[1994 Legislative Session:3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
WEDNESDAY, April 13, 1994
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. D. Zirnhelt:
The offence provision will require the SPCA to give an animal owner
the chance to take action immediately to help the animal. However, if
the owner ignores the warning, the society will have the authority to
take action to help the animal and to recommend to the Crown Counsel
that charges be laid.
In proposing the amendments to the act to increase the powers of the
SPCA, I have also been aware of the fact that the SPCA needs to
recognize all the interests of the public when using its power under the
act. The SPCA has always done that, and I am confident that the society
will continue to do so. But we still have a responsibility to ensure
that the significant powers given to the SPCA are used reasonably. To
help ensure that, the amendments will require the SPCA to put in
place comprehensive policies and procedures to guide its agents on the
use of the act's enforcement powers, and they will make those policies
subject to government review[1]. SPCA agents will also have to
be appointed as special provincial constables under the Police Act in
order to be able to exercise the act's enforcement powers. This will
ensure that SPCA agents have proper training, and
it will also give the public
the right to have and agent's actions reviewed by an independent review
body when they're unhappy with the actions of an agent.
[2]
The amendments will also expressly state that the offence provision
does not apply to activities carried out according to reasonable and
generally accepted management practices.
They will emphasize that the act must be administered in a way which
ensures that animals are treated humanely, while still allowing uses of
animals to continue.
[3]
R.Chisholm:
There are a few items that need clarifications by the minister, such
as
the definition of cruelty.
[4] What does cruelty mean to you and to me? We want to hear
what the minister thinks about that, considering
it is not defined in the bill. It could be and
area of contention. Another area we want clarification on is: What is
critical distress, and how do you judge it? Veterinarians are having
problems with these terminologies. We'd like to hear the minister's
point of view on this so we'll have it on the record, and people will
know where they stand. [5]Another area is the powers of
the authorized agent, or special constable. What training is the SPCA
going to have to make sure that it's standardized?
What standards do the special constables adhere to when they go
out on a task? [6]We would like to hear just what the
standards will be. It's not talked about in the bill right now.
C. Serwa:
I don't know how the minister proposes that regulations will be drawn
up through this legislation that will indicate clearly what is on one
side of the line and what is on the other side.
B.Copping:
I stress that the last thing the SPCA
wants to do is separate owners from their animals. They want to be able
to point out to owners: "This is what you're doing wrong; you can do it
better. We will help educate you." If must comes to must, then you lay
charges; but that is certainly not the first thing any SPCA people I
know would ever do.[7]
H. De Jong:
I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 4. I suppose Bill 4 raises two
important philosophical questions: the first is our relationship with
nature and, more particularly, with animals; the second is our approach
to providing service and whether or not a
province wide monopoly[8] is the appropriate way of
dealing with the variety of situations which exist across British
Columbia.
The second issue relates to how Bill 4 goes about dealing with the
need to strengthen the protection of domestic animals. The government
appears to assume that one size fits all. With this approach, there
would be plenty of sore customers if they were running a shoe store. The
SPCA is a fine organization, with an excellent reputation, but they are
not the only agency capable of dealing with animals.
I object to granting any organization a
legislative monopoly
[9]unless there are truly
compelling reasons to do so. It is not good for the taxpayers to have no
choice, and it is not good for even the
best-intentioned organizations to have no competition or possibility of
competition in the future.[10]
It's a very strange kind of
privatization: giving police powers to a private organization. If the
subjects were people rather that animals, it would be like turning the
justice system over to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. To have a
say in the policies adopted, you would have to buy a membership.
But in Bill 4, police powers are extended province wide to a single
private society - albeit a well-respected and sincerely dedicated
organization.
The question is though: what other society has similar jurisdiction
extended beyond the confines of its voluntary membership to the general
public? I believe that police powers ought to be exercised by the
police. [11]
I would like to ask the minister to be clear about who is going to
pay for the agents established under part 3 of this bill. Is this
another downloading of costs on local government, which the Minister of
Government Services used to complain about so bitterly when he was in
opposition? How much are we talking about? Many charities have had
unfavorable publicity in recent years about empire-building and
excessive administrative overhead. What is
riper for empire building than a legislated monopoly? Is the reason for
the monopoly in this bill administrative convenience?[12]
The bill polices farmers in determining when an animal is in
critical distress. Does the minister have any estimate of the cost of
this policing?
The trouble with setting up
schemes you can't afford to police adequately is that you open the door
to discretionary enforcement. There will always be the potential for
favoritism and similar sorts of abuse. If a farmer was a strong critic
of the government, would the government inspectors look at his animals
more critically that those of his neighbors, or would you have a new
make-work project, looking for problems that aren't really there?
