Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

The New Legal Status of Animals as recognized in the Civil Code of Quebec

View more insights in Professional - Law - Property Law

View more figures from University of Ottawa

View the page of Sarah Berger Richardson

Read the Study

In 2015, the Civil Code of Quebec was amended to explicitly provide that animals are sentient beings with biological needs and not property. However, nearly 10 years later, the scope of this reform remains unclear. Sarah Berger Richardson discusses.

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 19, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses a collaboration between researchers from the University of Ottawa and Animal Law Quebec aimed at studying the impact of Quebec's civil code reform on animals. The reform attempts to acknowledge animals as sentient beings rather than property, which represents a significant shift in legal perspective. However, practical implications for animal treatment, especially in agriculture, remain complex. This video highlights that while societal perceptions of animal welfare are evolving, existing laws still allow significant exceptions for agricultural animals, which raises ethical questions regarding their treatment and welfare.

The conversation emphasizes the disconnect between the recognition of animals as sentient beings and the regulations that still categorize them primarily as property. Despite some positive legal developments, such as improvements in the treatment of companion animals and rising awareness of animal welfare, systemic challenges persist. This video argues for stricter regulations and collaborations between animal rights advocates and agricultural stakeholders to ensure better welfare standards for all animals while acknowledging the economic realities faced by farmers.

In conclusion, while the legal acknowledgment of animals' sentience is a significant step, the text critiques the effectiveness of current laws in translating this recognition into meaningful change, particularly in animal agriculture. Collaboration between legal, agricultural, and animal welfare groups is presented as essential for promoting better outcomes for both animals and agricultural workers.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Collaboration Between Researchers and NGOs**: The speaker discusses a collaboration involving academics from the University of Ottawa and a community organization (Animal Law Quebec) aimed at studying the impact of Quebec's civil code reform on animal welfare. The joint effort was to address the needs of the NGO and provide research support for animal welfare issues.

2. **Animal Status in Law**: The reform of the civil code in Quebec signified a shift in how animals are perceived legally, stating that animals are not mere property (things), but sentient beings with biological needs. This is intended to challenge the conventional treatment of animals in various sectors, including agriculture.

3. **Legal Ambiguities and Exceptions**: Despite the acknowledgment of animal sentience, the law has significant exceptions, especially concerning agricultural animals. The Animal Welfare and Safety Act in Quebec allows for exemptions in agricultural practices, which can undermine the welfare considerations implied by the reform, leading to tension between animal rights and agricultural practices.

4. **Public Awareness and Changing Norms**: There has been an increasing public interest in animal welfare, influenced by changing social norms, consumer demand for ethical treatment (e.g., vegetarianism and veganism), and an understanding that animals can feel pain. This shift has led to gradual improvements in farm animal welfare standards.

5. **Need for Comprehensive Legal Reform**: While the civil code reform provides a foundation for recognizing animal welfare, the video argues that further specific regulations and enforcement mechanisms are needed. The speaker advocates for collaboration between various stakeholders, including agricultural and animal welfare advocates, to create comprehensive and effective legal frameworks that address the welfare of both animals and farmers in a harmonious manner.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video you , which discusses animal law and the implications of Quebec’s civil code reform regarding animal treatment:

1. **Collaboration between Academics and NGOs**:
- "The idea was to get researchers and a community organization together so that we could provide some research to support, you know, an NGO's work."

2. **Impact on Animals in Law**:
- "The goal of the collaboration was to do a study of the impact of Quebec's reform of the civil code on animals."

3. **Recognition of Animals as Sentient Beings**:
- "It's very significant that the Quebec legislature decided to amend the civil code... to send a signal that animals are not things like other things."

4. **Regulations on Farmed Animals**:
- "...for the majority of animals, which are farmed animals... they’re agricultural animals. And it didn't really seem to kind of address what to do with them."

5. **Judicial Interpretation of Animal Welfare**:
- "The civil code refers to animals broadly... but then we have different laws and regulations that spell out in more detail how we're meant to treat those animals."

6. **Changing Social Norms**:
- "Changing social norms... certainly kind of led to pressure on the government to adopt changes... people who are adopting vegetarian diets, vegan diets."

7. **Scientific Research on Pain**:
- "There's significant research also that is demonstrating that animals can feel pain."

8. **Legislative Limitations**:
- "What it does do is it says that courts are then called upon to really take seriously what it means to give this special status to animals."

9. **Challenges in Animal Agriculture**:
- "The legislator is kind of forced into this uncomfortable position, where on the one hand, we recognize that animals are sentient beings with biological needs, and on the other hand, we're raising them to be slaughtered and eaten."

10. **Need for Stricter Regulations**:
- "The real change needs to come in the laws and regulations... because the civil code itself... is a great general statement."

These quotes encapsulate the primary themes of the video, including the collaboration between academia and NGOs, the recognition of animals as sentient beings, the complexities of legal status in animal welfare, and the challenges of implementing effective regulations in agriculture.

Export as PDF
Here are several articles that explore similar themes regarding animal welfare, the legal status of animals, and the implications of reforms in animal law:

1. **"The Legal Status of Animals: From Property to Sentience"**
This article examines the historical convideo of animals' legal status, analyzing recent legal reforms aimed at recognizing animal sentience. It discusses how such reforms have been implemented in various jurisdictions and the ongoing challenges in the agricultural sector.

2. **"Animals in Agriculture: Ethical Considerations and Legal Frameworks"**
This piece explores the ethical dilemmas surrounding the treatment of agricultural animals and critiques existing legal frameworks. It highlights the tension between economic realities and animal welfare, advocating for a balance that considers both animal rights and agricultural viability.

3. **"Legal Reform and Animal Rights: The Push for Change"**
This article discusses the role of advocacy groups in pushing for legal reforms that recognize animals as sentient beings. It looks at case studies where legal changes have positively affected animal welfare and the resistance faced from traditional agricultural practices.

4. **"Sentience in Law: Rethinking Our Relationship with Animals"**
This article examines the philosophical and legal implications of recognizing animals as sentient beings. It discusses the disconnect between this recognition and current laws that still treat animals largely as property, and suggests pathways for progressive legislation.

5. **"The Future of Animal Welfare: Legislative Trends and Challenges"**
Focusing on recent trends in animal welfare legislation, this article identifies key areas of progress and ongoing challenges, particularly in the convideo of industrial farming. It suggests collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholders to enhance animal welfare standards effectively.

6. **"Animal Welfare and Agricultural Practices: Bridging the Gap"**
This article looks at how agricultural practices can adapt to new animal welfare laws and the importance of collaboration between farmers and animal welfare advocates. It discusses successful models of integration that could serve as examples for broader implementation.

7. **"Legal Protection for Animals: The Role of Advocacy and Law"**
This article reviews the advancements in legal protection for animals and the role of advocacy in influencing policy change. It discusses specific cases where legal recognition of sentience has led to improved welfare standards and the barriers that still exist.

