A letter from Animal Right Coalition to Solicitor General and Minister of Agriculture

March 18, 2006

To: The Honourable John Les, Solicitor General of British Columbia and The Honourable Pat Bell, Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia
Cc: all members of the British Columbia Legislature

This submission proposes a process by which enforcement of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can be improved within the province of British Columbia, We are addressing this to both Ministers as reform of the animal cruelty investigations is a joint responsibility under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Police Act.

Issue: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of animal welfare and animal cruelty investigations throughout the province.
Background; On the one hand the SPCA is a public body in terms of having statutory power to deliver its animal welfare services but its legal status as a non-profit society excuses its records from the purview of the Act, a peculiar status, and one which we feel needs review.

• The Agriculture Minister has responsibility for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Solicitor General for policing;
In 1994 by amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act the SPCA was appointed to enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in those areas where it operates. Peace Officers are responsible in other areas;
• The Province does not fund the enforcement or other operations of the SPCA.
The problems we are experiencing today were forewarned by concerned members of the legislature at the time the amendment was passed.

From Hansard 1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35lh Parliament

Member H. de Jong:
“Is the reason for the monopoly in this bill administrative convenience?"
"The trouble with setting up schemes you can't afford to police adequately is that you open up 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 (or the SPCA), would government inspector (or SPCA inspectors) look at his animals more critically than those of his neighbours, or would you have a new make-work project, looking for problems that aren't really there?-" What is riper for empire building than a legislated monopoly."

"It's a very strange kind of privatization: giving police powers to a private organization.. to have a say in the policies adopted, you would have to buy a membership. ... 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 Us voluntary membership to the general public? I believe that police powers ought to be exercised by the police. "
“(This is) 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."

Analysis: Animal cruelty continues to occur across the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, the current system of investigation is not effective. (Please see the accompanying pages for a summary of recent problems covered in the media where the system was not effective in deterring cruelty or responding appropriately when cruelty is detected.)
• The current system lacks transparency and accountability in respect to the
enforcement activities of the SPCA;

• The current system provides the SPCA with powers to investigate and enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act but does not provide a positive obligation that it do so:

• Responsibility for enforcement in areas where the SPCA does not operate falls to "Peace Officers". This means there is no specific responsibility for enforcement. In addition, there is no mechanism for assuring consistency in standards or enforcement across the province;

• The SPCA is placed in a potential conflict of interest between the need to raise funds for its Operations and its obligations as a special policing agency;

• Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act the SPCA is mandated to be the agent for the animals. This agency relationship puts the SPCA in direct conflict with its own practices of enforcing animal control bylaws under its many Animal Pound contracts throughout the province.

On one hand the SPCA is supposed to be intervening on the animals’ behalf and on the other hand it is working against the animals on behalf of the municipalities, impounding and disposing of animals which have been neglected, abandoned or abused by their owners. There is no supervision of the SPCA in either of its dual roles.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should be handled independently of the SPCA or any other non governmental body. This is a governmental responsibility and should be a function of government.

• Animal welfare and the enforcement of cruelty laws are separate functions and should not be carried out by one and the same organization.

• At present the SPCA is accorded the privilege of overseeing other registered animal charities and animal welfare organizations yet there is no neutral body available to the public that includes a formal mechanism for bringing forward complaints against the SPCA. This allows the SPCA to avoid investigating its own actions or to reduce them to an internal issue outside the scope of public scrutiny.
Options:
• Retain current enforcement responsibilities;
• Establish an independent Authority with responsibility for enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act;
• Establish an independent Authority to regulate enforcement by the SPCA, municipalities and other, responsible agencies.

Recommendation:

Establish a consultative committee to engage key stakeholder groups in evaluating how enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can be improved and reformed. As spay and neuter programs have clearly been demonstrated to be the key to minimizing animal cruelty this is an area that that can be studied in more detail.

The following examples, some very public and reported on by the media, illustrate the serious shortfalls and questionable judgment used in a number of instances against citizens and organizations of this province, whereby animals have been seized by overzealous constables from the SPCA while at the same time horrific cases of abuses were exposed at one of their own municipal branches.

Burnaby Now reports "SPCA under attack " 03/23/2005 (see enclosure) Burnaby SPCA employee(s) in November, 2003 alleged to have committed 22 documented abuse and cruelty incidents of animals in their care. BCSPCA investigates itself. No information available to find out what, if any disciplinary actions or prevention of this abuse was taken. Employee(s) involved in these incidents still employed by BCSPCA.

