Debates of June 1st, 2026

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that 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.

Offender Rehabilitation Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured that my colleague from Kitchener Centre asked me to speak on her legislation, Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act.

Before I begin, I would like to congratulate her hometown team, the Kitchener Rangers, on winning the Memorial Cup last night. Well done, lads.

The hon. member's opening speech on the legislation is worth watching for anyone but especially for someone struggling with addiction right now. I commend her for her courage in telling her own personal story of recovery. The fact that she is in this place is a testament to her as a person but also highlights what can be achieved in recovery.

Bill C-240 starts with a common-sense idea that I think all Canadians can rally behind. Prison should protect the public, and prisons should hold offenders accountable. Prisons should also require that people do the work needed to change before they are released back into our communities.

Canadians can see the problem quite plainly. The person who broke the law gets endless second chances while the victims in the community are left paying the price. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, with trauma not healed, addictions getting worse and too many people leaving prison no better prepared for life outside than the day they entered. That helps no one, not the victim, not the community and especially not the offender. A serious justice system tells the offender the truth. They caused harm. They are responsible and now they must do the work to change. To the victim, it has to say something just as clearly: that what happened to them matters and that their safety should come before the offender's convenience.

The legislation would give judges a new tool. When a judge sentences an offender, they would be able to order that offender to take rehabilitative measures during their time in jail. That could mean job training. It could mean apprenticeship or technical skills. It could mean education and, most importantly, it could mean treatment for drugs and alcohol addiction. Right now, too often, prison is treated like a waiting room. The offender serves their time and waits out the clock. They then return to the same streets, the same addiction, the same lack of skills, the same broken life and the same risk to public safety.

Too many Canadians are tired of this revolving-door justice system. When someone is released from jail, they move into a neighbourhood full of people who have every right to expect that our justice system has done more than simply count down the days on a calendar. The bill would help change that.

It says that if a judge orders an offender to take training, education or treatment, that order should not just be forgotten once the offender actually enters jail. The order should be sent to Correctional Services Canada. It should be reflected in the correctional plan. When parole is being considered, the parole board should be able to look at whether there was progress made. The bill does not pretend that every offender will change. It does not punish someone because the program is full, unavailable or delayed. It does say that if help is offered, if training is available, if there is a path to a better life, the offender has a responsibility to take it. If someone wants early release, Canadians are entitled to ask what they have done with the time they were given. Did they learn a trade? Did they put in work to overcome their addiction? Did they show any sign that they are any safer today than when they entered prison?

Release should be earned through progress and should not be automatic. It should not be detached from behaviour, effort or rehabilitation.

I come at this from a Manitoban perspective. In my province, these problems are very real. Families in Portage la Prairie, Winkler, Morden, Altona, Carman and communities right across our great province know what repeat crime looks like and what it does. They see the addiction, the stolen trucks, the break-ins, the violence and the heartbreak that follows.

In 2024, Manitoba's crime severity index was far above the national average. People do not need a chart telling them that something has gone badly wrong. They feel it when they check two or three times whether the garage is closed or the car is locked. They feel it when a business owner replaces a broken window yet again. They feel it when parents wonder whether their community is safe for their kids. They especially feel it when police are arresting the same person over and over again.

Manitobans are now being told that the answer to addiction is a drug consumption site in Winnipeg. It is absolutely not. Let us be honest about what many families and businesses fear. They worry that it will become another drug den, another place where government manages decline instead of enabling recovery. They worry that the neighbourhood will be asked to carry the cost. Local concerns will be brushed aside by people who call themselves compassionate, while ignoring the fear of the grandmother, the shop owner, the student, the young family and the police officer dealing with the fallout. They base this on what we have already seen take place across the country where this experiment has been tried.

The answer to addiction is not to build a system around permanent dependency, but recovery through treatment, because we know it can work, the kind of treatment that helps those suffering with addiction find purpose and meaning in life. They need treatment that helps them deal with trauma and understand what they are trying to escape and why. They need treatment to recognize, through whatever modality that works, that they have a problem, that it can be solved and that recovery is possible.

