I confess to knowing practically nothing about supply
management. I know that people that support it say it’s necessary to keep
Canadian farmers competitive and alive, and those that oppose it say it forces
Canadians to massively overpay for milk, cheese and other products compared to
people in other countries.
I also know that it’s considered somewhat of a sacred cow in
Canadian politics to the degree that all parties routinely proselytize
themselves at the altar of supply management and any discussion of the merits
of the system or whether it's in need of review or re-consideration is unthinkable. A
policy motion reaffirming Liberal support for policy management was passed in a
pro forma way at the party’s January convention. I can’t remember the last time
an open and frank debate on the pros and cons of supply management has
happened; usually all we hear is “pass this or rural Canada will run you over
with a combine.”
The Liberals have made a lot of noise over the last year or
so about being the party of “evidence-based policy.” It remains to see whether
that’s actually true or is just empty platitude. We may begin to get a sense of
that if possible leadership contender (though she should really pay off her 2006
debt first) Martha Hall Findlay succeeds in sparking a debate on supply
management.
In a recent op/ed in the Globe and in interviews in the
media and elsewhere, and in a report, she argued in favour of dismantling
supply management.
It is simply untenable that Canadian families pay upwards of $300 more a year than they need to, for milk alone, let alone higher prices for other products like cheese, yogourt and ice cream, to subsidize a tiny number of relatively well-off farmers. Worse, it’s regressive, which means that the ones who suffer most are the low-income families – the very ones who most need affordable access to nutrition. Many others, including processors and restaurants, have been calling to an end to supply management for years.
As I said, I’m not yet on either side of the supply
management debate, mainly because we haven’t actually had such a debate in
recent memory. But I am in favour of having the debate, and getting all the
facts on the table. People such as Hall Findlay are making their arguments, and
the Dairy Farmers are firing back with their arguments. That’s healthy; I look forward
to hearing all the facts and deciding where I stand on the issue.
Because that’s what being an evidence-based party, if that’s
what we want to be, is all about. If the evidence for supply management is as
strong as its proponents insist, then the debate will surely end with our
support for its continuation. But let’s have the debate and go where the evidence takes
us.
SPEAKING OF DEBATE: Mike Moffat on the policy implications, Rob Silver on the vote implications, Steve V. on the farmers and Dan Arnold on the debate.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
SPEAKING OF DEBATE: Mike Moffat on the policy implications, Rob Silver on the vote implications, Steve V. on the farmers and Dan Arnold on the debate.
