Lawyer Don Crane's views are noble and his points pertinent, but he may not be familiar with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Act says that the SPCA must issue the animal's owner with an "Offence Warning Notice" which details all those things that the SPCA considers is causing the animal to be in distress (distress being the offence under the Act), and which also specifies the length of time the owner has to correct the causes of the distress, before the SPCA can seize the animal. So the Act distinguishes crimes of animal-cruelty from other crimes. A bank robber can't show that he has stopped robbing banks to be let off being charged with a past bank robbery. But a person can escape animal cruelty charges by showing that they have permanently corrected the causes of the distress. This is what troubles Mr Crane.

We almost always agree with Mr Crane that once the distress has been caused, that discontinuing it should not absolve the animal's owner of responsibility.

But here is where an animal-welfare society like AAS parts opinion with Mr Crane:

Firstly, that it should always be in an animal's best interests to be seized by the SPCA but frequently (and sadly) it has not been.

And secondly, that the wording of the Act allows the SPCA to claim in court that any animal at any point in time is or was in "distress". That means that if your dog has a sore on its leg or your cat has a cold, that the SPCA could seize your dog or cat and charge you with cruelty. So if Mr Crane has a pet with a medical condition the SPCA can seize his pet, even if Mr Crane can show the treatment his pet is receiving. (This has happened not infrequently.)

Now the reason for the requirement that the SPCA must first issue an "Offence Warning" notice becomes clear, even though it seems to fly in the face of good law and good animal welfare.

Then there are the matters of animals seized with no Offence Warning Notice being issued, and animals being returned to owners described by the SPCA as "in the worst condition we have ever seen" upon payment of the SPCA's claimed costs.

The Act gave the SPCA enormous power to define the crime (animal-cruelty). (The police are not allowed to define what is or is not a bank robbery.)

The legislature in 1994 debated the Act and, in spite of warnings by the opposition of the potential for the abuse of power such as:

MLA H. 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....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....Many charities have had unfavorable publicity in recent years about empire-building and excessive administrative overhead. What is riper for empire building than a legislated monopoly?...the existing legislation exempts from liability those who enforce it....I fear the minister has been offered 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...."

The majority voted for it because they felt , in the words of MLA 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."

And because of assurances by the Hon. D. Zirnhelt, the Minister of Agriculture (which oversees the PCA Act):

"The offence provision will require the SPCA to give an animal owner the chance to take action immediately to help the animal. However, if the owner ignores the warning, the society will have the authority to take action to help the animal and to recommend to the Crown Counsel that charges be laid....we still have a responsibility to ensure that the significant powers given to the SPCA are used reasonably. To help ensure that, the amendments will require the SPCA to put in place comprehensive policies and procedures to guide its agents on the use of the act's enforcement powers, and they will make those policies subject to government review....This will ensure that SPCA agents have proper training, and it will also give the public the right to have and agent's actions reviewed by an independent review body when they're unhappy with the actions of an agent..."

As so often is the case with government, the assurances of oversight were glib and are still not in place. In spite of many concerns that the SPCA may be misusing the powers given it, the government of today still has not amended the PCA Act to provide oversight, transparency, control and recourse.