The answer is a justice system that separates the addicted person who needs help from the fentanyl trafficker who profits from death and misery, and that deals firmly with both problems. Bill C-240 does just that. It says that people struggling with addiction should be directed toward treatment and rehabilitation. It also says that those who are trafficking fentanyl on a large scale deserve tougher sentencing consequences. That distinction is necessary. The person trapped in addiction needs a path out. The person selling poison on our streets needs consequences. That is why this bill is both tough and humane. It is tough because it refuses to accept a justice system that releases people without asking whether they have actually changed in any way. It is humane because prisons should not just hold people for a while and then send them back out broken, addicted and dangerous.

Many offenders enter custody without the basic education or skills needed to find and keep stable work. Many have never had the discipline, support and structure needed to build an honest life. None of that excuses crime in any way, but if we ignore those facts we guarantee more crime. Someone who cannot read well, cannot hold a job, cannot manage their addiction with coping skills and has spent their sentence learning absolutely nothing about recovery is not safer nor rehabilitated because a date arrived on a calendar. They need to put in the work while incarcerated. The public deserves more than a release date. The public deserves evidence of effort. Some will say that this is too hard on offenders. I say it is more cruel to leave people trapped in the same spiral that they are in and call it mercy. Nobody wants to be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Let us make sure they have a way out. Some will say that we need more programs before judges can order participation. Then let us expand the programs. Let us fix prison education and make sure training matches real labour market needs.

In Manitoba, we understand the trades. We understand work. We understand the dignity in people showing up and earning their way. If somebody in custody can learn and go through addiction recovery, then that should not be treated as an optional extra but as the goal. It should be part of the sentence when the judge says that it is needed. We should want people leaving custody with clear eyes, a plan and a reason to not go back; to have hit rock bottom and started the work to claw their way up to a life filled with meaning, purpose and service.

The bill sends a message to offenders that their time in custody must not be wasted. It sends a message to Correctional Service Canada that rehabilitation must be planned, tracked and taken seriously. It sends a message to parole boards that progress matters. It sends a message to fentanyl traffickers that if they profit from addiction and death they will face real consequences, as they should. Most importantly, it sends a message to victims and communities that their safety and peace of mind matters. The justice system exists for the protection of the public, not for the convenience of the offender. We need a justice system that is serious enough to punish crime and honest enough to say that rehabilitation only matters when it is real.

Some offenders absolutely can change, but they should not be rewarded for just saying the right things. They should be expected to do the very hard work that change requires. Bill C-240 is not the final word on earned release, public safety or recovery, but it is a serious step in the right direction. It follows the offender from courtroom, to custody, to parole and asks a fair question at every stage: Are they doing the work necessary? The bill forces the justice system to take rehabilitation seriously. If we are going to release people back into our communities, then it is fair to ask what they have done with the time they were given on the inside.

Canadians want a justice system that remembers the victims, protects the public and expects and enables more from the offender than simply waiting for the calendar to run out. That is why I will be supporting this important piece of legislation. I urge every member of this House to do the same.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act. I want to begin by recognizing the underlying objectives of this bill: to strengthen rehabilitation, reinforce accountability and ultimately improve public safety in Canada. These are goals I believe we all share.

Ensuring that our justice system not only responds to crime, but also reduces the likelihood of reoffending is essential to safer communities. This bill would amend three key statutes: the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, with a view to more explicitly integrating rehabilitation into sentencing, tying progress and rehabilitation to parole decisions, and addressing serious drug trafficking, including fentanyl.

First, Bill C-240 would give courts the authority to require specific rehabilitative measures as part of an offender's sentence. In addition to imposing the term of imprisonment, Bill C-240 would give courts the ability to require an offender to participate in educational programs, job training or, where appropriate, with the offender's consent, treatment programs.

The intent here is clear: to ensure that sentencing not only reflects accountability, but also establishes a pathway to address the underlying factors that contributed to the offence. It appears that this change is intended to ensure that when individuals are taken into custody, the criminal justice and correctional system would work together to create a clear path for how the underlying factors that contributed to their offence would be addressed, including substance use, lack of skills or other challenges.

