An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief — religious property)

Summary#

Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief — religious property), proposes to amend the federal Criminal Code. Its stated goal is to increase punishment for mischief involving religious property; the bill is proposed, not an in-force change.

• It would set minimum punishments for mischief involving a building or part of a building primarily used for religious worship, an object associated with worship in or on its grounds, or a cemetery.
• For a first offence, the person would have to compensate the property owner by at least $1,000.
• For a second offence, the person would have to compensate the owner by at least $1,000 and be imprisoned for at least 14 days.
• For each later offence, the person would have to compensate the owner by at least $1,000 and be imprisoned for at least 30 days.
• The maximum prison term would be 10 years if prosecuted by indictment, or two years less a day if dealt with by summary conviction.

What it means for you#

• People accused of mischief involving the listed property: If convicted under the proposed provision, they would face the minimum compensation requirement. A second or later offence would also require a minimum prison term. The bill does not change the maximum prison terms listed above.
• Owners of the affected property: A person convicted would be required to compensate the owner by at least $1,000. The bill does not explain how the amount would be assessed or collected.
• Religious communities and cemetery owners: The bill covers the listed buildings, worship-related objects on their grounds, and cemeteries. It does not create a new reporting or protection service.
• Courts: The proposed minimums would limit sentencing choices for offences under this provision, especially for second and later offences.

Money#

No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

• The bill would require compensation to the property owner of at least $1,000 per offence under the proposed provision.
• It does not set out public funding or estimate court, prosecution, or imprisonment costs.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the full Criminal Code, so the existing definition and penalties for mischief, and how the proposal would interact with current sentencing rules, cannot be verified here.
• The bill does not define “object associated with religious worship” or explain how prior offences would be counted.
• It does not explain how compensation would be assessed, ordered, or collected.
• The supplied material does not say when the change would start or give the bill’s current status.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that damage to places of worship, worship-related objects, and cemeteries warrants specific minimum consequences.
• Requiring compensation could provide a direct remedy to property owners.
• Mandatory prison terms for repeat offences could be seen as a way to impose stronger consequences after a person reoffends.

Case against#

• Mandatory minimum compensation and prison terms would restrict a court’s ability to tailor a sentence to the circumstances of an offence.
• The bill does not define key terms such as “object associated with religious worship,” which may leave uncertainty about what property is covered.
• The bill does not explain how compensation would be calculated or collected, or how previous offences would affect the minimum sentence.