February 27, 2004

CONTEXT:
The BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is best known as a charity. But, it is also a business holding contracts and providing services for municipalities. And, it is a statutory law enforcement body that investigates animal cruelty complaints under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It is an enigma among societies, as it does not fall under the more demanding and democratic Society Act. The BC SPCA is for all intents and purposes a monopoly with a $20 million annual budget, a very sizable animal welfare “portfolio.” Of that between $2.5 and $4 million comes from municipal contracts under which the society provides animal control services. The remainder comes from “volunteer tax dollars” in the form of donations and legacies. By comparison, the Variety Club’s annual provincial budget is about $6.5 million.

That BC citizens donate so many funds to the SPCA indicates a substantial interest in animal welfare in BC. Yet, societies such as the Variety Club with lesser funds and even humble, little animal rescue, volunteer groups are governed under the more stringent Society Act, while its own exclusive PCA Act, which has few requirements by comparison, governs the wealthier SPCA.

The BC SPCA has run itself into a $10 million deficit and fiscal crisis during the past three years, which in my view is an unconscionable abuse of donors’ goodwill.

What the SPCA does and what the provincal government allows it to do affects provincial and civic taxpayers, municipal governments, communities and neighbourhoods, employees, donors, members, other animal groups and of course B.C.’s abandoned, homeless and/or abused animals, but we have no means to review how the SPCA carries out its operations. The SPCA itself is not subject to FOI search; therefore, the only direct access to its records is through the SPCA itself. My experience as a freelance journalist is that leaks, not SPCA releases, of information are the most common course by which important information and documentation, as opposed to rhetoric, gets from the society to the public. Asking for important information is a futile exercise.

Additionally, the SPCA does not fall under the auspices of the Ombudsman; complaints to the government about the SPCA have traditionally been met with one of two responses:

1) Government advice to take the complaint back to the SPCA, the very government sanctioned and authorized institution about which one is complaining, or

2) A defense of the SPCA’s 100-plus year record, regardless of whether the complaint is about the veracity of the SPCA’s record as stated in the media, its website, news releases or other publications.

The inconsistency in government oversight of BC charities compared to the BC SPCA is a key reason that the SPCA should fall under the provincial Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. If the government is incompetent, unwilling and/or unable to oversee the BC SPCA, the public must be allowed to.