Debates of Dec. 1st, 2022

Telecommunications Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the Huawei case has been studied extensively with the involvement of our security agencies. I would like to think that the government and security agencies have learned a great deal. They have learned lessons that they can apply in the future to better protect Canadian businesses and critical infrastructure.

In terms of catching up, yes, technology moves so fast that often governments and society have to react, but it is better to react than to do nothing.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a question about publicly owned corporations like Hydro-Québec. How will the bill provide a framework for this, while still allowing companies like Hydro-Québec to be proactive about cybersecurity? How will the bill ensure there is no interference? Will there be support? I would like to hear my colleague's point of view on this issue.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I dare to believe and hope that a publicly owned corporation as big as Hydro-Québec has the resources to protect itself properly. Obviously, it provides a critical service. I think I said that in my speech. We hope that this bill will also serve as a model for other levels of government.

I think that, just like protecting the environment, cybersecurity is a team effort. We have to work with partners in other governments to come up with a solution that is watertight, well aligned and effective.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I spent a lot of the day together today. We had an excellent event this morning, which he organized, so I would like to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for that.

There is one question I do have with regard to the bill. It has been written in such a way that secret orders could be issued, and they could be kept from being publicized or published in the Gazette. Why was that choice made? Why was the decision made to have that level of secrecy in the legislation?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the member for taking part in a panel in front of about 40 students from the Max Bell School of Public Policy this morning. It was wonderful to have her perspective as a westerner, and as a parliamentarian generally.

I would imagine that, when we are dealing with matters of national security in cybersecurity and systems that are key to our well-being, there might be a need in certain cases to be a little more circumspect. I would hope, believe and expect, because every bill that is introduced to the House has to go through a charter analysis, that any such measure the member refers to would pass the test of the charter.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will give my speech in French. I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Trois‑Rivières, who will no doubt be able to give a more relevant speech than me. I am pleased to share my time with him.

Ottawa is finally proposing a law to deal with the issue of cybersecurity. We are pleased to see that the government is finally addressing this issue. I will not say that it is too little, too late, but I will say that we waited a long time for this.

The purpose of the bill is to force Internet service providers to adopt better practices, something on which we all agree. We commend the government for that.

However, why is Ottawa always in reaction mode? We have been talking about the 5G network and Huawei for years. Hydro-Québec has been experiencing cyber-attacks on a daily basis for years. We have known for years about the rise of China, a country that is interfering more and more. In short, we have known for years that Canada is extremely vulnerable and that it is basically a sieve in terms of cybersecurity.

How can it be that, in this postnational system, everything happens reactively, not proactively? That is all I am going to say about that, because there is no changing the fundamentals of a country that is impervious to reform. Instead, we are going to get out. I just wanted to put that out there.

We support the bill in principle, but there are some grey areas that need clarification. That is what committees are for. The legislation is essentially a regulatory framework that, first and foremost, enables the government to make regulations to ensure the security of critical cyber systems. We have to look at the impact this bill could have on Quebec, especially Hydro‑Québec, because it lists interprovincial power line systems under vital services and vital systems. The committee will also have to look at whether the vast regulatory powers provided for in the bill are justified and ensure that they do not needlessly circumvent Parliament.

The threats that weigh on cybersecurity are likely to increase. They are the future, but they are also very much part of our present. In fact, a number of experts on the matter in Quebec talk to us about it. There is someone I really liked to watch when he was on television, although he stopped appearing when he became a deputy minister. I am talking about one of my constituents, Steve Waterhouse, who is always very interesting to listen to. His work helped raise our awareness and raise public awareness. He is from Sainte‑Madeleine, which is in the incredible riding of Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Cyber-threats are already a part of our daily lives. Hydro-Québec is attacked every day by what are referred to as denial of service attacks. These are less sophisticated cyber-attacks and are the easiest ones to deal with, but they can cause major disruptions.

Look at Aluminerie Alouette, on the North Shore, which was the victim of a major cyber-attack that led to a serious outage. A Russian group claimed responsibility. Last summer, during the Rogers outage, which also had a serious impact on debit card transactions, a cyber-attack was the first thing that came to mind.

