An emerging consensus

Murray Mandryk points out yet another area where the Cons are backtracking on a promise to rural western Canada, as they appear to be siding with CN Rail to preserve a severely one-sided set of transportation regulations:

For a while last spring, it actually looked as if Harper's new Conservative MPs in the West were making headway in the long-standing issue of regulatory transportation reform in the grain-handling industry.

"We felt we were making very good progress," said Wade Sobkowich, executive director of the Winnipeg-based Western Grain Elevator Association, in a recent interview.

The association representing all the western grainhandlers, including Agricore United, Cargill Ltd., James Richardson International Ltd., Louis Dreyfus Canada Ltd., Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., Paterson Global Foods Inc., the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Weyburn Inland Terminal Ltd., had even successfully solicited support from the mining, forestry and petroleum industries on a package of regulatory and legislative reforms, Sobkowich said.

Also onside were western Conservative MPs, including the dozen from Saskatchewan, who -- according to Sobkowich -- vowed they were equally determined to address the "shortfalls, inefficiencies and failures" of the railway system affecting grainhandlers. Those problems are too numerous to list, Sobkowich said, but one big regulatory issue has been ensuring that rail companies face the same penalties as grainhandlers.

For example, grainhandlers have a mere 24-hour period to load 100-car unit trains, he explained. (You may recall that one of the railways' arguments for the demise of the country elevator system was the better servicing of the more efficient unit trains). Failure to meet these obligations results in penalties or loss of incentives, which means inland terminals can't take deliveries during that period.

However, if the rail companies don't supply the unit trains on the day they are required, grain companies wind up losing deliveries for a day or three. Yet the railways don't face reciprocal penalties...

(W)hile the federal government seemed initially eager to implement the changes, that quickly changed early last summer and the changes have not been adopted, Sobkowich said.

Now, the Conservative government and Transport Canada are suggesting that the grainhandling companies should reach a consensus before any such changes regulatory changes are implemented.

So what happened? Sobkowich won't speculate. But it's worth noting that CN Rail made it known early last summer that it opposed these changes. It's also worth noting that CN is headquartered in Quebec, where Transport Canada Minister Lawrence Cannon resides. It's also worth noting that Quebec is where Harper's Conservatives want to win more seats...

Sound familiar? It should. This is the exact tactic the federal government is using over its promise to Saskatchewan to remove non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. Make a promise to West and when it displeases eastern interests, claim it can't be kept because there's no consensus.

Sadly, it's the same old story.

Needless to say, there doesn't appear to be any particular reason for CN to offer its support to a consensus aimed at reducing its current advantage over its customers. Which means that the Cons' excuse will likely ensure that the current "shortfalls, inefficiencies and failures" continue as long as the Cons remain in power.

Now, it's well and good to seek consensus on an issue to the extent reasonably possible. But I don't recall anything in the Cons' platform about refusing to take any action which couldn't be agreed to by all affected parties. And rightly not, given the near-certainty that any issue will involve competing interests where it's impossible to completely satisfy all sides.

Nor could one find a similar principle in the Cons' actions in government, as dissenters have typically been excluded from decision-making processes (and their interests largely ignored, if not outright mocked).

In fact, even on equalization the Cons have made clear their intention of imposing a final result in the absence of consensus. But of course, that end result is one which appears likely to prioritize blatant politicking in other provinces over the promises the Cons made to the West.

Which leaves only the question of whether prairie voters will recognize the pattern and reach their own consensus that the Cons' word is worth absolutely nothing. And the more times the Cons show their continued disdain for their own promises, the more likely that outcome becomes.