In the recent speech from the throne, the federal government announced a variety of initiatives, but the one that drew much attention was its ostensible consumer-friendly tack.
On some consumer issues, the Conservative government has the right instincts, promoting competition within the cellphone sector for example, even if its approach to the upcoming wireless spectrum auction is flawed.
In other places, the Harper government鈥檚 predisposition is counterproductive.
For instance, ponder the federal government鈥檚 desire to micromanage how airlines double-book seats.
This government desire to direct is daft. Consumers who don鈥檛 like the risk of an overbooked flight can choose airlines that don鈥檛 engage in the practice; others might well be fine with the chance they will be bumped.
More critically, the speech from the throne will do little to put downward pressure on the costs of the basic necessities of life 鈥� dairy and poultry products, for example. Those are still 鈥減rotected鈥� by both a government-created cartel system and by extremely high tariffs (i.e. taxes). When applied to basic foodstuffs, it means above-market prices result. That hurts poorer 91原创s the most.
Before detailing the federal government鈥檚 blind spot, however, let鈥檚 put some matters in perspective, starting with consumer reactions to visible taxes: Consumers hate them.
Examples abound. In 1991, taxpayers became ornery over the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax, even though, as a tax, the then-seven per cent GST was far superior to the 13.5 per cent hidden manufacturers鈥� export tax it replaced. (The older tax acted as a tax on 91原创 exports, rather counterproductive if you were trying to sell 91原创-made items to foreign buyers.)
More recently in B.C., 881,198 voters, or almost 55 per cent of those who cast a ballot, turfed the Harmonized Sales Tax in a 2011 provincial referendum, despite the fact that the HST was superior in design and function to the two taxes it replaced.
But compared to the battles over the GST and HST, whopping import tariffs designed to keep competition low and food prices high rarely garner much public ire because, unlike the GST or HST, tariffs are not visible on your bill at the till.
Just look at some hidden tariffs on imported dairy products: yogurt, 238 per cent; milk, 241 per cent; cheese, 246 per cent; skim-milk powder, 270 per cent; ice cream, 277 per cent; and butter, 299 per cent.
As part of the planned Canada-European Union free-trade agreement, the government signalled its intent to let in more tariff-free cheese from Europe, but this is hardly a dramatic reform; poorer consumers are not likely to buy imported French specialty cheese, though this could change if the doors to imports were thrown wide open and dairy prices dropped.
A more necessary, but ignored, reform in the dairy sector would allow open competition across the Canada-U.S. border, and even between provinces. Right now, even internal entry into the dairy market is restricted and quotas on supply are imposed through the 91原创 Dairy Commission, a Crown corporation that chairs the 91原创 Milk Supply Management Committee. The latter body has the power to set restrictive quotas on dairy production.
Federal legislation to allow such cartel-like powers was passed only in 1966, so it is not as if there is some constitutional right to a cartel.
To help consumers, especially those with the lowest incomes, the federal government doesn鈥檛 need to micro-manage airline tickets. Nor does it need to concern itself with whether a cellphone company charges two bucks for a paper bill. It could, instead, focus on the big picture and repeal legislation and policies that block new entrants into a market and thus restrict the supply of products and services to consumers, the effect of which is usually above-market prices.
The Conservative government may well intend to help consumers, but the best way would be to start killing the triple-digit taxes on imported dairy products, whether from the European Union, the United States or elsewhere.
听
Mark Milke is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