The objective of the bill is to mitigate the risks upstream. The legislation could certainly help Quebeckers, for example by imposing certain standards on Internet service providers, such as the obligation to avoid using products from suspect companies like Huawei.

In 2020, Parliament adopted a motion to force the government to make a decision about Huawei and Chinese interference in general. Recently, Ottawa finally blocked Huawei after years of dithering. What a waste of time. As Proust wrote, we are in search of lost time.

Madam Speaker, please tell my colleagues that they can let me know if I am disturbing them. I would not want to prevent them from having their conversations.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I ask that members who wish to have conversations leave the chamber to do so.

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot may continue.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I see that they are no more interested in what you have to say than what I was saying, so I do not take it personally.

The 5G network is a new communications technology with bandwidth that is 10 to 100 times greater than that of current networks. The technology stands out for more than just its speed. It stands out for its extremely low latency, which is the time it takes for one computer to communicate with another and receive a response.

This opens the door to many possibilities in different areas, but to achieve performance, 5G uses a multitude of pathways. To simplify, let us say that something that is sent from Montreal to a computer in Paris could have a portion pass through New York, another through London, another through Barcelona, and so forth. This makes the technology particularly vulnerable because it becomes difficult to track the path that the data takes.

Huawei has already been implicated in the scandal involving China spying on the African Union headquarters. In 2012, China offered the African Union a fully equipped ultramodern building. Africa is known to be an extremely important location for Chinese investment. China supplied everything: networks, computers and telecommunications systems. After a few years of operation, in 2017, African computer scientists realized that the servers were sending out huge amounts of data at night, when nobody was working in the building. They discovered that the data was going to servers in China, which was spying on all staff and political leaders. Huawei was the main supplier of the network infrastructure. Microphones were also found in the walls and tables.

China passed a new national intelligence law in 2017. One thing is clearly set out in their law. All Chinese companies must absolutely participate in China's intelligence efforts. It is a form of economic and commercial patriotism, and we could also add digital. In other words, all the private players are being mobilized to say that they are going to participate in the construction of the great digital wall of China. This includes military intelligence and civilian intelligence. For instance, a company can be called upon to spy on behalf of another Chinese company in order to place China in an advantageous position on the world stage.

At this very moment, a genomics company called BGI, which works with genes, is still supplying medical equipment to Canadian hospitals. Its machines collect data, and only the company's technicians are authorized to carry out the monthly maintenance. They are the only ones with access. It turns out that this company has close ties to the Chinese military.

There is also Alibaba, a publicly traded Chinese company similar to Amazon that was founded by businessman Jack Ma. It derives its income from online activities, including a public market designed to facilitate transactions between businesses, payment and retail sales platforms, a shopping search engine and cloud computing services.

Another example is Tencent, a company founded in 1998 that specializes in Internet and mobility services and online advertising. Tencent's services include social networks, web portals, e-commerce and multiplayer online games. Tencent manages and operates well-known services, such as messaging services Tencent QQ and WeChat, and the qq.com web portal.

Today, China is the champion of data collection. This rising power requires new practices, new barriers and new ways of doing things. We should not think that the U.S. does not have their own giants that collect data, but just in China there are 800 million Internet users. That is more than the U.S. and India put together and one-quarter of all Internet users in the world. This number of users will give public and private Chinese actors, which have a close relationship, access to large sources of data that they can mine at will.

China has built a formidable digital system. There is a reason why it is constantly increasing its data storage. There is no doubt that the issue of cybersecurity is at the centre of the current international economic war that is engulfing an increasingly multipolar world. We need to acknowledge this. We need to act.

We support this bill because it is well-intentioned, but we have to find a way to put some meat on the bones.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the Bloc's tentative support of the legislation to go to committee, recognizing that this legislation empowers the minister to take direct, specific actions to protect Canadians and businesses. As the member pointed out so accurately, there is a very real cyber-threat out there. It also ensures that there can be financial penalties.

