Feathers Canada

feathers · Adminisrator Joined: 21 Oct 2006 Posts: 174

Thank-you for the recent emails Jenny about meat inspection regulators. I fully support any and all who are challanging these regulations. In the end, I fear it may take a court challange to force the government to make them sustainable.

Exploring the legal issues, I recall some time ago that the courts ruled that our cannabis laws were illegal because they denied medical patients access to effective treatement. I've often felt that the same argument would hold true for the healthier food produced by the smallholder. One would think that it would be an easier case to make. So I've gone in search of the case in question to read up on the legal arguments used.

It is not the case I was looking for, but here are some quotes from R. v. Malmo‑Levine. I think the following is the link to the judgement.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=cannabis+constitution&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

"As long as the legislation is directed at a legitimate public health evil and contains a prohibition accompanied by a penal sanction, and provided that it is not otherwise a “colourable” intrusion upon provincial jurisdiction, Parliament has, under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, discretion to determine the extent of the harm it considers sufficient for legislative action. However, where Parliament relies on the protection of health as its legitimate public purpose, it has to demonstrate the injurious or undesirable effect from which it seeks to safeguard the public. While there is no constitutional threshold level of harm required before Parliament may use its broad criminal law power, conduct with little or no threat of harm is unlikely to qualify as a public health evil."

A law that has the potential to imprison a person whose conduct causes little or no reasoned risk of harm to others offends the principles of fundamental justice. Such a law violates a person’s right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter. Be it as a criminal sanction or as a sanction to any other prohibition, imprisonment must, as a constitutional minimum standard, be reserved for those whose conduct causes a reasoned risk of harm to others. In victimizing conduct, the attribution of fault is relatively straightforward because of the close links between the actor’s culpable conduct and the resulting harm to the victim. Harm caused to collective interests, as opposed to harm caused to identifiable individuals, is not easy to quantify and even less easy to impute to a distinguishable activity or actor. In order to determine whether specific conduct, which perhaps only causes direct harm to the actor, or which seems rather benign, causes more than little or no risk of harm to others, courts must assess the interest of society in prohibiting and sanctioning the conduct. “Societal interests” may indeed form part of the s. 7 analysis where the operative principle of fundamental justice necessarily involves issues like the protection of society. Societal interests in prohibiting conduct are evaluated by balancing the harmful effects on society should the conduct in question not be prohibited by law against the effects of prohibiting the conduct. The harm or risk of harm to society caused by the prohibited conduct must outweigh any harm that may result from enforcement."

"There was agreement with the majority that the harm principle should not be raised to the level of a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Charter. However, fundamental rights are at stake and were breached and this Court must intervene as part of its constitutional duty to uphold the fundamental principles of our constitutional order. On the available evidence, the law, as it stands, is an arbitrary response to social problems. The Crown has failed to properly delineate the societal concerns and individual rights at stake, more particularly the liberty interest involved in this appeal. A breach of fundamental rights is made out if and when the response to a societal problem may overreach in such a way as to taint the particular legislative response with arbitrariness. Such a legislative overreach happened here."

"For the state to be able to justify limiting an individual’s liberty, the legislation upon which it bases its actions must not be arbitrary. ... Second, in view of the availability of more tailored methods, the choice of the criminal law for controlling conduct that causes little harm to moderate users or to control high‑risk groups for whom the effectiveness of deterrence or correction is highly dubious is out of keeping with Canadian society’s standards of justice. Third, the harm caused by prohibiting marihuana is fundamentally disproportionate to the problems that the state seeks to suppress. This harm far outweighs the benefits that the prohibition can bring."

"What is the “harm principle”? The appellants rely, in particular, on the writings of the liberal theorist, J. S. Mill, who attempted to establish clear boundaries for the permissible intrusion of the state into private life:"

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. . . . The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. [Emphasis added.]

(J. S. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (1946), at pp. 8-9)

feathers · Adminisrator Joined: 21 Oct 2006 Posts: 174

Here is a letter sent Registered to our Premier, Health and Agriculture ministers, BCCDC, and BC Processing Association.

Feathers Canada

c/o 1075 Spider Lake Road
Qualicum Beach, BC
V9K 2L7

250-757-2006

September 5th, 2007

To:

The Honourable Pat Bell
Minister of Agriculture and Lands

RE: BC MEAT REGULATIONS

Interview on "The Current", CBC, Friday August 31st

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200708/20070831.html CBC Radio, The Current for August 31, 2007 (8:30 - 9:30am)click on Part 1.

Mr. Bell,

We are writing in support of District A Farmers Institute's letter of concern, dated September 1st, 2007

In the CBC interview, Mr. Larry Copeland, Director of Food Protection Services, BC Ministry of Health, and Mr. Tony Toth, the CEO of the BC Food Processors Association made some very misinformed comments when portraying small scale food production.