[13]
I'm not clear what "any premises" means in this act. For example,
does it include barns or barnyards? The
power to enter private property without a warrant is a serious matter.
Giving this power to private society is quite alien to our legal system.
[14]Under Bill 4, apparently only the farmer's dwelling
is exempted from this type of invasion of privacy. I'm not sure that
the government has considered the serious ramifications in the case of
mistaken entry or damage done as a result, since the existing
legislation exempts from liability those who enforce it.
Under Bill 4, as in so much NDP
legislation, the public must rely on cabinet regulations to be
adequately safeguarded against overzealous enforcement.[15]
To conclude, the intent of the bill may have some good in it, and
there is a definite need to address. But I fear the minister has been
offered a quick fix, a superficially appealing
solution which contains many hidden pitfalls and unforeseen
consequences.
Not the least of these is the dangerous precedent in endowing any
private organization, no matter how benevolent, with police powers
bolstered by statutory immunity from damage claims.[16]
At committee stage, I would urge the minister to substantially modify
this bill.
AAS and others have raised all these
concerns
Posted By: Judy Stone, President, AAS
Date: Thursday, 24 March 2005, at 7:19 a.m.
In Response To:
1994: PCA Act debate raised many red flags (AAS)
THE WATCHDOG
Valerius Geist, PhD., P. Biol.Letter
to the Attorney General: I have grave concerns pertaining to the
administration of justice
Posted By: Valerius Geist
Date: Saturday, 2 April 2005, at 10:31 a.m.
In Response To:
AAS trusted and defended Craig Daniell until the Graham seizure *LINK*
*PIC* (AAS)
To the Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General
PO Box 9044, Stn PROV GOVT
VICTORIA, BC,
V8W 9E2, Canada
EnquiryBC@gems3.gov.bc.ca
Date: 31st January 2005
Dear Minister,
Re: The necessity of amending Section 1(2) and 11(a) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in order to clarify the intent of
the legislation.
I am writing you as I have grave concerns pertaining to the
administration of justice using the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act. I am asking that your office look into this matter with a view of
amending said legislation so as to prevent the kind of happenings I am
drawing your attention to below and which brings the administration of
justice into disrepute. This pertains to an action under Sections 1
(2) and 11 (a) of said Act by the BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR THE
PRESERVATION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, hereafter called BCSPCA. As the
courts now interpret said legislation it defeats due process and gives
to the policing agents arbitrary powers against which defendants of
little means in a small town are essentially helpless. To put it
plainly, the court, unwittingly, has legitimized what is in essence
small-town terror, in which officials can exercise questionable
judgment to the detriment of citizen against which they have no
recourse. As in the case in question it leads to more than wrongful
conviction and grave injustice. It also imposes great public costs,
without fulfilling the goal of the legislation. None of this can be in
the public interest. It also raises the question to what extent legal
zeal shall be allowed to override basic morality and elementary
decency.
The tragedy I am referring to can be followed up in detail in the
records of the SUPREME COURT of BRITISH COLUMBIA, between: BRITISH
COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS and:
HEATHER GRAHAM AND RONALD GRAHAM, No. L 032120, Vancouver Registry, as
well as in the records and transcripts of Regina v. Ronald and Heather
Graham, Crown File No. 26668 in Port Alberni. There is additional
material available in support of the Grahams.
The Grahams are an elderly couple of retirement age, living in
great rural poverty and most limited income in Port Alberni. Their
passion was dogs shows, in which Mrs. Graham won some 522 awards
registered with the Canadian Kennel Club. Their operation had been
inspected by the BCSPCA on numerous occasions without any request for
change. However, relationships did sour, no small matter, Mr.
