To the Editor:
I write in response to Garry Breitkreuz's comments in last Thursday's newspaper about the $30/acre payment that flooded farmers are expecting from the AgriRecovery program. It would be more useful to farmers if Mr. Breitkreuz could tone down his partisan attacks and focus instead on the questions that need answers.
First, how will 30-bucks-an-acre adequately compensate farmers for this year's losses when basic production costs in a normal year amount to $150/acre, extra expenses will be incurred this year for land rehabilitation, and farm income will be down (because of the flooding) by as much as $3 billion?
The federal government's AgriRecovery contribution is only $270 million spread across three provinces. That won't go very far.
Secondly, are pasture lands really excluded from this flood payment? If so, why? Livestock producers have been seriously affected too.?
For some, like stockgrowers in southwestern Saskatchewan, this exclusion adds insult to injury because they were also deliberately excluded from AgriRecovery payments on pasture lands that were announced in May. All Saskatchewan farm organizations have complained about this unfair double whammy.
Third, why is the money from AgriRecovery being used to reduce the government's other obligations to farmers under the AgriStability program?
Every dollar a farmer gets in flood payments under AgriRecovery this year will be counted as "income" under AgriStability. That will automatically make this bad year look artificially better, and reduce the amount the farmer would otherwise get from AgriStability. But that's not all - after this year, AgriRecovery flood payments will not be included in farmers' reference margins for future years, thus reducing future payment possibilities too.
So it is not accurate to say that AgriRecovery payments are "in addition" to other government programs. In fact, they're offset against each other and not incremental.
Ralph Goodale, M.P., Wascana, SK.
