Dear Premier Campbell,

Re: The need to review the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

I sent to the Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General, a letter on February 1st 2005 pertaining to: 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 also passed a copy of said letter to your office.

Of the two letters I received in response the one from the Attorney General’s office appears to be a perfunctory form letter missing entirely what I addressed in my letter. However, I also received a substantive and professional reply from Mr. Roy McAlpine, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. I would like to thank Mr. McAlpine through your office for his sincere effort. Please do pass along my word of gratitude. Mr. McAlpine’s suggestions are currently being considered.

Mr. Premier, there is a very real need to review the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the suggestion I made to the Honourable Geoff Plant to amend wording of Sections 1(2) and 11 (a) are merely stop-gap measures to prevent further miscarriages of justice. As I pointed out in my reply to Mr. McAlpine the Hansard (1994 legislative session:3rd Session, 35th Parliament, Wednesday April 13, 1994) fully supports my interpretation of the act. However, I also pointed out that there is a need to review the Act as it places the SPCA into a conflict of interest, with tangible and unfortunate consequences. I shall take here the opportunity, through a question, to point out a third reason why the Act needs to reviewed and clarified: Is it the intention of the Act to punish individuals whose seized animals are being declared healthy by more than one veterinarian?

Sincerely,

Valerius Geist, PhD., P. Biol.
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science

Cc Honourable John van Dongen

Attorney General's Office

Gillian Trumper MLA

Judy Stone, Animal Advocates Society of BC