Debates of May 1st, 2026

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, these are exceptionally significant investments. It is not just important for physical and mental health. It is something we need for building strong communities. Participation in sport improves the lives of parents and children alike, across all communities.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out some financial indicators we have right now, particularly as they pertain to small business. The CFIB has said that for six quarters in a row, we have had more small businesses closing down than are starting up. It has described us as being in an “entrepreneurial drought”. About 55% of entrepreneurs are saying they do not suggesting opening a business.

How do the Liberals square that with their economic update?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how we square that is by giving $10,000 to small and medium-sized businesses to help attract entrepreneurs and apprentices who are going to create and build this country. That is how we do that.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

It is always an honour to rise in the House, and I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, on the spring economic update. Unfortunately, the legislation confirms what Canadians already feel in their daily lives: that after years of costly Liberal fiscal policy, life is becoming more expensive, less predictable and harder to manage.

Before I dive into the details, I would like to set the stage by looking at how the nation is actually receiving this update. If we want to know how far the Liberal rhetoric is from the Canadian reality, we only have to look at the headlines from The Globe and Mail and the National Post this week: “Canada Strong is still Canada deep in debt”, the Liberals’ “upside-down [fiscal] world”, and “[Canada’s] 'New Government' has no interest in arresting our economic decline”.

To summarize the content of these headlines, if someone has been wondering what meaning to attach to that irritating phrase the Liberals are so fond of, “Canada’s new government”, they should wonder no longer, as the spring economic update makes abundantly clear that it means nothing. There is no use in being disappointed; we should all be managing our own expectations. The new government is no more interested in arresting our economic decline than the old one was.

It is clear the Liberals have no intention of changing their high-spending, high-taxing ways. Economists have sounded the alarm. Without aggressive measures to boost productivity, our country will continue to slide, yet in the bill, we see no commitment to deep deregulation, no effort at broad tax reform and no plan for growth. This is not progress. This is just more of the same, wrapped in a new coat of paint.

As always, I want to speak specifically about how this impacts the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains. When they look at this, they do not see a plan for growth. They see a document written for a boardroom full of Liberal elites. It bears no resemblance to the reality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador. At a time when hard-working Canadians are looking for relief, this offers something very different. It offers a costly credit card approach that doubles down on spending, increases the deficit and risks driving inflation even higher.

The Liberal Prime Minister has now doubled the deficit left by his predecessor, from $31 billion to $65 billion, and the consequences of that decision will be borne not by the government but by hard-working Canadians. The Liberals certainly do not consider the unique challenges that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador face, especially the challenges of the island portion of our province, where most of our fresh produce and everyday essentials must be shipped in. Building materials have to be brought across on the ferry. In Long Range Mountains, fuel is not a luxury but a lifeline. We do not have subways; we have vast highways with no cellphone service and unpredictable coastal weather conditions. The bill doubles down on fuel taxes that act as a geographic penalty on rural, remote and coastal Canadians.

Across the country, families are already stretched thin. The rising cost of food, housing and basic necessities is forcing difficult choices at kitchen tables across the country. Seniors are being squeezed by fixed incomes that no longer go as far as they once did. Young Canadians are postponing major life decisions because the cost of home ownership feels out of reach. They are losing hope in their future in this country.

When a father in Deer Lake fills up his truck to go to work, he is paying a premium for the Liberal government’s ideology. When a senior in Burgeo looks at the cost of home heating fuel, she is being squeezed by a Liberal plan that makes her life harder every single day. In that context, one would expect the legislation to show restraint and focus on affordability, but instead, it introduces $37 billion in new Liberal spending, on top of tens of billions already committed. It proposes the creation of a sovereign wealth fund that has no wealth behind it, relying instead on borrowed money. It would allocate billions more to international climate finance, millions for conferences and billions in subsidies that would do little to address the immediate pressures facing hard-working Canadians.

This is not a targeted plan to help families. It is an expansion of government at a time when Canadians need the exact opposite.

Liberals brag about $37 billion in spending, yet if we talk to any small business owner or walk into any grocery store and ask how they are managing to navigate in this environment, they do not want to hear about billions of dollars for international climate conferences. They want to know when prices are going to start to go down so they can manage to drive their kids to the activities they love and, at the same time, keep food on their tables. Seniors still living in their homes on a fixed income want to know when their money will once again be enough to live off.

Entrepreneurs want to have confidence that they can grow their business and hire more staff instead of constantly facing more costs that create uncertainty and stress. They want to innovate and work on their business instead of constantly wondering how they are going to make payroll. They want to continue to contribute to their communities instead of having to cut back because of constantly higher costs.

