Cover for Corporate Interests
By LYLE STEWART
Montreal Gazette
March 8, 2002
"You can often get more with honey than vinegar."
- Consumers Association of Canada vice-president Jennifer Hillard,
MoneySense magazine, April 2000.
If there were ever a case of misleading advertising, it would have to be in the name of the Consumers' Association of Canada. As I began detailing last week, there are an increasing number of third-party front groups on a variety of controversial public-policy issues. They might even have once been legitimate, as was the CAC, before the viral influence of corporate cash and government communications strategies perverted the group's initial integrity.
The quote above comes from an article exploring why the CAC would oppose an initiative to ensure the Canadian banking industry was monitored and better held to account by consumers. In the article, Hillard says the CAC has a broad mandate to act as a consumer voice in areas ranging from consumer literacy, health, nutrition and environmental issues. She also denied the CAC receives funding from the private sector.
During testimony to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food later in 2000, Hillard also claimed its list of donors is public information. And she again asserted, "We do not take donations from industry, only from individuals."
All those statements are untrue. The CAC keeps its funding details secret. And the organization is, indeed, getting more with the public-relations honey it has spread on behalf of corporate and government interests - very often to the detriment of consumers. Indeed, most of the CAC's cash comes out of our pockets. Ottawa has paid the CAC more than $1.2 million for a variety of PR campaigns since 1997.
That information comes from Bradford Duplisea at the Canadian Health Coalition, whose research is exposing a spider's web of influence and hidden corporate propaganda. He also discovered the CAC's heavy, and hidden, corporate financial support.
According to one CAC document Duplisea uncovered, "The CAC foundation acknowledges with sincere appreciation the financial contribution of the following associations and private-sector supporters during the year 2000." It goes on to list the Canadian Bankers Association; the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association; the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association; the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association; the Canadian Real Estate Association; the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute; the Investment Funds Institue of Canada; and the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
These industry lobbyists don't fund the CAC out of the goodness of their hearts. The CAC provides a valuable service: heading off criticism these organizations do not respond to consumers. According to a 1998 letter from Insurance Council of Canada president George Anderson to Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, several trade associations have come to the rescue of the CAC, which was then facing financial troubles, at the request of then-Industry Minister John Manley.
Perhaps the most egregious abuse of public trust has been on the biotechnology issue.
When Lee Anne Murphy was a CAC spokesman, she explained to the Canadian Grains Council why the organization opposes mandatory labeling of GM foods. "We do not feel that the label is a place for public debate. There is concern that if we went to a symbol to delineate genetically modified foods, that consumers would interpret the symbol as a warning label. ... Because it is a safe product it is on our market, if it was not safe it would not be available."
Canadian consumers, remember, have consistently supported mandatory labeling of GM foods to the tune of 95 per cent in polling over the past five years. But Monsanto Canada was so pleased with Murphy's efforts at the CAC that the corporation hired her to directly push its corporate lobbying agenda.
The third-party technique is also highly effective for the federal government when it doesn't want to act as voters demand. Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief invariably invokes the CAC whenever he is asked to explain government inaction on a file the agri-food industry opposes.
The only conclusion to be drawn is the CAC is little more than third-party cover for corporate - not consumer - interests. Which proves that yes, you can get more with honey than vinegar, though you're just as likely to draw flies.
Lyle Stewart is a Montreal writer.
Bradford Duplisea can be reached at:
Brad@Duplisea.ca
Click here to read more GM food exposés based on
Access-to-Information research by Bradford Duplisea