunes peaked in the 1970s, when huge shipments of wheat passed through the port on the way to Russia.

Since then, the port with four deep sea berths large enough for Panamax-sized vessels, has fallen on hard times. Amid fears that the Hudson Bay Railway line would be torn up, it was eventually sold to OmniTRAX in late 1997. The operator stuck a deal with grain company Louis Dreyfus in 2003, but that deal has since fallen through.

Since then, only the Canadian Wheat Board has been its main client. Last year, it shipped some 650,000 tonnes of grain through Churchill. After a hiatus of several years, some non-board peas and canola passed through as well.

NEVER CAUGHT ON

Despite being in existence for 80 years, the Port of Churchill has never really caught fire with Canadian exporters, said Eldon Boon, who sits on the Hudson Bay Route Association’s board of directors, a group that has been promoting the northern gateway for 67 years.

“The Russians can’t understand why we as Canadians don’t use this port more than we are,” said Boon, on the sidelines of the group’s recent annual convention.

That fact remains, despite the port’s convenient location in the middle of the continent. If it were to be used to its fullest potential, he added, it could serve as an important alternative to the existing eastern and western routes, Vancouver and the Lakehead at Thunder Bay, and reduce shipping costs for Prairie farmers and potash exporters by nearly $20 per tonne.

But lately, with interest in the North growing for reasons as diverse as maintaining Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and interest in the vast mineral resources in the region, the stars may finally be aligning for the port, said Sinclair Harrison, who also sits on the HBRA board.

“Churchill is the natural point for resupplying all those northern communities,” said Harrison. “But when it comes to politics, there’s not the votes that there are in Vancouver, Thunder Bay or the Golden Triangle.”

Getting resources committed to the northern community of just 1,000 permanent residents is a challenge, he added.

During the current election campaign, there has been talk of a “three coasts” solution to international trade, which Harrison finds encouraging. The problem, he said, is that governments like to spend money where it will bring them the most votes.

“We’ve got a western gateway established in legislation, and we’ve got a Maritime gateway – we should have an Arctic gateway,” he said. “Politicians are quick to talk about Canada being a country from coast to coast to coast, but when it comes to money, it’s just the two coasts that end up getting the money.”

LONGTIME LOBBY

The Hudson Bay Route Association, which has about 250 rural municipalities and individuals as members, operates with a budget of about $85,000 per year that it uses to drum up support for enhancing the Port of Churchill.

Last year’s target for grain shipments was one million tonnes, but the total fell well short. Churchill still lags behind the east-west routes, which saw about 30 million tonnes shipped.

Why?

“The grain companies don’t own the terminal,” said Harrison, who added that terminal ownership is a “major source of revenue” for shippers.

That leaves the CWB as the major force keeping the port alive. It can’t buy the port, however, because despite its recent purchase of lake ships, it is legally forbidden to own fixed assets.

One glimmer of hope for Churchill is the targeted doubling of Prairie potash production. Currently, freight transport capacity at the two major railways is “maxxed out,” he said.

That’s bad news for farmers, because grain, as a low-value commodity, tends to get parked on the sidings while high-value container shipments roar past.

One alternative to increase shipping capacity is Churchill’s deep water port, he said. But currently, there are no facilities at the port for handling potash.

Mike Spence, mayor of Churchill, who attended the convention, said the port is “vital” not only to the town’s survival, but also the northern region’s booming economy.

Part of the growing interest in the port is due to global warming, which some predict will leave the Arctic route ice free for longer periods, and possibly open up the fabled Northwest Passage to the Orient.

Spence said that climate change is an observable phenomenon for Churchill residents. Unlike Russia’s Murmansk port, which is ice free year round due to ocean currents, Churchill’s season typically runs from July to November.

LONGER SEASON

But in recent years, global warming has added about a month to the town’s fleeting summer.

“Last year, we had no ice until about mid-December,” said Spence. “That tells you that it is changing, and there’s an opportunity for the port to expand on that.”

Melting permafrost, which could leave buildings sinking into thawing mire is a concern, but he added that so far it has not been a problem in Churchill.

