From Hansard: the legislative debates re changes to the PCA Act that gave the SPCA extrodinary police powers with no oversight. Some MLA's were remarkably prescient, like R. Chisholm

"There are a few items that need clarifications by the minister, such as the definition of cruelty. 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. 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? We would like to hear just what the standards will be. It's not talked about in the bill right now."

And Mike De Jong..

"I object to granting any organization a legislative monopoly 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.

"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.

"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.

"What is riper for empire building than a legislated monopoly? 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 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?

"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.

"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."

Then there is the gullible, like 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."

Read the full Hansard report...