Each of these articles should provide insights and discussions that resonate with the themes of the video you , focusing on the evolving legal status of animals, ethical considerations, and the need for inter-sector collaboration for improved animal welfare.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.025 --> 00:01.245
Was working with some colleagues at

00:01.245 --> 00:02.325
the University of Ottawa.

00:02.625 --> 00:05.365
Uh, we had an opportunity to collaborate with,

00:05.885 --> 00:06.925
a community organization.

00:06.945 --> 00:08.885
So the idea was to get researchers

00:09.345 --> 00:11.565
and a commuter organization together so

00:11.565 --> 00:13.725
that we could provide some research

00:13.825 --> 00:15.565
to support, you know, an NGO's work.

00:15.565 --> 00:18.325
And the NGO in question was,

00:18.505 --> 00:22.925
or is called Quebec, so Animal Law Quebec.

00:23.425 --> 00:27.645
Um, and the, you know, the goal of the collaboration was

00:27.645 --> 00:31.165
to do a study of the impact of quebec's reform

00:31.165 --> 00:33.205
of the civil code on animals.

00:33.945 --> 00:37.725
Um, and we were a lot of academics

00:37.925 --> 00:40.805
with different interests, and so people working in property

00:40.945 --> 00:44.965
and contracts and civil liability and family law.

00:45.465 --> 00:47.965
Um, and we were all kind of interested in the ways

00:47.965 --> 00:50.885
that the reform, impacted animals.

00:50.905 --> 00:54.445
And what we saw with that, you know, there were hundreds

00:55.145 --> 00:58.485
of laws and regulations that existed,

00:59.885 --> 01:01.985
but none of them seemed to answer our question.

01:02.685 --> 01:06.025
Um, and what we really saw was that we had all

01:06.025 --> 01:08.025
of these laws, all of these, these regulations,

01:08.365 --> 01:11.925
and yet it seems like for the majority of animals,

01:12.135 --> 01:16.605
which are farmed animals, right, as 99% of the animals

01:16.605 --> 01:18.685
that we raise, that they're not pets,

01:18.685 --> 01:20.765
they're not wild animals,

01:21.155 --> 01:23.995
they're agricultural animals.

01:24.255 --> 01:26.595
And it didn't really seem to kind

01:26.595 --> 01:27.795
of address what to do with them.

01:28.335 --> 01:32.275
Um, and we were talking about this kind of, not

01:32.275 --> 01:33.275
so much a hypothetical,

01:33.295 --> 01:34.955
but we, there's, there's a case of,

01:34.955 --> 01:37.075
there's someone in the city of Montreal where I live,

01:37.415 --> 01:39.755
who owns, a pig in the city

01:39.895 --> 01:43.275
and walks this pig on a leash, just like a dog.

01:44.135 --> 01:46.315
And we were kind of struck by the fact that the fact

01:46.315 --> 01:49.155
that this pig lives in the city, it's subject

01:49.175 --> 01:52.355
to different rules than if a pig was raised on a farm.

01:52.775 --> 01:54.595
And that's what kind of got us thinking about

01:54.825 --> 01:58.915
what happens when not only are different animals treated

01:58.915 --> 02:00.075
differently, but

02:00.075 --> 02:03.205
what happens when the same animal is treated differently.

02:03.315 --> 02:05.485
There's a lot of excitement around the form,

02:05.505 --> 02:09.485
and I think it, it, it is very significant that

02:10.185 --> 02:15.125
the Quebec legislature decided to amend the civil code.

02:15.125 --> 02:19.565
That's not something that one does lightly, to amend it

02:19.565 --> 02:21.045
to, to, to send a signal

02:22.105 --> 02:25.275
that animals are not things like other things.

02:25.275 --> 02:26.475
And so historically, they were treated

02:26.495 --> 02:29.515
as things they can continue to be treated as things

02:30.135 --> 02:33.315
in other provinces, other countries,

02:33.315 --> 02:37.675
and to really make this statement that animals, are,

02:38.935 --> 02:43.235
are, have biological needs that need to be recognized

02:43.295 --> 02:44.355
as a kind of position.

02:45.585 --> 02:49.835
That in itself is very significant. Is very significant.

02:50.015 --> 02:53.755
The question after is, well, kind of how does

02:53.755 --> 02:55.435
that trickle down to the daily life

02:56.515 --> 02:58.695
or lives of animals? And that's

02:58.695 --> 03:01.845
Where the impact is less clear.

03:02.425 --> 03:06.295
Um, and so, you know, the, the,

03:06.355 --> 03:09.495
the civil code refers to animals broadly.

03:09.675 --> 03:12.975
And so, you know, that does include, when we say animals,

03:12.975 --> 03:17.895
we're talking about, mice that are in labs, for,

03:18.115 --> 03:19.735
for, for research, for testing.

03:20.355 --> 03:24.735
It includes wild deer, in a provincial park.

03:25.275 --> 03:29.495
It, it includes your, your, your cat, your dog,

03:29.915 --> 03:33.215
and it also includes the chickens, the pigs, the, the cows,

03:33.215 --> 03:36.695
the goats, that are raised in the agricultural sector.

03:37.775 --> 03:40.635
And so when we say animal, we're talking about all

03:40.635 --> 03:43.075
of those animals, but then we have different laws

03:43.415 --> 03:46.715
and regulations that spell out in more detail

03:47.135 --> 03:49.515
how we're meant to treat those animals

03:49.575 --> 03:51.155
and what's considered acceptable behavior.

03:51.895 --> 03:54.875
And that's where we start to see some,

03:55.545 --> 04:00.295
some pretty significant exceptions, that, that exist

04:00.475 --> 04:01.735
for, for foreign animals.

04:01.975 --> 04:05.335
I think, you know, changing social norms,

04:06.285 --> 04:09.415
certainly kind of led to pressure, on,

04:09.435 --> 04:11.055
on the government to adopt changes.

04:11.355 --> 04:14.335
And so, you know, we have more people who,

04:14.675 --> 04:16.575
who have domestic pets.

04:16.635 --> 04:19.535
We have more people who are interested in animal

04:19.535 --> 04:20.815
welfare more generally.

04:21.275 --> 04:25.015
Uh, people who are adopting vegetarian diets, vegan diets.

04:25.195 --> 04:26.975
And so, you know, I think there's, there's kind of,

04:27.405 --> 04:31.655
society is moving in a direction where people recognize

04:31.805 --> 04:36.135
that animals, you know, aren't things, and do feel pain.

04:36.555 --> 04:40.335
Um, there's significant research also that is

04:41.655 --> 04:43.895
demonstrating that animals can feel pain.

04:43.955 --> 04:47.735
And, you know, I mean, beyond, land animals, I mean,

04:48.235 --> 04:49.775
it is, I wouldn't say it's controversial

04:49.775 --> 04:51.015
because the science is there,

04:51.035 --> 04:53.175
but in terms of public perception, you know,

04:53.245 --> 04:54.895
fish also feel pain.

