I can amend this part of the PCA Act myself to read :

Offence

24 ( 1 ) A person responsible for an animal who causes or permits the animal to be or continue to be in distress commits an offence.
( 2 ) Subsection ( 1 ) does not apply if the distress results from an actvity that is carried on in accordance with BCSPCA approved
practices of animal management.

See how easy it is? So why can't the BCSPCA do this ? Wouldn't this carry more weight ? This would certainly make the BCSPCA more responsible and would increase their power to seize animals that are in distress.

I think really, the PCA act already works like this - when the SPCA wants to take action re: an animal/animals in distress, they do. When they can't be bothered, they don't. Such as when they've said things like "we are not allowed on reserve land without the permission of the chiefs, or, we can't remove that dog (who is clearly in extreme psychological (and physical) distress), because she has food (which might be out of reach) and shelter (although the shelter is clearly of little or no comfort to the dog.

The SPCA tacitly approves of animals in distress when it knows about them and does nothing.