At a time when we should be focused on bringing costs down for hard-working Canadians, the bill proposes a sovereign wealth fund with no actual wealth behind it, only borrowed money. Meanwhile, the cost of servicing the national debt continues to climb. This year alone, debt interest payments will reach $59 billion, which is more than the federal government transfers to provinces for health care and more than it collects in GST revenue. This translates to roughly $3,400 per Canadian family just to cover the cost of Liberal borrowing. This is money that could otherwise be invested in Canadians' priorities, but instead it is consumed by the growing weight of Liberal debt.

Even more concerning is that the government's own projections show slow economic growth and rising inflation. In other words, despite unprecedented levels of Liberal spending, the fundamentals of the economy are weakening. Canada now faces some of the most challenging economic indicators in the G7, including high household debt, unaffordable housing, weak productivity and declining investment. These are not short-term fluctuations. They reflect deeper structural issues that this bill fails to address.

We hear a lot about team Canada, but there is a massive gap between Liberal rhetoric and the reality being felt by hard-working Canadians. We have young people in the trades who want to build their lives at home. We have resource potential that could make us a global energy superpower, but we are held back by a Liberal wall of regulatory bottlenecks. Whether it is the punishing industrial carbon price or red tape preventing us from developing our own resources, the Liberal government is standing in the way of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic prosperity.

Conservatives—

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Offender Rehabilitation Act

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make related amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise for the first hour of debate on the second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-240.

Canada is facing a crisis, one that is often described as silent. It is silent in our national conversations, perhaps, but deafening in our homes, in our communities and in our daily lives. It is a crisis heard in worried phone calls, in empty chairs at the family table and in the quiet grief carried by parents, friends and loved ones. This is not an abstract policy debate. It is this drug crisis, and it is affecting Canadians everywhere.

There are 343 seats in the House, and every single one of them has been impacted in some way. No region, no riding and no community has been spared. For some, it is a 15-year-old girl's grandmother asking for help to save her from this crisis, or a conversation with a police officer when one can literally see the mental anguish on his face because of the human-trafficking aspect of this crisis and the toll it is taking because it feels endless. For others, it is a friend, a neighbour, a colleague or a family member who is struggling right now. This crisis has a face in every corner of our country.

We have lost more than 50,000 Canadians to this drug crisis in the past 10 years. This is more lives than we lost in the Second World War. If this level of loss were caused by any other threat, the House would be united in urgency, relentless in its response and clear in its resolve, yet despite the scale of this tragedy, the drug crisis too often remains hidden, spoken about quietly, not fully addressed or avoided altogether. Too often stigma replaces understanding, discomfort replaces honesty, and political talking points replace action.

We hesitate to talk openly about addiction because it is complex, because it is painful and because it forces us to confront the difficult truths about mental health, trauma, housing, crime and care, but silence has never saved a life. Avoidance has never led to recovery. If we are serious about protecting Canadians, then we must be serious about acknowledging the reality that is in front of us. We must start talking about this crisis openly and honestly. We must move from debate to action, and we must work together across federal, provincial and municipal governments and alongside our communities on the ground, because recovery is possible. People can and do recover. People can come home happy, healthy, healed and drug-free.

Recovery must be at the centre of any serious response to this drug crisis. If we truly want to help people who are suffering from addiction, we have to focus on getting them well, not enabling and not just cycling them through systems that never really address the root cause. Addiction is not a moral failure, and recovery is possible when people are given the right supports.

In my community, I see what works. I see organizations that are changing lives every single day by focusing on rehabilitation and recovery. Groups like Frontline Recovery, HART Hub at the House of Friendship, Celebrate Recovery, Porchlight, Key Metrix and Crow Shield Lodge, along with many others, are doing the hard, often unseen work of helping people rebuild their lives. These frontline organizations understand addiction not as a headline but as a human reality. They prove that recovery works when properly supported.

Our stories are different, but at the core of addiction there is trauma. It drives substance use and keeps people trapped in cycles they cannot escape on their own. If we do not heal the trauma, we do not break the cycle. If we do not break the cycle, we are not offering real recovery but only enabling addiction. That belief is what led me to bring forward Bill C-240. It is a bill about breaking cycles and putting recovery at the centre of our justice system's response to addiction-driven crime.

Bill C-240 would introduce rehabilitation directly into incarceration. It would allow a judge to prescribe rehabilitation, mental health supports, education and training. It would give the individual the opportunity to participate in that treatment, and it would allow a parole board to consider whether that treatment plan has been completed.

What makes this different from what exists today is accountability. Right now, programs may exist, but there is no real accountability to ensure that they are delivered as intended or that the individual receives the full support required to complete them. When rehabilitation is judge-prescribed, accountability exists on both sides: on the correctional facility to provide meaningful programming and on the individual to engage in treatment. That accountability is what turns intention into outcome.