04:54.995 --> 04:58.975
You know, they're so, so all fish, birds, land animals,

04:59.175 --> 05:03.295
I mean, we, we have much more of an understanding,

05:03.525 --> 05:07.825
that they can experience fear, you know, pain,

05:08.765 --> 05:12.795
and that they, they need, you know, sufficient water

05:12.855 --> 05:13.915
and they need, or,

05:13.975 --> 05:17.075
or that it's not just that they need water and food,

05:17.095 --> 05:20.835
but they need spaces to socialize that they need spaces to,

05:21.735 --> 05:23.155
to dig or to nest.

05:23.215 --> 05:26.995
And Quebec has kind of, has quite consistently,

05:27.615 --> 05:31.475
you know, taken some pretty bold stances in terms of,

05:31.585 --> 05:34.355
legislating also in terms of, you know, family law and,

05:34.355 --> 05:35.475
and other, in other areas.

05:35.615 --> 05:37.835
It has, you know, been quite progressive in some

05:37.835 --> 05:39.155
of its, reforms.

05:39.815 --> 05:43.995
Um, and I think that this has, as part of it,

05:44.785 --> 05:47.675
this perhaps also, I mean I'm a,

05:48.595 --> 05:50.835
a more controversial side also to this, where I think

05:50.835 --> 05:53.995
that it does, it did also occur in a time

05:53.995 --> 05:56.435
where there was some concern,

05:57.435 --> 06:00.285
Over, you know, practices relating to kosher

06:00.825 --> 06:02.445
and, halal slaughter.

06:02.985 --> 06:05.485
Um, and so I think sometimes we also see,

06:05.485 --> 06:07.365
and this is something also that happens in Europe,

06:07.375 --> 06:11.365
where you also have, animal welfare concerns sometimes

06:12.645 --> 06:16.485
aligning, with certain groups who have concerns about,

06:16.905 --> 06:20.645
about immigration and cultural practices.

06:20.645 --> 06:22.805
And so I think it's, it's important to acknowledge, I think

06:22.805 --> 06:25.685
that that was also part of one of the, the reasons,

06:25.825 --> 06:27.125
but certainly not the only one.

06:27.365 --> 06:32.045
I think that judges have also been, kind of called upon

06:32.185 --> 06:36.325
to, to reflect on, on what this means, know, so kind

06:36.325 --> 06:39.205
of significantly the, the, the, the reform

06:39.265 --> 06:42.045
to the civil code, you know, it opens by saying

06:42.045 --> 06:45.485
that animals are not things, they're sentient beings

06:45.485 --> 06:46.725
and they have biological needs,

06:47.595 --> 06:50.255
but then it goes on, to say, because

06:50.255 --> 06:52.215
otherwise everything are entirely legal

06:52.215 --> 06:53.335
system would fall apart.

06:53.845 --> 06:56.255
That, you know, in addition to the provisions

06:56.255 --> 06:57.975
of the special acts that protect animals

06:57.975 --> 07:00.655
and animal welfare, the general provisions

07:00.655 --> 07:03.655
of the civil code, you know, still apply to animals.

07:03.675 --> 07:06.335
And so that's something that, you know, students in,

07:06.635 --> 07:08.135
in law school kind of struggle with

07:08.135 --> 07:11.295
because they, they hear about this, in the civil code,

07:11.515 --> 07:13.655
and it's kind of this groundbreaking reform.

07:14.075 --> 07:16.375
But then we have to tell them, well,

07:16.675 --> 07:19.575
but, you know, ultimately in terms of contract law or,

07:19.875 --> 07:21.855
or tort or other things, you know,

07:21.955 --> 07:24.215
an animal's still an animal in terms

07:24.215 --> 07:25.375
of being responsible for it.

07:25.375 --> 07:27.975
So you can't sue the dog that bit, you, you sue

07:28.635 --> 07:30.055
the owner, the handler.

07:30.195 --> 07:33.335
Um, and so, you know, kind of practically

07:34.115 --> 07:36.535
the implications in those, in, in those areas,

07:36.835 --> 07:37.975
it doesn't really change anything.

07:37.975 --> 07:39.935
The animals don't kind of suddenly have status.

07:40.635 --> 07:42.535
Um, so they don't have legal personhood.

07:42.535 --> 07:44.535
So what we're saying is that, you know, there,

07:44.535 --> 07:48.175
there're just, there are different kind of category,

07:48.595 --> 07:52.695
and they have biological needs unlike a chair,

07:52.915 --> 07:53.935
or, or a vehicle.

07:54.755 --> 07:58.105
Um, and so, so that's kind of the, the first thing.

07:58.105 --> 07:59.345
So it doesn't change everything,

07:59.685 --> 08:02.905
but what it does do is it says that courts are then,

08:03.325 --> 08:06.605
you know, called upon to, to really take seriously

08:07.435 --> 08:11.125
what it means to give this special status to animals.

08:11.225 --> 08:15.155
And so while there hasn't been,

08:15.295 --> 08:19.755
an incredible change in the legal landscape, in Quebec,

08:19.795 --> 08:21.235
I mean, there have been some,

08:21.235 --> 08:23.875
important decisions since there was one, kind

08:23.875 --> 08:27.275
of often cited decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal

08:28.145 --> 08:31.035
that involved, a municipal bylaws

08:31.035 --> 08:34.195
or kind of rules around, euthanizing dangerous dogs.

08:34.815 --> 08:39.275
Um, and while the court of appeal kinda upheld the right

08:39.655 --> 08:43.235
of the city to kind of order, order euthanization

08:43.235 --> 08:46.355
to euthanize these dogs, it did say, you know,

08:47.125 --> 08:48.815
it's one thing to, to allow this,

08:49.155 --> 08:53.775
but we really wanna signal that the way in which it done has

08:53.775 --> 08:57.005
to be done in a way that's respectful of animal welfare,

08:57.105 --> 08:58.565
of the bio biological needs.

08:58.565 --> 09:01.325
And so it doesn't completely, it doesn't say that, you know,

09:01.325 --> 09:03.805
the animals have the right to live regardless,

09:04.385 --> 09:07.485
but the way in which they're treated, you know, needs

09:07.545 --> 09:10.925
to now reflect this, this statement of principle

09:11.545 --> 09:12.685
that's found in the code.

09:12.865 --> 09:14.285
So that's an example where, you know,

09:14.285 --> 09:16.165
the court really took the time to spell that out.

09:16.625 --> 09:18.645
Um, but there have also been failed attempts.

09:18.645 --> 09:20.645
And so, you know, before we move into the field

09:20.645 --> 09:25.525
of agriculture, there was an attempt to, there was a, a,

09:25.745 --> 09:29.205
a judicial judicial review case involving,

09:29.885 --> 09:34.845
a decision to cull, a herd of deer that were in a,

09:34.905 --> 09:39.125
in a park, in the city of longe, in Montreal,

09:39.635 --> 09:43.565
that generated a lot of kind of public interest.

09:43.565 --> 09:46.045
People were very upset when they heard that these deer,

09:46.545 --> 09:47.965
were going to be killed.

