SUN NEWS COLUMN: Government milk policy costs consumers dearly

Play Video

“I knew there was a difference in the cost of milk and dairy in Canada versus the United States, but I didn’t actually know it was that big.”

That’s what Melissa From told SecondStreet.org when we sat down with her to compare milk prices between Canada and the United States. Melissa and her husband live just outside of Calgary and they have two young children so milk is in high demand.

Our research compared milk prices in 15 U.S. cities and 15 Canadian cities and concluded Canadian prices averaged almost thirty cents more per litre than in the U.S. (after taking exchange rates into account).

For instance, in Toronto, a litre of milk cost $1.10 yet just over the border in a suburb of Buffalo milk was just 62 cents (CDN $). In Calgary, a 2% jug of milk cost $1.14 per litre, but just over the border in Montana, the price worked out to 69 cents per litre (CDN $).

An extra 30 cents per litre doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but for a family like Melissa’s, that purchases eight litres of milk a week, the extra cost adds up quick. Melissa estimated that her family is spending an extra $100 or so more each year on milk compared with what Americans pay for the same volume.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

A key reason why milk prices are higher in Canada than in the United States is a policy in Canada known as “supply management.”

Simply put, supply management means that the government controls how much milk, cheese, dairy and poultry products are produced each year by each farm. The government also regulates the price of those products. If production quotas are exceeded, perfectly good products are dumped.

But not only does the government ration these products, it also imposes very large tariffs on imports.

Together, these policies drastically reduce competition and lead to higher prices for Canadian consumers for milk, cheese, and your Christmas turkey to name a few products.

It would be one thing if these policies were designed to help out small farms in need, but Statistics Canada data suggests the average net worth of dairy farms in Canada was $4.3 million in 2017. For poultry farmers, their net worth was $6.0 million.

Thus, the government’s supply management system means consumers pay high prices to support some pretty wealthy farms.

Another common argument supply management proponents often put forward is that milk coming out of a Canadian cow’s udder is somehow better than the milk from an American cow’s udder.

It’s true that a small percentage of dairy producers in the U.S. use a hormone to help produce milk that isn’t allowed in Canada. But if the hormone is the stumbling block to allowing foreign milk into Canada (increasing competition), the government could simply require that any milk with hormones in it be clearly labelled; allowing Canadian consumers to choose for themselves.

Moreover, opening the market in Canada would also open up new markets for Canadian farmers to export their products.

There’s lots of talk in Ottawa these days about helping the middle class. Phasing out supply management could do just and wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny.

Greater competition, it does your wallet good.

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a new Canadian think tank

This column was published in the December 1, 2019 edition of the Toronto Sun, Ottawa Sun, Winnipeg Sun, Edmonton Sun and Calgary Sun

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.