Bill C-240 also sends a very clear and necessary message to those who profit from addiction. It treats the trafficking of fentanyl as an aggravating factor, allowing for harsher penalties for dealers who knowingly make money off human suffering. Recovery must be paired with the consequences for those who exploit vulnerability for profit.

The goal of this bill is simple and focused: to heal and break cycles for those afflicted by addiction and to punish those who knowingly fuel it. If we want safer communities, fewer victims and fewer lives lost, recovery must be the path forward and accountability must be a part of that path.

This last part may be difficult for me to get through, but it matters that I say it.

There are many faces, backgrounds, stories, people, different walks of life and reasons for addiction. I know this because I am one of those faces. I am one of those walks of life. I am a recovered addict.

I fell into addiction in high school. It starts as fun, an escape from reality and good times with friends. Then it turns into something very different. It becomes one's life. It steals from people, who then burn bridges and make choices that trap them in a life of continued trauma.

No one talks about the dark side of addiction: those choices, the self-harm, the trap houses, the abusers of vulnerability and the realities of the life of addiction. I was young. I was vulnerable. I had my own trauma. Then one day, while I was in one of those trap houses, I was looking around and thought to myself, “What am I doing? What is this life? What is my future? What is next, death?"

That is when I decided to change. When I was in addiction, my mom showed me tough love. While I was in active addiction, I was not allowed at home. However, she always checked in on me. She always knew where I was, and she would make me go for coffee or Sunday dinner at nana and grandpa's house. Every time she checked in on me, she would always plant a seed, asking, “When are you going to school?”

The very first thing I did when I got through detox was march up to my mom's office. She worked for the Waterloo region her entire career, and at the time she was at 99 Regina Street South. I went into her office and said, “Mom, I need a Conestoga College book.” I applied for early childhood education, radio broadcasting and television, and mechanical engineering, specializing in robotics and automation. I literally had no idea what I wanted to do next. I just knew I wanted to do something different. The only thing I was accepted into right away was the engineering program, so that became my path.

I have been told, often by people who do not know me, that I need to be trauma-informed or that I need to listen more closely to the research, the data or the intellectuals who study this issue. While research matters, I want to say this very clearly: We will never solve this crisis if we do not listen to the people with lived experience, especially those who have healed. Recovery is not theoretical. It is lived, one day at a time.

I wear the scars, but I also wear the success of defeating the demon of addiction. I always wanted to go into politics, but I delayed running because of my past. The weight held me back. I asked myself, “What if I win? What if my past comes out? What if I am judged or shamed or dismissed because of who I once was rather than who I am today?” That fear is not unique to me. It is the stigma many recovered people carry with them, even after they have built their lives.

I decided I would no longer carry that stigma in silence. I am ending it by telling my story.

Under our party's leader, I knew I would be supported, not only because of who our leader is as a person but because of the message that he continually shares. During the last election, he spoke about recovered addicts as having a kind of strength others may never fully understand, because recovery means climbing a mountain that most people will never see. He spoke about the need for rehabilitation beds across this country and for real pathways to recovery.

That message mattered to me. It told me I would not only be accepted as a member of Parliament, but also be supported. We need more leaders like this. That support has given me the strength and the courage to stand here in the House of Commons and share my own personal story.

However, there is one thing I would like to add to that message. Yes, recovered people climb a mountain, but at the very beginning of recovery, all a person can see is that mountain in front of them. It feels impossible. It feels endless. It feels lonely, but if they take one day at a time, one step at a time, they will reach the top, and that is where their life truly begins.

There is a big, beautiful, happy, healed life on the other side of addiction. If members have ever seen the view from the top of a mountain, they know that the world opens up, possibilities expand and our future becomes something we can finally imagine.

I was an addict sleeping in Victoria Park in Kitchener, Ontario. I slept in the streets and at the women's shelter on Frederick Street, Mary's Place, and now I am a member of Parliament representing that very same area.

The very same area and community I was homeless in, I now represent as a member of Parliament. If someone hears this who is struggling or feels trapped at the base of that mountain, I want them to know this: They should take that step, start the healing journey and give themself the life they deserve.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been in the House coming up to three years now, and that is probably the most powerful and moving speech I have heard a member give. I want to thank my colleague opposite for having the courage to stand up and share her story.

It is very personal for me as well. I have several immediate family members who continue to suffer from addiction crises. My mother serves as one of the leading addiction specialists in Manitoba, and I see the work she does working with people every day.

I actually do not have a question for the colleague opposite other than to perhaps provide her with another opportunity to share more about what she hopes the House will take into consideration.