There is merit in considering this approach. Recognizing and addressing the challenges that contribute to criminality is an important part of breaking cycles of offending. It should also be noted that, at least at the federal level, there are already tools and processes in place to support offender rehabilitation and treatment, including the use of empirically based assessment tools to identify programming needs. At the same time, the impacts of these provisions, including how such orders would be implemented and the consequences of not complying, are important questions that would benefit from careful study at committee.

Second, the bill intends to ensure that these court-ordered measures would be incorporated into an offender's correctional plan. By extension, an offender is held accountable for their progress on these measures and it would become a consideration in conditional release decisions. In other words, if an offender makes reasonable efforts to complete the ordered training, education or treatment, that progress would form part of their assessment, including for key decisions such as for parole. If they do not, that too would be taken into consideration.

It will be important to examine how these proposed amendments would function in practice. Key considerations include the availability of programs, including in the jurisdiction or community where the sentence is to be served; how assessed needs align with access to appropriate services; and the criteria that apply in release decisions. Research shows that offering programs to low-risk offenders can in fact increase their risk. As such, if the courts are too prescriptive in their requirements, there are risks. The correctional system has the empirical tools and the expertise to determine the program and the treatment needs tailored to each individual offender.

It will also be important to ensure that, should the bill pass, any conditions that form part of a sentence are realistic and capable of being complied with. Offenders should not be unfairly prejudiced by barriers outside of their control, including differences in service availability, depending on where a sentence is served. Ensuring fairness, consistency and transparency in these processes will be key.

Third, the bill aims to address a significant public safety challenge facing our country, the opioid crisis, and, in particular, the role of fentanyl. Bill C-240 would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to require that courts treat large-scale fentanyl trafficking as an aggravating factor in sentencing. This means that when individuals are convicted of trafficking in quantities that indicate large-scale operations, judges would be encouraged to impose more severe sentences.

The intent here is clear and it is very important. The harm caused by fentanyl in communities across Canada is profound, and measures that seek to hold accountable those who profit from that harm deserve serious consideration. At the same time, we must consider how these provisions would operate in practice, including how large-scale activity would be interpreted and whether this approach would serve to address current trends in organized crime or reflect the constant evolution of dangerous substances.

It is also important to consider the broader societal context in which the bill would operate. Individuals who enter the correctional system often face multiple barriers long before their offence occurs, including limited access to education, unstable employment, mental health challenges and substance use disorders. Addressing those factors is essential if we are to reduce reoffending and improve long-term public safety.

Bill C-240 recognizes this reality by proposing to make rehabilitation a more explicit and structured part of sentencing. It also aims to create another layer of accountability for an offender to meaningfully engage in that process. That said, it would be important to assess how these measures could be implemented effectively, including how they would align with the empirically derived risks-and-needs principles applied in the correctional system, as well as program availability across jurisdictions and consistency of delivery.

We should also recognize the economic dimension of this issue. When people reoffend, the costs are borne not only by the victims but also by the justice system itself, through policing, the courts and correctional services. Investments in effective rehabilitation could reduce those pressures over time by lowering rates of re-entry into the system. Ensuring that the proposed approach would achieve those outcomes in a measurable and sustainable way would be an important part of the study of Bill C-240 at committee.

The objective of the bill also appears to aim to provide greater clarity and transparency by allowing courts to set expectations, and requiring those expectations to be tracked through an offender's sentence. This is a positive principle. The broader approach outlined in Bill C-240, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration, reflects principles that many practitioners support. The question for committee would be how best to translate those principles into workable and effective processes within the existing system.

Ultimately, our communities want a justice system that enhances public safety, reduces reoffending and supports successful reintegration. Bill C-240 speaks to those broad objectives. The task before us is to ensure that the mechanisms it proposes are sound, effective and achievable. By embedding rehabilitation into sentencing, strengthening follow-through during incarceration and linking progress to parole decisions, the bill sets out a direction that many people would agree is worth exploring.

Likewise, its focus on responding to the harms associated with fentanyl reflects a serious and pressing concern. As the bill moves forward, committee study would be critical and would provide an opportunity to examine its provisions in greater detail. That process would help to determine what refinements or amendments may be necessary to ensure that the legislation would achieve its intended goals and avoid unintended consequences.

