An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)

How it changed on the way

24% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (739 words introduced, 652 passed).

minor changeintent kept

The bill passed with formal updates to reflect the change in monarch and final assent dates. The core offences on organ trafficking and the immigration inadmissibility rule stayed the same.

• Updated the reference to the monarch from female to male.

  Before: “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”

  After: “His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”

• Updated the session years and assent date on the title page.

  Before: “S-223 1 44 70 Elizabeth II 2021”

  After: “S-223 1 44 70-71 Elizabeth II – 1 Charles III 2021-2022”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill mixes clear numerical penalties and structured offence elements with repeated reliance on ministerial opinion and recklessness standards. This creates objective cores alongside subjective triggers that invite argument over application.

Open to argument

• “if the appropriate minister is of the opinion that they have engaged in any activities relating to trafficking in human organs”

  The phrase delegates inadmissibility to an undefined ministerial opinion without objective criteria.

• “in the opinion of the Minister, constitute an offence under section 240.1”

  This imports a subjective ministerial judgment into the immigration bar, broadening discretion beyond the criminal text.

Clear-cut

• “liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years”

  A fixed maximum sentence supplies a clear, numerical limit on punishment.

• “Proceedings with respect to an act or omission deemed to have been committed in Canada under subsection (4.1) or (4.2) may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General”

  The consent requirement is a narrow, identifiable procedural gate.

Discretion. Substantial discretion remains with the Minister to decide inadmissibility on the basis of opinion and with prosecutors to interpret recklessness and extraterritorial application.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'in the opinion of' and undefined 'informed consent' could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under Charter s. 7.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute the mental element of knowledge or recklessness and the scope of 'facilitates' or 'participates'.

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.