A far more hospitable winter, at least across most of Western Canada took some of the supposed pressures off the rail system in terms of grain handling.
But the system is still seen as overly slow, with the rail companies interest in hauling grain at a low ebb.
From a purely business sense, the stance of the rail companies is rather understandable. They can roll a train up to a potash mine, load that product and head to port and make that trip on a consistent loop 52 weeks a year. Hailing from Yorkton that storyline is clear as potash trains pass through the city more and more regularly, usually just at a time people want to get from one side of the city to the other.
Many commodities are like that, oil coming immediately to mind as well. That is the reason many farm producers tend to favour new pipeline projects as they feel oil flowing through a pipe would take some load pressure off the rail lines.
Grain is more work for the rail companies. Even in the time of inland terminals which have created larger catchments and centralize grain collection far more than it was in the 1950s, 鈥�60s and 鈥�70s, it still remains a maze of pick-up points.
And collections are based on export sales, which are hardly consistent. The need to move grain is not consistent, with an ebb and flow based on factors which the rail companies have little control.
However, the two national rail companies in Canada cannot expect to work completely on the basis of business decisions alone.
Both CP and CN have been tied directly to government in this country basically from the time they pounded the first spike.
The two companies need to hold some level of responsibility to serve Canada鈥檚 overall needs, grain movements included.
After all they were given huge tracts of land, and they have been allowed to evolve into virtual regionalized monopolies based on the remaining rail structure.
To find that government still wants to pull some of the strings in terms of the rail system should be expected.
From the government perspective rail still remains too important to a country as large as Canada, to leave the decisions solely to boardrooms where profit are the only true goal.
Our rail system and government have long been bedmates, and that remains true today.
The issue then, in terms of grain handling, is who has control of the blankets these days.
The weather may have been better this winter, but I doubt many would say the rail companies aced grain handlings. The system is still not rolling smoothly, and that leaves the debate of how to make it work better for the grain system to continue.
There were really only two avenues to go down.
One is for government to create a big stick to force rail compliance, and then be ready to rap the rail companies鈥� finger when needed. It has been the general approach in the sense government is the regulatory body which creates the framework within which the rail lines work.
Obviously, given the recent record on grain handling, the approach is not completely successful.
That suggests one of three possible problems.
To start the framework of regulations is flawed.聽
That may be part of the issue in the sense elements of the system, shoreline rail companies and producer cars as two examples, seem all but ignored by the big companies with little protection coming from the regulatory side.
The government may also not be losing its tools well. The federal Conservatives are at their heart pro big business, so it is not like anyone expects this government to be overly heavily handed with CP and CN.
Then the third thing one has to ask is if simply ill-directed.
Some have said the system needs to be re-jigged to create a situation rail companies want to handle grain.
That might sound logical in terms of approach, but the only motivation for CP and CN would be better returns, and farmers will already suggest they pay too much to move grain from elevator to port, so how to switch things up to enhance service from the rail company side is unclear.
What is clear though is the system is still not working to the best advantage of agriculture, and solutions to improve the situation need to be a priority.
