This bill adds a package of Criminal Code offences aimed at the market for stolen metal and at damage to physical components of essential infrastructure. It criminalizes trafficking in scrap metal known to be obtained by crime, exposes dealers who are reckless or wilfully blind to prosecution, and creates a tailored mischief offence for tampering with infrastructure components (cross-referencing the Code’s definition of essential infrastructure).
Those changes are paired with defined aggravating factors for sentencing and a narrow statutory definition of “scrap metal” (listing copper, aluminum, brass, bronze, steel, iron and their alloys). The measure shifts legal risk onto intermediaries in the metal-recycling chain and gives prosecutors new tools to pursue theft-driven harms that endanger public safety or critical services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expands the Criminal Code’s reach by (1) replacing the definition of “traffic” to expressly include offers and a broader set of acts; (2) creating section 355.6 that makes it an offence to traffic in or possess for trafficking scrap metal when the person knows it was obtained by crime; (3) creating a dealer offence based on recklessness or wilful blindness; and (4) adding a mischief offence that targets damage to physical components of essential infrastructure. It also lists specified metals and sets separate indictable and summary conviction maximum penalties.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are scrap-metal dealers, recyclers, transporters, and secondary markets that buy and sell metal components, plus owners/operators of electrical, telecommunications, pipeline, railway, water and similar infrastructure. Law enforcement and prosecutors receive expanded offence options; municipal utilities and private infrastructure operators gain statutory aggravating factors for sentencing.
Why It Matters
The bill converts a common property-theft problem—removal and illicit sale of metal components—into a formulated criminal market offence and ties penalties to public-safety consequences. For compliance officers and business leaders in the recycling and utilities sectors, it signals heightened legal risk for poor intake controls, and it narrows the tactical gap between theft, trafficking and endangerment of critical services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act rewrites the Criminal Code’s handling of metal taken in crime by creating a focused trafficking offence and a companion dealer offence. It begins by expanding the statutory meaning of “traffic” so the law reaches not just sales and transport but offers and other dealings, which brings intermediaries and online listings squarely into scope.
The trafficking offence itself applies when a person traffics in, or possesses with the purpose of trafficking, scrap metal and knows that all or part of that material was obtained by crime or derived (directly or indirectly) from an offence under federal law.
The bill draws a mental-element line between two culpable actors. For principal traffickers the required mental state is knowing; for dealers the standard is lower—recklessness or wilful blindness—so businesses that ignore red flags can face summary conviction liability.
The statutory definition of scrap metal is deliberately narrow: copper, aluminum, brass, bronze, steel, iron and their alloys or derivatives, but only where those materials have been dismantled, altered, or prepared for recycling or resale.On the infrastructure side, the legislation inserts a mischief offence aimed at physical components of “essential infrastructure” (it cross-references the Code’s existing definition). That offence requires knowledge or recklessness about whether the infrastructure cannot function without the component and carries both indictable and summary maximum penalties.
In sentencing, courts must treat theft or trafficking involving public or private infrastructure and mischief that interrupted services or endangered lives as aggravating circumstances.Practically, the law pushes compliance toward better intake controls, documentation and provenance checks in the scrap-metal supply chain because mere lack of knowledge will not protect dealers who are reckless or wilfully blind. Prosecutors gain flexibility to pursue either trafficking or mischief charges (or both) depending on the facts, but they will also face typical evidentiary hurdles: proving provenance, establishing the accused’s state of mind, and tracing processed metal back to a theft.
The Act leaves open how regulators, municipalities and industry will operationalize due-diligence standards; the absence of a statutory safe harbour increases the role of administrative policy and private contracting to manage legal risk.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expands “traffic” to include offers and a broad range of dealings, bringing intermediaries and listings into the offence's scope.
Section 355.6 makes it an offence to traffic in or possess for trafficking scrap metal when the actor knows that all or part of it was obtained by or derived from an offence under federal law.
Section 355.7 sets dual modes of conviction: indictable exposure (first-offence fines up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to 10 years; higher fines for repeat offenders) and summary convictions with lower fine and imprisonment caps.
Section 355.9 establishes a summary-conviction offence for dealers who trade in scrap metal while being reckless or wilfully blind about whether it was obtained by crime, punishable by up to $10,000.
Section 430(4.3) creates a mischief offence tied to physical components of essential infrastructure, criminalizing conduct done with knowledge or recklessness about the component’s role in system function and exposing offenders to indictable or summary penalties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Protecting Canada’s Essential Infrastructure Metals Act
This is the Act’s formal short title. It signals the bill’s policy frame—pairing metal-market interventions with infrastructure protection—but carries no operative effect. Practically, the short title is aimed at stakeholders (industry, municipalities, media) and clarifies legislative intent for courts and regulators when they interpret ambiguous provisions.