Again, I want to thank her for having the courage and tenacity to stand up and elevate the voices of those who often do not have one in this place.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the most beautiful part about continually sharing my story is that it allows people the opportunity to share their own. The more we do that, the more we end the stigma around addiction.

I thank the member opposite for sharing his personal ties to addiction. I also want to thank him very much for recognizing what it means to stand in the House and share our own stories.

I hope, moving forward, we can work together and ensure that we can help create paths to recovery in this country, starting with supporting my private member's bill and introducing rehabilitation into incarceration.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her moving speech. I believe that rehabilitation is very important. It is the very foundation of our justice system, but it takes resources to provide programs, apprenticeships and rehabilitation initiatives. We need to ensure that correctional facilities and other institutions have the necessary resources to achieve these goals.

What does my colleague think?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree completely. We have to make sure that the resources are there to provide the supports. That is partly what Bill C-240 is doing. When rehabilitation becomes judge-prescribed, it puts the responsibility on the institution to ensure that they are providing the prescribed rehabilitation for that particular inmate.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has done a tremendous service to our country today. Not only has she helped those who struggle with addiction, trauma and insecure housing to see themselves here in this place, she has also blazed a path for some of them to get here with her bill, which I will be proud to stand up and second in a moment.

She inspires me and I just want to provide her with another opportunity to provide any additional advice that she has to share with the people watching at home who might need some of that inspiration as we continue to grapple with our ongoing addictions crisis.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to speak a little further on focusing on taking that first step. One thing that addiction does is it breaks one's relationships. The continued cycle of bad decisions that someone makes is carried with them and it actually stops them from wanting to heal. It is not only that they have their own personal trauma but they have the guilt and they have everything else surrounded in the choices they made while they were in active addiction.

I want people to know that they are loved. Everyone still cares about the person. Everyone still loves the person. All they want the person to do is to get well. All the person has to do is get well. All the person has to do is take that first step.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, earlier today, we had an S.O. 31 about the Bruce Oake Recovery Centre. I have had loved ones attend that wonderful facility. That is where I learned about relapse and how important it is to recognize when the potential of relapse leads to abusing substances or any other addictions. I wonder if she could share any ideas for more positive coping mechanisms to avoid relapse.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is why I do not agree with enabling addiction by providing the drugs to keep people trapped in addiction. I relapsed 13 years after being sober, because it was literally just in front of me. We have to make a conscious choice our entire life to just not be around it. When I was, I relapsed. Luckily, I had enough time and enough healing and enough space that I did not fall back into the cycle of addiction. I think it is really important when people start their journey to not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the member for Kitchener Centre's private member's bill. We could see around the chamber when the member was speaking that a great deal of attention was given. I do believe the member should be given full credit for having the courage to share her personal story. Over the years as a parliamentarian, what I have found, especially when it comes to social issues, is that when we have members who are prepared to share a personal story, it really does have an impact.

While I was listening and observing what was taking place in the chamber, I was reminded a lot about the MAID debate we had. We could see how the debate influenced the minds of members and how they expressed in their own ways, in different ways, how much they cared about the individual who had shared their experience.

I do commend the member for having the courage to bless this House by sharing her personal story. I think it does make a difference in terms of the tone and the potential carrying of the legislation. In the discussions I have had with respect to her private member's bill, Bill C-240, I think it has been encouraging that the principle of the issue is such an urgent matter that there is an openness to see if, in fact, the legislation could potentially be amended so that we could get a broader sense of support for the legislation. The principle of extending and trying to help is of critical importance. After listening to the member, there is no doubt that having first-hand experience and, as I said, the courage to be able to share it today is second to nothing, virtually, in terms of having the issue elevated.

However, I think there is a great deal that needs to be talked about. When I was in opposition, I can recall discussions that took place in Vancouver a number of years ago in terms of how first responders and many other stakeholders were talking about safe injection sites. I mention that because, at the very tail end of the member's comments, it was interesting to hear her response to a question. I think maybe it is necessary at times to have the ability to be engaged with and hear from different stakeholders. I appreciate what she said, but I do want to get a better sense of what other professionals are saying, some of the others who have gone through that lived experience. It seems to me that we have had provinces, administrations, first responders and some individual survivors who have gone through that experience, and we want to make sure that we take it all into consideration.

The issue of the drug crisis is not being questioned whatsoever. I do believe that we need to recognize that it is a shared responsibility. The member bringing forward the legislation has provided the opportunity for Ottawa to potentially take some tangible action. For that, I do appreciate it. When I think of the shared responsibilities, I think in terms of the departments of health, family services, education and housing, all of which I have personally had the opportunity to be directly involved in. I think of the impact that it has had on our communities, the communities we represent. For many years, I would drive down McPhillips going toward Salter, and down Salter to the Manitoba legislative building. The devastation in our communities is very significant.

