Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak to a bill introduced by a member who has taken the time to move amendments to the Criminal Code. The bill clearly reflects the concern of the hon. member for a problem he has encountered in his riding or a problem experienced by his constituents.
However, I will say right away that I cannot support this bill. I cannot support the bill introduced by the hon. member of the Reform Party, and I will explain why, very briefly.
First of all, I will quote the text of this amendment to section 41 of the Criminal Code:
Every person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
This indicates right away the intent to criminalize a certain activity.
who (a) trespasses on a dwelling house or real property; and (b) has, within the previous twenty-four hours, been lawfully removed from, or prevented from entering, that dwelling-house or real property.
This section might have two different applications. We have to look at the context. The hon. member on the government side gave a good example, the one about young people loitering in a shopping mall or on the sidewalk, and the owner of the mall or the merchants want them to leave. There is also the somewhat more serious case of quarrels between neighbours or members of the same group, when the court is asked, because such procedures exist in the Criminal Code, to prohibit this man or this woman from entering certain premises. In such cases, the judge will make the following order: he will prohibit a person, because he had previously uttered threats or been otherwise troublesome, from being on the other person's property.
The Criminal Code already contains provisions to deal with any breach of such orders. This aspect that may be affected by this amendment is already covered by the Criminal Code. So something else would be added, since when an order is breached, the person is brought before the court and then has to suffer the consequences of his actions.
In the other case, someone mentioned earlier the example of loitering in commercial buildings or even in front of a private residence or elsewhere. I think I agree with the government on that
score. This kind of behaviour should not be criminalized, and as a member of the Bloc, I think we should look at the broader context. I think it is more a municipal problem than anything else. It is a problem that local authorities, in other words, municipal councillors and mayors of municipalities, can deal with by passing appropriate bylaws on loitering.
As far as I know, many municipalities in Quebec and across Canada have already passed bylaws in their municipalities to prevent young people from making a nuisance of themselves one way or another in public places or in front of private residences.
My point is that the hon. member was probably well intentioned when he decided to propose this amendment to the Criminal Code, but an amendment has to add something new, it has to fill a void. At the present time, I think that our municipal bylaws, the Criminal Code and other appropriate legislation already deal with this problem and that it is unnecessary to amend the Criminal Code by adding an additional paragraph as proposed by the member of the Reform Party.
This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are not in favour of Bill C-247.