For these reasons, I support sending Bill C-240 to committee for further study so we could work collectively to strengthen the PMB and ensure that it would deliver meaningful results for communities across this country.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, at second reading. I would like to begin by reminding members that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240, which was introduced by the member for Kitchener Centre, and we look forward to discussing it in committee. The bill essentially seeks to allow the courts to prescribe measures that offenders must take, such as participating in educational, training or treatment programs. It also addresses addiction to drugs and other substances, and finally, the bill seeks to ensure that the objectives of these programs are met, which could affect eligibility for parole. As I was saying, we support this bill.

The bill seeks to amend three acts. First, it would amend the Criminal Code itself so that courts can “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.” It would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act because, in order to meet the program objectives, offenders must be required to undergo training during the custodial period of their sentence and such training must be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the correctional facility. Assessments conducted by the parole board must also take into account these programs when determining whether to grant parole. Finally, the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that, when a person is convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, the court can consider large-scale trafficking as an aggravating sentencing factor.

That, in a nutshell, is what passing this bill would mean. We will see later what will happen when, I hope, the bill is considered and debated in committee. I hope it gets that far. It is one thing to say that we agree on passing a bill. Obviously, the rehabilitation of offenders is the very foundation of the justice system. The Bloc Québécois believes in that. However, the government must always ensure it has the means to match its ambitions. Let me explain.

In terms of rehabilitation, we can look at the annual report tabled in 2019 or 2020 by the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger. That report specifically criticized the academic and vocational training provided by Correctional Service Canada. For example, in 2020, 54% of inmates had not completed grade 10, and most inmates did not have access to education. At the same time, other reports have noted the impact of training on rehabilitation. According to Correctional Service Canada, someone who completes at least one level of an education program shows a 75% reduction in the rate of conditional release failure for a new crime, compared to offenders who had educational needs but did not participate in an education program.

The impact of these programs is significant; their very availability is significant. The federal, provincial, and Quebec governments have conducted several studies on this. The numbers are compelling and they say this has a major impact. Later in my remarks, I will address the way Correctional Service Canada calculates this positive impact, but, generally speaking, we can agree that it is a positive impact. The annual report also noted that although training was being offered, inmates considered it outdated. The same observation was made about prison work.

One of the examples in the report was quite striking. It mentions inmates who have access to computers that are often completely outdated. I am not talking about computers from five years ago, but computers that still use floppy disks. I cannot remember if I have ever used floppy disks from the 1980s. I do not think so. They have enough capacity to hold a single modern photo. These are the tools the correctional service is using to teach the inmates in the penitentiaries. While it is often said that these training programs have a positive impact, we must ensure that resources are available to offer training that is not merely symbolic, but that can have a real impact on inmates' lives and on their rehabilitation once they have served their sentences and are released.

In fact, the correctional investigator concluded that the training was so ill-suited to the job market that it would not help them find work upon release. Obviously, in light of the floppy disk example that I gave, I do not believe that people would be able to find work with such training.

That is just one example. The training is much broader, but it all points in the same direction. For example, as I said, no real skills are being developed. People cannot find a job if they have not developed any skills. Post-secondary training is almost completely overlooked. The books are outdated, and that applies to e-books as well. In short, all the textbooks that talk about knowledge and training are out of date. The government is failing to give prisoners the tools they need to reintegrate into society.

I will provide a summary, which speaks volumes, from Canada's correctional investigator, Dr. Zinger:

The investigation into learning behind bars looked at access to education and skills training in the federal correctional system. What is important to note from this study is that Canada is falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of digital learning and skills training behind bars. There are increasing signs of decline, given that little action has been taken to implement dozens of my office's previous recommendations in this area.

These are the words of the correctional investigator. I will not list all the findings, but a few are equally meaningful and compelling. The report mentions that 6% of the incarcerated population is engaged in a prison industry through the CORCAN program. It also says that the work does not always lead to the acquisition of skills. It is bad enough that only 6% participate, but worse still that no skills are being learned. Furthermore, enormous waiting lists create a bottleneck for those wishing to participate in a training program. They have to wait a very long time.

Clearly, not enough is being done to provide appropriate training that will, in fact, have the desired positive impact. Of course we fully support this bill. The Bloc Québécois does support it, but we want something else, too. The government decided to cut Correctional Service Canada's budget by 15% this year.

