It doesn’t look like there will be a quick resolution to the ongoing
dispute between the Canadian Wheat Board and maverick director Jim
Chatenay.
The district 2 director and a group of his local advisers have asked
the board to answer 21 detailed questions about the agency’s financial
operations.
The board has said it will arrange a meeting at any time between
Chatenay’s group and senior CWB officials to talk about their questions
and concerns.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
But Chatenay says there’s no point having a meeting unless the board
first provides written answers to the 21 questions.
“It would be absolutely useless to meet with these people until we
have something in writing to discuss,” he said in an interview from his
farm near Red Deer.
“Why don’t they fax me the answers so we can have a look at them and
then when we meet face to face we’ll have a really productive meeting?”
Complicating matters is the fact that Chatenay was heading off on a
five-week vacation beginning July 28.
The board made it clear last week that if Chatenay is waiting for a
written response before agreeing to a meeting, there won’t be a meeting.
“The offer that went to Mr. Chatenay was a meeting followed by a brief
written summary of what was discussed, and that’s still the offer,”
said board spokesperson Deanna Allen.
She said the board has already had a lengthy and generally unproductive
exchange of letters on many of the same questions with one of
Chatenay’s advisers, farmer Lynda Swanson of Elnora, Alta.
“Written responses are not necessarily the most effective way of
getting to the nub of an issue,” Allen said, adding that face-to-face
meetings enable both sides to know exactly what the other is talking
about.
The board had initially responded to the 21 questions by inviting
Chatenay, along with an adviser and a professional accountant, to meet
with senior agency officials July 12, but the group declined.
Board chair Ken Ritter said at the time the meeting was cancelled
because Chatenay decided not to attend, adding that the offer remained
open and the next step was up to the director.
Chatenay said last week that created a false impression that he had
simply canceled the meeting because he didn’t want to talk about the
issue.
“It makes me look like an idiot, like I’m running away,” he said. “I’m
not running away from anything. I’m just doing what I was elected to
do.”
He said the questions he wants the board to answer reflect concerns
raised by his constituents.
“These are some very core questions that have been lingering in
people’s minds for years and years.”
Most of the questions are related to the board’s financial operations,
including such things as details about the 1998 pool accounts, payments
related to credit grain sales, debts owed by foreign customers and
borrowing policies.
There are also questions dealing with dual marketing and international
trade rules, the board’s corporate structure and legal status, and the
cost to administer export licences over the past 10 years.
Chatenay, who is a member of the board’s audit and finance committee,
said he’s been trying unsuccessfully for several months to find out the
costs incurred in the board’s pool accounts in administering export
licenses issued to farmers or grain merchants outside the board’s
designated area.
