An Act to amend the Criminal Code (theft of property of cultural or religious significance)

Bill C-290 would change the Criminal Code by creating a new, specific crime for stealing property that has cultural or religious significance, such as sacred objects, artifacts, or items important to a community's heritage or faith. Right now, such theft would simply be prosecuted as ordinary theft, but this bill would make it a distinct offence, on the reasoning that these items carry a special kind of harm beyond their monetary value.

Under the new offence, anyone who steals property of cultural or religious significance could be charged with an indictable offence carrying up to 10 years in prison, or with a less serious summary conviction offence, depending on how the case is prosecuted. The bill also creates a separate offence for knowingly possessing such stolen cultural or religious property without a lawful excuse, punishable by up to 5 years in prison if prosecuted as an indictable offence, or as a summary offence otherwise.

Finally, the bill adds this new theft offence to the list of offences in section 183 of the Criminal Code for which police can seek judicial authorization to intercept private communications (wiretaps) during an investigation. This gives police an additional investigative tool specifically for cases involving theft of culturally or religiously significant property.

This bill creates two new Criminal Code offences — theft of property with cultural or religious significance, and possession of such stolen property — and adds the theft offence to the list of offences for which police may seek judicial authorization to intercept private communications.

• New offences created — theft of culturally or religiously significant property carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment if prosecuted as an indictable offence, or a summary conviction penalty; possessing such stolen property carries a maximum of 5 years if indictable, or summary conviction.
• Prosecutorial discretion — for both offences, the Crown may choose to proceed by indictment (higher maximum penalty) or by summary conviction, a choice the bill does not constrain.
• Wiretap eligibility — by adding the new theft offence to section 183 of the Criminal Code, police become able to apply for judicial authorization to intercept private communications when investigating this offence, a tool available for offences on that list.
• Undefined key term — the bill does not define what makes property "of cultural or religious significance," leaving that determination to courts applying the provision to specific cases.
• No new body or reporting duty — the bill does not create any new office, agency, or review process, and contains no requirement for future reporting to Parliament.