I should mention that my riding is home to a federal penitentiary. Port-Cartier Institution is located on the north shore, in my riding. I know the management team very well, and I know the union representatives very well, too. I am aware of the difficulties and challenges they are currently facing, especially since the government is not supporting them. The government is cutting the budget by 15% right now. This means that not only are the inmates not getting the support they need, but workers in this sector are also not being properly supported. In my view, that is dangerous. Urgent action is needed. It is dangerous for the inmates, for the employees and, of course, for the public, because the sector does not have the resources needed to meet its objectives.

I welcome the bill tabled by my colleague from Kitchener Centre, and I hope the government will listen. I hope it will show courage in its budgets. I believe we need to be forward-thinking and commit to looking after the public. Security is definitely an issue. I hope the government will support all prison staff, management, the officers working there, plus the people in our community. I hope we can move this bill forward.

A CIRANO study also noted that Quebec is a world leader thanks to the training program being introduced in its prisons.

I look forward to seeing how this bill progresses.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to 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, more simply known as the offender rehabilitation act. It is hard to say this early on a Monday morning.

I am struggling with what to do for the next 10 minutes. Do I read the prepared speech that my staff worked tirelessly to put together and did a great job of, or do I talk about our colleague and the importance of the bill she has brought forward?

This bill is important. It looks specifically at three areas. One is in-custody treatment and rehabilitation programs.

Another is earned release. The offenders, those who are in jail, would have to demonstrate that they are actually taking the measures they need to, with the responsibility on them, so that they earn their release. They would not, as my colleague mentioned earlier, just be waiting out the clock.

The final area is harsher sentences for fentanyl traffickers. Very plainly, I truly believe that if somebody is producing fentanyl and selling it on the streets, the harshest penalties we have should be levied against these people. This is because, very simply, they are killing Canadians. Over 50,000 Canadians have died through our opioid crisis since 2016, and we do not have an answer.

I talked about a senior constituent in my riding who was run over. He returned home to find his house being ransacked and robbed by a group of people who were addicted. They were looking to find ways to get that next fix. When he tried to stop them, they ran him over. They dragged him down a rural road and left him for dead. They were caught later that same day and released within hours. Just this past week, we were informed that the charges had been dropped.

We are failing Canadians. We are not making communities safer.

I want to talk about our colleague from Kitchener Centre. This is not an issue that attracts headlines. It is not sexy to talk about accountability, rehabilitation, public safety, addiction and criminal justice all at the same time. However, people who are in the gallery and the 12 or 13 people who are watching online or on TV should know the incredible story of our colleague. I met her just weeks after the last election, when she was a newly elected MP. She asked to meet with me. She wanted to talk to me about what she wanted to do during her time here in Parliament.

We have a unique platform to be able to really make a difference, regardless of whether we are in government or on the opposition side. We have worked for the last 11 years to try to make a difference to the mental health of Canadians, whether it was through our Bill C-211, making Canada the first country in the world to adopt a piece of legislation to combat post-traumatic stress disorder, or in launching 988, making Canada a country that now has a three-digit suicide hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Those are things that we did on this side of the House to try to make a difference.

The member for Kitchener Centre's story is incredible. Here is a member of Parliament who at one time was struggling with addiction herself and lived homeless on the streets for a number of years. She pulled herself out of addiction, put herself through school and is now a sitting member of Parliament, representing the very place where she was homeless.

What an incredible story that is. It should be celebrated. What she wants to do in her time here is leave a legacy of change to help those who mirror her life as a youth, addicted and on the streets. It is incredible.

The reality is that our current justice system is not producing the results Canadians deserve. Across the country, communities are dealing with the consequences of repeat offenders, addiction-fuelled crime and an overdose crisis that continues to take lives each and every day. Canadians are frustrated because they see individuals cycling repeatedly through the justice system without change. They see offenders arrested, released, rearrested, released again and often returning to the same destructive behaviours the very same day. At the same time, they see families devastated by addiction and communities struggling with the consequences of fentanyl trafficking and organized criminal activity.

