Both levels, yes.
The other thing that is kind of interesting is that one of the largest exports of New Brunswick is potatoes. In 2005 they had farm receipts of $70 million, and in 2004 they had $126 million. In 2003 they had $101 million, and in 2002 they had $87 million. I'll come back to the exports in a minute.
Dairy, on the other hand, is fairly stable, with $83 million in 2005, $80 million in 2004, $76 million in 2003 and $74 million in 2002. There was a steady incline. Exports—and then I want to mention them in regard to potatoes, which are the largest export product in the province—on the other hand, in 2005 were $350 million versus $366 million in 2004. In 2003 they were $459 million, and 2002 they were $389 million. If you look at that, you can see that even when the commodity price goes down, we do not necessarily export more, because when there is a glut on the world market, nobody wants your product.
It needs to be said that only about 5% to 7% of all commodities are being traded in the world. With that in mind, when only 5% to 7% are being traded in the world markets, all prices have to be adjusted according to that.
As I speak, the dairy farming community is stable. It is not healthy, not in despair, but stable. Dairy farmers continue to struggle with the impact of BSE and leaky borders that for years have eroded our market and our income. I do appreciate the steps that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has taken to plug some of these leaks; however, the race by food manufacturers, the agrifood sector, to devalue Canada's agricultural commodities to the lowest common denominator still exists.
I would like to come back and add something personal to this regarding the BSE crisis that continues on our farms. On my own farm, it had an impact in the first year of about $65,000, a value never recaptured either through government ad hoc moneys or through anything else. The most galling thing is that the government continued to supplement supplementary imports at first and allowed the downstream agribusiness and chain stores to reap huge profits. That is the very same thing as has gone on before and is still allowed to happen.
Your committee has looked at a variety of noble measures in devising the agricultural policy framework by including sections to deal with business risk management, renewal, food safety, quality and resource protection, market development and trade, environment, innovation and science, as well as animal health. Some of the components in the framework are proactive and will assist the primary agricultural sector to deal with the encroaching demands of food safety, food traceability and society's need to have the primary agricultural sector ensure it remains as environmentally conscious as the rest of society should be.
What also should be recognized is that issues that serve the common good should also be paid for by the common good. That is the taxpayer. If they are concerned about food safety and want a system that is traceable, we will conform, but we should not have to pay for the infrastructure or for the implementation. Also, what we import needs to conform to our standards, and we should not accept the standard of the country of origin, especially if it is lower than our own.
Other components such as the income stabilization programs are also noble causes but are reactive and, in my opinion, should provide assistance only in cases of natural disasters. In reality, these programs mask the true crises taking place in the primary agricultural sector. Some of these crises stem from government's drive to have an internationally competitive food industry on the backs of the primary agricultural producer.
One such case needs to be further examined, and that is the situation of bringing in guest workers for the harvest seasons because we cannot find them here. The main reason we cannot find these workers here is that we do not pay sufficiently. It is not that we do not want to do that, but that we cannot, since we will not be competitive if we pay more.
The primary worker pays the price. We should do this with our civil servants. We have about half a billion Chinese who would love to move from China to a better world. We have civil servants, a tax system in Canada that makes us feel that at times we pay too much tax. Most of those taxes go to programs and, of course, to incomes to allow for civil servants. If we took 5¢ or 25¢ on the $ of what they are making right now, I would say that of the half billion Chinese who would love to come to the west, a substantial number of those people would love to come here and they would have the credentials to do it. So the primary worker in agriculture is allowed to pay the price, but in other sectors they do not.
Over 70% of the bulk of revenue from Canada's agriculture and agrifood production comes from the domestic market. More emphasis should be put on programs to maintain farm incomes and producer bargaining power in the domestic or international marketplace. At present, three main buyers are left for dairy products, grain, and beef in Canada, and we only have two main sellers of groceries left.
All other components of the APF—business risk management, renewal, food safety, quality and resource protection, market development and trade, environment, innovation and science, and animal health strategy—should be modelled on the strategy to give all producers the right tools and regulatory framework to maintain or improve their financial position. Providing producers with these tools will not only provide a healthier primary sector, but should ultimately lead the agrifood sector to shift away from the volatility of the commodity market into high-quality value-added products. Supply management is a business risk management tool and it should never be overlooked. It should be fully included.
The principle of developing an agricultural policy oriented toward feeding your people first has merit as it forces the agricultural sector, from producer to the manufacturer of finished products, to reconsider its priorities and may, in time, shift the agrifood sector into more lucrative niche markets.
The following is a declaration built on this broad principle and is being promoted by the GO5 coalition for fair farming in Quebec, and I feel it merits some evaluation by this committee:
Provide Canadian consumers with high-quality, homegrown products at reasonable prices and receive a fair price from the marketplace without relying on taxpayers' dollars, favour human-scale farms that allow farmers and their families to make a decent living, preserve our heritage specifically by conserving local agricultural production, preserve our environment and our food sovereignty
—and that's the key, food sovereignty—
by favouring local or regional production that avoids costly shipping over thousands of kilometres of food from the other side of the planet.
—most food now is available within 24 hours by plane, and that means it can come from Australia quite easily—
Give local people jobs and favour economic and regional development across Canada.
One thing I would like to mention before I close is renewal. Government needs to do more to entice producers to return to the farm. Education is an excellent start, but more needs to be done.
Farming has become hugely capital-intensive and money is not easy to come by for young people. You, the government, have to come up with programs these people can tap into. The $250,000 addition to the capital gains tax exemption is a help, but more is needed. A 50-cow milking herd plus young stock easily costs $1.5 million to $2 million, depending on where you live. Where does someone off the street find that amount of money?
In closing, the future is in a policy that provides the Canadian agrifood sector access to high-quality, traceable, environmentally sustainable agricultural products. This can only be achieved if our primary producer is valued by consumers, industry, and government.
Thank you.