From time to time journalists discuss the increasing intrusion of bureaucrats into our lives. Recently in the National Post, for example, George Jonas told three "tales from the nanny state" in the UK.

In Canada, a favoured theme is the cost-ineffectiveness of the gun registry in reducing violent crime or what can be done about global cooling, soon to replace the panic about global warming.

A hardy perennial is the dysfunctional state monopoly on health care and how it cannot be fixed or the wheat and barley monopoly enjoyed by the Canadian Wheat Board. Since most who sing these tales of the nanny state do not favour the rule of bureaucrats, they are routinely denounced by those who love and benefit from state
initiatives.

One of the most interesting places where bureaucrats are on guard to help us concerns the things we put into our bodies. Food tops the list, but drugs are a close second. A lot of these regulations are commonsensical. Tainted lunch meat is not good for anyone. Most would agree that crack cocaine and heroin need to be regulated. There are some obvious grey areas as well. Banning unpasteurized milk and cheese and criminalizing marijuana possession are policies reasonable people could conceivably disagree about.

For the record, it seems to me that the threat to individual liberties in both examples far exceeds any benefit individuals might receive from government regulation.

Then there are things regulated by the state where reasoned discussion is almost impossible. Here the subject matter engages a wide array of extraneous emotions that colour the judgment of participants way beyond reason. For example, in British Columbia naturopathic physicians may soon be able to order lab tests and prescribe medications. Naturopaths (as distinct from allopaths, clinical or "regular" docs) tend to rely on the curative powers of nutrition and natural medicines.

For nearly a decade naturopathy has been a designated health profession in BC. Indeed all our neighbours, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Montana and Idaho, recognize naturopathy as a "complementary" medical technique in the sense that it can enhance the practice of regular medicine. As a recent Calgary Herald editorial argued, it is high time Alberta joined our neighbours. But the lobby of regular physicians has come out loud in opposition.

Brian Montgomery, MD, is royally outraged that BC naturopaths will be able to prescribe meds. According to him, they conduct "faith-based practices," rather akin to voodoo, one suspects. "They use scientific-type sounding words. They will
wear white coats. They call themselves doctors. They'll have clinics, so everything looks very clinical and scientific."

For Dr. Montgomery, naturopaths combine deception and quackery. Such an attitude makes serious discussion impossible. Neutral observers might wonder what his personal problem is, not what the real issue is between these two schools of medicine.

A similar controversy is coming down the road over Bill C-6, a slightly revised version of Bill C-51, which died on
the order paper with the last election. C-51 was criticized for having the potential of banning up to 60 percent of natural health products sold in Canada- including Chinese herbs that have been in use for thousands of years. There were petitions and websites against the bill along with more traditional demonstrations. All of them protested the reduction of choices available to citizens and their replacement by choices available only to bureaucrats.

Bill C-6 reproduces nearly all the objectionable provisions of its predecessor. We like to think that "thickening" the border results solely from overblown American concerns about security, but C-6 would make importing natural products from the US much more difficult.

Probably the worst aspect of C-6 is that it would empower bureaucrats to seize property and documents on the grounds of
an inspector's "belief" that a product was harmful. Increasing the arbitrariness of C-6 is a provision to enable bureaucrats simply to declare a product "unsafe" and then fine purveyors up to $5 million. They alone decide whether someone violated their regulations. Inspectors can even
get warrants to enter your home and seize natural products they deem harmful.

The one thing the health nannies abhor is that Canadians should have a say in their own health, including whether they benefit from natural products. Consequently, Bill C-6 means we can look forward to more horror stories of Canada's nanny state in action.


Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Reprinted with author permission. Originally appeared in the Calgary Herald, February 25, 2009.

Want to search for other articles that may interest you?

Readers of this article also enjoyed...