The grain landscape across Canada’s prairies may soon look dramatically different if two agricultural giants have their way. Farmers nationwide are mobilizing against the proposed $775 million acquisition of Parrish & Heimbecker’s grain assets by Richardson International, warning that further concentration in the already tight grain handling market could leave them with fewer selling options and lower prices.
Last week, a coalition of farmer groups delivered an unmistakable message to Ottawa: block this deal. The merger would combine two of Canada’s largest grain handling companies, potentially reshaping how crops move from field to market across Western Canada.
“We’re talking about the bread and butter of Canadian agriculture here,” says Kevin Serfas, who farms 60,000 acres near Lethbridge, Alberta. “When you remove competition from the equation, farmers are always the ones who end up paying the price.”
The acquisition, announced in May, would transfer P&H’s network of grain elevators and processing facilities to Richardson, creating what many farmers describe as a dangerous concentration of market power. The deal requires approval from Canada’s Competition Bureau, which has begun a review process expected to last months.
For context, Richardson and P&H together control approximately 30% of grain handling capacity in Western Canada. If merged, they would rival Viterra (formerly the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool) as the dominant players in a market where farmers already complain about limited options for selling their wheat, canola, and other crops.
Todd Lewis, former president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, puts it plainly: “In rural areas, losing even one buyer can mean the difference between competitive pricing and take-it-or-leave-it offers. Some farmers would be left with only one or two buyers within economical trucking distance.”
The concerns go beyond simple pricing. Farmers point to service issues, potential job losses in rural communities, and the possibility that a more concentrated industry could wield greater influence over transportation priorities – crucial in a country where rail capacity constraints have previously led to massive backlogs.
Richardson defends the acquisition as necessary for Canadian companies to compete globally. “Scale matters in global agriculture,” says Richardson spokesperson Hayley Johnson. “This combination would create a stronger Canadian-owned company capable of competing with multinational corporations that dominate global grain trade.”
But farmers remain skeptical. Studies from the University of Saskatchewan have shown that previous consolidation in the grain handling sector resulted in wider “basis” levels – essentially the difference between global grain prices and what farmers actually receive. For the average 5,000-acre grain farm, even a $5 per tonne reduction in competitive pricing could mean $25,000 in lost annual revenue.
The merger debate highlights the evolving tensions in Canadian agriculture. Since the dissolution of the Canadian Wheat Board’s single-desk selling power in 2012, the grain handling industry has undergone significant consolidation. The number of major grain companies operating across the prairies has shrunk from nine to five over the past decade.
Wade Sobkowich, executive director of the Western Grain Elevator Association, acknowledges the concerns but suggests market forces will prevail. “Companies still need to compete for farmers’ grain. If a merged entity doesn’t offer competitive prices, they’ll lose business to others.”
However, the geography of grain handling complicates this argument. With farms spread across vast distances and transportation costs forming a significant expense, farmers don’t always have multiple viable selling options regardless of price differentials.
The Competition Bureau’s review will examine these dynamics closely. Recent years have seen the bureau take a more aggressive stance on mergers across multiple sectors, though agricultural consolidation presents unique challenges for regulators balancing efficiency gains against competitive concerns.
Federal Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay has acknowledged receiving farmers’ concerns but notes that the Competition Bureau operates independently from political direction. “We understand the importance of this file to Canadian farm families,” his office stated, “and trust the Competition Bureau to conduct a thorough review.”
While the regulatory process unfolds, farmers are continuing their pressure campaign. The issue transcends political lines, with agricultural groups from across the political spectrum finding rare common ground in opposition to further consolidation.
“This isn’t about politics – it’s about the future of family farms,” says Bill Campbell, president of Keystone Agricultural Producers. “When you’ve got fifth-generation farmers worried about their ability to negotiate fair prices, that should tell you something.”
The outcome remains uncertain, but the debate highlights a fundamental tension in modern agriculture: as global markets demand ever-larger players, local competitive dynamics that protect farmers’ interests can be threatened.
For now, prairie farmers are watching closely, hoping their concerns will weigh heavily in the Competition Bureau’s final decision – a decision that could reshape the economic landscape of rural Canada for decades to come.
