The Rural Voice, 1989-10, Page 27than even it out." The CAC does
agree that consumers should share
some of the uncertainties of produc-
tion caused by weather, Jackson says,
but adds that stabilization uses too
much government money at times.
There is long-standing friction
between the CAC and marketing
boards in supply -managed sectors of
agriculture. A large aspect of the
CAC's work, in fact, is their Regulat-
ed Industries Program (RIP), which
intervenes in the consumer's interest
in such industries as radio and tele-
vision, utilities, Bell Canada, and
agricultural marketing boards.
Because marketing boards are
given control over quantity and price,
Jackson says, there has to be some
regulation of that power. "We're not
just trying to be nasty and do them in,
but in truth they're not legitimate until
we do challenge it (their power)."
A fundamental objection of the
CAC, she adds, is that few of the
boards give consumers an opportunity
to "get information in." Some of the
boards have advisory groups, Jackson
says, and some even have a place for a
consumer representative, but at times
a "definite non -consumer" has been
appointed to the position. There is no
consumer representative on any of the
provincial supply -management boards,
she says.
She does note, however, that the
Ontario Milk Marketing Board has
been good at telling the CAC about
changes.
Another fundamental objection,
Jackson says, is that when the boards
were set up federal agriculture min-
ister Eugene Whelan promised that
additional quota would go to the areas
of least -cost production. "That has
been ignored." Jackson cites eggs as
an example. Manitoba has the lowest
cost of production, and Ontario the
second lowest, but additional quota
has not gone to Manitoba and Ontario.
Eggs are produced in Newfoundland,
she adds, and then the surplus is
shipped back to breakers in Ontario.
"This has to be the height of idiocy."
The Canadian Egg Marketing
Agency (CEMA) has recently been
challenged specifically by the CAC,
which fought to have the consumer
levy on eggs — a levy used to pay for
losses CEMA takes on sales of eggs to
domestic food manufacturers —
reduced.
The CAC was unsuccessful in its
bid to the National Farm Products
Marketing Council. But the CAC
maintains that consumers are subsidiz-
ing domestic food manufacturers, and
that this is unfair.
The consumer levy is supposed to
be used for surplus removal in peak
periods, Jackson says. It offers pro-
cessors a break on the price. But in
the past few years, she says, there
have been more surpluses, and why
should consumers be made
responsible?
"We're not against producers
having a reasonable standard of
living, but if living in the country is
more desirable then maybe they'll
have to accept that their cost of
living is not as high as someone
living in Toronto and they don't
need as much money to do it."
"It's more than just a surplus
removal problem," she says. "There
were a lot of problems with the orig-
inal idea, and it's only got worse."
"The national CEMA," Jackson
says, "seems to have been established
with a particular disregard for
consumer interest."
Yet another objection is that the
boards have not found a way to keep
quota costs down, Jackson says. "I
realize they're trying to deal with that
... but 20 years is too long."
In fact, the most fundamental
objection made by the CAC does not
bode well for the existence of supply
management. The CAC believes that
the boards should not have controlled
imports, Jackson says. "If imports
were available to Canadians at the cost
of production of another country plus
transportation costs, then that should
have been sufficient protection for the
Canadian industry."
Imported products should not be
dumped in Canada, Jackson says, but
neither should the Canadian producer
need additional protection. In short,
the CAC regards supply -management
boards as monopolies.
"Maybe we can't afford family
farming in eggs," she adds. "You
know, we're not opposed to the family
farm, we rather like the idea ... And I
guess we're willing to pay a little for
that."
Do consumers, then, appreciate
the reality and the value of life in the
productive countryside, of life on the
family farm?
"I think they do," Jackson says.
"We're not against producers having
a reasonable standard of living, but if
living in the country is more desirable
then maybe they'll have to accept that
their cost of living is not as high as
someone living in Toronto and they
don't need as much money to do it."
Price, Jackson says, remains the
major issue on which farmers and
consumers differ.
It seems that gap between the
farmer and the average consumer
remains as wide as it ever was, as
wide as the gap can be between farm
gate and grocery shelf — as wide as
the gap can be between the farm gate
price and the price on the tag in the
supermarket.
Will the CAC help to bridge that
gap? Perhaps. The association is not
about to budge on the issue of supply -
managed marketing boards, says
Ontario CAC president Joan Huzar.
But she acknowledges that "enormous
gap" between the farmer's field and
food in the supermarket. She wonders
about the relatively low price of vege-
tables that have come all the way from
California to Huron County grocery
shelves.
"I'm sure we don't pay enough
for food," she says, speaking from a
personal point of view. "We're very
lucky."
And while the CAC doesn't have a
policy of recommending, for example,
that consumers buy Ontario -grown
food, "maybe that's something we
should be doing this year."
Will farmers help to bridge that
gap? Huzar suggests that they put
more effort into educating consumers.
"You have to tell consumers first," she
says, "because the media is going to
pick up on it, and tell the negative
story."0
Lise Gunby
OCTOBER 1989 25