09:48.585 --> 09:52.925
Um, and so it was, brought to court to, to, to,

09:53.025 --> 09:57.105
to review, whether that decision that order was,

09:57.285 --> 09:58.345
was, reasonable.

09:59.005 --> 10:02.185
Um, and the court found that it was, and on

10:02.185 --> 10:05.465
and on appeal, the court of appeal also rejected the appeal.

10:05.485 --> 10:09.105
And so, you know, in that case, you know,

10:09.105 --> 10:13.385
article 8 98 0.1 didn't change the outcome.

10:13.605 --> 10:15.985
I'd say that kind of the, the, the biggest change has been

10:16.005 --> 10:19.345
for, for companion animals, you know, for the way also we,

10:19.405 --> 10:21.905
we, we think about, you know, also in family laws being a,

10:21.965 --> 10:24.025
has been a big example of this, you know, these questions

10:24.045 --> 10:27.705
of on divorce, you know, who gets the animal question.

10:27.845 --> 10:31.785
So, so we're seeing some changes there in other areas we're,

10:32.035 --> 10:33.385
we're not seeing those changes.

10:33.525 --> 10:36.825
And if we start with farmers, I would say that,

10:36.825 --> 10:41.125
you know, in the last few years, there are new,

10:41.625 --> 10:43.885
kind of requirements that, that farmers,

10:44.505 --> 10:47.185
have to adopt.

10:47.185 --> 10:51.465
And so we're seeing it in, in the, in the pork industry.

10:51.485 --> 10:54.185
So with pigs, we're seeing it with, with poultry,

10:54.335 --> 10:55.385
with laying hands.

10:55.445 --> 10:57.785
And so there's a slow movement,

10:57.965 --> 10:59.825
and it's not unique to Canada.

11:00.045 --> 11:01.945
And so I would say that it's, you know, you can't say

11:01.945 --> 11:04.425
that it's just because of the reform to the civil code.

11:04.505 --> 11:06.585
I think it's, it's much broader than that,

11:06.585 --> 11:08.865
where also consumers are,

11:09.235 --> 11:11.425
kinda expecting better treatment of animals.

11:11.485 --> 11:15.985
And so there's a, a very slow

11:16.545 --> 11:18.785
progression towards getting rid

11:18.785 --> 11:20.545
of gestation crates for pigs.

11:20.565 --> 11:23.545
And some will say, not fast enough.

11:23.805 --> 11:27.385
And others will say, well, the, you know, the cost

11:27.385 --> 11:31.665
of completely retrofitting the facility for producers

11:31.725 --> 11:34.545
who themselves are not making a lot of money

11:35.565 --> 11:36.585
off the animals, right?

11:36.585 --> 11:38.505
You know, there are, there are people in the middle

11:38.605 --> 11:40.305
who are making quite a bit of money,

11:40.445 --> 11:42.385
but the producers themselves for every,

11:42.765 --> 11:44.905
for every head are not making a lot of money.

11:45.085 --> 11:48.225
So having to completely renovate,

11:48.515 --> 11:50.425
their buildings is a big expense.

11:50.805 --> 11:52.545
Um, and they're not guaranteed a,

11:52.945 --> 11:53.805
You know, suddenly that

11:53.805 --> 11:54.845
they're gonna make a lot more money.

11:55.025 --> 11:57.885
So, so it moving, it's moving slowly.

11:57.985 --> 11:59.205
So we see some of these things,

11:59.745 --> 12:02.205
but kind of significantly, we're not seeing them,

12:03.245 --> 12:07.045
I would say because of the reform of the civil code,

12:07.045 --> 12:09.965
we're seeing it because, well, sometimes it's

12:09.965 --> 12:14.485
because the buyers, you know, the, the, the multinational

12:15.265 --> 12:18.405
chains, the, the, the retailers, the restaurants,

12:18.955 --> 12:21.525
they're requesting certain minimum standards.

12:21.985 --> 12:25.365
Um, so you have, you know, this private governance model

12:25.365 --> 12:27.205
where the buyers are the one setting the terms.

12:27.985 --> 12:30.885
You also have producer associations,

12:31.425 --> 12:34.045
and in Quebec, those, that's a, that's a pretty big part

12:34.105 --> 12:38.485
of the, of the agricultural governance model, who will also,

12:38.905 --> 12:42.285
you know, establish new requirements, welfare requirements

12:42.945 --> 12:46.285
for the animals in that particular area.

12:46.425 --> 12:51.325
So no laying hands only, or, you know, dairy cows only.

12:51.505 --> 12:54.125
So we're seeing changes towards,

12:55.215 --> 12:58.165
dairy cows no longer being, tethered ties.

12:58.275 --> 13:00.885
They could, they can walk around freely and stalls,

13:00.885 --> 13:02.885
and that's kind of a slow progression

13:02.885 --> 13:04.685
and kinda the industry is going in that direction.

13:05.225 --> 13:10.065
Um, and yeah, I think the question then remains, is it,

13:10.085 --> 13:12.545
is it from the civil code or is it from other factors?

13:12.675 --> 13:15.505
Maybe it's a, it's a bit of a, of a,

13:15.565 --> 13:16.945
of an influence between the two.

13:17.325 --> 13:20.105
But what's really important maybe for, for viewers

13:20.105 --> 13:22.465
to understand in terms of how this works, is

13:22.465 --> 13:23.785
that there's the civil code

13:23.785 --> 13:26.345
that provides a very broad statement.

13:26.385 --> 13:28.865
You know, animals are not things, they're senting beings.

13:30.345 --> 13:34.685
In a society like ours, we need more guidance than that.

13:35.025 --> 13:36.405
So we have different laws

13:36.425 --> 13:37.565
and different regulations

13:37.595 --> 13:38.965
that say, okay, well, what does that mean?

13:38.965 --> 13:40.485
You know, what are these biological needs?

13:40.745 --> 13:43.125
Um, and so in the same year,

13:43.125 --> 13:46.245
that the civil code was reformed Quebec,

13:46.245 --> 13:49.125
the National Assembly also adopted,

13:49.125 --> 13:51.325
what's called the Animal Welfare and Safety Act.

13:52.245 --> 13:55.345
And that's the, that's the law that has all kinds

13:55.345 --> 13:58.065
of information and details about, you know, kind of

13:58.065 --> 14:00.865
what animal welfare means in terms of space, in terms

14:00.865 --> 14:04.385
of food, in terms of, not being subjected to abuse,

14:04.505 --> 14:06.825
mistreatment, having opportunities

14:06.965 --> 14:09.505
for adequate exercise very significantly.

14:10.045 --> 14:14.985
Um, the Article seven of That Act provides exemptions

14:16.555 --> 14:20.095
for agricultural activities, as well as research

14:20.715 --> 14:25.565
and for agricultural activities, the requirements are,

14:26.065 --> 14:29.125
you know, you, you don't have to follow the provisions

14:29.125 --> 14:32.845
of the law as long as the animals are raised according to

14:33.515 --> 14:36.245
generally recognized practices

14:36.345 --> 14:38.005
or gen generally recognized rules.