Minister, in a small town! Mrs. Graham, aware of the couples' age and
infirmities, was winding down operations, when on April 15th 2003,
they were suddenly raided by the SPCA and charged under federal as
well as provincial legislation in criminal and provincial courts. The
raid was televised and reported on in print with the Grahams accused
of running a puppy mill (a charge denied by the judge presiding over
Regina v. Ronald and Heather Graham), while the Grahams were pilloried
publicly and repeatedly juxtaposed on TV to filthy dogs that did not
belong to them. The RCMP was part of this unseemly spectacle, although
it was also the RCMP that deserves some praise, as it was Constable
Shaun Clark who saw to it that Mrs. Graham was properly hospitalized
when she broke down over the public abuse she had suffered as well as
the loss of her dogs to which she and Mr. Graham were closely
attached. The Grahams cashed in their small RRSP to defend themselves,
which, for that year, raised their income above the limit to receive
legal aid. The Grahams went into debt with a 'loan to payday' lender,
as they could raise no loan with regular banks. This money also ran
out and they were faced with two said court cases without legal
representation. As a neighbor I was asked to help out, but which
disqualified me by the rules of the court to be material witness for
the defense. My professional and academic expertise does cover the
matter of health and animal behavior and well-being, in addition to
which I have kept and trained dogs for two decades and had then known
the Grahams as neighbors for some eight years. The Grahams were thus
deprived in court of both legal and material expertise. In reviewing
the Crown's material against the Grahams I was not merely appalled at
the lack of professionalism as evidenced by a plethora of errors, but
by the fabrication of evidence. I damaged the Grahams' case by
pointing out to the Crown that their's was based on a remarkable
spectrum of questionable witnesses, questioning whether it was in the
interest of justice to proceed with such flawed evidence. I was
assured that my findings - dismissed as mere theory - could be tested
in court. However, they were not! Crown counsel ably avoided the
incriminating evidence, thereby protecting his witnesses against
perjury. Clearly, by this very action, he agreed with my findings that
his witnesses had presented to the Crown questionable statements in
order to incriminate the Grahams. We were promised a fair trial, but
such was not the case, as not even the veracity of witnesses could be
tested, in large part due to my ignorance of court procedures and the
refusal of Crown counsel to allow me to introduce corrective measures.
As a senior scientist I had never cross-examined a witness in my life
let alone acted as an advocate in court (though I have acted as an
expert witness in cases here and in the United States). When I pointed
out to the judge important background matters, Crown counsel reminded
the judge that my evidence must not be taken into account under any
circumstances, an indication that judgment could not be equitable if
what I spoke to was damaging to the Crown's case. The SPCA's own
veterinarians reported that the Grahams' dogs were healthy, as also
attested to by the Grahams' veterinarian. Technically, if the animals
are healthy then the environment they live in is also healthful, no
matter how unusual or even obnoxious it may appear to us. And on this
matter, Mr. Minister, based on decades of academic and professional
work, I am the judge. And the Grahams did keep their dogs, in large
part due to rural poverty, in admittedly quite unusual circumstances.
The attempt to criminalize the Grahams under the federal Criminal
Code failed, but they were convicted under provincial legislation,
fined, deprived of their animals and are exposed now to
court-sanctioned loss of elementary privacy. I had warned in writing
Crown counsel that he was heading for wrongful conviction which, in my
judgment, was achieved. A private person, distressed over the
perceived injustice, financed legal counsel to examine possible
appeals and handle the case in Supreme Court. An appeal on procedure
was not possible; an appeal on substance was not allowed. It is
important to note that all the false witness we pointed out is part of
the sworn affidavits submitted to the Supreme Court by the BCSPCA, and
exposed as such in the counter affidavit submitted by the Grahams to
Supreme Court plus exhibits. Such material was, to our knowledge, not
examined by a judge of the Supreme Court as the Grahams were counseled
to settle out of court. There are also the transcripts of Regina v.
Ronald and Heather Graham. There is, therefore, extensive
documentation in your hands. Mr. Minister, may I suggest that we are
dealing here not merely with a miscarriage of justice, but with a
scandal.
All this could have been avoided had the BCSPCA acted as upon plain
reading of the legislation and as interpreted by independent counsel
and by lower courts, due process demands under Sections 1(2) and 11(a)
of the Act, namely, that the investigating officer supply the Grahams
with a notice detailing what was wrong with their setup and demand due
attention to matters raised in a reasonable time. Such never happened.
The Grahams had been assured by too many previous SPCA inspections,
and no reasonable person could have foreseen that the SPCA found
criminally objectionable what it had approved for 13 years.
Mr. Minister, the Act needs clarifying via amendments, because as
it now stands it allows capriciousness, questionable judgment to
supersede elementary justice, let alone common decency. And such is
offended by attempting to criminalize unfairly, essentially helpless
citizen over an utterly pathetic triviality. And please consider the
cost of it all to the public, not only the court costs, but the long
term costs to the public of depriving impoverished elderly people of
their means of existence and their chief enjoyment and social standing
in the twilight of their life.
Sincerely,
Valerius Geist, PhD., P. Biol.
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science
Appended electronically: Grahams' Supreme Court Affidavit
Re: Section 11 (a)
cc. Gillian Trumper, MLA
Ken McRae, Mayor of Port Alberni
Judy Stone, President, Animal Advocates Society of BC
|