The most dangerous consumer product
Pierre Lemieux - April 14, 2008
WesternStandard.ca
The Harper government has introduced two bills as part of their "Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan," which will take decision-making power away from individuals and give it to the state. It's worth stepping back and asking: who exactly is being protected - Canadian consumers or Canadian business?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Health Minister Tony Clement have introduced two bills as part of their “Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan.” Referring to some new power the bills grant to the state, Harper declared, “We don’t actually have this now, believe it or not, beyond foods.” Believe it or not, there is some power the state doesn’t yet have! The parliamentary “opposition” was elated: “It’s ... something that we started,” said Stéphane Dion.
Bill C-51 would amend the Food and Drugs Act and other laws. Bill C-52 would enact a brand new law “respecting the safety of consumer products.” Jail terms of up to five years are proposed. These bills, each 30 pages thick, are complex and, as usual, not meant to be read by the simple subject. Indeed, virtually nobody reads proposed legislation, including MPs. Everybody relies on the government’s propaganda machine for explanations.
Yet, it is an obvious truth, isn’t it, that the state must protect consumers against dangerous products? Not necessarily.
The first reason why the state should not protect consumers is that they are generally quite capable of protecting themselves. Not only must they be if they are deemed competent to vote, but many private institutions have incentives to help consumers. Retailers, and especially those who have brand names with high reputation values (say, The Bay or Wall Mart), spend a lot of resources selecting the goods they resell. If you look under your toaster, you will probably see the “UL” mark which certifies that the product has been tested for safety by Underwriters Laboratories, a private organization that evaluates some 20,000 types of products around the world. If a wholesaler or retailer does not undertake such steps as requiring independent certifications, he may have problems with his insurance company and — except if a lower price compensates for the higher risk — with his clientèle.
The second reason is that what constitutes a dangerous product is not as obvious as it may seem. Virtually everything is dangerous to a degree. And each individual with his own preferences for risk makes his own choices — unless he is overruled by politicians and bureaucrats. The bills introduced by the Conservative government would facilitate the arbitrary designation of products as dangerous. The preamble of each bill states that “the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible.” This idea of bulldozing individual preferences irrespective of scientific evidence has been called the “Lalonde doctrine,” in honour of the Liberal Health Minister who formulated it in 1974. No wonder Dion is happy!
Section 4(2) of Bill C-52 states, “This Act applies to tobacco products ... but only in respect of their ignition propensity.” Schedule 2 of the bill prohibits some kites as well as lawn darts “with elongated tips.” What other jokers will come out of these bills?
Third, consumer protection policies have perverse consequences that make the Welfare State even more in demand. The more people believe that the state protects them against everything, the more gullible they become and the more they need their Nanny.
Fourth, there are hidden interests behind the safety regulations. The bills emphasize imported goods and will, the government explains, “enable law-abiding Canadian businesses to compete on a more level playing field.” Not only is “level playing field” socialist gibberish, but it also points to the commercial interests behind the plan: domestic businesses against lower-cost foreign competitors.
As the Hugo Chavez of the North, Harper admonished the "outfits" who "care more about the almighty dollar than the safety of their customers," and "wilfully expose Canadians to dangers." However, Bill C-51 explicitly excludes foods and cosmetics "manufactured in Canada solely for the purpose of being exported." Let the bad Canadian capitalists kill foreigners!
Fifth, the increased consumer protection, so-called, makes the state even more powerful and, thus, protection against it even more hopeless. Food and consumer product inspectors will be among the praetorians allowed to obtain search warrants by telephone, and to "enter on or pass through or over private property." Bill C-51 creates a registry for food importers and interprovincial merchants, besides boosting other licences and authorizations. As history shows, politics is the most dangerous consumer product one can think of.
We are stuck in a perverse political system where each colour of government brings its own blocks — red or blue — to the building of the Police State. If you think that "Police State" is too strong a term, replace it (for now) by "Benevolent Totalitarian State" or "Administrative State." It is possible that Tony Clement, who has shown some concern for our liberties, does not wilfully participate in this construction. But he is paid to be blind and deaf, a bit like the consumer straw man who will swallow anything.
Pierre Lemieux is a professor, an economist, and author of numerous books and articles, and editor of Liberty in Canada, an online pro-liberty news source sponsored by the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