14:39.955 --> 14:42.895
And then the question becomes, well, generally

14:43.455 --> 14:44.695
recognized by who.

14:46.505 --> 14:48.925
And, and the, the, the tendency

14:48.945 --> 14:50.845
or the kind of the common belief is

14:50.845 --> 14:52.645
That, you know, it's, it's basically, it's the,

14:52.745 --> 14:54.565
the industry codes

14:54.865 --> 14:56.925
and the industry norms establish

14:57.035 --> 14:58.525
what the general practices are.

14:58.585 --> 15:01.285
And so if the industry has decided

15:01.285 --> 15:03.965
that we're phasing out gestation crates, great,

15:04.875 --> 15:07.855
but if industry says, no, we're keeping gestation crates,

15:08.485 --> 15:11.015
well, that's the generally recognized rule,

15:11.195 --> 15:14.055
and there's not much that a court can do.

15:14.235 --> 15:16.575
We think about animals that are used in agriculture.

15:16.635 --> 15:18.095
No, there, there's an exception, right?

15:18.095 --> 15:19.335
To to how they're treated.

15:19.955 --> 15:23.975
Um, and we, we establish under the animal welfare, act

15:23.975 --> 15:24.975
that they, you know, don't have

15:24.975 --> 15:26.215
to be treated like other animals.

15:26.875 --> 15:28.815
Uh, and you know, the question is why?

15:28.965 --> 15:32.455
Like, why do we have this exception for 99% of animals?

15:32.915 --> 15:35.015
And it's because the legislator is kind

15:35.015 --> 15:37.655
of forced into this uncomfortable position,

15:38.105 --> 15:40.095
where on the one hand, we recognize

15:40.095 --> 15:42.335
that animals are sentient beings with biological needs,

15:42.875 --> 15:44.575
and on the other hand, we're raising them

15:45.275 --> 15:47.335
to be slaughtered and eaten.

15:47.915 --> 15:50.815
And so the idea that, you know, animals shouldn't be subject

15:50.835 --> 15:55.155
to abuse or mistreatment, it's kind of hard to square that

15:55.155 --> 15:58.705
with the fact that, you know, we're gonna slip their necks.

15:59.245 --> 16:02.665
Um, and so like already there's a bit of a tension

16:02.845 --> 16:05.065
and we don't really, and it, and it makes us uncomfortable.

16:05.805 --> 16:08.305
And so, like, I think that the parallel

16:08.305 --> 16:10.825
that I kind often draw with, with animals

16:10.825 --> 16:13.905
and agriculture is, I mean, you can, you can see this in,

16:13.905 --> 16:16.145
in science fiction or like dystopian novels,

16:16.145 --> 16:19.545
and there's, Isha Hiro's book, never Let Me Go,

16:19.885 --> 16:21.705
you know, where we have it is that same tension

16:21.705 --> 16:24.385
where these children who are being raised

16:24.805 --> 16:27.985
to be organ donors, to note for other children,

16:29.045 --> 16:32.265
and, you know, you want them to have a good life,

16:32.285 --> 16:34.505
you know, so they go to school and all these things, but,

16:34.525 --> 16:36.665
but ultimately they're going

16:36.665 --> 16:38.265
to die much earlier, much younger.

16:39.005 --> 16:40.505
And kind of there's, it raises all

16:40.505 --> 16:41.545
these kind ethical questions.

16:41.645 --> 16:45.305
And so I think kind of similarly for an animal agriculture,

16:45.685 --> 16:47.305
you know, we wanna have these rules

16:47.415 --> 16:50.985
that establish general welfare requirements,

16:52.215 --> 16:55.515
but it's very difficult for the legislature to go too far

16:56.065 --> 16:57.675
because, you know, if you say,

16:58.055 --> 16:59.875
if you offer too much protection, well,

17:00.145 --> 17:02.395
it's immediately gonna kind of come into conflict

17:02.395 --> 17:03.635
with the fact that

17:03.635 --> 17:05.435
after three months, six months,

17:05.435 --> 17:06.835
the animal can be put in a truck

17:07.635 --> 17:08.815
and taken to a slaughterhouse.

17:08.835 --> 17:12.735
And so I, I do think that that is a challenge,

17:12.735 --> 17:16.175
that also kind of can't be ignored when people are asking,

17:16.175 --> 17:17.655
well, why do we treat, you know,

17:17.765 --> 17:19.935
pigs on a farm differently from pigs in,

17:20.395 --> 17:21.775
in someone's living room?

17:21.935 --> 17:24.215
I think that one of the things that we, we need

17:24.215 --> 17:28.695
to think about is, giving judges time to

17:30.935 --> 17:32.615
internalize what it means to say

17:32.615 --> 17:35.175
that animals have biological needs and our sentient beings.

17:35.395 --> 17:37.495
Um, I think that, you know, we're, we're seeing

17:38.375 --> 17:41.935
probably individual judges, who are, you know,

17:41.935 --> 17:43.615
maybe a bit more receptive to the idea,

17:43.955 --> 17:48.205
but others know who, who kind of still really,

17:49.125 --> 17:51.085
I think, kind of ultimately see that as property.

17:51.085 --> 17:52.885
And, and I think that kind of part of that is,

17:52.985 --> 17:54.325
is judicial education.

17:54.325 --> 17:56.365
So, you know, we see society evolving.

17:56.625 --> 17:59.005
Um, and one question is, you know, when

17:59.005 --> 18:01.125
and how will judges,

18:01.185 --> 18:04.125
and also lawyers take this seriously?

18:04.145 --> 18:07.645
And so, you know, I've also seen, you know, lawyers who,

18:08.345 --> 18:12.605
who kind of work in, not in the field of, of animal law

18:12.745 --> 18:15.285
or an agricultural law, you know, who kind of think it's,

18:15.915 --> 18:18.045
it's funny, you know, it was kind of like a joke

18:18.045 --> 18:21.085
that there was a class action about, you know,

18:21.365 --> 18:22.885
challenging whether or not Ben

18:22.885 --> 18:25.965
and Jerry's was, you know, misleading consumers

18:26.025 --> 18:28.725
by saying their ice cream comes from happy cows

18:28.725 --> 18:31.005
because the cows came from an industrial feed lock.

18:31.005 --> 18:32.685
And that was seen like a joke.

18:33.425 --> 18:38.335
Um, whereas, you know, a case where, clients

18:38.355 --> 18:41.055
of an airline are given, Prosecco instead

18:41.055 --> 18:42.575
of champagne when they were told they was gonna get

18:42.575 --> 18:46.335
champagne, like that's somehow taken more seriously,

18:47.245 --> 18:49.015
than, than the treatment of cows.

18:49.015 --> 18:51.655
And so I think there's kind of a general education

18:51.655 --> 18:54.335
that's needed, to, to understand

18:54.335 --> 18:55.815
that this is really significant.

18:57.255 --> 19:00.035
Um, and the other thing is, I think that,

19:01.645 --> 19:04.325
I think some people really put a lot of faith in

19:04.835 --> 19:08.845
what Article 8 98 0.1 of the Civil Code can do.

