GOVERNMENT
FOI REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE
BCSPCA MAY 2004
Recommendation
No. 3
"Investigate why the B.C.
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was assigned
the dual status of a public body and a non-profit society
in the first place and whether there is a case for clarifying
or even changing its status."
The May 2004
report by the Special Committee that reviewed the Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act during the
Fifth Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament is called:
"The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Enhancing the Province's Public Sector Access and Privacy
Law"
Report-links and excerpt from pages
11 and 12 below:
* Main entry page to Report:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/37thparl/session-5/foi/5-37-5-14-5.htm
*PDF Version of Report :
http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/37thparl/session-5/foi/reports/Rpt-FOIPPA37-5.pdf
Committee Members:
Blair Lekstrom, MLA Chair Peace River South; Mike Hunter,
MLA Deputy Chair Nanaimo; Bill Belsey, MLA North Coast;
Harry Bloy, MLA Burquitlam; Jeff Bray, MLA Victoria-Beacon
Hill; Hon. Tom Christensen, MLA (To February 10, 2004) Okanagan-Vernon;
Dave Hayer, MLA Surrey-Tynehead; Ken Johnston, MLA Vancouver-Fraserview;
Harold Long, MLA (To February 10, 2004) Powell River-Sunshine
Coast; Joy MacPhail, MLA Vancouver-Hastings; Sheila Orr,
MLA Victoria-Hillside; Barry Penner, MLA Chilliwack-Kent;
Gillian Trumper, MLA Alberni-Qualicum; Dr. John Wilson,
MLA Cariboo North.
__________________________________________________
PG.11
3: SCOPE
Who is covered (and not covered)
by the Act?
Section 3 discusses the scope of the Act
and explains which records are covered by the legislation
and which are excluded. Currently the Act covers approximately
2,200 public bodies in British Columbia. Qualifying as public
bodies are all provincial ministries, agencies, boards,
commissions, most Crown corporations, and offices or other
bodies designated in, or added by regulation, to Schedule
2; and local public bodies. Schedule 3 identifies the governing
bodies of a profession or occupation falling under the purview
of the Act.
The Committee received a few requests to
extend the scope of coverage to those entities no longer
qualifying as public bodies under the Act. In particular,
it was suggested that the records of former Crown corporations
needed to be accessible. While we would not normally condone
the practice of exempting the entire records of a public-private
entity, because of its negative impact on access rights,
we have come to the conclusion that the decision to extend
or reduce the scope of the Act is a decision to be made
by the governing party, rather than private members serving
on an all-party parliamentary committee.
One case of exclusion, though, deserves
special mention. The Committee was asked to consider bringing
the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(BCSPCA) under the scope of the Act due to the problems
some individuals involved in the animal rights movement
have experienced obtaining records of its activities. Upon
further inquiry, we learned that the society has a unique
status in terms of its organizational structure. The BCSPCA
is a not-for-profit and mainly self-funded society organized
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (R.S.B.C.
1996, c. 372). This statute enables the society to provide
animal welfare services through its administration centre,
branches or shelters, or authorized agents.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
provides a small annual grant ($71,500)specifically for
the training of animal cruelty investigators. However, it
has no authority to regulate the society's activities, except
to require it to properly uphold an individual's civil rights
when exercising its investigative powers under the Act.
Municipalities have more regulatory power, under the legislation,
through their contracts with the society to provide pound
services.
From the Committee's perspective, it is
clear that the BCSPCA is an anomaly. On the one hand, it
is a public body in terms of having statutory authority
to deliver its animal welfare services. On the other hand,
its legal status as a non-profit society exempts its records
from the purview of the Act. Therefore we would urge the
government to look into this matter.
Recommendation No. 3 —Investigate
why the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
was assigned the dual status of a public body and a non-profit
society in the first place and whether there is a case for
clarifying or even changing its status."
CYA urge the
Members of the Legislative Assembly to act on Recommendation
3 of the Special Committee that reviewed the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Animal lovers across
the province have on many occasions expressed concerns regarding
the lack of accountability within the BC SPCA and the public’s
inability to access information regarding the society’s
activities within the province of British Columbia.
Recommendation 3 would be a positive
step to address the public concerns regarding the special
status that the government has granted the BC SPCA through
provincial legislation.
- CYA Director
Tim Wittenberg made a submission to the Special FOI Review
Committee:
Go to this link to read his testimony:
http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/cmt/37thparl/session-4/foi/hansard/I40121a.htm
- To read "FOI Committee Submission"
February 27, 2004
Prepared for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Review Committee by Kimberly Daum who allowed us to post
her submission on our website.
Go
to: http://www.cyabc.ca/media.html
|
