DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION: Kimberly Daum
http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/5483
A reasonable person would find the Ministry's $1937.50 fee estimate prohibitive. Considering that the SPCA also falls under the Ministry of the Attorney General, receives gaming monies from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and contracts with numerous municipalities throughout the province, an individual could easily go broke making Freedom of Information requests to BC SPCA partners.

The Ministry might argue that the original fee estimate was not prohibitive for CKNW. Of course it was since CKNW rarely submits such requests and so does not budget for them. A $2000 bill is not petty.

In the past, government has refused fee waivers for media outlets on grounds that the outlet is self-interested and profit-driven rather than operating in the public interest and to its benefit. Though CKNW is a private company, that case cannot reasonably made here because the now very controversial BC SPCA does public business on two of three counts but is not covered by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, and because talk radio by definition involves the public and often responds immediately to it.

The public, including provincial and municipal governments, has a very obvious interest in the BC SPCA. Outside of receiving leaks from inside the SPCA, requesting information about the Society through the government seemed the only way to get any reliable information/documentation about it. I filed several FOI requests to several ministries under the previous government, and was never stymied in those requests. My experience of filing an FOI request for the Bill Good Show to only one Liberal ministry has taught me that this too, where the BC SPCA is concerned, is an unreliable and fruitless endeavor. This government appears to have something sensational and voluminous to hide.

During the past two years, the Bill Good Show and I have been bombarded with emails and calls of complaints about the SPCA; only the rare one is complimentary of it. Many letters request anonymity citing fear of retribution or intimidation from the SPCA while others have alleged SPCA intimidation on the open call line. Many display frustration at trying to get information from and about the SPCA and condemn the lack of accountability and transparency they perceive from the SPCA. They also complain about the government's apparent reluctance to address the SPCA's special status and to take seriously complaints about the SPCA.

Media is bombarded with complaints about the BC SPCA. The government is too, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries refused to review its "large volume" of complaints and its responses to them, and seemed to not want to share them with CKNW. What does it say about the government? Not only is the government's relationship with the BC SPCA suspicious, its complaint process is now too.

CKNW's Bill Good Show, CJOR's The Rafe Mair Show, The Vancouver Sun's Barbara Yaffe and The Provinces' Jon Ferry - all of them opinion writers/broadcasters -- have covered stories about the embattled BC SPCA and have hammered it for irresponsibility. Community papers continue to follow developments and problems with the BC SPCA in their communities. Several Lower Mainland municipalities have publicly expressed their frustrations with the Society. The media and municipalities realize the importance of this institution that has been granted policing powers by the provincial government. Though responsible for it, only the government itself seems not to care about the public's concerns or the BC SPCA's outcome and the ways in which it does public business throughout the province.

But why should the provincial government care about the animal welfare community's concerns?
Mad cow/BSE! Oil spills! Cruelty investigations! Animal control services!

The BC SPCA is a valuable public institution because the public relies on it just as government does in various capacities at various times, such as during last summer's forest fires.

The BC SPCA is officially partnered with Environment Canada and the BC Fish and Wildlife agency in preparedness for oil spills. It has episodic, informal partnerships with BC's Emergency Social Services in preparedness for natural disasters such as the forest fires where evacuations have been ordered and pets and livestock have been left behind. And it has potential informal partnerships with Agriculture Canada and even Health Canada in the case of disasters of magnitude, such as when Mad Cow occurred in Britain. The BC SPCA has a trained workforce that can respond in such emergencies and as such is vital to British Columbian's peace of mind and our outcomes in an emergency.
An unhealthy and unpopular BC SPCA is a reasonable concern for all British Columbians and communities that rely on its services. If it loses the public trust while being sanctioned and authorized by government the government is necessarily responsible for its ultimate outcome.

The government, who voted with the former government to grant police powers, may not see the BC SPCA and its well-being as a priority amidst competing priorities. Still, I urge the government to understand that this problem is not going to go away on its own. People involved in animal welfare, as I've learned, are extremely devoted - remember the three volunteers whose combined service totaled 45 years. These are the people, along with Tim Wittenberg and many, many others who want the BC SPCA placed under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. They are not alone in demanding accountability, transparency and inclusiveness from both the BC SPCA and the provincial government.

The public has legitimate complaints and concerns about the Cruelty law and its consequences, and deserves a fair, meaningful and accessible recourse to discuss and resolve them.

