The Canadian Wheat Board says it’s anxious to answer Jim Chatenay’s
questions about the grain marketing agency’s finances.
But a meeting with the CWB director from Red Deer and his advisers
scheduled for last week to talk about his concerns with board
operations never took place, leaving the two sides as far apart as ever.
“Jim decided not to attend the July 12 meeting so we’re working with
him to re-schedule it,” said CWB chair Ken Ritter.
“From here on, it’s kind of up to him. The offer’s open and we’re
Read Also
Trade war may create Canadian economic opportunities
Canada’s current tariff woes could open chances for long-term economic growth and a stronger Canadian economy, consultant says — It’s happened before.
waiting to hear from him.”
A July 10 News release
news, signed by three of Chatenay’s local advisers,
asked the board to answer a list of 21 questions about such things as
the operations of the pool accounts, interest earnings and payments,
details on credit grain sales, CWB borrowings and board administration
costs.
It’s the latest move in an ongoing public skirmish between the district
2 director and his local advisers and the CWB’s senior administration
over the availability of detailed financial information about the
board’s operations.
“Only when detailed, accurate and complete financial information is
made available to farmers will they be able to make informed decisions
on the many controversial issues that arise concerning the monopoly
they are required to be a part of,” Chatenay said in the News release
news.
The board says it has endeavoured to provide Chatenay with all the
information he has asked for in the past and is ready and willing to do
so now and in the future.
Accordingly, it set up the July 12 meeting. It invited Chatenay to
bring an adviser and a professional accountant for a
question-and-answer session with senior board managers and
representatives from the board’s auditors Deloitte Touche and the
office of the federal auditor general. The board also said it would
release a written report following the meeting.
Chatenay was on vacation last week and unavailable for comment.
However Lynda Swanson, a farmer from Elnora, Alta., and one of
Chatenay’s local advisers, said they felt the proposed meeting wouldn’t
provide the kind of information they want.
“It would be totally impossible to come up with detailed answers to
these questions in that short a time,” she said. “It’s a very complex
issue and it can’t be done overnight.”
The Chatenay group instead wants the board to provide a written
response to each of the 21 questions prior to a face-to-face meeting.
“We need the details first to be able to ask intelligent questions and
follow up,” said Swanson.
Ritter said while he’s reluctant to ascribe motives to the ongoing
questioning of the board’s finances by the Chatenay group, it has to be
looked at in the context of the debate over single desk selling versus
dual marketing.
“The reality is that certain people don’t accept the way a structure is
developed and continually cast a negative light on it,” he said. “That
is simply the reality of the political world we live in.”
Swanson said the only motivation is to get as much information as
possible about the board’s use of farmers’ money.
“We’re just farmers looking for detailed answers to questions that have
been around for a long time,” she said, adding that getting more
information might help bridge the gap between farmers on the two sides
of the board marketing debate.
Ritter said the board will provide any information that isn’t
commercially sensitive, adding that no matter how much one may disagree
with the board, at some point reasonable people have to accept the
answers provided by the agency’s outside auditors and the federal
auditor general.
In a report released earlier this year, the auditor general had some
criticisms and recommendations for changes to board operations, but
found nothing or improper in the board’s financial dealings or
accountings.
