There is no criminal offence that one can cause another to commit because every criminal offence has a mens rea element (R. v. Sault Ste. Marie,  2 S.C.R. 1299: "[w]here the offence is criminal, the Crown must establish a mental element, namely, that the accused who committed the prohibited act did so intentionally or recklessly, with knowledge of the facts constituting the offence, or with wilful blindness toward them"; see also R. v. Creighton,  3 SCR 3, which recognizes that negligence-like fault elements are also sufficient).1
This requires some degree of moral blameworthiness, whether that be a subjective intention or knowledge, or an objective negligence-like wrong.
As for the example of "receiving stolen property," that is not an offence.
If there were a criminal offence such that a person could cause another to commit it, it would be a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: it would be a deprivation of liberty in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice. It is a principle of fundamental justice that only the morally blameworthy be convicted of a criminal offence.
One can counsel someone to commit a crime. But the person counselled is only guilty when they themselves do all the elements of the crime with the required mens rea. The person doing the counselling also is guilty of the ultimate offence.
1. The comment below discussing strict liability is not relevant for criminal offences in Canada. If an offence is a criminal offence, it requires mens rea. Strict and absolute liability are not compatible with criminal law in Canada.