Would the member not agree that this is just one step? We have had literally tens of millions of dollars invested in cyber-threats over the years. We have had all sorts of group discussions and meetings to make sure that the government is keeping up. There are a number of stakeholders with the responsibility of fighting cyber-threats today.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, should that not just be one step? The answer is: of course it should.

I believe we said we are in favour. We are not even sure that this step will be enough, but it is a step in the right direction, and that is why we support it. It is great that there is going to be money for this, but now the real work starts.

I feel there are a lot of areas to consider. We will have to look at industrial espionage and economic espionage too. Regimes have all kinds of legal and digital techniques for acquiring competitors' data and trade secrets.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, what does the member propose for a solution? What are the immediate steps needed to be taken to deal with the pressing issue of cybersecurity attacks we are facing in the country?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑26 does contain some good solutions and some interesting elements.

The only thing is, we will have to look at the details and see what is next. Are we giving the minister too much power? At the same time, we may have to think twice about giving more power to the minister at the expense of Parliament when we are not sure whether the minister will fulfill his commitments. There have been promises followed by waffling in the past. There are definitely things that need to be looked at, yes, but at least this bill is motivated by good intentions. For that alone, it deserves to be supported at this stage.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention today was very interesting. He seems to know the subject very well. Looking at this legislation, we have been talking about how it has been a long-time coming, and how we would have liked to have seen this legislation before us sooner.

I wonder if, as he studied this bill, he had an opportunity to look at legislation from other countries, and if there is legislation from other countries that we could be emulating and looking at as we try to improve this bill. After second reading, I think all parties want to make sure this bill improves.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, I was a bit critical. Unfortunately, in this country, in this Parliament and in this postnational system, it is clear that there is much hemming and hawing in far too many files.

Take a look at the general political culture of other countries like the United States. It did not take them long. Consider the example of Huawei; it took no time at all. They looked at it, concluded that it was preposterous and they put an end to it.

Why has it taken Canada years? This is still something to keep an eye on.

The European Union is also starting to take action. It is starting to move on this front by setting up institutes to monitor interference, the extraterritoriality of certain practices, and so on. There are certainly practices that should be monitored.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, who said he wished that we could talk a bit about what is being done proactively, and that is what I intend to do.

As members know, we cannot discover new worlds until we have the courage to not see the shore. Those who know me know that I would rather talk about the “why” than the “how”. I like to clearly define what we are talking about.

Let us start with the word “security”. Security is an absence of worry. It is peace of mind, a form of safety. It is rather easy to define.

Now, what is the definition of the prefix “cyber”? Cybersecurity is a word that is used in all kinds of ways. We want to combat cybercrime with cybersecurity. We want to prevent cyberstalking. Sometimes it can be confusing. What is the meaning of the prefix “cyber” that is used everywhere?

The origin of the word will help us to understand it. It was coined after the Second World War by an American researcher named Norbert Wiener. This brilliant mathematician was hired by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, to work on a research project on new types of weapons. More specifically, he was asked to develop missiles that could take down V‑1s and V‑2s, the unmanned German aircraft filled with explosives that were causing so much damage in England.

To that end, Professor Wiener had to model the behaviour of a pilot who knew he was being chased in order to better understand the decision-making mechanisms of humans in general. We will use the term human so as not to offend anyone. In 1948, Norbert Wiener named this field of research “cybernetics”, a new area of science that studies the mastery of machines. He was inspired by the Greek term kubernao, which means to pilot and from which the terms “government” and “governance” are also derived. It means “to steer”.

In 1949, Wiener's book was deemed one of the most important works of the 20th century. The New York Times praised it and predicted that cybernetics would be a leading branch of science in the future, which has come to pass. This book still contributes practical knowledge to today's world because one of the main concepts underlying this new theory is that of regulation. That is what we are discussing today.

With the Internet, everything becomes cyber, but the societal challenge is huge because in cyberspace we no longer know what is the cause and what is the effect. We are no longer certain who governs and who is governed. We no longer strive to determine if the chicken came before the egg or if the egg came before the chicken. In cyberspace, we cannot make sense of the chickens and the eggs.

