It is not. It's beef jerky. It's $68 a kilo.
That's the problem with all our industry. We don't produce products, we produce commodities. We are the developed world. We have to be in product production, because commodity production is unsustainable. Brazil, Argentina, etc., look after it. The CAIS program in the past has looked after commodity production, not product production.
I'll leave this with you, Mr. Chairman. You can share it on the bus to P.E.I.
When we look at business risk management programs and the new agricultural policy framework, we support what CFA has been doing. Canadian agriculture and agrifood is a vibrant and dynamic industry, where all partners of the production chain have the opportunity to be profitable and be world leaders for the world's economic, environmental, and health objectives. That's where we want to be at and that's where Canadian agriculture can be. In the past, it hasn't moved there.
We are also supportive of the key principles that CFA has set out for APF II: create an agriculture and agrifood industry that is dynamic and innovative, increase value-added contributions, promote Canadian agriculture as a steward of the environment and provider of high-quality safe food, and create an agriculture and agrifood industry in which all parts of the production chain have the opportunity to grow and succeed.
When we look at the chain, those up the chain get a 12% return on investment and those below get a 12% return on investment, but we, as primary producers, don't get it. Until we start producing products and move up and down that value chain, we will not get a 12% return. It is essential that we do.
If we look at Nova Scotia, we guarantee the energy provider in this province, Nova Scotia Power Inc., a 12% return on investment. We do not guarantee our primary producers a 12% investment on energy they provide for the consumer.
We believe the approach the Canadian industry is suggesting through its umbrella organization is right. I'm sure the three pillars we want to see in APF II have been well explained by Bob Friesen, etc.
When we move to what this committee is actually looking at, the business risk management, we must stabilize our industry. That's what the risk management programs must do: stabilize it, so we can transition. If we're not stable, we'll never transition.
In this province, we've been looking at a program on how to utilize the funds to stabilize the industry and then develop it. The CAIS program provides money after the fact. We have to provide money up front. In this province, CAIS programs totalled $16 million to the producers last year. That's about 1% of the retail value of the food at the store. Our retail value is $1.9 billion; $16 million was provided by the CAIS program, after the fact. If that had been provided up front to provide a sustainable 12% return, we wouldn't have needed the CAIS program. We would then be able to transition our industry. With an industry with a 12% return on investment, you can move forward. You don't need any other programs.
We're saying there's enough money in the system. It just has to be better utilized. Let's not just talk about risk management; talk about renewal. Provincial and federal dollars coming into this province totalled $90 million for agriculture last year: $43 million from the province and $47 million from the federal government. There's enough money in the system to get it right now. What we are saying in the new APF II is that we must look at stabilizing our industry and transitioning it with up-front dollars, not tail-end dollars. When you get those up-front dollars with a good return to farmers, then you can move forward.
I appreciate the opportunity. I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman. If there are questions relative to this, then I'm prepared to answer them.
Thank you.