The Vancouver Sun Westcoast News The Daily Special April 29,2004 (see enclosure) Barbara Yaffe, Columnist reports on the SPCA 'A Prison Camp For Animals'. Neglect of suffering animals and excessive euthanasia happen too often at society shelters, two insiders say.

The Province, Sunday. June 13, 2004 (see enclosure) Jon Ferry, Columnist reports "BCSPCA should be probed by someone with bloodhound nose" The scandal plagued SPCA- needs a radical overhaul.

The Vancouver Sun April 19, 2005 (see enclosure) The SPCA vs Mr. Van Dongen , Visits by special constables to the farm between February 22, 2003 and April 5, 2003 Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross finds the defendant not guilty. December 23, 2004 Seizures by the BCSPCA called "not authorized and unlawful!" Actions by the SPCA officers "troubled" the judge.

VANCOUVER/CKNW AM 980 April 2005 broadcast. A Provincial Court Judge has dismissed animal cruelty charges against the father of BC Agriculture Minister John Van Dongen. The judge says there was enough reasonable doubt to dismiss the case against Quirinas Van Dongen. Over 70 animals were seized from his Abbotsford farm last year. Van Dongen alleges he was targeted by the BCSPCA.

The Province, Thursday, September 02, 2004 ran several articles, one of which was titled: An uproar over a 10-month-old pooch named Cheech has resulted in the SPCA's contract in Delta not being renewed. When the BCSPCA revealed it was about to kill a young dog a public outcry erupted that resulted in the BCSPCA losing its contract with Delta. This was reported on extensively by media outlets including CTV which even updated the rescue story on June 16,2000 one year later.

The Richmond News, March 10, 2004 by columnist Darah Hansen - Raid on private organization Forgotten Felines October 10, 2003. Penny March and Serge Belley owners of the home in Richmond BC. October 31, 2003 complaint against SPCA filed with RCMP Complaints Commission. The Richmond News October 31, 2003 "SPCA Investigate Forgotten Felines". The article begins: "Volunteers say the PCA should stop picking on a privately run cat shelter in Richmond".

Other examples illustrating where there has been serious pitfalls and inadequacies by the SPCA in administering the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and safeguarding the well being of the animals and the rights of the public:
• Beaverdell puppy mill well known for many years. SPCA fails to act on numerous previous complaints. July 3, 2002 Kelowna SPCA seizes the dogs and kills them. February 7, 2003 Media Release Candlelight Vigil to be held for Beaverdell victims-SPCA Actions Questioned, While Citizens Mourn Killing.
• Jilda Cooke, Chilliwack resident had 19 cats seized and killed by BCSPCA on
April 6, 2003. Left behind were 20 - 40 mostly unsprayed and unneutered cats, some pregnant, despite their own veterinarian attending who recommends neutering animals to prevent population explosion. Chilliwack Newspaper is on hand during seizure and publicizes Chilliwack SPCA appeals for donations . BCSPCA returns approximately 5 times between May and November 2003. Cat population has doubled. November 21, 2003 the BCSPCA seizes 52 cats and kills 18. Chilliwack newspaper is on hand for seizure and again publicizes SPCA's appeal for donations to support the sei2ed animals. However they still leave behind 25 cats, mostly unsprayed, pregnant and nursing. Cooke is charged and convicted of cruelty to animals.
• SPCA v Beverly and Ronald Bily
Hearing and Judgment August 10, 2004 Vernon, BC File: 38649-1 Case was stayed due to Charter being violated. SPCA officers lost all their notes and disclosure requests were ignored by the SPCA so defense couldn't prepare.
• SPCA raids Big Dog Rescue December 20, 2004 Beth and Charles Butler, Likely meanwhile BCSPCA was off-loading dogs to Big Dog Rescue when they had a "shelter" in Langley, BC.

Donna Liberson
Animal Rights Coalition,
Vancouver, BC

Solicitor General John Les replies

MAY 1 5 2006
File: 0280-30 Ref: 139505

Donna Liberson
Animal Rights Coalition Vancouver BC

Dear Ms. Liberson:

Thank you for your letter to the Honourable Pat Bell, Minister of Agriculture and Lands and the Honourable John Les, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, regarding the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, I have been asked to respond on their behalf.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I am satisfied that the Act provides the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BCSPCA) with the authority it needs to be able to effectively assist animals that are in distress. I am also satisfied that the Act contains appropriate mechanisms to ensure its powers are exercised in a manner that respects individual rights.

