Status: Passed 1st reading in the House of Commons
Description: Increases penalties for mischief in relation to religious property and applies those penalties whether or not such mischief was motivated by hate or bias. Includes restitution as a penalty to shift the financial burden caused by vandalism from the victim to the criminal.
Analysis: Restitution is an important element of restorative justice that ought to be used for crimes where property has been taken, destroyed, or damaged. Incorporating this principle for penalties for mischief involving religious property may deter crime while also helping victims repair damage to their property or building. Read this article to learn more.
Action items:
Across Canada, but especially in large multicultural cities, 2025 has seen a troubling rise in vandalism targeting religious buildings. A synagogue in Victoria was defaced with a hateful message written in graffiti. A mosque in Montreal was similarly graffitied. And a Catholic church in Alberta was spray-painted and windows were smashed, with a repair cost estimated at $250,000. These are just a few examples of an increasingly common trend.
Canada’s Criminal Code prohibits wilfully destroying or damaging property, rendering that property useless, or obstructing or interfering with the use of that property. All of this is known as the crime of “mischief”. The Criminal Code prescribes more severe penalties for mischief relating to religious property if the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate. Bill C-255, recently introduced by MP Kelly Block, seeks to address the rise in mischief related to religious property. It does this in two ways.
First, it would ensure that mischief against religious property is punished severely regardless of hatred or prejudice. The Criminal Code separates mischief relating to religious property, war memorials, cultural property, and computer data, but only requires the prosecution to demonstrate hate or bias when it comes to mischief in relation to religious property. So, under current law, if the vandal’s motive cannot be established, then only the regular, lower penalties for ordinary mischief can apply. Bill C-255 would change that, so that all the prosecution needs to establish is that the accused knew he was vandalizing religious property.
Second, Bill C-255 would incorporate restorative justice principles by requiring perpetrators to help pay the cost of what was damaged. For each offence of mischief relating to religious property, the offender would have to compensate the victim at least $1,000. Presumably, it could be much more depending on the amount of damage done, which can also serve as a deterrent.
ARPA Canada’s policy report on restorative justice addresses the need to incorporate restitution in the criminal law, especially where property has been taken, destroyed, or damaged. Restitution is a biblical principle, which helps offenders better understand what they have done and take responsibility for it. At the same time, it helps the victim to pay for whatever repairs are needed. In fact, the Old Testament legal code required wrongdoers to pay the cost of what they stole or damaged and more, to both restore what the victim lost and to punish and deter wrongdoing. Bill C-255’s proposed amendments to the Criminal Code rightly seek to apply the principle of restitution to Canada’s current law around mischief, while addressing a current problem in Canadian society.
There is another bill before Parliament, the government’s Combatting Hate Act (Bill C-9), which takes a different approach to reforming Canada’s mischief laws. Bill C-9 would remove the existing mischief provisions related to religious property. In its place, the government would create: (a) a new offence of obstructing access to a religious building, and (b) a general hate crime offence that can be added on top of a regular mischief offence (where it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the mischief was motivated by “hatred”, as defined in that bill). The government’s approach makes things far more complicated than Kelly Block’s bill. Also, the government’s approach in Bill C-9 does not incorporate the principle of restitution.
Bill C-255 rightly seeks to prevent and justly punish mischief in relation to religious property and incorporates the important principle of restitution.
Status: At first reading in the Senate.
Description: Gives victims of crime the right to obtain reparations for harm done, and for the court to consider a restitution order against the offender, as well as access to restorative justice programs. It would also require the Minister of Justice to develop training for authorities in the criminal justice system regarding the rights of victims.
Analysis: Restitution is an important element of restorative justice which is not commonly used in Canada. This bill would provide greater opportunities for victims to understand their options and for courts to consider restitution orders against offenders.
Action Items: None. For an article on a similar bill which did not become law, see Senate Bill Proposes Improvements to Criminal Justice in Line with ARPA Recommendations
The issue of restorative justice is one that ARPA Canada has weighed in on over the past couple years, particularly as it has come up for discussion in both the House of Commons and the Senate. ARPA published an updated policy report on restorative justice in the summer of 2022, as well as making separate committee submissions in June 2021 and April 2022. Restorative justice encompasses a variety of aspects, but it ultimately refers to a comprehensive vision of the justice system. It promotes accountability for the offender, participation from victims, and community engagement in rebuilding the community after a crime has been committed.
It is exciting to see increased interest in this topic and efforts to improve Canada’s criminal justice system. The most recent development is a bill introduced by Quebec Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on May 17. Throughout his time in the Senate, Senator Boisvenu has been focused on how the criminal justice system can be improved for victims of crime. Bill S-265, titled the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime Act, seeks to contribute to such improvements with some small amendments.