Mr. Copeland's belief that the regulations foster sustainable smallscale food production is a complete fabrication. Many smallscale producers do their own processing, as has been part of Canada's heritage since day one. A typical production run would be 50 poultry or 1 cow at a time with a typical annual production of 300 birds or two to five cows. Three hundred meat birds would sell for around $4500, netting the producer about $1500, not counting labour costs. The average cost of a smallscale abattoir that satisfies the ministry's guidelines currently exceeds $150,000. On top of that, the public are expected to pay for a licensed inspector to travel to the farm and inspect each time the farmer wishes to slaughter. There is nothing sustainable about spending $150,000 on facilities to process $4500 worth of meat.

Mr. Toth's statement that small scale meat products are not safer than commercial farm meat products, is also a complete fabrication. Commercial food production is constantly in the headlines for getting people sick, smallscale food producers are not. This has been a consistent pattern since Canada started feeding itself with factory produced food.
What Mr Toth fails to realise is that disease is related to density. Increase your density and you increase your disease risks. The smallholder has consistently produced safer foods than the food factories because the smallholder maintains low density populations and processes the food at low volume. The smallholder is also selling to friends, family, and neighbours and therefore is going to care more about the quality of the product produced than a food factory assembly line worker.

The government suggests that the regulations are necessary to satisfy Canada's international trade obligations and to protect public health. These claims are also complete fabrication. As already stated, smallscale food production does NOT have a history of getting Canadians sick. Second, smallscale producers are not exporters of food, they tend to sell to their immediate communities. Their priority is feeding Canadians, not exploiting them.

It should be noted that the regulations actually are a violation of Canada's international treaty obligations and are a violation of our Charter of Rights.

Canada is a signatory of the United Nation's Convention of Biological Diversity. With this treaty, Canada has agreed to protect Canada's Farm Animal Genetic Diversity and the historical practices that support it. On farm processing and sales have historically supported the preservation of our heritage breeds. The genetics used by Canada's commercial food factories is owned by less than a dozen trans-national corporations, none of which are Canadian. The only Farm Animal Genetic Resources owned by Canadians is in the hands of Canada's smallholders. These smallholders are the ones preserving Canada's long term food security. Without them, we have NO farm animal food sovereignty. It is illegal for this government, or any regulator, to needlessly threaten Canada's Farm Animal Genetic Resources.

Canada's Charter of Rights also protects the right of the smallholder to process and sell food from the farm. It is illegal for any government, or regulator, to restrict this freedom when there is NO DEMONSTRATED need to do so. The good done by any such restriction MUST outweigh the harm done by the restriction and this is not the case here.

Canada's Charter of Rights also protects the rights of the consumer to purchase healthier and higher quality foods direct from the farmer, without restriction. Canada's courts recognise this as a Right to Self Determination.

Most jurisdictions in North America recognise these rights and as a result their meat regulations contain exemptions for smallscale producers. Typically, those producing less than 1,000 birds are exempt from federal, state, and provincial meat processing regulations.

Feathers Canada has done the legal research and have compiled case law which clearly demonstrates that applying BC's Meat Regulations to the smallholder is illegal. Forcing smallholders to comply with them is not defendable in a Canadian Court of Law. Feathers Canada intends to further develop a legal defence to the Meat Regulations and to make this defence available to any and all individuals negatively impacted by these laws or any attempts to enforce them.

Feathers Canada strongly urges this government to revisit it's meat restrictions and include the participation of NGO's such as Feathers Canada when drafting smallholder exemptions more in line with Canada's social values.

Signed

Wayne Osborne
President, Feathers Canada
Representing the interests of the smallhold poultry community.

CC:

Premier Gordon Campbell

Hon. George Abbott
Minister of Health

Hon. Barry Penner
Minister of Environment

Hon. Rick Thorpe
Minister of Small Business and Revenue

Corky Evans
Opposition Critic Ag. and Lands

Adrian Dix
Opposition Critic for Health

Shane Simpson
Opposition Critic for Environment

Gregor Robertson
Opposition Critic for Small Business, Revenue and Deregulation
Tony Toth
CEO, BCFPA

Larry Copeland
Director, FPS, Min of Health

Pam Bertrand
Executive. Producer, The Current, CBC

Connie Watson
The Current, CBC

Bill Code, MD
President, Islands Farmers Alliance

Paul Davidson
President FARM Community Council

CC: NGOs

Frank Moreland
Edible Strategies

Cheeying Ho
Exec. Director, SmartGrowth BC

Jordan Marr
Farm Folk City Folk

Jen Lam
Nanaimo100 Mile Diet

100 Mile Diet
Frederique Philip

Mr. Sinclair
Slow Food Canada

Cathy Holtslander
Beyond Factory Farming

Pamela Zevit
ALR Watch

Donna Passmore
Agricultural Activist

Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition
Penny Stapleton

BC Sheep Federation
Kathy Millar