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

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to create specific crimes for stealing, and for possessing, items that have cultural or religious significance. It sets higher maximum penalties for these crimes and lets police seek wiretap warrants when investigating the theft offence. The goal appears to be stronger protection for sacred and culturally important objects, beyond their dollar value.

• Creates a new offence for theft of property of cultural or religious significance, with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison if prosecuted by indictment (the more serious route), or by summary conviction (the less serious route).
• Creates a related offence for possessing such property after it has been stolen, with a maximum penalty of up to 5 years in prison if prosecuted by indictment, or by summary conviction.
• Adds the new theft offence (but not the possession offence) to the list of crimes for which a judge can authorize interception of private communications (wiretaps) under the Criminal Code.
• Does not set a dollar-value threshold. Any value could qualify if the item is found to be culturally or religiously significant.
• Does not define “property of cultural or religious significance,” leaving that to be determined in each case.

What it means for you#

• Communities, faith groups, and cultural institutions

  • Theft of sacred or culturally important items from places like houses of worship, cultural centers, or community spaces would carry specific Criminal Code penalties.
  • Police could seek wiretaps in serious investigations of such thefts, which could aid complex cases (for example, organized theft rings).

• Museums, archives, galleries, collectors, art and antiques dealers

  • Holding an item that is culturally or religiously significant, knowing it was stolen (or without a lawful excuse), could lead to charges under the new possession offence.
  • You may need stronger due diligence to avoid acquiring or keeping items that could be considered culturally or religiously significant and stolen.
  • Because the bill does not define “cultural or religious significance,” there may be uncertainty about which items qualify until courts provide guidance.

• Police and prosecutors

  • You would have a tailored charge for thefts involving culturally or religiously significant items, regardless of the item’s market value.
  • You could apply for wiretap warrants for the theft offence to investigate serious or organized cases.
  • You would need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the property is of cultural or religious significance, which may require expert evidence.

• General public

  • Day-to-day life is unlikely to change for most people. The bill mainly affects how certain thefts are charged and investigated.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• Possible impacts could include higher investigation costs in some cases (for example, expert assessments of significance, or wiretap applications) and potential court and incarceration costs if more serious penalties are sought or imposed.
• Private compliance costs may rise for museums, galleries, and dealers if they increase provenance checks or legal reviews, but no estimates are provided.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to protect items that matter deeply to communities and faith groups, recognizing harms that are not captured by dollar value alone.
• Creating a specific offence could help police and prosecutors prioritize these cases and signal their seriousness.
• Allowing wiretaps for the theft offence could help disrupt organized theft and trafficking of sacred or culturally important items.
• The new possession offence could deter the market for stolen cultural or religious property by increasing legal risk for those who hold or trade in such items.

Opponents' View#

• The bill does not define “cultural or religious significance.” One concern is vagueness, which could lead to uneven application or uncertainty for owners, dealers, and institutions.
• Proving that an item is culturally or religiously significant may make cases more complex, requiring expert testimony and longer investigations.
• A possible trade-off is tougher penalties without a value threshold: low‑value items that are nonetheless significant could expose offenders to high maximum sentences, raising proportionality questions.
• Adding the theft offence to the wiretap list may raise concerns about expanding intrusive surveillance tools for a category of property crime.
• There may be overlap with existing theft and possession offences. It is unclear when prosecutors would choose the new offences versus current ones, which could lead to inconsistent charging decisions.