I was talking about our colleague. The strength and courage it took for her to share her story is incredible. I have probably cried more times than I would like to count here in Parliament as we recounted our own stories or talked about other colleagues. I have also shared that my family has been impacted by the overdose crisis. My brother-in-law died by overdose. My brother is gripped with addiction and lives on the streets. We just cannot seem to get him off the streets. We have struggled since the nineties. We say a cat has nine lives. I do not know how many lives my brother has. He has had so many overdoses, he has been in and out of the jail system and he was shot with a double-barrelled shotgun recently, and he still survives. The grip of that addiction still pulls him back onto the streets.

When people are arrested and go into the jail system, there is not a lot of incentive for them to get better. As a matter of fact, they probably become better criminals and just bide their time until they get out. They can get the drugs in prison, as well, but through Bill C-240, it would become mandatory that those who are incarcerated and addicted take the measures and take on the responsibility necessary to get themselves better. That is why Bill C-240 is so important.

Regarding in-custody treatment, we talk about how there are not enough beds in our country to get people well. We should be investing in recovery, not investing in perpetuating people's addictions, which is what we have been doing over the last 10 years. We need in-custody treatment. That could include addiction treatment. It could include educational programs. It could include jobs training and skills development.

I spent an awful lot of time talking about our colleague, but I honestly do not think we have shared her story enough. She works every day, representing her constituents of Kitchener Centre, being a better MP, being a better representative and ensuring that she leaves a legacy of change. I am so honoured to count her as one of our colleagues. I am proud of her, as everyone can tell.

Bill C-240 looks at three distinct areas in this piece of legislation. One is in-custody treatment and rehabilitation programs. Another is earned release, so the responsibility would be on the incarcerated person to demonstrate that they deserve parole. They would not just get it. The last is harsher sentences for fentanyl traffickers, because if we do not start doing something about our opioid crisis, we will continue going down the same path we are on, and more Canadians will die.

I support Bill C-240 and humbly ask that our colleagues do as well.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to speak today on Bill C-240. This touches my heart, because I would imagine that for all MPs sitting in this room, no matter where they are sitting today, their lives have changed and their communities have changed. I know all Canadian cities have changed, including all communities in the Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay riding.

I want to speak a bit about the city I live in. Penticton is a beautiful city. It is a place where people have always wanted to come to vacation, and possibly even retire, if they reach that point in their lives and have saved up enough money, because, of course, our housing is expensive, like it is in many communities.

Unfortunately, our city, like so many, is filled with chaos right now. I hope everyone here knows they can go and enjoy the city and enjoy the area, but there is chaos because crime rates are skyrocketing. In fact, it was announced last week by our first responders that overdose rates in Penticton increased by nearly 500% in the first quarter of 2026 compared to the first quarter of 2025. This was reported by our fire department.

Imagine what being a first responder in Penticton is like right now, when all they are doing is constantly going out to calls and trying to bring people back to life. Imagine how difficult it would be for them psychologically to not fight fires, like they were trained to. We do not have a lot of fires anymore, except for quite a few that are caused by people who are homeless and on the streets. Instead, our first responders are constantly going out and injecting people with some type of drug to try to bring them back to life. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not.

It has ruined our community and our most vulnerable people, who are those are on drugs and living on our streets. It has also ruined our community for many vulnerable people, as we have a very large senior community.

Going back to Bill C-240, the bill aims to amend the Criminal Code to empower judges to prescribe structured rehabilitation programs for individuals whose offences stem from circumstances that can be addressed through skills development, education and recovery as part of a holistic healing process.

It is important to know that in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, which is a very big riding in the B.C. interior, there is not one detox bed available. In fact, as a city councillor, a couple of years ago, I was given a presentation by leaders in the community who were addressing this issue. I asked them a question. If someone were to come into our city council meeting right then and say, “I am a drug addict. I want help. I want to go back to my family”, how long would it take for that person to get into a detox bed or a rehab bed? By the way, this was in public. Members can look this up from the City of Penticton's council meeting two years ago. They told the city council that it would take two years for that person to be given any type of detox bed or any type of rehabilitation. They also said it would not be in our huge riding. They would have to leave the community in two years and go to another community to get help.

