Tougher Laws for Theft of Sacred Items
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (theft of property of cultural or religious significance)
Summary
- Creates a new Criminal Code offence for theft of property of cultural or religious significance, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment, regardless of dollar value.
- Creates a related possession offence for holding such stolen property without lawful excuse, punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment.
- Adds the theft offence to the list of designated offences (section 183), enabling courts to authorize wiretaps in investigations of these crimes.
- Leaves "cultural or religious significance" undefined in the bill, relying on courts and enforcement to determine scope and proof.
Builder Assessment
This bill modestly supports prosperity by safeguarding culturally and religiously significant property, enhancing safety and social cohesion without imposing burdens on commerce. Its economic effects are limited, so clarity and proportionality are essential to avoid unintended costs or rights concerns.
- Protects heritage assets and faith communities, underpinning social stability and tourism benefits.
- Imposes no new regulatory paperwork or barriers on businesses; impact on economic freedom is neutral to positive.
- Risks inefficiency if "cultural or religious significance" remains undefined; recommend clear statutory criteria or cross-reference to existing heritage/cultural property frameworks.
- Add a due diligence defence and safe harbour for good-faith museums, galleries, and collectors that follow provenance best practices.
- Calibrate sentencing and provide guidance to avoid perverse effects relative to existing theft and possession provisions.
- Require annual public reporting on use of wiretap authorizations for this offence to ensure oversight and cost control, and include a statutory review after three years.
Question Period Cards
How will the government define and operationalize "cultural or religious significance" to avoid overbreadth and ensure fair, consistent application across Indigenous sacred items, museum collections, and places of worship?
Why is the possession offence capped at five years when possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 can carry up to ten, and what analysis shows this sentencing range will effectively deter trafficking in high-value artifacts?
What guardrails and reporting will accompany the new wiretap eligibility under section 183 to ensure proportionality, Charter compliance, and prudent use of police and court resources for these investigations?
Principles Analysis
✓
Canada should aim to be the world's most prosperous country.
Strengthening protection of culturally significant assets supports community stability and tourism, contributing modestly to long-run prosperity with minimal economic downside.
—
Promote economic freedom, ambition, and breaking from bureaucratic inertia (reduce red tape).
Creates criminal penalties but imposes no new regulatory or licensing burdens on businesses or workers.
—
Drive national productivity and global competitiveness, including removing interprovincial trade barriers and improving labour mobility (one country, one market).
Does not materially change productivity drivers; benefits are indirect through deterrence of theft and preservation of heritage assets.
—
Grow exports of Canadian products and resources, and move up the value chain by processing resources domestically rather than exporting them raw.
Could curb illicit trafficking abroad, but has no direct effect on legitimate export growth.
—
Encourage investment, innovation, and resource development.
No direct link to private investment or innovation; may improve confidence for cultural institutions and faith communities.
—
Deliver better public services at lower cost (government efficiency).
A targeted offence may streamline prosecutions, but added wiretap eligibility and potential incarceration increase investigative and correctional costs.
—
Reform taxes to incentivize work, risk-taking, and innovation.
No tax measures are affected.
—
Focus on large-scale prosperity, not incrementalism.
This is a narrow criminal law reform with limited macroeconomic impact.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]
PartyMember of Parliament
StatusOutside the Order of Precedence
Last updatedN/A
TopicsCriminal Justice
Parliament45