What Does Bill S-265 Do?
The primary focus of the Bill, as the title suggests, is to lay out various responsibilities for the Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. Ombudspersons (ombudspeople? Sometimes still called ombudsmen, which seems easier in the plural form, but besides the point for our purposes here) are fairly common both federally and provincially, with at least 15 positions at the federal level. According to the Ontario Ombudsman (in this case ombudsman, not ombudsperson), the word is Swedish, meaning “citizen’s representative.” It refers to an “independent official who investigates complaints from the public about problems in government administration.”
The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime has existed since 2007 as an adviser to the Minister of Justice. Bill S-265 lays out various responsibilities and functions for the Ombudsperson. For example, the Ombudsperson will provide support and assistance to victims of crime and their families by facilitating access to services and programs, reviewing complaints, and implementing education and information programs for authorities within the criminal justice system.
Noteworthy Changes
Bill S-265 would require the Minister of Justice to develop training for authorities in the criminal justice system regarding the rights of victims. Recommendation #1 in ARPA Canada’s policy report on restorative justice states, “All levels of government should require actors within the criminal justice system … to have an in-depth understanding of restorative justice and be prepared to give the option to offenders.” While this recommendation focuses on offenders, restorative justice for victims is also an important component for the criminal justice system.
One important element of restorative justice which is not commonly used in Canada is restitution. Restitution was a common punishment in the Old Testament, particularly for crimes where property had been taken, destroyed, or damaged by the commission of a crime. Restitution helps victims and offenders to make amends, where appropriate. However, restitution orders in Canada are rare, with just 2.41% of all guilty verdicts including restitution orders in 2017-2018. The educational component mentioned above may help increase the use of restitution as a punishment for offenders.
Currently, the law states that “Every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender.” Bill S-265 would give victims the right to obtain reparations for harm done, including the court considering a restitution order against the offender, as well as access to restorative justice programs. Additionally, if a restitution order is made, the victim can obtain assistance to have that order entered and enforced.
This bill also focuses on the right to access restorative justice programs. While offenders benefit from restorative justice programs, victims often do as well, with evidence showing that participation in a restorative justice program allows them to feel safer and helps vengeful feelings to subside. As mentioned in Recommendation #5 of ARPA Canada’s policy report on restorative justice, faith-based organizations and community organizations can play a vital role in providing effective restorative justice programs. With a focus on reparation for crimes and reconciliation between victims and offenders, communities can be strengthened and care for victims of crime improved.
Other changes Bill S-265 would implement are with regards to victims of crime accessing information. Currently, victims have the right to request information about various services and programs, the outcome of investigations, or how to file a complaint. Bill S-265 would seek to ensure victims automatically receive this information without having to request it to ensure they know what options are available to them.
Good small steps
While none of these changes are likely to have a huge impact on the criminal justice system, they focus in the right direction, helping place further emphasis on restorative justice, restitution, training, and information about community-focused options. In the shadow of other big, impactful changes, it can be easy to miss some of the smaller positive changes that our representatives work to bring into effect. Stay tuned for any further developments on Bill S-265.
Canada has a relatively high incarceration rate, while also having high recidivism rates, that is, a high likelihood that a convicted criminal will reoffend after being released from prison.
When looking at how to improve the justice system, some have a ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ mentality, where punishment outweighs any possibility of restoration. Others will argue that we need more rehabilitation, where the state seeks to determine the reason why someone committed a crime and then provides services to alleviate that reason or cure the offender of whatever they believe caused the crime.
These are two extreme sides of the debate, and others land somewhere in between, often depending on what crime has been committed.
On the one hand, we recognize that anyone who commits a crime is morally responsible for what they have done and punishment for crime is necessary. But, as believers in, and recipients of, mercy and grace, we also see value in giving offenders the opportunity to make amends and seek restoration. Appropriately applying restorative justice principles has the potential to help improve the justice system and the find the proper balance between punishment and restoration.
What Is Restorative Justice?
It is important to clarify what we mean by restorative justice.
Ultimately, restorative justice principles take a holistic view of justice and provide a comprehensive vision of a justice system where communities are governed by the rule of law, where offenders take responsibility for their actions, and where peace can be promoted through the healing of broken relationships. Restorative justice prioritizes victims, humanizes offenders, and cultivates community engagement, while still promoting responsibility and accountability for offenders.
Restorative justice has its roots in the Old Testament and applies biblical principles directly to the criminal justice system. Restitution, for example, is a biblical principle that has application in Canada’s existing Criminal Code and involves paying back a debt to an offended party.
Restorative Justice in Canada
Restorative justice principles exist in Canadian law, but they are not used enough. There are multiple ways these principles could be appropriately applied in the sentencing process, in incarceration, and in the reintegration of offenders into our communities. Proper application will have a positive impact by reducing recidivism rates and the costs of incarceration and improving victim satisfaction and efficiency within the justice system.