There is a great cost. That is why I believe we need to see how the broader community and different levels of government can contribute. Over the last number of years, much like what has taken place in the United States, we have seen a severe increase and too many losses of lives. Fentanyl is a very serious issue. I remember talking about fentanyl when we were debating Bill C-2 and how it could be put into an envelope and mailed anywhere in Canada. There are things we can do to try to minimize the damage that is caused by some of these harsh, addictive drugs.

I look to the community to provide some ideas and thoughts. There are some outstanding groups. I have referred to first responders and the numbers of lives they have saved by responding as quickly as they do and having the proper equipment. I think of the Bear Clan Patrol, which has done an outstanding job in being there in a very real way for many individuals who have drug addictions, some of whom are on the verge of breaking out of that addiction. These addictions are very real, and we need to look at ways to provide the programs and supports so there can be recovery.

At the end of the day, substance abuse involves education. There is a treatment component to it. There is follow-up and a need for support groups. Much like we want to ensure that we take can take corrective actions in a non-partisan way, that has not always been the case. Asserting blame is unfair at times, and we need to look at ways to improve the system.

There is homelessness. Homelessness is a very serious issue for which there is a great deal of effort and government initiatives, and not just federal government initiatives. The federal government works very closely with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, often municipalities and non-profit support groups, such as Main Street Project and Siloam Mission in my home city, that support these organizations, where many individuals have had to deal first-hand on a daily basis with individuals who are trying to overcome their addiction.

The government has taken a number of actions, and it is making a difference. Is it going far enough? There is always room for improvement, and that is one of the reasons I said at the outset of my comments that it is important to look at the legislation. If there are ways it could be amended so it could receive broader support, I believe the government would be open to that.

I do not think it is that some members care more about the issue than others. We see the deaths that occur, the impacts on families and the impacts all around. Having a caring heart and wanting to do the right thing is something that I believe all members on all sides of the House would like to see.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, as someone who worked for over 25 years at a centre for troubled youth and offenders, I have a special interest in Bill C-240 on offender rehabilitation. While the more corrective aspect of stopping the behaviour is important, it is only part of the solution. In order to work, the process requires rehabilitation and reintegration into society, as well as the resources to achieve this.

Bill C-240 proposes amending the Criminal Code to provide that a court may, by order, in addition to any term of imprisonment, prescribe measures that the offender is to take during the custodial period of their sentence, which may include participation in educational, training or treatment programs.

The bill also makes related amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that objectives with regard to programs that the offender may be required to complete during the custodial period of their sentence are to be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the facility in which the offender is held. It would also provide that parole boards are to take these programs into consideration in their assessments when making a determination regarding the granting of parole.

This is a meaningful change to the sentencing regime, but behind it lies a fundamental question about the real role that incarceration plays in our criminal justice system. There is a punitive or deterrent aspect, and there is the protection of the public, of course, but above all, there is the need to rehabilitate in order to reduce reoffending. Rehabilitation is the foundation of our justice system.

The bill is based on the following observation, which has been well documented: A prison sentence that does not include any structured effort at rehabilitation may have the opposite of the desired effect. An inmate who leaves prison without any training, skills or new tools is much more vulnerable to reoffending, at the cost of public safety and social cohesion. That is a fact.

For example, researchers at CIRANO, the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, found that, in Montreal, the rate of reoffending among inmates who participated in programs was 10%, while it was 50% among those who did not participate in programs over a five-year period.

More specifically, the bill would allow the court to order that the offender participate in training to acquire professional or technical skills relating to prospective employment, subject to program availability and the offender's acceptance into the program. It would also enable the court to order that that the offender participate in a treatment program approved by the province or Quebec and to take any other measures specified in the order. Under the bill, the offender must also make reasonable efforts to comply with these obligations.

In principle, this approach is a step in the right direction. Rehabilitation is not just a humanitarian issue; it is imperative to public safety. Many studies, such as the one I just mentioned or the one conducted by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, clearly show that participation in education and training programs greatly reduces the risk of reoffending. It is with that in mind that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240.

However, if the bill gives the courts the power to order measures, then those measures must actually exist. They must be accessible and they must match current labour market trends. The Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2019-2020 is unequivocal. It paints a very worrisome picture of the state of the programs offered in federal prisons: outdated training, obsolete equipment, an almost total lack of e-learning, and extremely limited opportunities for post-secondary education.

Inmates themselves say that the jobs and training they are offered serve primarily to fill the time rather than to acquire real, transferable skills. The tools and working methods used in several employment and employability program workshops no longer meet current standards and do not lead to any recognized certification.