When we talk about the Internet, we are talking about space and time. Space and time are concepts that, throughout history, have allowed us to place and understand ourselves. In philosophy it is said that nothing exists without space and time because everything is always somewhere in space and in a given moment, it is situated in time.

However, the Internet is everywhere and nowhere. In fact, when we talk about the web we picture an entanglement of threads without a centre. Humans, with their neurolinguistics, have a hard time placing themselves when there is no centre. We are always looking for the end. The Internet does not have one. In space, there is no centre and time is eternal. The Internet is always, never, and in perpetuity. It is therefore very hard to understand and associate with the cyber point of view.

Bill C‑26 is divided in two parts. In the first part, it says that it seeks to reinforce the security of the Canadian telecommunications system. Then there are indications of how it will change this and how it will change that. In the second, it says it will create the new critical cyber systems protection act to do this or that. I am summarizing the bill.

I noticed when I read Bill C‑26 that there is a lot of “how” and not a lot of “why”. What is the “why” behind Bill C‑26? In my opinion, there is just one reason why and that is to ensure that citizens can trust in the mechanism that protects them in the area of cybernetics and cyberspace.

Trust is complicated because it is not something that is easily granted. I will use the example given by my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot. I know him and he is conspicuous in his absence, even though I am not allowed to say that. I do not have eyes in the back of my head.

It is pretty easy to build up trust between two individuals. However, trusting an entity, a company or a government is harder. Trust means having peace of mind, without needing supporting evidence. It is difficult to achieve in the public sphere. It is essential, however, and I think that is what Bill C-26 seeks to accomplish.

Trust begins with education and insight. Since this has been explored in speeches throughout the day, I will not dwell on it, but the geopolitical world is changing these days, and the balance of power is shifting. In addition, it is hard to know where the centre is, as I explained a little earlier.

The Canadian government's foreign policy is vague at best. It took years for the government to acknowledge that there was a problem with Huawei. It was the only Five Eyes nation that did not see the inevitable, that did not see the evidence right under its nose.

I am talking about education, but the bill does not contain any provisions for education in cybersecurity. I am talking about education in terms of privacy and facial recognition. Education would help people avoid the temptation to commit the act that we are trying to prohibit here.

We also know that we are stronger together. It is interesting to see who has already thought about these issues. One of our colleagues said that other institutions have thought about this. Yes, there is a concept known as cyber diplomacy, which involves co-operation and dialogue between nations. Moreover, to answer a question that has not been asked, which is the nature of philosophy, the Council of Europe could offer some very interesting answers and solutions in this matter.

This brings me to another question. Despite the many measures, there are quite a few things I do not see in this bill. I do not see measures that would prevent our devices from being taken over by malware, for example, or by a foreign power. Device takeover is something we recently studied at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It is not the stuff of science fiction; it is actually happening now.

Also, I do not see how this bill prevents intellectual property infringement. I could name 200 other things I do not see in this bill, but I will mention just one more. I do not see how we are going to regulate what is known as the dark web. However, the bill names six organizations that will have the power to act as regulators.

However, I would like to ask the following question: Do these organizations have the necessary knowledge to do that? It is not always clear. In previous bills on other subjects, we were told, for example, about the CRTC, which was responsible for implementing some provisions. We saw that the CRTC was an outdated organization. The organizations in question now are not much better.

Cybersecurity is not something that is easy to regulate. That is why it is a good idea to look up and try to see a little further. I agree that the bill is well-intentioned, but intention without courage is meaningless.

A poet that I recently met in Montmartre told me that there is no love, only shows of love. It is the same thing here, except that we are talking about shows of courage, and so I hope that the government will show courage with Bill C‑26 and turn its intentions into action.

Let us send Bill C‑26 to committee as soon as possible.

Federal Framework on Autism Spectrum Disorder Act

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

, seconded by the member for Don Valley East, moved that Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Madam Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to stand here to discuss Bill S-203, which came to us from the Senate. It was unanimously passed by the Senate before it got to us here.