19:09.505 --> 19:12.085
Um, I'm of the view that as long

19:12.105 --> 19:16.205
as this exception is carved out in the animal welfare law,

19:16.745 --> 19:20.525
that refers to generally recognize rules,

19:21.925 --> 19:24.695
that there's always going to be kind of a disconnect

19:24.695 --> 19:27.615
between, you know, industry motive

19:28.075 --> 19:29.895
and kind of what's really in the best

19:30.215 --> 19:31.455
interest of the animal.

19:31.515 --> 19:35.295
And I don't think we can use terms like best interests

19:35.295 --> 19:37.935
of the animal like we do for children and family law,

19:37.935 --> 19:39.855
because there is that tension of, you know,

19:39.855 --> 19:42.735
what their ultimate purpose is.

19:43.275 --> 19:45.935
Um, but I think we could have questions about, you know,

19:45.935 --> 19:49.335
rather than generally recognized rules, we can, you know,

19:49.835 --> 19:51.855
use no also fuzzy words,

19:51.915 --> 19:53.735
but, you know, that are raised according

19:53.795 --> 19:55.095
to humane standards.

19:55.955 --> 19:59.495
And, you know, humane standards might give courts a bit more

19:59.805 --> 20:02.455
room to say, well, you know,

20:02.625 --> 20:04.495
we've heard from these different veterinarians,

20:04.495 --> 20:06.255
we've heard from the different groups, and this doesn't

20:06.255 --> 20:08.375
sound like a humane practice.

20:08.995 --> 20:11.215
Um, but if you're asking courts to say, well,

20:11.215 --> 20:15.655
what does industry say doesn't give a lot

20:15.655 --> 20:17.815
of space, or,

20:18.035 --> 20:20.775
or pressure right on, on industry to change their own rules.

20:20.835 --> 20:23.975
And so I think, in my view, you know, the, the,

20:23.995 --> 20:27.295
the real change needs to come in the, the laws

20:27.295 --> 20:28.935
and regulations,

20:28.935 --> 20:30.895
because the civil code itself, it's a,

20:30.895 --> 20:32.895
it's a great general statement.

20:33.015 --> 20:36.175
I don't think we need to, to re reword it.

20:36.675 --> 20:41.085
Um, but we do need to have some, some stricter rules,

20:41.235 --> 20:44.845
that kind of flow from it to provide more guidance, in,

20:44.845 --> 20:46.765
certainly in the, an animal agricultural sector.

20:46.925 --> 20:50.365
I would say this, I kinda, it's a call for people

20:50.465 --> 20:52.045
who work in animal law

20:52.105 --> 20:55.325
and people who work in agricultural law to,

20:55.665 --> 20:56.845
to collaborate more.

20:57.305 --> 21:00.885
Uh, there's definitely kind of a tension between,

21:01.025 --> 21:05.005
the animal rights folks and the animal welfare folks.

21:05.105 --> 21:09.645
And so the ones, like me who advocate for

21:10.355 --> 21:12.165
reforming animal agriculture

21:13.025 --> 21:16.245
and not eliminating it, I, I don't, I, I take that kind

21:16.245 --> 21:17.565
of pragmatic route,

21:17.825 --> 21:19.925
but I think that there's space for, for, for us to,

21:19.985 --> 21:23.285
to collaborate and also interdisciplinary work between,

21:23.865 --> 21:27.285
you know, the, the animal health sciences and the lawyers.

21:27.385 --> 21:30.905
And so that's, I think, kind of one thing that,

21:31.575 --> 21:32.625
that needs to be looked at.

21:32.885 --> 21:37.825
And I think, you know, another area of of work that, that,

21:37.885 --> 21:39.145
you know, I'm trying to work on myself,

21:39.145 --> 21:40.905
but I would like to see more people working on,

21:41.485 --> 21:45.785
is also seeing the connections between animal, kind

21:45.785 --> 21:48.865
of animal welfare, but also the welfare

21:49.125 --> 21:53.465
or the wellbeing of farmers and agricultural workers.

21:53.705 --> 21:57.345
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding between the two.

21:57.925 --> 22:01.025
Um, and in terms of advocacy,

22:02.285 --> 22:04.505
not all the time, but I think kind of often there's a lot

22:04.505 --> 22:07.225
of, there's, there's a lot of focus on, you know,

22:07.225 --> 22:11.545
each one's base, when there's a lot of overlap, right?

22:11.725 --> 22:14.305
And, and, and workers who are working on farms

22:14.325 --> 22:15.545
who are working in slaughterhouses,

22:15.545 --> 22:17.705
who are unloading creates, you know,

22:18.615 --> 22:19.865
they don't have an easy job.

22:20.725 --> 22:25.425
Um, and producers for the most part, you know, not the,

22:25.605 --> 22:28.985
not the, the big meat processors and meat packing plants,

22:29.005 --> 22:31.185
but the producers themselves, a lot

22:31.185 --> 22:34.025
of them aren't making a ton of money either.

22:34.085 --> 22:36.265
And so, you know, the agricultural economics

22:36.765 --> 22:39.345
and the, the labor questions

22:39.365 --> 22:42.825
and the animal welfare questions, you know, I think kind

22:42.825 --> 22:45.385
of the, the future is for there to be a bit more

22:45.985 --> 22:49.065
collaboration and to see each other's objectives kind

22:49.065 --> 22:52.145
of reflected in the work of the other, rather than being,

22:52.645 --> 22:56.145
you know, I guess at best in parallel

22:56.145 --> 22:57.225
and at worst in conflict.

00:00 - Was working with some colleagues at the University of Ottawa. we had an opportunity to collaborate with, a community organization. So the idea was to get researchers and a commuter organization together so

00:11 - that we could provide some research to support, you know, an NGO's work. And the NGO in question was, or is called Quebec, so Animal Law Quebec. and the, you know, the goal of the collaboration was to do a study of the impact of quebec's reform of the civil code on animals. and we were a lot of academics with different interests, and so people working in property and contracts and civil liability and family law.

00:45 - and we were all kind of interested in the ways that the reform, impacted animals. And what we saw with that, you know, there were hundreds of laws and regulations that existed, but none of them seemed to answer our question. and what we really saw was that we had all of these laws, all of these, these regulations, and yet it seems like for the majority of animals, which are farmed animals, right, as 99% of the animals that we raise, that they're not pets,

01:18 - they're not wild animals, they're agricultural animals. And it didn't really seem to kind of address what to do with them. and we were talking about this kind of, not so much a hypothetical, but we, there's, there's a case of, there's someone in the city of Montreal where I live, who owns, a pig in the city and walks this pig on a leash, just like a dog.

01:44 - And we were kind of struck by the fact that the fact that this pig lives in the city, it's subject to different rules than if a pig was raised on a farm. And that's what kind of got us thinking about what happens when not only are different animals treated differently, but what happens when the same animal is treated differently. There's a lot of excitement around the form, and I think it, it, it is very significant that the Quebec legislature decided to amend the civil code.