This highlights a fundamental inconsistency. We cannot pass legislation recognizing the importance of training and rehabilitation while maintaining a correctional system that fails to offer credible, modern, adequately funded programs. This inconsistency is all the more worrying given that recent federal budget decisions suggest significant cuts are coming to Correctional Service Canada. Cuts to spending and staff numbers will inevitably have a direct detrimental impact on access to programs, even as Parliament moves to recognize their importance. It really makes no sense.

It should be noted, however, that jurisdiction over the administration of justice and rehabilitation lies largely with Quebec and the provinces. Quebec, in particular, has distinguished itself through more effective approaches to rehabilitation within the provincial prison system. Studies by CIRANO show that these programs contribute to a significant reduction in reoffending.

Bill C-240 therefore needs to be examined very carefully. Yes, the legislative objective is laudable. Yes, the idea of tying the sentence more closely to accountability and rehabilitation deserves our support. However, without concrete investments, accessible programs and respect for the division of powers, this bill could remain largely theoretical and superficial.

Finally, the bill also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to establish trafficking in large quantities of fentanyl as an aggravating factor. This reality reflects the severity of the overdose crisis, which is affecting many communities and calls for firm responses to large-scale trafficking networks. That said, we cannot fight this crisis solely through harsher sentences. We will also need sustained investment in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, both inside and outside the correctional system.

In short, Bill C-240 raises very important issues and deserves serious consideration in committee. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to examine this bill thoroughly, with an open mind, to try to ensure that the powers granted to the courts are accompanied by real resources and that rehabilitation is not merely a principle enshrined in law, but a real option for people who are incarcerated and for society as a whole. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-240 at second reading.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I come from a place where we have stunning coastline, innovative businesses, delicious restaurants, talented artists and a mild climate that makes me want to put down whatever I am doing and take the dog for a hike.

We have much to celebrate, but we also have one of the highest death rates from overdose in Canada, fuelled by an addictions crisis that is ruining people's lives, leaving them with traumatic brain injuries and killing far too many. The numbers have been improving but we are still one of Canada's hardest-hit communities with insufficient services, social disorder, and a crime rate and crime severity index that are both well above the national average.

Many people struggle with addiction without ever committing a crime, but when people live on the street without stable support while dealing with a serious addiction, a significant percentage will inevitably have repeated contact with the criminal justice system. It is a cycle that is hard to break. Addiction leads to instability, instability encourages poor choices and those poor choices lead right back into the criminal justice.

We have had porta-potty arson with four set on fire in just one night; a person who roamed a busy downtown mall parking lot with a hypodermic syringe attached to a toy bow and arrow; a city worker stabbed over and over again with syringes in a park washroom; addiction-driven assaults with axes, illegal firearms, knives, bricks, bear spray and human feces; and crime on boats, in coffee shops and in homes. I once had a local fire official tell me that the probability of a fire in certain kinds of buildings was 100%.

These are not organized or rational crimes. They reflect instability and create real fear in our community. The people who commit them often cannot be deterred or treated through the traditional tools of our criminal justice system. That is why I am proud to rise today to second and support Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, sponsored by my colleague from Kitchener Centre. This bill combines accountability with real rehabilitation, taking a practical, balanced and long-overdue step toward improving both community safety and offender outcomes in my community and across Canada.

Canada is one of the only western countries that automatically releases offenders before the end of their sentence, regardless of behaviour. Canada's current approach does not encourage change, it does not reward effort and it does not give Canadians confidence.

This legislation would allow judges to require offenders to participate in education, training or treatment programs while serving their sentence. It would consider progress in those programs in parole decisions. It would introduce the principle that early release should be earned through demonstrated effort and real change. This comes as recidivism rates in Canada remain too high, with estimates approaching 88% for some populations.

However, if prisons are merely storage facilities, if someone walks out of custody with the same skills, the same habits and the same challenges they had when they went in, we should not be surprised when they reoffend. First-time offenders increasingly lack basic education and job skills. Many do not have a high school diploma. Others struggle with literacy and executive function. We just cannot tell a person struggling with both addiction and ADHD, who lives on the street, to show up Tuesday at 10 a.m. and expect them to be there. Education, skills training and treatment programs in corrections are linked to better employment outcomes and lower rates of reoffending by as much as 30%.

I had the chance to see this in action on a recent visit to the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. The Guthrie program is a separate, provincially funded therapeutic community unit within the Nanaimo Correctional Centre that builds life skills, responsibility and practical tools that offenders need to reintegrate into society. Participants are given the kind of responsibility that builds capacity, that teaches them to lead, and that will help them find work and build stability when they return to their communities.

