Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate this morning. I do not normally agree with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, but I want to stress the point that the member for Saint-Hubert stressed.
If we listened to the questioning in the House during question period over the past several weeks we would almost get the impression that we are in a panic situation in Canada and that crime was escalating. That is generally not the case throughout the area. That is why I agree with the member for Saint-Hubert. In Quebec we are taking a calmer approach. I caution Reform
members opposite. I find some of the questioning very judgmental and causing a bit of panic where there is no cause for panic.
Let us take a look at what our party is committed to. On the government side we are committed to reviewing the Young Offenders Act. Since the beginning of Parliament the opposition side has requested that it wants to be more participatory in the drafting of legislation. We are going to refer the matter to committee for its recommendation.
I find the motion a bit premature. I am having a hard time understanding how reducing the age to 10 years old or preventing the disclosure of the names of some young offenders will improve the statistics the member opposite quoted. How are we going to improve the 15 per cent or the 135,000 by reducing the age? Is the brunt of the motion to reduce the age to a lower level so that we have more people involved in the statistics? Are there not other ways of addressing the problem?
It is going to committee stage so why do we not wait for the committee to report? Members opposite are part of the committee. What is the panic?