As members know, I do not speak with the authority of someone who has autism. I do not speak with the authority of a scientist and the folks who do unbelievable work, many of them right here in Canada, leading the world in the science around autism. I speak as a father of an incredible young man, very familiar to people this place, named Jaden, who was 10 years old when I was first elected, and last month he turned 27. He is an energetic young man who brightens up this place when he runs around giving people high-fives, as he is so happy and excited to meet folks.

I will probably share a little more from the heart, but I will start with the technical details and touch on what the bill would do.

As was mentioned in the introduction, this is a proposed act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, and I am not going to get into every aspect of it. The bill is just over two pages long, French and English, so it is not super long. Importantly, it leads off with a statement that “The Minister of Health must develop a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.” It then lays out the measures to be provided, which folks can take a look at on the Internet and see the bill there.

Its real strength, I think, is in its accountability mechanisms, and towards the end it talks about the minister. It says, “Within 18 months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the Minister of Health must cause to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the federal framework on autism spectrum disorder developed under section 2.”

Further to that, later on it says:

4 (1) Within five years after the day on which the report referred to in section 3 is tabled in Parliament, the Minister of Health must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report that sets out

(a) the measures from the federal framework that have been implemented and their effectiveness in supporting autistic persons, their families and their caregivers; and

(b) with respect to any measure included in the federal framework that was not implemented, the reason it has not been implemented and the timeline for its implementation.

I think there is a really strong accountability framework.

For anybody who has been working in this area over the years, there is a real impatience right now. It has been many years that we have been talking about a national strategy. However, here we are today, and I think it is an opportunity to move forward, with some of that impatience, yes, but with real hope for the future for people with autism in this country and the people who care about people with autism.

My other hope is that, in addition to whatever strategy the government comes forward with, and there is indication that the government will be coming forward with a strategy maybe even ahead of the timeline outlined in this bill, it will be both substantial and organic. I think part of the problem over the years is that we have been waiting for perfection, waiting for every box to be checked. Therefore, we have had delay after delay. We have to recognize that we are never going to have unanimity, but there is a lot of common ground. If we work together towards that common ground, we will be able to make some progress. Then, through constant consultation with autistic Canadians, scientists and the broader community of families and caregivers, we can make whatever it is that we come up with stronger and stronger all the time.

I have a few thanks to give that are worth mentioning.

First, this bill did come from the Senate, where it was supported unanimously but largely led by Senator Housakos and Senator Boehm. I offer a huge thanks of appreciation to Senator Housakos and Senator Boehm. Also, I would be remiss if I did not thank Senator Jim Munson, now retired from the Senate, who led the charge on this for years and years.

I also want to thank colleagues from all sides of the House. I have been so fortunate over the years as we have worked on these things to have support from my own colleagues. As well, today, this bill is seconded by a Liberal colleague, whom I have had the chance to work with in his previous life when he was on the provincial side of things, more behind the scenes, trying to find some common ground when we could. My experience is that we have had so many people contributing in that way.

I thank everyone who has contributed to Jaden's life: his sister Jenae, his mom Debi, his grandmothers Helen and my mom Bonnie and her husband Dale, and all of the people who have surrounded him over the years.

I am going to turn to the second half of my speech, where that common ground, in my experience, lies. It is pretty straightforward. As we have conversations with people across the country and around the world, there are some really common areas where there is a lot of work that needs to be done and is critical to achieving the best outcomes for autistic people. That is diagnosis and early help. Some people say early intervention or early therapy, whatever it might be, but a good common ground word would be help for people. There is education, employment, housing. The sixth thing that is a little more vague but we all are concerned about is this idea of what happens when we, as parents, are gone. Are we going to have people around our loved ones who are going to care for them like we cared for them? That is a critical question.

