New Penalties for Risky Farm Trespass

Summary#

This bill amends the federal Health of Animals Act to create a new offence for entering, without permission or lawful excuse, a building or other enclosed place where animals are kept if that entry could expose the animals to a disease or toxic substance. It also sets specific penalties for individuals and organizations that break this new rule (new s.9.1; s.65(1.1)-(1.2)). The goal is to reduce biosecurity risks to animals.

• Creates a standalone offence for unauthorized entry that risks exposing animals to disease or toxins (new s.9.1).
• Sets maximum fines and possible jail time for individuals: up to $50,000 or 6 months on summary conviction; up to $250,000 or 2 years on indictment (s.65(1.1)).
• Sets maximum fines for organizations: up to $100,000 on summary conviction; up to $500,000 on indictment (s.65(1.2)).
• Clarifies that general offence provisions do not apply to this new section because it has its own penalties (s.65(1)).
• Applies when a person knows, or is reckless (aware of a serious risk and proceeds anyway), that entry could result in exposure (new s.9.1).

What it means for you#

• Households
  • If you enter barns or other enclosed places with animals without permission and in a way that could expose animals to disease or toxins, you could face charges and fines or jail under federal law (new s.9.1; s.65(1.1)).
  • Having permission or a lawful excuse (for example, emergency aid) is a potential defense, but would be decided by a court based on facts (new s.9.1).
• Workers and visitors to animal facilities
  • Authorized employees, contractors, inspectors, veterinarians, and delivery staff with permission are not targeted by the “without lawful authority or excuse” element. However, entering without permission, while knowing or being reckless about biosecurity risks, could trigger the offence (new s.9.1).
  • You may be asked to follow site biosecurity rules as a condition of lawful entry; ignoring rules and entering without authority could increase legal risk (new s.9.1).
• Advocacy groups and protesters
  • Unauthorized entry into enclosed animal areas that could risk exposure may lead to federal charges, separate from any provincial trespass offences (new s.9.1; s.65(1.1)-(1.2)).
• Farms, research facilities, and other places where animals are kept
  • Gain a federal offence tool to deter and prosecute unauthorized entry that poses contamination or disease risks to animals (new s.9.1).
  • Organizations found guilty face higher maximum fines than individuals (s.65(1.2)).
• Law enforcement and prosecutors
  • New offence to investigate and prosecute, with choices between summary conviction and indictment based on case factors (s.65(1.1)-(1.2)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations or new fees are created in the bill text. Enforcement and prosecution costs, if any, would be absorbed by existing agencies and courts. Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Strengthens biosecurity: The offence targets conduct that could expose animals to disease or toxins, aiming to reduce outbreaks and contamination risks (new s.9.1).
• Creates a clear deterrent: Significant maximum penalties for individuals and organizations are designed to deter risky unauthorized entry (s.65(1.1)-(1.2)).
• Fills a federal gap: Places the biosecurity risk within the federal animal health framework, rather than relying only on general trespass laws, and ties penalties to animal health harm risk (new s.9.1; s.65).
• Tailors penalties: Separates penalties for individuals versus organizations and allows prosecutors to proceed by summary conviction or indictment depending on severity (s.65(1.1)-(1.2)).

Opponents' View#

• Scope and vagueness risk: Terms like “reckless” and “could result in the exposure” may be broad, which could capture low-risk situations and create uncertainty about what conduct is illegal (new s.9.1).
• Overlap with existing laws: Provinces and municipalities already have trespass and biosecurity rules; adding a federal offence may duplicate enforcement without clear added benefit. Data unavailable.
• Enforcement burden: New offence could increase demands on federal inspectors, police, and courts, without dedicated funding in the bill text. Data unavailable.
• Potential chilling effects: Even with the “lawful authority or excuse” defense, the risk of high penalties may discourage reporting or documentation of poor conditions by unauthorized entrants, depending on how courts interpret “lawful excuse” (new s.9.1; s.65(1.1)-(1.2)).