I would like to correct the statement you make in your letter regarding provincial funding contributions to the BCSPCA. Since 2001, the Province of British Columbia has provided the BCSPCA with $3.15 million to assist it with the cost of its operations. The Province also recently provided the BCSPCA with an additional grant of $50,000 to help the BCSPCA carry out its valuable work.

As many of your ideas involve suggestions for how the BCSPCA could improve its operations, I would encourage you to approach the BCSPCA directly to discuss these matters. Both the BCSPCA and your organization are interested in the same outcomes - the humane treatment of animals and public education - so I expect there are opportunities for you to be able to work cooperatively toward those common objectives.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views.

Sincerely,

Larry Pedersen Deputy Minister
Honourable John Les
Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
(*AAS note: the $3.15 million dollars was from gaming funds, which any provincially registered charity can apply to receive.)

ARC's concerns raised in committee: Solicitor General commits to a review

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 7

Committee of Supply 5067
Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

M. Sather
Hon. J. Les
B. Ralston
G. Gentner
C. Trevena
G. Robertson
C. Evans
C. Wyse
J. Brar

B. Ralston: I have several questions that concern the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which is the responsibility of the minister's ministry. First, if I might begin, the SPCA enforces the act on behalf of the government. I don't think it's a formal act of delegation, but they do enforce and administer the act.

I have received representations — and I'm sure members on the government side have received representation — that the compensation to the society for carrying out the duties on behalf of the government, of enforcing the act, is inadequate. Has the minister taken a position, or is he prepared to share his views as to whether or not he's prepared to consider responding to this request and expanding the amount of cash that is directed to the SPCA to enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?

Hon. J. Les: I hate to disappoint the member opposite, but the operation of the act in question does not actually fall under this ministry. It falls under the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. The only aspect of it that we have anything to do with in this ministry is the appointment of special constables. That is the entire involvement of my ministry in the operations of the SPCA.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps I've been misinformed as to the jurisdictional difference, but are members of the SPCA delegated as special constables in order to enforce the act? That's my understanding — that that's the mechanism that enables the SPCA…. Certainly, the view in the community and in the province is that the SPCA is delegated to enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Hon. J. Les: It's actually under section 9 of the Police Act that we draw our ability from to appoint these special constables in the case of the SPCA. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act contains no provisions for the Ministry of Agriculture to appoint these special constables. One of the roles we fulfil is to ensure that these special constables are appropriately trained when they are appointed, and that there's an appropriate process in place in the case of any complaints.

B. Ralston: I apologize, then, to the minister for proceeding with the wrong act. Just so that we're clear, this section of the Police Act falls within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, and SPCA bodies are delegated under the terms of this section under the Police Act to carry out the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act — is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: I might not have been clear in my original answer. The powers to investigate are, in fact, found in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, but the additional powers those officers need to obtain search warrants, for example, flow from section 9 of the Police Act.

B. Ralston: Then I am correct in saying that enforcement of the act — in the sense of entering onto property, with or without a warrant, to seize animals, take custody of animals, proceed to court and make recommendations to Crown counsel — is a jurisdiction that falls under your jurisdiction as minister.

Hon. J. Les: Again, hopefully, I can be clear about this. Their mandate flows from the act which the member has referred to — the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. What they apply for under section 9 of the Police Act is peace officer status, which allows them access to the courts to gain enforcement powers that may be necessary in terms of seizing animals, etc.

B. Ralston: I suppose the unusual feature of the way in which the enforcement of this act is arranged is that it gives to a society what are basically the usual powers attributed to agents of the state, such as police officers.

What appears clear, and I'm sure members on both sides of the House have received complaints about it, is the lack of an independent mechanism to deal with or investigate complaints about the manner in which the act is being enforced by, in particular, the SPCA.

I've received some representations from a number of groups. I won't go into specific cases here, because I don't have the time to, but would the minister consider establishing a consultative committee to engage stakeholder groups in evaluating how the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act could be improved and reformed?

Hon. J. Les: Just briefly, as I see the bells are ringing, the powers of these special constables that flow from section 9 of the Police Act are, in fact, investigated by my ministry when complaints arise. Any other matters that arise from their duties as laid out in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act are in the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture.

The member has suggested that it may be worthwhile to review that entire matter, and I certainly would be open to doing that at some point in time.
 

Read more:
Daum Report

Animal Rights Coalition
Government Review
Warnings in Hansard 1994
AAS concerns

Professor Geist's letter to Attorney General

Return to Top Stories lead page