Being there reminded me that the people who end up in prison for convictions tied to addiction are not just our fathers, sisters and children. They are also our teachers, lawyers and skilled workers. Addiction does not discriminate, and when it takes hold, it can unravel even the most stable lives.

Here is the rub: Programs like Guthrie exist and the expertise exists. What has been missing is a system that consistently and effectively evaluates the people in it for potential rehabilitation, encourages and incentivizes participation, and ties it to outcomes. Also missing are clear incentives and spaces for women, visible minorities and other populations who face systemic and persistent discrimination.

This bill would provide the federal government with reasons to work with the provinces to create and expand programs such as the Guthrie program, both in and out of correctional facilities, by empowering judges to prescribe structured rehabilitation programs for offenders who would benefit from skills development, education and recovery as part of a holistic healing program.

It costs roughly $125,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a men's institution and over $215,000 a year in a women's institution. By contrast, community-based programs that support reintegration cost a fraction of that, often as low as $15,000 per person per year, while delivering better outcomes. While corrections-based programs are more expensive, the investment in programs like the Guthrie program pay off in lower recidivism and better outcomes for everyone.

Bill C-240 is not soft on crime. It is smart on recovery. It would require parole boards to consider an offender's progress in completing court-ordered rehabilitation programs when making parole decisions. It would also enable stricter penalties for fentanyl traffickers by making trafficking fentanyl in large quantities an aggravating factor in sentencing.

This is the work I came to this place to do. I am deeply grateful to my colleague from Kitchener Centre for letting me and, by extension, the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, play a role in moving this important legislation forward.

Other jurisdictions have already shown that, when accountability is combined with structured rehabilitation, there are better results. In countries like Norway, the system places a strong emphasis on education, work skills and personal responsibility during incarceration. Release decisions are closely tied to readiness for reintegration. When someone leaves custody, they are better prepared to lead a law-abiding life. The results speak for themselves. Norway has some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world.

We should not copy any one system exactly. Canada has its own context, its own challenges and its own legal framework, but the principle is consistent. If we want safer communities, we have to reduce reoffending, and if we want to reduce reoffending, we need a system that promotes real change, not just the passage of time.

This bill would take an important step in that direction and would provide powerful incentives for the federal government to work with the provinces to expand programs like the Guthrie program across the country. The bill would do its work carefully and responsibly. It would build confidence while improving outcomes. It would be fair and effective, and it would improve public safety.

Victims and their families want a system that takes accountability seriously, but they also want a system that has a measure of mercy and opportunity for change, and they would really like to see a system that actually stops what has happened to them and their loved ones from happening to others.

By strengthening the link between rehabilitation and release, offenders have an opportunity to break the pattern to improve their lives. There is sometimes a tendency to frame these issues as a choice between being tough on crime and supporting rehabilitation. That is the wrong way to look at it, because justice requires both.

I think back to what I saw at the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. I did not see criminals; I saw people. I saw people who, with the right support and the weight of expectations, are taking steps to change their lives. I saw corrections officers committed to that goal, and I saw a program that makes a real difference.

This bill would align with those outcomes. Every time someone leaves custody, they return to a neighbourhood, family, workplace and community. One question we should be asking is: Are they are more or less likely to offend? This legislation would help ensure the answer is the one Canadians want.

For those reasons, I encourage all members of the House to support this bill, and I am proud to second and support it.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I want to thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre for standing up and having the tremendous strength she had today to share her story. Far too often in my 47 years, I have had to say goodbye to many family members way too early. They never were able to climb the mountain that she was able to climb, but I am able to share her story now to say that people can climb that mountain and be in this hallowed hall one day. I thank the member again.

I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act. This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, CCRA, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. More specifically, the proposed amendments would allow a court to prescribe measures that an offender must undertake during their sentence, such as participation in treatment or employment programs; require that such measures be incorporated into an offender's correctional plan and that progress be considered by the Parole Board of Canada, PBC, when making sentencing decisions; and treat large-scale fentanyl trafficking as an aggravating sentencing factor.

Our primary responsibility as a government is to keep all Canadians safe. This responsibility requires us to carefully review legislation, assess its implications and ensure that it upholds the values that Canadians expect of us. We support the principles of Bill C-240 and recognize that it requires further study at the committee stage to address certain challenges present in its current form. We look forward to working together to rectify these issues and ensure the safety of all Canadians.

With this in mind, I will use my time to talk about how Correctional Service Canada, CSC, helps people in custody achieve their substance use goals, as well as how parole works in Canada.

Substance use is a complex health issue that requires a balanced approach focused on prevention, treatment and harm reduction. Through its national drugs and substances strategy, CSC takes a health-centred approach to substance abuse, recognizing that addressing problematic use is essential to rehabilitation and public safety. CSC provides screening, evidence-based treatment and peer-supported recovery services. This includes substance use treatment delivered by health care professionals, such as opioid agonist treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder.

