Summary#

This bill amends the federal Health of Animals Act to create a specific offence for entering barns or other enclosed places where animals are kept without permission, if that entry could reasonably be expected to expose animals to a disease or toxic substance. It also sets new maximum fines and possible jail time for individuals and organizations that break this rule (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)).

• Defines a new offence for unauthorized entry that risks exposing animals to disease or toxins (new s. 9.1).
• Applies to bringing in any animal or “thing” (for example, equipment, clothing, or materials) that could carry disease or toxins (new s. 9.1).
• Sets maximum penalties for individuals: up to CAD $25,000 and/or up to 3 months on summary conviction; up to CAD $100,000 and/or up to 1 year on indictment (s. 65(1.1)).
• Sets maximum penalties for organizations: up to CAD $100,000 on summary conviction; up to CAD $500,000 on indictment (s. 65(1.2)).
• Requires proof that exposure “could reasonably be expected,” not just that someone entered without permission (new s. 9.1).

What it means for you#

• Households and visitors

  • Unauthorized entry into barns or other enclosed areas where animals are kept, when your presence could reasonably be expected to expose animals to disease or toxins, becomes a federal offence. Penalties can include fines and jail (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)).
  • Bringing in items or animals that could carry disease or toxins without permission can also trigger the offence (new s. 9.1).
  • People with permission or lawful excuse (for example, invited guests, lawful inspectors) are not targeted by this offence (new s. 9.1).

• Workers and service providers

  • Employees, veterinarians, delivery drivers, and contractors with lawful authority can continue their work. The offence focuses on unauthorized entry that poses a biosecurity risk (new s. 9.1).
  • Good biosecurity practices matter. If you lack authority or excuse and bring in items that could spread disease, you may face charges (new s. 9.1).

• Farmers and animal facility operators

  • Provides a federal offence you can report if someone enters enclosed animal areas without permission and risks exposure to disease or toxins (new s. 9.1).
  • The bill does not set biosecurity rules, signage, or protocols. It does not change your existing duties under other laws. It adds a specific offence for risky, unauthorized entry (new s. 9.1).

• Advocacy groups and media

  • Unauthorized entry into enclosed animal areas that could reasonably be expected to expose animals to disease or toxins carries new legal risk, including fines and possible jail (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)).

• Across Canada

  • Applies nationwide once in force as part of the federal Health of Animals Act (new s. 9.1).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable (no appropriations in the bill; enforcement costs not estimated).

• No direct appropriations, grants, or fees are created by the bill text. Data unavailable on enforcement costs or court impacts (Bill text).
• Potential fine revenue exists due to new maximum fines, but expected amounts are not estimated. Data unavailable.
• Any training or operational costs for enforcement and prosecution are not specified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves animal biosecurity by targeting conduct that risks exposing animals to disease or toxic substances, helping prevent outbreaks in barns and enclosed facilities (new s. 9.1).
• Creates clear, stronger penalties to deter risky trespass and the introduction of contaminated items or animals (s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)).
• Fills a gap by creating a specific federal offence under the Health of Animals Act, rather than relying only on general trespass or property laws (new s. 9.1).
• Uses a “could reasonably be expected” standard, which requires proof of a real risk, not mere presence. This sets a threshold the prosecution must meet (new s. 9.1).
• Applies to both individuals and organizations, aligning penalties with the potential scale of harm (s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)).

Opponents' View#

• Overbreadth and vagueness: “Thing” is not defined in the bill, and “could reasonably be expected” may be applied inconsistently, creating uncertainty for visitors, workers, and media (new s. 9.1).
• Chilling effects: The risk of criminal charges and high fines could deter whistleblowers or journalists from documenting conditions, even when they take precautions (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)).
• Duplication: Provinces already have trespass and related laws; the added federal offence may duplicate existing tools without clear evidence of added effectiveness. Data unavailable.
• Enforcement burden: Investigating biosecurity risk and proving “reasonable expectation” may require expert evidence and increase workload for police, inspectors, and courts. Data unavailable.
• Uneven application: The bill does not set standards for notice or signage, which could lead to disputes over whether a person had fair warning that entry posed a biosecurity risk (new s. 9.1).