TRUE NORTH COLUMN: Inflation’s Sting Made Worse By Supply Management

Milk Shot

If you’ve been to a grocery store lately, you know just how difficult it’s getting to afford everything you need to put on the table. Whether it’s bread, meat, vegetables or anything else, inflation is making life less affordable. 

However, while the price of everything is going up thanks to many different factors (tax increases, supply chain issues, government printing more money, etc.), there are a few products that you’re paying too much for – with no good reason. 

In Canada, the government sets prices for dairy products, turkey and some types of chickens and eggs. At the same time it keeps supply artificially low by approving how much each farmer can produce while imposing large tariffs on imports. The government has essentially removed competitive forces, resulting in higher prices for consumers as a result.

This whole cartel-like system is known as ‘supply management.’ 

And who, exactly, does it benefit? A small group of wealthy farmers in the dairy and poultry industries. According to Statistics Canada, the average net worth of a dairy farmer in 2019 was almost $4.5 million. For poultry farmers, it was about $6.2 million. These producers are being prioritized by the government, while consumers suffer for their benefit.

Why does it have to be this way? The supply management regime doesn’t apply to farmers who grow things like grain, wheat, potatoes and other staple foods, nor does it apply to cattle ranchers. 

Farmers and ranchers are hard-working, industrious people. They’ll work 15-hour days during harvest to make sure they can get their crop off of the field. And yet, they don’t need the government to come in and punish consumers on their behalf. They’re able to feed the country and much of the world thanks to the quality and yield of their product. 

So, if grain farmers and cattle ranchers can do it, why can’t dairy farmers?

In 2019, SecondStreet.org calculated that milk prices in Canada were about 29 cents more per litre in Canada than across the border in the United States. That might not sound like a lot, but it makes a significant difference for a family with two or more kids, who can go through gallons of milk in a given week. 

report from 2015 shows that supply management costs the average Canadian family $585 every year. It’s likely that figure has risen in the years since. 

Canada’s supply management regime has held a tight grip on consumers since 1972. We’ve been getting bilked out of our cash for far too long, and, what’s worse, it seems that there’s little to no political will to make a change. All three major federal political parties have committed to preserving this policy.

It’s unlikely that any party would ever come in and immediately abolish supply management. However, what would be politically doable would be to gradually transition it out in a way that helps consumers and keeps dairy and poultry farmers happy. 

For example, Australia began to dismantle its similar cartel-like system in 2000. That country implemented a temporary tax of 11 cents per litre of milk, the proceeds of which went to dairy farmers. 

Despite this extra tax, allowing competition led to a net drop in prices for consumers while preparing dairy farmers for the coming deregulation. In 2008, the temporary tax stopped, and prices dropped again. Dairy Australia noted that they now “operate in a completely deregulated industry environment.”

If Australia can do it, so can Canada.

Whose side should governments take on this? Multi-millionaire dairy farmers hoping to preserve their monopoly on the market? Or families struggling to get by?

I think the answer’s pretty clear.

Dom Lucyk is the Communications Director for SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.

This column was published in True North on January 15, 2023.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

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.