Boon admits that a warming Arctic also threatens the Hudson Bay rail line, which runs 1,300 km from The Pas to Churchill over frozen muskeg.

“It could become worse,” he said. “But you deal with those things when the time comes.”

Manitoba’s government is a strong proponent of the port, which could serve as a vital link to the centre of the North American continent.

Boon noted that $68 million has been committed to upgrading the rail link and the terminal by the federal and provincial governments as well as OmniTRAX over three years.

Improvements have been made as part of the deal, he added, but more is needed.

In the meantime, the HBRA will continue recruiting new members within the Prairie region with the aim of increasing its support base and stepping up lobbying efforts for better transportation service on Class One railways. daniel. winters@fbcpublishing.com

———

“TheRussianscan’t understandwhywe asCanadiansdon’t utilizethisportmore thanweare.”

– ELDON BOON

The post Group Promotes Canada’s Forgotten “Blue Water” Port appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Harrison of Moosomin, Sask. has been elected president of the Hudson Bay Route Association (HBRA). Harrison, longtime president of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition and former president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, was named to the position at a board of directors’ meeting in Virden following the HBRA’s 68th annual convention on April 15-16. He takes the helm from Arnold Grambo, who led the HBRA since 1994. Eldon Boon of Virden was named first vice-president. Jim Hallick of Sturgis, Sask. became second vice. – Staff

More flexible hours:New legislation

will allow Manitoba businesses to more easily introduce flexible work hours for employees, a Manitoba government release says. “Businesses have told us they want a streamlined process and employees have said they want the option of more flexible hours to balance their work hours with their home and family needs,” said Labour and Immigration Minister Jennifer Howard. Proposed changes to the labour code would allow for individual agreements between employers and employees to alter the standard hours of work (flex-time).

– Staff

Free well testing:The

Manitoba government is waiving the usual fees for having well water tested for bacteria until June 30 to allow people who depend on private wells or cisterns that might have been contaminated by flood waters to have them tested.

Manitoba Water Stewardship and Manitoba Health is also advising everyone who uses private water supplies including wells, cisterns or unfiltered surface-water sources affected by flooding to boil their water for at least one minute before consumption or use a safe alternative such as bottled water. – Staff Port project:Viterra Inc. has inked a deal to lease and operate the Montreal Port Authority (MPA) grain terminal. The Canadian Grain Commission-licensed transfer elevator operates year round and has a storage capacity of 262,000 tonnes. Located in the deepest inland seaport in North America, it has direct access to both CN and CP rail networks.

In a release, Viterra spokesman Bob Miller called it an “excellent strategic fit.” Meanwhile, MPA officials say the arrangement should bring more grain traffic through the port. –Staff Slow start to seeding:

Cool temperatures, 1 to 8 below normal, continued to hinder snowmelt and field drying over the past week, according to CWB weather and crop analysts. However, there was little precipitation (less than 10 mm) in most Prairie growing areas, which was a positive factor. No seeding activity has begun to date, but is expected to commence soon, provided conditions remain dry. By comparison, about four per cent of Prairie crops are typically seeded by this time. Last year, 12 per cent of the crop had been planted. – CWB Bulletin Bad winter:CP Rail is blaming “unusually severe” winter weather for its poor performance. “The first quarter was an extremely difficult winter with weather-related outages significantly constraining our capacity and our service to our customers,” CP CEO Fred Green said in a release.

CP’s total grain handle for the quarter was 99,400 carloads, down 12.2 per cent, while its traffic in sulphur and fertilizers was up 9.5 per cent at 48,500 carloads. The company, he said, is “intensely focused on improving network velocity and service reliability.”

– Staff Hard assets:Private capital investment in farming is expected to more than double to around $5 billion to $7 billion in the next couple of years, Chris Erickson, managing director of Boston-based farm consultancy HighQuest told Reuters.

“What we are seeing right now is a lot of interest from institutional investors, private capital, pensions and endowment foundations to invest in real assets. Farmland today globally provides a very interesting investment scenario based on global supply-and-demand fundamentals.”