We all know what would happen in those two years. I am sure I will get letters saying, “No, it's not two years.” Maybe it has gotten better, and hopefully it has, but it would still be at least half that time.

We need to give people the ability to go back to their families, and we also need to keep people behind bars who are not safe for our communities. Some of the residents I represent are afraid of even going to the grocery store anymore to shop because there are erratic people walking down the aisles. There has been a huge issue, obviously, since the pilot project to decriminalize drugs in B.C. That was a great experiment put together by the Liberal government and the NDP provincial government. I would like to ask everyone in this great room today, would they like to try that decriminalization project? Let us just see what might happen.

British Columbia has the most deaths from fentanyl in the world now. The genie is out of the bottle now. Sure, the decriminalization project has been declared over, but we have not found out the complete chaos that was caused by it; the numbers are not out yet. That will happen, and we will bring them, hopefully, before the Standing Committee on Health, which I sit on, and get the complete numbers, but do we really need them? We all know that thousands and thousands of people have died in British Columbia from that project. I do not see anyone representing any other province wanting to come forward and try it for their communities.

I want to thank MP DeRidder, who—

[An hon. member]

You cannot use the name.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I thank the MP for bringing forward this bill, and I want to quote her. She said Bill C-240 “would empower courts to prescribe structured rehabilitation measures, including education, skills training and treatment programs, to be undertaken during custody. These are not soft-on-crime measures. They are smart-on-recovery interventions.”

We have to give people the opportunity to go back to their families.

I was given a tour, as a city councillor a couple of years ago, of the penitentiary in my riding, the Okanagan Correctional Centre. At that time, the warden told us city councillors that it was 25% full. We have one of the highest crime rates, in Penticton and area, in all of B.C., per capita, and our correctional centre is only 25% full. The leaders in the community, the mayors of all the cities in the valley, have sent a letter to the province asking to use that correctional centre for exactly what the MP for Kitchener Centre is asking for: to provide rehabilitation measures, education, skills training and treatment, to give these people a chance to go back out in the world and back to their families, if they are able. If they cannot, if they are dangerous people, as we know there are, then they should not be released as they have been.

This bill would also allow court-ordered rehabilitation measures for offenders. I believe everyone in this great hall knows that people get to a point in their drug use where there is no going back.

I want to thank, again, the MP for bringing this forward, and I hope everyone here votes to support it.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly such an honour to be here today to speak to this spectacular bill. I want to sincerely thank my friend, my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre for being willing to be vulnerable, for being willing to share her story with each and every one of us and to use the pain, the struggle that she went through as she was dealing with addiction early in her life, and how she turned that into a spectacular life. I have had the opportunity of meeting her daughter and seeing the accomplishments she made in her professional life before she came to Parliament. To find out that years prior she had been homeless and sleeping on park benches in the community that she now gets to represent in Parliament, I think, is a huge testament to the fact that recovery is possible.

What stops so many people from going after recovery is not having the tools to get there, the off-ramps. This is one of the pieces that Conservatives have been consistent in sharing. We need to meet people where they are at, but we cannot just leave them there. We need to give them the tools so they can get into detox and then, from that space, from detox into treatment. In my province of Alberta, the fact that people can do that without having to mortgage a house or wait six years on a wait-list has made the difference as to whether people stay sick or get better. I want to see more support for recovery because people truly can and do get better.

Here is the piece: When people are in jail, and the root cause of some of their criminality is addiction, we really owe it to ourselves to make sure we are treating that root cause of the addiction.

For every single person I have met who is now in recovery from addiction, the single hardest thing they have had to do in their life is getting sober and staying sober, confronting the demons of some of the actions and activities they did that were not in line with their values and confronting some of the really tough things they did when they were trying to just survive and get by. We should be offering tools while people are incarcerated so they can get better, and not just offering those tools but allowing that to be in consideration for parole and giving incentives so people can do that.

Right now, if someone is seeking out treatment in incarceration in Canada, the steps they have to go through in most provinces are quite hard. Most people cannot even get into an NA or AA meeting if they are in jail. That is a failure of our system. It costs effectively nothing, yet in so many jurisdictions, it is hard to even get that for people who are struggling with addiction. This bill would take the huge step of not just telling people that addiction is a health condition and needs to be treated as such but clearly stating that we have hope, that we believe they can get better and that we know recovery is possible.

