Bill C-24 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 5, 2001
- Debated in principleApril 26, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 13, 2001
- Passed the second chamberDec. 4, 2001
- Became lawDec. 18, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (33,747 words introduced, 21,257 passed). A committee amended it.
transformative changeintent broadened
The bill as passed expanded the definition of justice system participant to cover more elected officials and added civilian oversight rules for designating public officers. Core organized crime and law enforcement provisions stayed intact but with added limits on designations.
- Definition of justice system participant was broadened to include more elected officials.
Before: “(a) a Member of the Senate and a Member of the House of Commons, and”
After: “(a) a member of the Senate, of the House of Commons, of a legislative assembly or of a municipal council, and”
- New civilian oversight condition was added before designations can be made.
After: “(3.1) A competent authority referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of that term in subsection (1) may not designate any public officer under subsection (3) unless there is a public authority composed of persons who are not peace officers that may review the public officer's conduct.”
- Conditions on designations were expanded to include limits on duration and conduct.
Before: “(7) A designation under subsection (3) or (6) may be made subject to conditions.”
After: “(7) A designation under subsection (3) or (6) may be made subject to conditions, including conditions limiting (a) the duration of the designation;”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text mixes narrow lists of covered persons and offences with repeated subjective tests that turn on an officer's beliefs about reasonableness and proportionality. This leaves wide room for argument over when conduct is justified.
Open to argument
“believes on reasonable grounds that the commission of the act or omission, as compared to the nature of the offence or criminal activity being investigated, is reasonable and proportional in the circum”
The double reasonableness-plus-proportionality standard is open-ended and invites prolonged debate over what facts satisfy it.“it is not feasible in the circumstances to obtain the authorization”
Feasibility is a subjective judgment without an objective metric or list of factors.
Clear-cut
“a member of the Senate, of the House of Commons, of a legislative assembly or of a municipal council”
The list uses fixed, verifiable categories rather than open standards.“an offence under section 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13”
Cross-references specific numbered sections, creating a closed set.
Discretion. Senior officials and public officers decide when acts are reasonable and proportional, when authorization is not feasible, and when notification would compromise an investigation, with only annual statistical reporting required.
Challenging the law itself. The subjective standards and broad justification for otherwise criminal acts readily support a section 7 Charter challenge on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. A person directed to commit an act can contest whether the directing officer actually possessed authority or whether the beliefs held were objectively reasonable, though the tests remain fact-intensive.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The 2007-2008 summative evaluation of the Measures to Combat Organized Crime Initiative found that Bill C-24 provisions enhanced investigative and prosecutorial tools, with prosecutors using organized crime sections in plea negotiations and investigators applying them to structure cases and support wiretap orders, though some elements like direct criminal organization charges faced Charter challenge concerns leading to reliance on traditional offences. No subsequent statutory parliamentary reviews under section 46.1, Auditor General reports, or other comprehensive official evaluations were identified.
- 2007-2008 Summative Evaluation of the Measures to Combat Organized Crime Initiative Final Summary ReportevaluationBill C-24 changes provided an improved ability to investigate and prosecute organized crime, with the law enforcement justification scheme proving one of the most useful tools, though fear of Charter challenges deterred some direct use of new criminal organization offences.
- Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Twelfth Report (pre-assent observations on Bill C-24)reviewThe committee expressed concerns about the breadth of law enforcement justification provisions and recommended a parliamentary review within three years of coming into force under section 46.1, but no evidence of such a review occurring was found.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.