ARPA Canada’s initial Respectfully Submitted policy report on restorative justice was published in 2016. Since that time, support for restorative justice principles has seemingly increased and some improvements have been made. In 2021, the House of Commons passed Bill C-228, An Act to Establish a Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism, which seeks to reduce recidivism and encouraged the government to help offenders re-integrate into society in a way that helps them avoid falling back into criminal behaviour. The bill also required the government to consult with other sectors of society, such as faith-based organizations.
More recently, the federal government introduced and debated Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While this bill has some concerning elements, it also seeks to apply certain principles of restorative justice. You can read more about this bill here or here.
Updated Policy Report
We have just published our revised and updated version of the Respectfully Submitted policy report on restorative justice, expanding on the biblical principles of restorative justice and how they can be better applied in Canada.
Our recommendations focus on ensuring better knowledge and application of restorative justice principles in the justice system. This can be done by making greater use of alternatives to incarceration, encouraging active involvement of non-governmental institutions and organizations in the justice system, and actively studying recidivism data.
We encourage you to read through the report and connect with your MP this fall to encourage them to read it as well. Please contact us at [email protected] if you have any feedback or questions on the report.
I will always remember my first experience visiting a prison. I was in my University choir, and we stopped at a medium-security prison while on tour to sing for their chapel service. Throughout our performance and through our brief interaction with inmates afterwards, many of them were brought to tears and were amazed that a group of University students would sing for them and chat with them. The whole choir received a letter from one of the people imprisoned there following the visit, and he explained how that performance reminded them of their dignity and humanity.
Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, provides a helpful definition of what justice should look like: “A system of true justice … holds individuals responsible for their actions … under an objective rule of law, but always in the context of community and always with the chance of transformation of the individual and healing of fractured relationships and of the moral order (p. 101).” The question remains, does Canada’s justice system reflect this definition?
Changes to Criminal Sentencing
Bill C-22 is currently being debated in the House of Commons and addresses some important principles of justice as defined above. This is a government Bill that seeks to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in an effort to improve our justice system. The Bill would include amendments to remove mandatory minimum prison sentences for 20 different offences. Under the Criminal Code amendments, this would include firearms offences such as possessing, manufacturing, importing, or exporting a restricted weapon, or other crimes committed with the use of a firearm (excluding violent crimes such as attempted murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault). Amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would remove mandatory minimum penalties for drug trafficking, drug imports or exports, or drug production. It would also reduce certain maximum sentences and provide greater opportunity for conditional sentencing.
The stated goals of the bill include addressing the root problems of crime through education, rehabilitation, and other means while seeking to protect health and human rights and reduce harm in society. Additionally, the legislation states that problematic substance use is a health and social issue and should be treated as such, with concerns that greater criminal sanctions can increase the stigma associated with drug use. Finally, the government says that Bill C-22 will address systemic racism by reducing the percentage of minority populations that are imprisoned through mandatory minimum penalties.
What the Bill Does Well
Bill C-22 would give a judge greater discretion to promote alternatives to imprisonment when sentencing an offender for specific offenses, dependent on individual circumstances. Because mandatory minimum penalties would be removed for certain crimes, offenders may be sentenced to house arrest, probation, curfew, mandatory counselling, or treatment for substance abuse. For example, if a person is charged with possession of illegal drugs for the purpose of drug trafficking, they may be sentenced to house arrest rather than a mandatory minimum of one year in prison. Of course, prison is not completely off the table: a judge could still hand down a prison sentence to the offender if he considered it to be reasonable.
As our culture dismisses Christian morals and glorifies sinful excess, the family unit suffers as criminal activity tends to increase. For example, crime and substance abuse have been shown to be strongly linked to fatherless households. Alternative sentences to imprisonment may help keep families together, while continuing to recognize the importance of offenders taking personal responsibility for their actions. Alternative sentences for minor crimes can be effective in reducing crime rates by helping offenders change their behaviour outside of the prison system. They can also prevent criminals from being affected by bad influences in prison.
In addition, this bill may create more room for private, non-profit, and other civil society organizations who seek to transform and rehabilitate offenders. Christian organizations may be able to provide counselling or mentorship to a larger number of offenders, and to help them reintegrate into society. As a result, it can help reduce the strain on the Canadian justice system, giving law enforcement the opportunity to put greater focus on other criminal and public safety concerns.