That is the single most inspiring piece we can do. This is the most important piece. If people want to get started on that hard and long path toward recovery, it starts one step at a time, to do the next right thing, and this is the next right thing.

I would encourage every single member in this chamber to put aside partisanship, to realize that this, what we are talking about right now, can make a huge difference in the lives of so many Canadians. I would urge every single member to unreservedly support the member for Kitchener Centre's private member's bill, Bill C-240, and make a very clear statement that recovery is possible.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I offer the member for Kitchener Centre her right of reply.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start today with great big huge thanks to all of my colleagues who wanted to speak to and debate Bill C-240 today. I thank my colleagues who are part of the Conservative caucus and also colleagues across the floor, so much, for speaking to this bill today. I thank the Bloc Québécois members as well, so very much, for speaking to this bill and showing their support for it.

I think the most important thing that we need to do at this point in time is reverse course in Canada. We need to start focusing on recovery and rehabilitation because people can and do recover. There is an encampment in Kitchener where we are quite literally killing people with kindness right now. In this encampment, five people have died from overdose, and it is time now that all levels of government came together and jointly worked together to fix this crisis in Canada. It is time to reverse course.

Bill C-240 is the first step, introducing rehabilitation into incarceration. At least when someone has to be accountable for their actions, they would have a path forward when they are serving their time, to change their life, break cycles and turn their life around. We need to do this in Canada before incarceration, as well, so I am standing here today to thank members for their support in the House for Bill C-240 but also to declare that this is a pivotal moment in Canada.

It is time now to concentrate on recovery and rehabilitation because on the other side of recovery is a happy, beautiful, healed and healthy life. Every single person who is struggling with addiction deserves that life, and it is time we helped them get there.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 11:58 a.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent to have it go to committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Sitting Suspended

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:59 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12:01 p.m.)

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

Order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some government members. Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.

I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in the House or to use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I am quite disappointed that here we are again with the Liberals' shutting down parliamentary debate on such an important bill. Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is a giant omnibus bill, over 330 pages long, with some proposed major changes to the way government operates.

Under division 16 in the budget implementation act is the new defence investment agency act, and that act would open up a door of potential abuse and unethical behaviour by the government. In the section that actually talks about having competition, the Liberals list over 20 different different exemptions from competition, and it would make the minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency immune from any criticism and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card for why any particular project or competitor is disqualified from that competition.

We have this motion, instead of proper debate in the House right now that would allow Parliament to actually explore all the problems within division 16 of the budget implementation act, and instead of actually talking about how defence procurement could be used and abused by the government in power. Why not have the debate? Why do the Liberals always resort to shutting down parliamentary processes, in the name of cover-ups and Liberal largesse?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, for years, has been championing investment in the defence industry. Now, when he gets this singular moment to support it, he gets up and rants about—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Oh, oh!

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member has talked a lot. I think I will try to talk a little less.

The member now starts ranting on about our not wanting to debate it, but it is very obvious that there has been sufficient and complete debate on this budget, which is important for getting money back into Canadians' hands and reinvesting into the economy.

To the member opposite's point, it is important to invest in an industry that has been underinvested in for a long time, and to make sure Canadians are safe and protected by our military, the servicemen and servicewomen who serve this country and who are prepared to lay down their lives for it.

As I have heard the member opposite for the last 10 years talk about the military, it is interesting that he gets one chance to support it but starts coming up with a whole bunch of theories about why we should not continue or why we should not accelerate and get it into the hands of the people best equipped to protect us. It is very odd, to say the least. If there is any any proof of that behaviour, it is in the amendment that the Conservatives suggested, which just wants to shut down the bill in the first place.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the forestry industry.

This is one of the Bloc Québécois's demands. The industry back home is being hit hard. Many people have lost their jobs and a lot of families are being impacted.

We proposed a number of measures. One of them was for the government to refund 50% of the monthly antidumping and countervailing duties paid by forestry producers to the U.S. to give them immediate liquidity. This measure would be cost-neutral.

I would like to know why the government did not consider it.