02:15 - That's not something that one does lightly, to amend it to, to, to send a signal that animals are not things like other things. And so historically, they were treated as things they can continue to be treated as things in other provinces, other countries, and to really make this statement that animals, are, are, have biological needs that need to be recognized as a kind of position. That in itself is very significant. Is very significant.

02:50 - The question after is, well, kind of how does that trickle down to the daily life or lives of animals? And that's Where the impact is less clear. and so, you know, the, the, the civil code refers to animals broadly. And so, you know, that does include, when we say animals, we're talking about, mice that are in labs, for, for, for research, for testing. It includes wild deer, in a provincial park.

03:25 - It, it includes your, your, your cat, your dog, and it also includes the chickens, the pigs, the, the cows, the goats, that are raised in the agricultural sector. And so when we say animal, we're talking about all of those animals, but then we have different laws and regulations that spell out in more detail how we're meant to treat those animals and what's considered acceptable behavior. And that's where we start to see some, some pretty significant exceptions, that, that exist

04:00 - for, for foreign animals. I think, you know, changing social norms, certainly kind of led to pressure, on, on the government to adopt changes. And so, you know, we have more people who, who have domestic pets. We have more people who are interested in animal welfare more generally. people who are adopting vegetarian diets, vegan diets. And so, you know, I think there's, there's kind of,

04:27 - society is moving in a direction where people recognize that animals, you know, aren't things, and do feel pain. there's significant research also that is demonstrating that animals can feel pain. And, you know, I mean, beyond, land animals, I mean, it is, I wouldn't say it's controversial because the science is there, but in terms of public perception, you know, fish also feel pain. You know, they're so, so all fish, birds, land animals,

04:59 - I mean, we, we have much more of an understanding, that they can experience fear, you know, pain, and that they, they need, you know, sufficient water and they need, or, or that it's not just that they need water and food, but they need spaces to socialize that they need spaces to, to dig or to nest. And Quebec has kind of, has quite consistently, you know, taken some pretty bold stances in terms of, legislating also in terms of, you know, family law and,

05:34 - and other, in other areas. It has, you know, been quite progressive in some of its, reforms. and I think that this has, as part of it, this perhaps also, I mean I'm a, a more controversial side also to this, where I think that it does, it did also occur in a time where there was some concern, Over, you know, practices relating to kosher and, halal slaughter.

06:02 - and so I think sometimes we also see, and this is something also that happens in Europe, where you also have, animal welfare concerns sometimes aligning, with certain groups who have concerns about, about immigration and cultural practices. And so I think it's, it's important to acknowledge, I think that that was also part of one of the, the reasons, but certainly not the only one. I think that judges have also been, kind of called upon to, to reflect on, on what this means, know, so kind

06:36 - of significantly the, the, the, the reform to the civil code, you know, it opens by saying that animals are not things, they're sentient beings and they have biological needs, but then it goes on, to say, because otherwise everything are entirely legal system would fall apart. That, you know, in addition to the provisions of the special acts that protect animals and animal welfare, the general provisions

07:00 - of the civil code, you know, still apply to animals. And so that's something that, you know, students in, in law school kind of struggle with because they, they hear about this, in the civil code, and it's kind of this groundbreaking reform. But then we have to tell them, well, but, you know, ultimately in terms of contract law or, or tort or other things, you know, an animal's still an animal in terms of being responsible for it.

07:25 - So you can't sue the dog that bit, you, you sue the owner, the handler. and so, you know, kind of practically the implications in those, in, in those areas, it doesn't really change anything. The animals don't kind of suddenly have status. so they don't have legal personhood. So what we're saying is that, you know, there, there're just, there are different kind of category, and they have biological needs unlike a chair,

07:52 - or, or a vehicle. and so, so that's kind of the, the first thing. So it doesn't change everything, but what it does do is it says that courts are then, you know, called upon to, to really take seriously what it means to give this special status to animals. And so while there hasn't been, an incredible change in the legal landscape, in Quebec, I mean, there have been some, important decisions since there was one, kind

08:23 - of often cited decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that involved, a municipal bylaws or kind of rules around, euthanizing dangerous dogs. and while the court of appeal kinda upheld the right of the city to kind of order, order euthanization to euthanize these dogs, it did say, you know, it's one thing to, to allow this, but we really wanna signal that the way in which it done has to be done in a way that's respectful of animal welfare, of the bio biological needs.

08:58 - And so it doesn't completely, it doesn't say that, you know, the animals have the right to live regardless, but the way in which they're treated, you know, needs to now reflect this, this statement of principle that's found in the code. So that's an example where, you know, the court really took the time to spell that out. but there have also been failed attempts. And so, you know, before we move into the field of agriculture, there was an attempt to, there was a, a,

09:25 - a judicial judicial review case involving, a decision to cull, a herd of deer that were in a, in a park, in the city of longe, in Montreal, that generated a lot of kind of public interest. People were very upset when they heard that these deer, were going to be killed. and so it was, brought to court to, to, to, to review, whether that decision that order was, was, reasonable. and the court found that it was, and on

10:02 - and on appeal, the court of appeal also rejected the appeal. And so, you know, in that case, you know, article 8 98 0.1 didn't change the outcome. I'd say that kind of the, the, the biggest change has been for, for companion animals, you know, for the way also we, we, we think about, you know, also in family laws being a, has been a big example of this, you know, these questions of on divorce, you know, who gets the animal question. So, so we're seeing some changes there in other areas we're, we're not seeing those changes.

10:33 - And if we start with farmers, I would say that, you know, in the last few years, there are new, kind of requirements that, that farmers, have to adopt. And so we're seeing it in, in the, in the pork industry. So with pigs, we're seeing it with, with poultry, with laying hands. And so there's a slow movement, and it's not unique to Canada. And so I would say that it's, you know, you can't say

11:01 - that it's just because of the reform to the civil code. I think it's, it's much broader than that, where also consumers are, kinda expecting better treatment of animals. And so there's a, a very slow progression towards getting rid of gestation crates for pigs. And some will say, not fast enough. And others will say, well, the, you know, the cost of completely retrofitting the facility for producers

11:31 - who themselves are not making a lot of money off the animals, right? You know, there are, there are people in the middle who are making quite a bit of money, but the producers themselves for every, for every head are not making a lot of money. So having to completely renovate, their buildings is a big expense. and they're not guaranteed a, You know, suddenly that

11:53 - they're gonna make a lot more money. So, so it moving, it's moving slowly. So we see some of these things, but kind of significantly, we're not seeing them, I would say because of the reform of the civil code, we're seeing it because, well, sometimes it's because the buyers, you know, the, the, the multinational chains, the, the, the retailers, the restaurants, they're requesting certain minimum standards. so you have, you know, this private governance model

12:25 - where the buyers are the one setting the terms. You also have producer associations, and in Quebec, those, that's a, that's a pretty big part of the, of the agricultural governance model, who will also, you know, establish new requirements, welfare requirements for the animals in that particular area. So no laying hands only, or, you know, dairy cows only. So we're seeing changes towards, dairy cows no longer being, tethered ties. They could, they can walk around freely and stalls,

13:00 - and that's kind of a slow progression and kinda the industry is going in that direction. and yeah, I think the question then remains, is it, is it from the civil code or is it from other factors? Maybe it's a, it's a bit of a, of a, of an influence between the two. But what's really important maybe for, for viewers to understand in terms of how this works, is that there's the civil code that provides a very broad statement.

