This just in from Gordon Watson in B.C.:
Someone just brought to our attention that the regulation which categorically outlawed packaging and distribution of raw milk for human consumption, in British Columbia, was repealed last year
If what appears on the website < www.bclaws.ca > is correct, then the bright lights atop the Liberal govt. didn’t even tell the lawyer for Fraser Health Authority prior to our court appearance on December 6th last year. But … as they taught my old man at the Officers Training School … ” never discount stupidity”
To check this out, go to < www.bclaws.ca > then click on the “P” in the alphabet at the top. When you get to the next screen with all the Statutes starting with “P”, scroll down to the Public Health Act. Immediately under that heading, there are the Regulations subordinate to that Act. Scroll down some more until you see “Public Health Act Transitional Regulation“. What’s shown there says that sections 6 and 7 were repealed by an Order in Council as of December 2 2011.
UNlearned in the law as I am, that tells me there is now no law concerning cowsharing. Thus, the two letters I have, exempting cowsharing from the requirement in the Milk Industry Act – that all milk on its way to market must be Pasturized – are the last word on the subject.
Cowsharing is not illegal as long as we can satisfy someone in authority (will be the BC Ministry of Agriculture ) that we’re meeting the two terms stipulated, that :
– Members of a cowshare are aware of the risks of consuming raw milk ; and,
– They are in touch with the condtions under which the animals are kept
My guess is that things were done behind the scenes because what we were saying in public made so much sense, and because the political animals sensed they were on the losing side of the issue.
What I’ll be doing asap is, getting a Certified True Copy of the Order in Council which proclaimed Regulation 216/2011. And getting the Minister of Health to confirm on official stationery what my understanding is.
Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Themselves & Be Their Own Politicians
The Bovine 
its simply a housekeeping issue
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/216_2011
raw milk is still illegal, and you still can be prosecuted under a repealed law, but no one can be charged from the date the law was withdrawn
essentially charges in the courts can continue even though the law is not in force as long as you were charged prior to the law’s repeal
now whether that is A RATIONAL DECISION BY THE COURTS , well I look forward to further comments 🙂
I’m the one who discovered this change while trying find the earlier reference from this thread in which I pointed out (from Nadine’s research) that the laws are so strict that breast feeding may be illegal in BC.
I’m not so sure Gordon’s interpretation is correct.
I agree with _looking for accurate news_ (above) that this is probably just a matter of “housekeeping,” because (as _looking_ points out) nearly identical language still exists in the Health Hazards Regulation. Some clerk just discovered it was a duplicate and therefore it was eliminated from the Public Health Act, Transitional Regulation.
Still, if legislators are getting in and tinkering with things, this is (as the Chinese say) both an opportunity and a crisis. It’s probably a good time to write or call your MLA or better yet, ask for a meeting on this issue.
If you do get a meeting, there are a bunch of us who were involved in the 23 November rally who will gladly help prep you for the meeting.
the resident – anonymous! – legal expert holds “you can still be prosecuted under a repealed law” … oh, really? Show me one single instance of that in the real world. The principle in British jurisprudence is : when a law ( regulation) is struck down, “it is as if it never was”
if you’re laboring under the misapprehension that “some clerk” makes law absent consultation from the people directly affected, I recommend you educate you-self : read the 2007 case of where the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Health Services Act of BC, on the ground that a govt. has a DUTY to consult with those affected.
your homework is to read the Supreme Court of BC case in April 2011, HM t Q in right of BC and the BC Teachers & David Chudnovsky where Justice Griffin used the same precept to strike down a second law.
I recommend that the anonymous poster : searcher for accurate news show his /her face Mar 22 2012, in the gallery of the Supreme Court of BC at New West. watching Fraser Health’s lawyer Susan Beach, explain to a judge how she can proceed with the contempt of Court charge absent the ground on which it was founded! No, we’ve suffered an egregious abuse of process, which is a tort. As Leonard Cohen put it “they’ve summoned-up a thundercloud. Now they’re going to have to deal with me”
all the naysayers be damned = The REAL MILK is flowing in BC today … Praise God!
Gordon, perhaps _looking for accurate news_ is incorrect about “prosecuting under a repealed law,” but as I pointed out, nearly identical language still exists in the Health Hazards Regulation.
I don’t understand the difference between an “Act” and a “Regulation.” It seems “Acts” are passed by the legislature, while “Regulations” are written by bureaucrats in order to implement “Acts?” Anyone have the definitive answer?
it happens all of the time in criminal court, lets say you commit a crime when you are 17 (murder for example) you get arrested 35 years later, you are charged under the criminal code in effect the day of the offense
by the way Mr. Watson, i am not a lawyer but i work in court system, furthermore I find your [snip] postings of the past to be very offensive
its about time you issue a public apology
Cowshare milk is never sold in a market, so should be exempted from the pasteurization requirement.
@aed939, the BC regulations don’t talk about “selling;” they talk about “supplying,” and it appears such changes were made co-incident with Alice Jongerdon’s problems.
Knowing this, we’ve carefully avoided the word “supply” in our herd-share agreements, instead talking about the rights of co-owners to “receive” their milk. But I have no doubt that an overly zealous health authority would have no respect for mere words.
An Act is a Statute. Statutes are passed by the Legislative Assembly = it’s a provincial Parliament. An Act or an amendment to an Act must be considered three times, as it moves along during a session. If it doesn’t get approved after 3 readings, it “dies on the Order paper”… is defunct.
A Regulation is a proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor made by Order in Council. In practice, the Executive Council runs the province. Its a group of people who do what they want, then get the Lieutenant Gov. to sign an Order to authorize it under the British system. One does not have to be elected in order to be on the Executive Council. For instance, the NDP appointed Chief Ed John to be on the Council, then he ran for a seat later. The elections are not much more than show-biz
A Regulation has the force of a law. But a Regulation is still subject to the DUTY of a govt. to consult with those directly affected.
This situation – where the BC govt. first of all concocted a Regulation to outlaw raw milk, without consulting us, then got rid of that one, while coming up with another one, demonstrates how despicable this administration is … absolutely “unclear on the concept” of how it’s supposed to be done.
The case of Boss Power / Blizzard, makes for good reading. They settled out of court for $30 million dollar$ after proving how the govt. of BC had committed mis-feasance of public office.
Our right to use and enjoy our private property – our cows – will prevail over these idiots attempting to impose red fascism on us
Thanks, Gordon. I’ve never heard the difference between an Act and a Regulation explained before.
It seems that we can more easily bring pressure to bear regarding Regulations than Acts. But I don’t think disrespecting the people you’re negotiating with — no matter how justified it may seem — is helpful in the end. Either work outside the system you disagree with, or work within it to change it. Calling the people you need to change “despicable” is not a good way to influence them!
While cowshares may have been illegal in the past they have always been lawful. The English right of parties to contract is a 700 tradition of English common law. The criminals in guberment can make anything illegal but they can not change what is lawful.
Good point, inalieblewrights, private agreements are private agreements and not the public’s domain…lawfully. If Cow Shares are private, not public, they are lawful…and our right.
Co-0wners receiving their milk sounds private and sensible. Words are certainly important for clarity of intentions.
Thanks Mona ….. I think we should also all look into the concept of “dining clubs” and “buying clubs”. As they are also based on the right to contract.
I have heard that dining clubs were started in Italy as a way to get around the draconian restaurant laws there. Every organic farm should think about a dining club and holding dinners for people in their area.
… or, for that matter, a bawdy house… See paragraphs 156 to 161 in the following case law: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=raw+milk+british&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/oncj/doc/2010/2010oncj9/2010oncj9.html