Professor Lachance is a law teacher at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) law school. She is particularly interested in animal law in a comparative perspective. Besides her course 'Animals and the Law in Quebec ', she currently teaches courses in civil matters and international private law. She is the director of the International Research Group in Animal Law (IRGAL), a group she as recently created at UQAM.

Professor Lachance is also the vice-president of ANIMA-Quebec (National Association of Intervention for Animal Welfare), a non profit organisation which has, as its mission, to insure the safety and welfare of domestic animals through inspection of housing, breeding and selling facilities, and through education of their owners or custodians.

Our Interview with Martine LaChance

1. How did you become involved in the field of animal protection law?
I have always been concerned by animal fate. For several years, I have been involved as a volunteer in the protection of domestic animals, particularly by the search for foster homes.

When my dog Plume died, at the age of 18, I felt the need to use the vacuum created by her absence, to improve the welfare of animals that live under miserable conditions. I knew that animals were suffering and I wanted to utilize my legal skills to help them. The task was huge. Because of the lack of a proper legislation, a lot of puppy mills have settled down in Quebec, generating filthy conditions, excessive breeding, sick puppies and, more generally, basic cruelty to animals. Adding to this, the absence of a central organization in Quebec or in Canada, and the lack of a common policy between the 123 Canadian Federation members, the situation was disastrous for animals.

At first, I concretized my implication by being a board member of ANIMA-Quebec. I was initially designated at this job by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec; two months later I was the Vice-president of the organization.

With my implication within ANIMA-Quebec, I became more conscious of how badly we humans treat animals and how the legal system in Quebec is unable to protect them. My research henceforth is now entirely dedicated to animal law, my principal goal being to launch a reflexion on human being behaviours towards animal species. As well inside as outside the legal system, I believe that it is necessary to stimulate the discussion on the need for justice, and not only for charity, towards animals.


2. You are the Director of the International Research Group in Animal Law (IRGAL) at the University of Quebec in Montreal. Can you tell us about the objectives of that group?
In 2006, I created IRGAL to pursue the following objectives:
* To develop animal law in Quebec;
* To promote and support animals’ interests in the Canadian and Quebecor legal systems;
* To promote and support reflexion and discussion about animal welfare and the legal condition of animal species;
* To diffuse research results and to exchange initiatives that engage one or more scientific disciplines treating of the legal condition and the welfare of animals;
* To influence and introduce positive changes into the human’s reflexions, perceptions and behaviors in their relationships with animals.

3. You are also the vice-president of ANIMA-Quebec (National Association of Intervention for Animal Welfare), a non profit organisation which seeks to ensure the safety and welfare of domestic animals. Can you describe some of the projects of that organization?
ANIMA-Québec is a non-profit organization which has, as its mission, to ensure the safety and welfare of cats and dogs through inspection of housing, breeding and selling facilities, and through education of their owners or custodians. Whether it is a pet shop, a pound, a kennel or a shelter, all places where animals are being kept in captivity or bred can be inspected.

Under the Quebec legislation, any of our inspectors, designated by the provincial minister, has the right to enter a place and carry out a routine inspection, without the occupant’s authorization or the need of a search warrant (except for a dwelling-house, where the inspector must obtain a search warrant). Unlike the Criminal Code’s provisions, the Animal Health Protection Act’s purpose is both preventive and punitive. Consequently, a complaint is not necessary for an inspection to occur. Inspectors have powers to close any establishment for a given period, if there results an immediate danger for the health or welfare of any animal.

4. Can you outline some of the big issues for animal protection lawyers in Canada?
I think that the real problem in Canada is a lack of proper legislation, as much for domestic that for farm animals. Since the end of 1990s, an effort is underway across Canada to reform and strengthen the Criminal Code anti-cruelty provisions. Humane Societies and lobbyists have worked very hard for that because, more than ever, Canadians want it. They expect the criminal justice system to treat such behaviour seriously.

Canadian’s animal law movement faced, and still faces, enormous challenges. For the fifth time, in the past few years, a proposed legislation has come before Canada’s Parliament and has not been passed. The aim of this new legislation was to modernize our legal protection against intentional cruelty to animals.

In Quebec, the Animal Health Protection Act is strong … but still it is not enough… Because of a lack of financial support, ANIMA-Quebec cannot assure a proper enforcement of the Animal Health Protection Act. Actually, while Ontario has 200 inspectors to enforce the Ontario Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals Act, ANIMA-Quebec has only 2 inspectors to enforce the law in Quebec, the largest province of Canada.


5. Are animals treated differently at law in Quebec compared with other provinces of Canada? If so, can you highlight some of the differences?
As a federal statute, the Criminal Code applies everywhere in Canada. Its provisions are good, albeit general, within the framework of criminal law which is intended to punish wrongdoers. Actually, sections of the code contain a prohibition against killing or injuring cattle or other animals as well as prohibition against causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily.

Because of its punitive purpose, criminal legislation is not appropriate for the prevention of cruelty to animals or for the regulation of conditions for keeping them. We must then look at provincial statutes, the power to legislate on 'Property and Civil Rights' having been given to the provinces by the Constitutional Act of 1867.

Most of the provinces, excepted Quebec until 2005, have legislated concerning the prevention of cruelty to animals. As an example, here is an outline of the legislation in force in Alberta and in Ontario.

Alberta.  The Animal Protection Act establishes the principle according to which the owner or the person in charge of an animal must not cause it any mistreatment which could lead to distress. It also provides the possibility for a peace officer to penetrate in any place without warrant, except a private lodging in which case he must obtain a warrant, when he has reason to believe that an infraction of the Act has been committed and that it is not practical to obtain a warrant. The peace officer may also seize animals in connection with any infraction of the Act.

Ontario.  The Ontario Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals Act, stipulated that the object of the Society is the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection. To this end, an inspector of the SPCA may exercise all the powers of the police and may obtain a search warrant permitting him to verify if an animal is in distress. If such is the case, this inspector may order any action with a view to bringing relief to the victim. In addition, the law enumerates the conditions for removing an animal from unsanitary surroundings and regulates the procedure for this purpose. It is to be noted that this law does not go as far as that of Alberta in so far the power of seizure is concerned, since if the owner reimburses the cost incurred for its keep, he may recover his animal. In fact, this law provides only power of an administrative order: the offenders must always be prosecuted under the Criminal Code.


6. What career opportunities are there for animal lawyers in Canada?
Like Canada, animal law is not yet a recognized discipline in Quebec. The few lawyers who work in this field, are nothing but family lawyers. The majority of them have no real interest for animals; they fight on Court only for the need of the client to have the guard of his or her animal, in the event of a divorce or a death.

The Crown’s attorneys who prosecute people accused of cruelty to an animal, are not all sympathetic to animal’s concerns. They also have to defend victims of serious crimes, such as murder, rape and aggravated assault, what can create feelings of frustration and disinterest for animal’s cases.


7. To what extent do you think animals can be protected (e.g. through litigation or legislation) within a system that classifies them as property?
The Quebec being a system of civil law, it is difficult to support an other answer than legislation. In such matter of 'Property and Civil Rights',  judges cannot create legal norms or standards without a written text.

8. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia's budding animal lawyers?
Like many others, I firmly believe that the best way to help animals is to become a vegan. But, being myself vegetarian, I know how it is difficult to keep such philosophy, in a society where people have no respect for animals.

To conclude, I want to share one of my dreams with you: that each human being, once in his life, by small or great gestures, will help and protect an animal…