On February 21 last year Ministry spokesperson Barb Wright told the Chilliwack Times that government would consider changing the legislation if that was necessary. It is time for government to keep its word. The BC SPCA, like all other policing powers in BC must, as a result of this Review, be included under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. And government should not stop there. The Provincial Ombudsman and the Society Act, or at least the many rules within it, should in near future play roles in holding the BC SPCA to account as well. Given its importance to British Columbians and its special status, the hybrid monopoly should live up to higher not lesser standards than other societies even, if not especially, in the course of it finances, operations and governance.

QUESTIONS FOR THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY ACT REVIEW COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND ANSWER:

1. In areas where the BC SPCA has a branch, municipal police and RCMP can support SPCA investigations but are not the lead agencies; in areas where the BC SPCA does not have a branch, other police agencies can lead cruelty investigations. Why are police agencies other than BC SPCA, which are more accessible and accountable to the public, not allowed to lead cruelty investigations if/when the public is not satisfied with the SPCA's performance?

2. The Police Commission reviews complaints regarding the conduct of an individual BC SPCA Special Provincial Constable. So the individual constable is subject to review, but who conducts a similar review of the of BC SPCA's overall performance?

3. The government admits receiving public complaints but fails to disclose how/if they are resolved. Has the Society's ?special status? and its "special" relationship with the government affected how these public complaints have handled? How can the public find that out?

4. The Ministry responsible for Freedom of Information requests is funded by tax dollars from both businesses and citizens. How can that office justify charging such exorbitant fees for meeting the requirements of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act? Shouldn't the information be available as required under the legislation, and why would it matter whether it is a prince or pauper that has made the request? Is it possible the ministry is attempting to make the request for information go away by quoting these exorbitant fees?

5. It appears the government's Freedom of Information officers decide what is in the "public interest". What criterion do these officers follow to make those determinations? Is this criterion public information?

6. How many Freedom of Information requests have been determined as "not in the public interest"?

7. How many FOI requests were dropped after the party making the request was told how much the charge would be?

8. Is the government, by exempting the BC SPCA from the Society Act, enabling its attempts to withhold information from the public? The public cannot accept the Society having it both ways. If it has a special relationship with the government there should a mechanism such as falling under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act and the purview of the Provincial Ombudsman to review its operations. If it does not have a special relationship with the Province it should be subject to the same rules and regulations that other BC societies are expected to meet.

Thank-you for taking the time to consider this submission: Kimberly Daum

Messages In This Thread

BC Legislative Committee considering removing the SPCA's secrecy protection *LINK*
Emma Vandewetering, Researcher, AAS -- Thursday, 27 May 2004, at 6:04 a.m.
CYA is spearheading this extremely important issue and needs donations to help pay for its fight. Please help *LINK*
AAS -- Thursday, 27 May 2004, at 6:57 a.m.
We need to continue applying pressure by sending letters
Emma -- Thursday, 27 May 2004, at 12:09 p.m.
There should be a huge scandal coming down the pipeline when the SPCA is exposed
Stacy Hryhoruk -- Thursday, 27 May 2004, at 3:17 p.m.
THE DAUM REPORT: PART ONE: CONTEXT: Prepared for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Review Committee by Kimberly Daum
AAS -- Saturday, 29 May 2004, at 7:56 a.m.
PART TWO: GOVERNMENT?S POSITION ON THE FILE: Prepared for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Review Committee by Kimberly Daum
AAS -- Saturday, 29 May 2004, at 8:01 a.m.
PART THREE: THE PUBLIC?S ONLY RECOURSE: Prepared for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Review Committee by Kimberly Daum
AAS -- Saturday, 29 May 2004, at 8:26 a.m.
PART FOUR: FILING A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:Prepared for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Review Committee by Kimberly Daum
AAS -- Saturday, 29 May 2004, at 9:32 a.m.
PART FOUR: MAFF reveals a complainant's personal information to the SPCA: by Kimberly Daum
AAS -- Tuesday, 1 June 2004, at 2:04 p.m.
PART FOUR: ?THE TIM WITTENBERG CASE?: by Kimberly Daum
AAS -- Tuesday, 1 June 2004, at 2:08 p.m.
DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION: Kimberly Daum
AAS -- Tuesday, 1 June 2004, at 2:18 p.m.
The Premier's reply
AAS -- Friday, 4 June 2004, at 11:21 a.m.