![News Room](/web/20071205231422im_/http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/img/ii_header.gif)
![News Room](/web/20071205231422im_/http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/img/template/pi_02_01.jpg) ![News Room](/web/20071205231422im_/http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/img/template/pi_02_02.jpg)
Backgrounder
ROYAL ASSENT OF BILL C-24
ORGANIZED CRIME LEGISLATION
Canadians are concerned about the growing and pervasive threat of organized
crime in their communities. In response to their concerns, and in cooperation
with the provinces and territories, the Government of Canada introduced anti-organized
crime legislation that has been adopted by both Houses of Parliament. This legislation
strengthens the ability of law enforcement officers and prosecutors to fight
organized crime.
Bill C-24 will amend the Criminal Code to:
- introduce three new offences and tough sentences that target various degrees
of involvement with criminal organizations;
- improve the protection of people who play a role in the justice system from
intimidation against them and their families;
- simplify the current definition of "criminal organization" in
the Criminal Code;
- broaden powers of law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime and the
profits of criminal organizations and seize property that was used in a crime;
and
- establish an accountability process to protect law enforcement officers
from criminal liability when they commit certain acts that would otherwise
be considered illegal during the course of a criminal investigation.
Making participation in a criminal organization an offence
By making participation in a criminal organization a criminal offence,
the new legislation represents an effective and legally sound approach to the
issue of membership in organized crime. The provisions can target anyone (not
just members) who knowingly becomes involved in activities that further
an organization's criminal objectives.
The new offences will target anyone who:
- participates in or contributes to activities that help a criminal organization
achieve its criminal objectives. This offence can include, for example, people
who recruit others to join a criminal organization or who facilitate illegal
transactions of a criminal organization. The maximum penalty for this offence
will be five years;
- is involved in committing indictable offences for the benefit of criminal
organizations. The maximum penalty for this offence will be 14 years; and
- is a leader of a criminal organization. These persons will include anyone
within the criminal organization who instructs another person to become involved
in a criminal offence. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Unlike other types of penalty provisions that require offenders to serve only
a third of their sentence before becoming eligible to apply for parole, offenders
convicted of criminal organization offences will have to serve at least half
of their term before they are eligible to apply for parole, unless the court
directs otherwise.
Protecting people in the criminal justice system from intimidation
Under the new provisions, it will be an offence to use violence to intimidate
people involved in the justice system or a member of their family with the intention
of impeding the administration of justice. Justice participants include witnesses,
jurors, police, prosecutors, prison guards, judges, members of the media, and
members of Parliament and Senators. The legislation will also contain provisions
to protect the privacy of jurors. The offence of intimidation of a justice system
participant will be punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment.
Additionally, the killing of any justice system participant while intimidating
or attempting to intimidate that person will be first-degree murder and will
carry an automatic sentence of life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years.
Simplifying the definition of "criminal organization"
The new anti-organized crime legislation will simplifies the definition of
criminal organization, and will give police and prosecutors the flexibility
they need to go after more criminal organizations and those who choose to get
involved in their activities. The definition will:
- reduce the number of people required to constitute a criminal organization
from five to three. This brings Canadian legislation into line with legislation
used in other countries;
- no longer require prosecutors to demonstrate that members of the criminal
organization were involved in committing crimes for the criminal organization
in the last five years. Instead, prosecutors will be able to focus on the
evidence relevant to the crimes for which the offender is on trial; and
- broaden the scope of the offences which define a criminal organization (currently
limited to indictable offences punishable by five or more years) to all serious
crimes, including "signature" crimes such as prostitution and gambling.
Seizure, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime
Current laws allow for the seizure, freezing and confiscation of proceeds of
those crimes defined as "enterprise crimes," such as firearms trafficking,
stock market fraud and arson. The amendments expand the proceeds of crime provisions
so that they apply to most indictable offences.
With this legislation, Canadian authorities can enforce foreign criminal confiscation
orders involving proceeds of crime while protecting innocent third party interests.
Bill C-24 ensures that Canada can play an active role in the global effort
to combat organized crime, and allows Canada to fulfill its obligations under
international conventions that it has signed, including the United Nations
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
and the Council of Europe's Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime.
Currently, the law provides for the forfeiture of property only if it was especially
built or modified in order to carry out the crime. Under the amendments, forfeiture
of offence-related property applies, for the first time, to all property (for
example, houses or other real estate, vehicles or equipment) that was used in
committing the crime. To ensure that the provisions are applied fairly, the
law requires that a test be applied so that the punishment of forfeiture would
not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime.
Protecting law enforcement officers
Police officers investigating crimes such as people-smuggling, smuggling of
contraband such as liquor, tobacco and firearms, hate crimes, international
terrorism and environmental crimes must use a variety of techniques, including,
on occasion, committing offences to infiltrate, destabilize and dismantle these
operations.
The new legislative provisions were developed in consultation with provinces,
territories and representatives from the law enforcement and legal communities.
They establish an accountability process that establishes immunity from criminal
prosecution for law enforcement officers when they commit certain acts that
would otherwise be considered illegal during the course of criminal investigations.
The provisions:
- do not give "blanket" immunity to police for any criminal conduct;
- require that individual officers must be personally designated by the relevant
minister in order to benefit from the limited immunity;
- clearly set out the actions for which immunity will not be granted. There
will be no immunity for intentionally or recklessly causing death or bodily
harm, sexual offences or deliberately obstructing the course of justice; and
- establish an accountability process that will require, among other things,
that the Solicitor General of Canada, provincial ministers responsible for
policing and federal ministers responsible for the enforcement of other federal
statutes, release an annual report on how often officers under their authority
engaged in such acts.
In April 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v Campbell
and Shirose declared that police were not immune from criminal liability
for criminal activities committed in the course of an investigation. The Court
also noted that it was for Parliament to determine if police should benefit
from some kind of public interest immunity and, to set out laws that clearly
showed the circumstances in which police would be protected from criminal liability.
- 30 -
Department of Justice
December 18, 2001
|