Canada's legal system is facing significant challenges in addressing contemporary criminal threats. Thomas Carrique, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, highlighted these issues last week, stating that the current legal toolkit is outdated and inadequate for today's complex criminal landscape. He pointed out that law enforcement is grappling with transnational crime, extremism, drug trafficking, and online exploitation using tools that were never designed for such challenges.

Carrique emphasized that “geopolitical instability and social unrest” have exacerbated these issues. He noted that even minor legal loopholes, such as the inability to secure a warrant for a Canada Post parcel weighing less than 500 grams, hinder law enforcement efforts. This is concerning given that such parcels can contain dangerous substances like fentanyl. Despite police raising these concerns for three decades, little action has been taken until recently, when pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump brought more attention to the matter.

The introduction of Bill C-2, known as the Strong Borders Act, is seen as a starting point. However, experts argue that more comprehensive reforms are necessary. The threats facing Canada are no longer limited to traditional organized crime groups like the Hell's Angels. Foreign state actors are increasingly influencing organized crime, using criminal networks as tools for hybrid warfare. This includes a range of issues from antisemitism and hate crimes to opioid trafficking and gang violence.

Current Canadian laws treat these threats as isolated domestic issues, which hampers the ability of police and prosecutors to respond effectively. While the legal framework is designed to protect rights and public trust, it may need to adapt to address the realities of organized crime and national security. High thresholds for searches and surveillance, as outlined in Section 8 of the Charter, complicate law enforcement efforts. Landmark cases such as R. v. Tse and R. v. Spencer have further restricted access to emergency wiretaps and internet subscriber data without prior judicial approval.

In contrast, other democracies, such as the United Kingdom, allow for broader data access in similar situations. Additionally, the requirement for immediate access to counsel can disrupt critical interrogations in high-stakes cases, while countries like the United States and Australia permit limited delays in terrorism and organized crime investigations.

The Jordan framework, which sets strict timelines for criminal trials, can lead to the dismissal of complex cross-border cases that would be allowed to proceed in the U.S. under the Speedy Trial Act. Furthermore, the Stinchcombe disclosure rule mandates that the Crown share nearly all evidence publicly, which can deter the use of intelligence from international allies due to concerns about compromising sources.

Canada's organized crime laws are also seen as outdated. The Criminal Code sections related to organized crime require proof of a rigid organizational structure and a benefit motive, which does not align with the decentralized and digital nature of modern criminal networks. In contrast, the U.S. RICO Act allows for the prosecution of crime leaders and facilitators based on patterns of criminal behavior.

Financial enforcement against money laundering is similarly weak, with estimates suggesting that between $45 billion and $113 billion is laundered in Canada each year. The need for a legal overhaul is becoming increasingly urgent as Canada confronts a rapidly evolving criminal landscape.