Expanded definition of “traffic”
The bill replaces section 355.1 to broaden what counts as trafficking: sale, transfer, transport, import/export, delivery, dealing 'in any other way' and explicitly 'offer to do any of those acts.' That textual expansion reduces scope arguments that sellers, brokers, online platforms or ad-posters are mere facilitators. For enforcement, this means investigators and prosecutors can target pre-sale conduct and offers, not only completed transactions, which matters when sellers advertise stolen components but move them before authorities can seize goods.
Trafficking offence and penalties
Section 355.6 criminalizes trafficking in or possession for the purpose of trafficking scrap metal when the actor knows it was obtained by or derived from an offence under federal law. Section 355.7 creates both indictable and summary conviction routes with distinct maximum penalties and distinguishes first offences from repeat offending for fine increases. This dual-mode structure gives prosecutors charging flexibility and allows courts to tailor punishment by mode; it also raises questions about which facts will push prosecutors toward indictable charges (typically where public-safety consequences are greater).
Sentencing aggravator tied to infrastructure source
Section 355.8 requires courts to consider as an aggravating circumstance if the offence involved scrap metal taken from public or private infrastructure—explicitly naming electrical systems, telecommunications, railways, pipelines, water systems and transportation safety equipment. The provision ensures sentences can reflect social-harm severity where stolen metal undermines critical services or endangers the public, but it also depends on prosecutors proving the source and courts accepting the causal link between the theft and public-service disruption.
Dealer liability and statutory metal definition
Section 355.9 targets dealers who trade in scrap metal while reckless or wilfully blind to its criminal origin, exposing them to summary-conviction fines. Section 355.10 narrows the statutory object to listed metals and their alloys that have been dismantled or prepared for recycling/resale. Together, these provisions place legal pressure on business intake processes, encourage provenance verification, and could prompt industry-standard recordkeeping even though the bill does not itself create a licensing or reporting regime.
Mischief offence for physical components of essential infrastructure
The bill adds subsection 430(4.3) to criminalize mischief targeting a physical component of essential infrastructure when the actor knows or is reckless as to whether the infrastructure cannot function without that component; subsection 4.4 enumerates aggravating sentencing factors (service interruption, endangerment, commission to facilitate other offences). This creates a bridge between property-based mischief law and public-safety prosecutions, allowing prosecutors to pursue mischief where theft alone may not capture the public-safety dimension.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners and operators of essential infrastructure (utilities, railways, telecoms): The statutory aggravators increase the likelihood that thefts affecting their systems will produce heavier sentences and recognition of public-safety harms in court.
- Law enforcement and prosecutors: The bill supplies new offence categories and mental-state distinctions (knowing vs reckless) that expand charging options, particularly where tracing stolen components to system outages or safety risks is feasible.
- Compliant scrap and recycling businesses: Companies that implement robust intake controls and provenance checks benefit from reduced competition from illicit suppliers and clearer legal expectations that reward documented compliance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Independent scrap dealers and small recyclers: They face increased criminal risk and likely compliance costs (identity checks, recordkeeping, training) without a statutory safe harbour; those costs hit small operators proportionally harder.
- Casual sellers and individuals (e.g., contractors, hobbyists): The expanded definition of trafficking and dealer-focused liability increase exposure for anyone who buys or resells dismantled metal without strong provenance practices.
- Crown prosecutors and courts: New offences and aggravating factors will add investigative and adjudicative complexity—proving provenance and mens rea requires time, forensic tracing, and potentially expert evidence.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing deterrence and public-safety protection against the risk of criminalizing otherwise legitimate commerce: the bill strengthens tools to punish those who steal and profit from metal that disables critical systems, but by imposing recklessness-based liability on dealers without a clear statutory compliance pathway it pressures ordinary businesses and casual sellers to assume criminal risk or incur significant compliance costs.
The bill trades clarity of purpose for practical ambiguity in enforcement. It clearly targets the market for stolen metal and linkages to infrastructure harm, but it leaves key operational questions open: how will authorities and industry establish provenance for processed metal, and what documentary or technological standards will count as adequate due diligence for dealers?
Because the dealer offence rests on recklessness or wilful blindness rather than strict liability, much will turn on prosecutorial charging choices and judicial interpretation of what constitutes a red flag versus ordinary commercial risk.
Another tension is the lack of a statutory compliance pathway or licensing regime. The Act pushes risk onto private actors without prescribing specific recordkeeping or reporting obligations; that vacuum will likely be filled by provincial regulations, municipal bylaws, industry codes, or case law, creating a patchwork of standards.
Finally, the mischief amendment relies on the existing definition of essential infrastructure (subsection 52.1(2)), which may be litigated in contexts the drafters did not foresee—raising questions about scope, overlap with terrorism- and public-order-related offences, and proportionality in sentencing when infrastructure harm is indirect or temporary.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.