CSC also implements harm reduction measures to reduce the risk of overdose and the spread of infectious diseases while supporting access to care. CSC further supports recovery through peer-based programs, which use lived experience to promote engagement, recovery and successful reintegration into the community.

The majority of offenders are serving fixed-length sentences. This means that they will eventually be released back into the community once their sentence ends.

Let me, for a moment, explain how parole works in Canada.

Parole contributes to public safety by helping offenders reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens through a gradual, controlled and supported release with conditions. Parole decisions are made by the Parole Board of Canada, an independent administrative tribunal that operates at arm's length from government and is free from outside influence.

The process can take place through an in-office file review or a face-to-face hearing with the offender and their parole officer. When hearings are held in person, observers may request to attend remotely. Board members consider all relevant and available information in assessing an offender's risk to reoffend. Decisions are based on a thorough risk assessment of all relevant and available information, which includes information from police, courts, Crown attorneys, mental health professionals, correctional authorities, private agencies, indigenous communities and victims of crime.

We must not forget that an offender on parole is not completely free. They continue to be monitored and supported by a parole officer from Correctional Service Canada. The Parole Board of Canada may revoke an offender's release not only if they breach their conditions, but also if their risk is assessed as having become unacceptable.

I want to reassure all Canadians that public safety is the primary consideration in all conditional release decisions.

I would also like to share some information about recidivism. Over the last 10 years, 93% of offenders granted day or full parole by the Parole Board of Canada have not committed a new offence while on parole and 99% of offenders have not committed a new violent offence while on parole.

I would also like to emphasize that victims have a role to play in the parole process as well. They may register to receive information from the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada. Victims may also provide information to Correctional Service Canada and/or to the Parole Board of Canada at any time throughout the offender's sentence, for consideration when making decisions related to the offender's security level, evaluations or the offender's programming needs and overall risk to re-offend. This includes by board members when deciding whether the offender should be released and the conditions they impose.

Victims can choose to provide a victim statement describing the impact the crime continues to have on them, express their views about the possible conditional release of the offender and ask Correctional Service Canada to consider their area of residence when making a release plan. Victims can also request special conditions for the Parole Board to consider, for example, preventing the offender from communicating with them or their family and from going to any specified place. Further, victims may attend the offender's parole hearing as observers and can read their written statement to board members, outlining the continuing impact the offence has had on them, as well as any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose.

The national office for victims, through Public Safety Canada, provides an essential resource for victims of federal offenders. It is committed to empowering victims of federal offenders through information. Victims of crime can use this information to understand how authorities determine eligibility dates for different types of release. Through the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the Government of Canada also provides the following rights to victims of crime: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to seek restitution. Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, victims of crime can receive information on progress made by inmates towards meeting the objectives of their correctional plan.

The government will always take the protection of these rights seriously. We will continue to ensure the safety of all Canadians. As we support sending the bill to committee, we hope to further the progress, efforts and values I discussed today by strengthening this piece of legislation and ensuring a safer Canada for all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has three minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a treat. I thought I had only two minutes to speak.

We are talking about crime and rehabilitation. There are different ways to look at prison sentences for criminals, those who have committed a crime. The first is to see them as a way of telling the person that they need to understand the seriousness of what they did, that they are “going to pay”, that they will not have an easy time in jail, and that, afterward, they are going to have to think about what they did so they do not do it again. From that perspective, the individual is not getting any support. It could even be said that there is a desire for the person to suffer. That approach does not work. That approach does not help in rehabilitating offenders.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe in rehabilitation. For anyone who believes in rehabilitation, the constructive approach is to guide the individual toward a more positive life. Awareness and recognition come first, and then the individual's current circumstances must be generally assessed. Where is this person at? What led them to commit the crime? It might be easy to dismiss the individual as just a thief, but there is a family background and socio-economic context to consider. Often, people who commit violent acts were themselves victims of repeated violence as children, and so on. We need to understand, support and empower these folks. Training and rehabilitation programs significantly increase the chances of successful reintegration into society. The research is very clear on this point.

In that sense, the bill we are discussing today seems positive at first glance. Of course, we will vote in favour of the bill in principle at second reading, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île said earlier. We are prepared to do serious and rigorous work in committee to ensure that the measures taken are effective and yield positive results. When someone can be rehabilitated, and we can prevent that person from reoffending, it is not just that person who benefits, it is society as a whole.

I think my time is up. It is a pleasure to wrap up our work week. I wish all my colleagues a good weekend.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who will have seven minutes to finish his speech when the bill returns before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members’ Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)