What the Bill is Lacking
While Bill C-22 allows for greater flexibility in terms of minimum sentences, it also reduces some of the maximum sentences, allowing for less flexibility in terms of longer sentences for the truly dangerous offender. Concerns have also been raised about mandatory minimum penalties being removed for some of the criminal offences, especially certain firearms offences. Discharging a firearm with intent, or out of recklessness is more concerning than drug possession, and both would have mandatory minimum penalties removed. Likewise, although sentences for theft over $5000 might be served well in the community through house arrest or restitution, kidnapping or sexual assault sentences (crimes which this bill would allow conditional sentences for if less than a two-year sentence) may be better served in prison. There should be a discussion on which crimes should and should not have mandatory minimum penalties, but the principle is a step in the right direction for non-violent crimes which can be effectively addressed outside of the prison system.
Additionally, while health and social concerns are involved in drug use and abuse, the federal government should still recognize drug use as a criminal issue, rather than an issue that simply needs to be “destigmatized.” Many in Canada today see humans as basically good by nature and believe that if a person breaks the law, it is because of social or economic circumstances, rather than a sinful decision or action. As Christians, we know that humans are sinful actors and that every crime is a moral choice. And while we should have compassion and understanding for those dealing with addiction, this moral choice cannot be ignored. Our justice system must continue to understand that criminal behaviour is a harmful choice by moral actors. Someone who commits a drug-related crime needs help, but the justice system should also endeavor to ensure that the crime is not repeated and that the crime is punished appropriately.
The recommendations in ARPA Canada’s policy report on Restorative Justice include using conditional sentences (i.e. house arrest) more frequently, and reserving mandatory minimum sentencing for violent crimes and offenders who are a danger to the community, and prioritizing diversity in sentencing as an alternative to imprisonment. While the details of Bill C-22 may need to be worked out further, there are some important principles addressed within it. The removal of certain mandatory minimum sentences allows for more opportunity to positively affect criminal behaviour through alternative sentences and treatment where necessary.
Prison sentences have not been shown to effectively improve criminal behaviour. Depending on the crime committed, it may be better for offenders to serve time in the community. House arrest still separates an offender from the community, while seeking to maintain principles of being a good member of that community. This can be done through counselling, or by being able to keep working and provide for their family. Drug offenders may have the opportunity to change through a rehab program. Old Testament principles of restitution show that theft can be punished by requiring the offender to restore or pay back what he stole. As much as possible, our justice system should seek to restore relationships broken by crime. Especially for minor crimes, letting offenders sit in jail may not be the answer. Our communities can seek to transform the lives of criminal offenders while continuing to recognize the importance of punishment for crime.
Real Transformation
As Christians, we seek transformation on a personal, community, and national level, knowing that Christ is the One Who changes lives, and He is the King of our nation. As with other political and societal issues, Christians can provide a unique perspective on criminal justice, and Christian organizations can seek to promote a true sense of human dignity, personal responsibility, and transformation in Christ.
We are pleased to provide you with the written transcripts of the speech on Restorative Justice that Dr. Smith gave on May 6, 2013. The speech was presented to Parliamentarians, the attendees of the 2014 God & Government conference and guests of not-for-profit agencies in English, however we have provided links to the speech in both English and French.
If you would prefer to listen to Dr. Smith’s speech, you may listen to the Lighthouse News broadcast here.
Please share this transcript with your MP or others that you know may find it of interest.
By: Eric Metaxas August 23, 2012, Breakpoint.org: For the past three broadcasts, we’ve talked about the violations of human dignity that are all-too-common in our criminal justice system. Christians cannot be silent in the face of outrages like prison rape, the mistreatment of mentally-ill prisoners, and overcrowded prison facilities.
What makes silence even more unacceptable is that there is a biblically-based alternative to the status quo: it’s called restorative justice.
Four years ago, Mike Huckabee summed up one of restorative justice’s key principles when he said that “we’ve got to quit locking up all the people that we’re mad at and lock up the people that we’re really afraid of . . .”
Macdonald-Laurier Institute, September 13, 2011, Ottawa, ON – A disproportionately large volume of crime in this country is committed by a disproportionately small number of offenders. Dealing effectively with these repeat offenders is central to improving the public safety of Canadians according to the latest instalment in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s newest series, Straight Talk, in which crime-expert Scott Newark evaluates Canada’s corrections and parole systems in dealing with repeat offenders. Newark concluded that “the reality of the prevalence of repeat offenders in crime is not reflected in our current parole eligibility laws.” (more…)
Macdonald-Laurier Institute, September 13, 2011, Ottawa, ON – A disproportionately large volume of crime in this country is committed by a disproportionately small number of offenders. Dealing effectively with these repeat offenders is central to improving the public safety of Canadians according to the latest instalment in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s newest series, Straight Talk, in which crime-expert Scott Newark evaluates Canada’s corrections and parole systems in dealing with repeat offenders. Newark concluded that “the reality of the prevalence of repeat offenders in crime is not reflected in our current parole eligibility laws.” (more…)