Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (theft of property of cultural or religious significance), proposes to amend the Criminal Code by creating separate offences for theft and possession of cultural or religious property. Its stated goal is to treat theft of this property as a distinct offence; that is a stated purpose, not a guaranteed result. The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or when it would take effect.
A person who steals property of cultural or religious significance could face an indictable offence with a maximum of 10 years in prison, or prosecution by summary conviction.
A person who possesses such property, without lawful excuse, could face an indictable offence with a maximum of five years in prison, or prosecution by summary conviction. The property must be property “in respect of which” the theft offence was committed.
The bill adds the new theft offence to a list in the Criminal Code. The supplied material does not explain the wider legal effect of that listing.
People who steal or possess this property: If enacted, the new offences could apply. The possession offence requires that the person possess the property without lawful excuse; the bill does not state a knowledge requirement.
Owners and cultural or religious institutions: The bill does not create a new reporting, application, or recovery process, or directly change ownership rights.
General public: The bill does not create a general duty to identify, report, or register cultural or religious property.
The bill does not define “cultural or religious significance” or “lawful excuse.”
It does not state how the significance of property would be determined or what evidence would be needed.
The bill gives no penalty amount for prosecution by summary conviction.
The supplied material does not include the current Criminal Code text, so the existing law and how the new offences would interact with it could not be verified.
A possible argument for the bill is that theft of culturally or religiously significant property may warrant a distinct offence and penalty.
Creating a separate possession offence could allow prosecution of people who possess property connected to a theft, even if they are not prosecuted for the theft itself.
The bill sets a higher maximum prison term for theft than for possession.
The terms “cultural or religious significance” and “lawful excuse” are not defined in the supplied text, leaving important questions about the offences unanswered.
The possession offence does not state a knowledge requirement. It is unclear how that wording would apply in practice alongside other Criminal Code rules.
The bill does not explain how the new offences would fit with existing theft and possession offences or whether it would change how cases are handled.
The bill gives no cost estimate, and its prison penalties could have public costs that are not assessed in the supplied material.