What’s for dinner?:Move

over, beef. Camel meat could become the newest Australian export as early as 2012 if an Egyptian businessman is successful with his bid to open a slaughterhouse and meat-processing plant in a rural South Australian town. Magdy El Ashram’s ambitions would not only bring camel meat, which he says is healthier than beef, to dinner tables around the world, it would also reduce a feral camel population in the Australian outback that has caused serious ecological problems, and create up to 300 jobs in a place that badly needs them.

The post In Brief… – for Apr. 28, 2011 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The 2009 crop took a year to get all the money from the Canadian Wheat Board. My cost to plant and harvest 160 acres was $25,897. When I got my last payment of $23,686 I lost $2,211 and did not charge for labour.

I got $2.45 per bushel for No. 1 wheat with charges for cleaning and freight. What a joke; my cost to plant was $160 per acre and I got paid $147 per acre, for a loss of $14 per acre on a 60-bushel crop. I was with the wheat board all those years and got to be the first to get the 50-year award. I guess I will have to sell my grain to other companies; wheat should sell for $6 to $7 in order to keep farming with all the high costs.

Jack Pawich Cartwright, Man. that won the day. I would be interested to know what formal training or practical experience on rail costing that John DePape has on his resumé. Travacon has determined that railways save $3 per tonne when they make one stop to pick up 100 hopper cars. Farmers are now asking why the railways use an $8 incentive for a $3 saving. If John thinks the saving is different than $3, does he have an analysis, or is he simply being coached by the railways?

The CWB plays a vital role in transportation and their level-of- service complaint in 1997 resulted in $30 million being returned to farmers from the CPR and an undisclosed settlement from CN Rail.

The Canadian Wheat Board played a major role in the positive CTA decision that, during the 2006-07 crop year, CN breached its legal obligations to provide adequate rail service. The CWB supported these farmers and several inland terminals involved. There are numerous other examples of the CWB’s positive role in transportation.

What actual results has DePape provided to farmers?

We know that DePape has worked for Cargill Ltd., Sparks Commodities Ltd., the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, the Alberta government and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. The Frontier Centre has noted CWB haters Al Loyns, Charlie Mayer, and Rolf Penner all playing prominent roles.

DePape is also listed as an adviser to the Alberta-government- funded Alberta Barley Growers Association.

As renowned American author Mark Twain once stated, “Tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions’ is.”

In his essay, Twain explained that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter. Twain, if he were around today, would describe DePape as having “corn pone” opinions. That is, opinions very related to his past, his present and future financial well-being. Kenneth Sigurdson

Swan River, Man. have. There never was support for the open-market candidates, even though they may have had resources from taxpayers and corporations to win the CWB elections.

Some farmers today sell their grain production to hog and cattle operations and feed mills. There are no regulations for any farmer stating he or she must sell only to the CWB.

There are no more public farmer meetings where farmers can discuss the problems in farm policies. Gerry Ritz only works with the media, makes all the changes in farm policies without real input from farmers and we as farmers cannot change his mind. And if we oppose his view, Gerry Ritz will crucify farm groups or individuals. Farmers have been divided too many times by the Tory government over the past five years.

The CWB is the last organization that farmers have left with any rules or regulations that treat all farmers equally. It’s beneficial for young and other farmers to know that all sales money made on their product will be returned to them and not the shareholders.

Eric Sagan Melville, Sask.

Farmers on the fringe of benefits

I must disagree with John DePape (CWB director has his facts wrong,Co-operator,Feb. 3, page 5) when he says that “farmers in general are the greatest beneficiary of the efficiencies of multi-car loading.” As a result of the introduction of the revenue cap, multi-car incentives have not come out of the railways’ pockets, yet they keep all the savings created by multi-car loading. When the Grain Monitor hired by the federal government was asked this question at the 2010 Hudson Bay Route Association convention, he said farmers had not been the primary benefactors of the efficiency gains. John DePape is mistaken.

Sinclair Harrison Chairman, Farmer Rail Car

Coalition Moosomin, Sask.

