New Organ Trafficking Crimes and Visa Bans

Summary#

This bill creates new criminal offences for trafficking in human organs and makes people inadmissible to Canada if they took part in such trafficking. It applies inside Canada and, for Canadians and permanent residents, also to acts done outside Canada. It also allows the government to refuse entry to, or remove, non-citizens who engaged in this conduct.

• Makes it a crime to remove an organ without informed consent, or to obtain an organ that was paid for, with penalties up to 14 years in prison (Criminal Code s. 240.1(1)-(3)).
• Covers people who receive organs, people who remove them, and people who help or facilitate the removal, if they know or are reckless about lack of consent or payment (s. 240.1(1)-(2)).
• Applies to Canadians and permanent residents even if the act happened outside Canada, with the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute (s. 7(4.2)-(4.3)).
• Adds immigration inadmissibility for permanent residents and foreign nationals if, in the Minister’s opinion, they engaged in conduct that would be an organ-trafficking offence (IRPA s. 35(1)(c.1)).

What it means for you#

• Households and patients

  • If you receive an organ that you know, or are reckless about, was taken without informed consent, you could face up to 14 years in prison (Criminal Code s. 240.1(1)(a), (3)).
  • If you obtain an organ that you know, or are reckless about, was obtained for payment (“consideration”), you could face up to 14 years in prison (s. 240.1(2)-(3)).
  • These rules also apply if the organ was obtained outside Canada and you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, subject to the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute (s. 7(4.2)-(4.3)).

• Health workers and intermediaries

  • If you carry out, participate in, or facilitate the removal of an organ without informed consent, you could face up to 14 years in prison (s. 240.1(1)(b)-(c), (3)).
  • Liability turns on what you knew or whether you were reckless about consent or payment. The bill text does not define “informed consent” or “consideration” (s. 240.1).

• Immigration applicants and permanent residents

  • A foreign national or permanent resident is inadmissible to Canada if, in the Minister’s opinion, they engaged in conduct that would be an offence under the new Criminal Code section (IRPA s. 35(1)(c.1)).
  • Inadmissibility can bar entry or lead to removal under existing processes for serious human rights violations (IRPA s. 35(1)).

• Law enforcement and prosecutors

  • You may investigate and prosecute organ-trafficking offences committed abroad by Canadians and permanent residents, but only with the Attorney General’s consent (Criminal Code s. 7(4.2)-(4.3)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• The bill creates new criminal offences and an inadmissibility ground but includes no direct appropriations. Data unavailable.
• Potential justice system and immigration enforcement costs are not quantified in the bill text. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Closes a legal gap by criminalizing receiving organs from non-consensual removal and paid organ transactions, with clear penalties up to 14 years (Criminal Code s. 240.1(1)-(3)).
• Deters “organ tourism” by allowing prosecution of Canadians and permanent residents for acts done abroad, subject to Attorney General oversight (s. 7(4.2)-(4.3)).
• Protects vulnerable donors by targeting those who remove, facilitate, or knowingly benefit from coerced or paid organ removals (s. 240.1(1)-(2)).
• Enhances border protection by making non-citizens inadmissible when the Minister concludes they engaged in conduct that would be an offence, helping to keep traffickers out (IRPA s. 35(1)(c.1)).
• Uses a knowledge or recklessness standard to avoid penalizing people who could not reasonably know about consent or payment (s. 240.1(1)-(2)).

Opponents' View#

• Enforcement abroad may be difficult; proving lack of informed consent or payment in another country can be hard and may depend on foreign evidence and cooperation (Criminal Code s. 7(4.2)).
• The Attorney General consent requirement could limit prosecutions and weaken deterrence if approvals are rare (s. 7(4.3)).
• The “in the opinion of the Minister” standard for inadmissibility may raise fairness concerns and risk inconsistent decisions without a conviction, affecting visas or status (IRPA s. 35(1)(c.1)).
• Patients seeking transplants abroad could face criminal exposure if they are reckless about consent or payment; critics may warn of a chilling effect even on legitimate, ethical transplants, though the bill targets only non-consensual or paid organs (s. 240.1(1)-(2)).
• Health workers may face legal risk if due diligence on consent and payment is unclear; the bill does not define “informed consent” or “consideration,” leaving interpretation to courts (s. 240.1).