13:26 - You know, animals are not things, they're senting beings. In a society like ours, we need more guidance than that. So we have different laws and different regulations that say, okay, well, what does that mean? You know, what are these biological needs? and so in the same year, that the civil code was reformed Quebec, the National Assembly also adopted, what's called the Animal Welfare and Safety Act.

13:52 - And that's the, that's the law that has all kinds of information and details about, you know, kind of what animal welfare means in terms of space, in terms of food, in terms of, not being subjected to abuse, mistreatment, having opportunities for adequate exercise very significantly. the Article seven of That Act provides exemptions for agricultural activities, as well as research and for agricultural activities, the requirements are, you know, you, you don't have to follow the provisions

14:29 - of the law as long as the animals are raised according to generally recognized practices or gen generally recognized rules. And then the question becomes, well, generally recognized by who. And, and the, the, the tendency or the kind of the common belief is That, you know, it's, it's basically, it's the, the industry codes and the industry norms establish

14:57 - what the general practices are. And so if the industry has decided that we're phasing out gestation crates, great, but if industry says, no, we're keeping gestation crates, well, that's the generally recognized rule, and there's not much that a court can do. We think about animals that are used in agriculture. No, there, there's an exception, right? To to how they're treated. and we, we establish under the animal welfare, act

15:23 - that they, you know, don't have to be treated like other animals. and you know, the question is why? Like, why do we have this exception for 99% of animals? And it's because the legislator is kind of forced into this uncomfortable position, where on the one hand, we recognize that animals are sentient beings with biological needs, and on the other hand, we're raising them to be slaughtered and eaten.

15:47 - And so the idea that, you know, animals shouldn't be subject to abuse or mistreatment, it's kind of hard to square that with the fact that, you know, we're gonna slip their necks. and so like already there's a bit of a tension and we don't really, and it, and it makes us uncomfortable. And so, like, I think that the parallel that I kind often draw with, with animals and agriculture is, I mean, you can, you can see this in, in science fiction or like dystopian novels, and there's, Isha Hiro's book, never Let Me Go,

16:19 - you know, where we have it is that same tension where these children who are being raised to be organ donors, to note for other children, and, you know, you want them to have a good life, you know, so they go to school and all these things, but, but ultimately they're going to die much earlier, much younger. And kind of there's, it raises all these kind ethical questions. And so I think kind of similarly for an animal agriculture,

16:45 - you know, we wanna have these rules that establish general welfare requirements, but it's very difficult for the legislature to go too far because, you know, if you say, if you offer too much protection, well, it's immediately gonna kind of come into conflict with the fact that after three months, six months, the animal can be put in a truck and taken to a slaughterhouse.

17:08 - And so I, I do think that that is a challenge, that also kind of can't be ignored when people are asking, well, why do we treat, you know, pigs on a farm differently from pigs in, in someone's living room? I think that one of the things that we, we need to think about is, giving judges time to internalize what it means to say that animals have biological needs and our sentient beings. I think that, you know, we're, we're seeing

17:38 - probably individual judges, who are, you know, maybe a bit more receptive to the idea, but others know who, who kind of still really, I think, kind of ultimately see that as property. And, and I think that kind of part of that is, is judicial education. So, you know, we see society evolving. and one question is, you know, when and how will judges, and also lawyers take this seriously?

18:04 - And so, you know, I've also seen, you know, lawyers who, who kind of work in, not in the field of, of animal law or an agricultural law, you know, who kind of think it's, it's funny, you know, it was kind of like a joke that there was a class action about, you know, challenging whether or not Ben and Jerry's was, you know, misleading consumers by saying their ice cream comes from happy cows because the cows came from an industrial feed lock. And that was seen like a joke.

18:33 - whereas, you know, a case where, clients of an airline are given, Prosecco instead of champagne when they were told they was gonna get champagne, like that's somehow taken more seriously, than, than the treatment of cows. And so I think there's kind of a general education that's needed, to, to understand that this is really significant. and the other thing is, I think that, I think some people really put a lot of faith in

19:04 - what Article 8 98 0.1 of the Civil Code can do. I'm of the view that as long as this exception is carved out in the animal welfare law, that refers to generally recognize rules, that there's always going to be kind of a disconnect between, you know, industry motive and kind of what's really in the best interest of the animal. And I don't think we can use terms like best interests of the animal like we do for children and family law,

19:37 - because there is that tension of, you know, what their ultimate purpose is. but I think we could have questions about, you know, rather than generally recognized rules, we can, you know, use no also fuzzy words, but, you know, that are raised according to humane standards. And, you know, humane standards might give courts a bit more room to say, well, you know, we've heard from these different veterinarians,

20:04 - we've heard from the different groups, and this doesn't sound like a humane practice. but if you're asking courts to say, well, what does industry say doesn't give a lot of space, or, or pressure right on, on industry to change their own rules. And so I think, in my view, you know, the, the, the real change needs to come in the, the laws and regulations, because the civil code itself, it's a,

20:30 - it's a great general statement. I don't think we need to, to re reword it. but we do need to have some, some stricter rules, that kind of flow from it to provide more guidance, in, certainly in the, an animal agricultural sector. I would say this, I kinda, it's a call for people who work in animal law and people who work in agricultural law to, to collaborate more. there's definitely kind of a tension between,

21:01 - the animal rights folks and the animal welfare folks. And so the ones, like me who advocate for reforming animal agriculture and not eliminating it, I, I don't, I, I take that kind of pragmatic route, but I think that there's space for, for, for us to, to collaborate and also interdisciplinary work between, you know, the, the animal health sciences and the lawyers. And so that's, I think, kind of one thing that, that needs to be looked at.

21:32 - And I think, you know, another area of of work that, that, you know, I'm trying to work on myself, but I would like to see more people working on, is also seeing the connections between animal, kind of animal welfare, but also the welfare or the wellbeing of farmers and agricultural workers. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding between the two. and in terms of advocacy, not all the time, but I think kind of often there's a lot of, there's, there's a lot of focus on, you know,

22:07 - each one's base, when there's a lot of overlap, right? And, and, and workers who are working on farms who are working in slaughterhouses, who are unloading creates, you know, they don't have an easy job. and producers for the most part, you know, not the, not the, the big meat processors and meat packing plants, but the producers themselves, a lot of them aren't making a ton of money either. And so, you know, the agricultural economics

22:36 - and the, the labor questions and the animal welfare questions, you know, I think kind of the, the future is for there to be a bit more collaboration and to see each other's objectives kind of reflected in the work of the other, rather than being, you know, I guess at best in parallel and at worst in conflict.

Faculti AI can make mistakes