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)

The post Letters – for Feb. 17, 2011 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The regulator last week dismissed a level-of-service complaint filed late last year by Cam Goff, a central-Saskatchewan farmer and Canadian Wheat Board director.

Goff’s December complaint followed Canadian National (CN) Railway’s decision last summer to delist 53 Prairie sites where farmers can load their own grain cars, including nine in Manitoba.

Although Goff’s filing referred to “the loss of rail access by thousands of farmers at 53 sites,” the CTA said it could only concern itself with CN’s decision to delist a site at Allan, Sask., about 50 km southeast of Saskatoon.

The CTA, in its release Aug. 4, cited evidence that Goff had only used the producer car site at Allan three times since 2005-06 and “future traffic offered by (Goff) at the Allan site is not certain.”

And Goff’s requests for producer car loading at Allan are also “not likely to be in sufficient volume for the agency to reasonably require CN to maintain service at that location,” the CTA said.

Plus, the CTA said, Goff will still have access to CN’s producer car loading site at nearby Hanley, Sask. The agency quoted Goff as saying he uses the Hanley site near his farm “out of personal preference while business decisions dictate the use of the Allan site.”

Specifically, the CTA said, Goff feared delisting the Allan site would block his best access to the CWB’s Churchill Storage Program. Access to that program would still be available to him at Saskatoon, the CTA said.

The Canada Transportation Act’s “level-of-service” provisions do not oblige CN to maintain and operate all existing or requested producer car loading sites, the CTA ruled.

“Requiring railway companies to do so would render meaningless another provision of the act under which sidings may be delisted, a process which CN followed for the 53 sites.”

Goff, whose supporting interveners included the CWB, National Farmers Union, Hudson Bay Route Association and Producer Car Shippers of Canada, had asked the CTA to refuse to allow the delisting of any more sites, and to deny the removal of infrastructure from any sites already delisted.CN said last September that of the 53 sites to be delisted, three-quarters of the sidings in question hadn’t been used in three years and the remainder had seen less than five cars.

The post Regulator Dismisses Producer Car Complaint – for Aug. 12, 2010 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The regulator last week dismissed a level-of-service complaint filed late last year by Cam Goff, a central-Saskatchewan farmer and Canadian Wheat Board director.

Goff’s December complaint followed Canadian National (CN) Railway’s decision last summer to delist 53 Prairie sites where farmers can load their own grain cars, including nine in Manitoba.

Although Goff’s filing referred to “the loss of rail access by thousands of farmers at 53 sites,” the CTA said it could only concern itself with CN’s decision to delist a site at Allan, Sask., about 50 km southeast of Saskatoon.

The CTA, in its release Aug. 4, cited evidence that Goff had only used the producer car site at Allan three times since 2005-06 and “future traffic offered by (Goff) at the Allan site is not certain.”

And Goff’s requests for producer car loading at Allan are also “not likely to be in sufficient volume for the agency to reasonably require CN to maintain service at that location,” the CTA said.

Plus, the CTA said, Goff will still have access to CN’s producer car loading site at nearby Hanley, Sask. The agency quoted Goff as saying he uses the Hanley site near his farm “out of personal preference while business decisions dictate the use of the Allan site.”

Specifically, the CTA said, Goff feared delisting the Allan site would block his best access to the CWB’s Churchill Storage Program. Access to that program would still be available to him at Saskatoon, the CTA said.

The Canada Transportation Act’s “level-of-service” provisions do not oblige CN to maintain and operate all existing or requested producer car loading sites, the CTA ruled.

“Requiring railway companies to do so would render meaningless another provision of the act under which sidings may be delisted, a process which CN followed for the 53 sites.”

Goff, whose supporting interveners included the CWB, National Farmers Union, Hudson Bay Route Association and Producer Car Shippers of Canada, had asked the CTA to refuse to allow the delisting of any more sites, and to deny the removal of infrastructure from any sites alreadydelisted.CN said last September that of the 53 sites to be delisted, three-quarters of the sidings in question hadn’t been used in three years and the remainder had seen less than five cars.

The post Regulator Dismisses Producer Car Complaint – for Aug. 12, 2010 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.