PART THREE: THE PUBLIC’S ONLY RECOURSE:

The only recourse for the public is to submit an FOI request to the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of the Attorney General, but as CKNW’s Bill Good Show and I have now learned this is an unsatisfactory and indirect means to attain information about the SPCA. Here’s why:

Oversight of the SPCA is limited to the cruelty investigation aspects of the PCA Act: The MAFF is responsible to oversee potential by-law changes related only to cruelty enforcement aspects of the PCA Act, and the Attorney General ensures suspects’ privacy and property rights are not infringed during SPCA investigations. Government’s aim, obviously, is to protect potential or actual animal cruelty suspects’ rights NOT to protect the innocent, paying public, the taxpayers, donors, volunteers, and members who provide all of the funds to/for the SPCA. For example and as mentioned above, there is no oversight, as there would be under the Society Act, of changes to internal bylaws about governance etc.

The SPCA, however, submits annual financial statements to government. Under Section 9 (1)[a] of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the SPCA must file with the Registrar of Companies within 14 days of its AGM “in respect of the society and each of its branches, audited financial statements, each in the form of a balance sheet containing general particulars of assets and liabilities, and a statement of income and expenditure.” The SPCA has never filed annual audited financial statements. As stated clearly in the BC SPCA’s annual report, the 2001 financial statements were reviewed, not audited by Coquitlam chartered accountants Mohr and Co. The Mohr and Co. Review Engagement Report done for that year’s consolidated financials, clearly says, “A review does not constitute an audit and consequently we do not express an audit opinion on these financial statements.”

The BC SPCA’s Tall Tales, a website section meant to right “rumors,” as recently as April 15, 2003 claimed, "The audited financial statements are distributed at the BC SPCA's Annual General Meeting and are available to any member of the public who requests a copy."

The MAFF told/tells the public that the SPCA is fulfilling its requirements under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act:

"Fur still flying over the way SPCA conducts itself by Lisa Morray, Chilliwack Times February 21, 2003: The B.C. SPCA has come under the scrutiny of the premier's office after questions about fiscal management, according to Barb Wright a spokesperson for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Wright confirmed that Premier Gordon Campbell had asked staff to look into the management of the SPCA.

"They (the SPCA) are not doing anything they shouldn't be doing and are fulfilling the requirements of the act," Wright said.

Wright said the government is aware there has been a furor of opposition to changes in the way the SPCA does business and is keeping track of what is going on. The complaints reached the premier's office because provincial legislation governs prevention of cruelty to animals and specifically names the SPCA as the agency charged with carrying out that mandate.

However, the SPCA is not a public agency although it takes on the role of preventing cruelty to animals in the province and is specifically named in the act, Wright said.

If changes to legislation were required, the government would consider that, she said."

Locally, the fur hit the fan on Jan. 17 when the Times reported the SPCA would close the Chilliwack and Langley shelters. This immediately after volunteer Ena Vermerris spent $30,000 of her own money and invested plenty of community support in building a cat shelter on the property.

By the end of the month, the entire SPCA community advisory council handed in their resignation and former local SPCA treasurer, Sue Vilandre, countered the SPCA's claim that the Chilliwack shelter was sinking by $300,000 a year, instead revealing records that showed the shelter showed a small surplus in recent years.

The SPCA has now announced its intention to build a cat facility at the Community Corrections Centre in the Chilliwack near Young Road and the rail tracks. Vermerris said the SPCA asked her if they could move her cat facility to that location and she turned them down.

That would eliminate the possibility of getting her money back, she explained, and she wants to keep her options open in helping animals, particularly cats, in the Chilliwack community.

"I don't need to be a victim because you haven't got your - - - - together and that's what I told them," Vermerris said.

Vermerris said the SPCA administration told her they were not aware of the cat facility, which she calls "a fairly substantial gift."

"Are they that flush that $30,000 is nothing?" she asked.

Neither the government nor the BC SPCA has been scrupulous about relaying the facts to the public. The SPCA has minimal conditions to meet in comparison to organizations administered under the Society Act; still it has never met and is not meeting one of the few conditions it does have. And, the municipalities are noticing.

February 11, 2004 NOW News -- Council asks SPCA for audit, balanced budget by Simone Blais: After reviewing the books, Port Coquitlam council is calling upon the B.C. SPCA to adopt a sustainable budget and conduct an audit. PoCo's protective services committee recommended council send a letter to the provincial Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals after finding a $4.5- million deficit in the SPCA's unaudited financial statements in 2002. "We're really encouraging them to be a sustainable organization financially," Coun. Greg Moore said during Monday night's council meeting in introducing the two recommendations. "As we pay for these services, we are asking them and encouraging them to do these two things." PoCo recently renewed its animal control contract with the SPCA, effective until 2008, and council unanimously approved sending a letter to the SPCA to not only balance its budget but audit its financial statements annually. The letter said that upon review of the 2002 statement of operations, the city is "concerned with what appears to be an ongoing operating deficit and we urge you to develop a balanced budget." Nancy Gomerich, director of corporate services, noted in her report to council that while some of the losses relate to the reorganization of the SPCA, a significant portion are related to general operations. The second portion of the city's letter asks the SPCA to review its books annually, as "an organization relying on a great extent of donations and fundraising should be audited annually, and this is in fact a requirement of the Society Act." Gomerich also noted in her report that the SPCA's chief executive officer, Craig Daniell, has assured her that the Society's 2003 accounts will be audited.
(Note: Gomerich’s reference to the Society Act is not correct: the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, under which the BC SPCA falls, requires an audit – Kimberly Daum)

BC SPCA CEO Daniell says the BC SPCA will produce an audited statement this year. Where have we heard this before?

BC SPCA Annual general Meeting, April 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes: Treasurers Report by Randy Reynolds. “Mr. Reynolds advised that the Society is required to provide audited Financial Statements to the government. It is hoped that the Society can meet the goal of a fully audited Financial statement for the year 2000.”

BC SPCA Annual General Meeting, April 27, 2002 Transcript of meeting tape. Provincial Treasurer Randy Reynolds: “You know the government requires us to present audited financial statements to them each year. We have never been able to do that but we are headed in that direction…(and intend to) produce an audited statement for the year 2002.”

The BC SPCA keeps promising audited financial statements but never delivers. Its next AGM is in late May. (Saturday, May 29th)

The public interest, members, donors and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act were further insulted when the SPCA failed to submit as required by the law ANY financial statement, either reviewed or audited, to the membership at its AGM on April 26th, 2003. The BC SPCA’s 2002 financial report was released at an October 18, 2003 Special General Meeting, months after what was required by the Cruelty Act. Price-Waterhouse-Coopers’ Review Engagement Report appears on page 15 of the Annual Report and includes a paragraph saying, “The review does not constitute an audit and consequently we do not express an audit opinion on these financial statements.”

Given the many complaints to the Premier and the Ministry, and that I have told the Ministry myself that the SPCA has not audited its financial statements, the government is obviously aware of the facts, and the public wants to know, among other things, why the SPCA is not held to account and why the government is covering up for the SPCA. Even if the Society files audited statements for 2003, those questions will remain open since they are aimed at government not the BC SPCA.

Circumstances such as this cry out for solutions, one of which would be including the BC SPCA under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.