Two of the things that I have kind of focused on or learned as I have gone down this path, both through my experience with Jaden and in talking to lots of other stakeholders, particularly autistic people themselves, are the ideas of inclusion and autonomy and what those things mean. If I think about autonomy for Jaden, it is a bit tricky because Jaden has real difficulty with abstract things like danger. Jaden could not have full autonomy because he might run into a street. He loves dogs. He might see a dog and run across the street to grab the dog by the side of its cheeks and pull its face into his face so he can smell the dog's breath, feel the dog licking his face and he would not even be aware of traffic as he is running. There are all sorts of danger awareness issues.

I like to think about maximum autonomy. With Jaden, when I think about maximum autonomy, I think about the fact that too often we are impatient, trying to figure out what he wants or presuming we know what he wants. We do not take the time to really listen to him. What I have learned over time and my advice to loved ones of people with autism is to really try to get down to their level, in a sense. We should not force them into our world, but get down in their world and really take the time to try to understand what they are trying to say.

When Jaden grabs my face and says, “Ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba” super intently, he is trying to tell me something, and it is incumbent on me, as someone who cares for him, to try to understand what he is trying to tell me. That may be through his body language, his facial expressions. Sometimes his skin tone is a little different. Sometimes he is paying attention to and looking at something that is bothering him, like we forgot to grab something that is important to him, such as his iPhone or something like that. He is always trying to communicate something. It is incumbent on us to try to find out what that is if we are going to maximize people's autonomy.

I will talk about inclusion. I talked about maximizing autonomy for Jaden, but we talk about inclusion as well. Full inclusion is a really tricky concept. Not every fully inclusive situation is perfect in every scenario for every single person, but that goes for us as well. There may be things that we do not prefer or ways that we prefer things to be that are not the same as everybody else wants.

As we look at inclusion, I think about inclusion in Jaden's case. Jaden was included in a regular classroom, but he was not included in the same way as every other kid by himself in that classroom. He had an assistant with him. It is a bit different, a modification to help him mitigate some of the challenges he had, but he was in a regular classroom from kindergarten to grade 12.

That regular classroom really served him well. He surprised a lot of people. He had kids around him who really saw what he was good at and because they paid attention to what he was good at, they had a chance to realize that oftentimes his abilities surprised them. They were beyond what they might have thought. They had a chance to get to know him because they were in his classroom, and they challenged him.

For him, that was being included in a musical theatre production in grade 10. He was first in a group scene in grade 10, but then he again outperformed expectations, so in grade 11 they gave him a few more scenes. They put him in some sort of dance routines and things like that and taught him to do those things.

Then in grade 12 they did another performance, and one of the girls in the class asked if Jaden could be her partner, her husband, in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. She modified all of the routines to make it look like he was doing exactly what everyone else was doing. That is what inclusion looks like. That is what maximum inclusion looks like. It is people getting to know people and then challenging them. It is embracing their skills and abilities and helping them with their challenges, just like all of us need in this place.

We have so many people who are here to help us in that regard. Not all of us can draft perfect policies, so we have people working in the House of Commons who help us with that from time to time. There are all sorts of those things. We have translators who translate, because not all of us are perfectly bilingual. We are all challenged with something. For people with autism, it is no different from that.

I am going to close by telling a story I tell at the end of my presentations. I do presentations around the world about how we define normal.

About 10 years ago, we had a chance to do an interview. My daughter was 13 at the time and Jaden was about 17, and we had this chance to do an interview with Steve Paikin. Anyone who has done an interview with Steve Paikin, and there are a few of those people in this world, know he can ask some tough questions sometimes. He gave Jenae a heads-up that he would ask her a tough question in the interview, but he had not given her a heads-up as to what it was going to be. He asked her if she sometimes wished her brother was “normal”, like every other kid. He said, “quote, unquote”. He knows Jaden and he knows Jenae as we had done interviews with him before.

Jenae, without skipping a beat, at 13 years old said, “Well, honestly, since Jaden was diagnosed with autism before I was born, I don't exactly know what a normal brother is like, so Jaden kind of is my normal, having autism.” Steve pressed her and asked, “Do you like him just the way he is?” She responded, “Honestly, if Jaden didn't have autism or was, like, cured or something, he wouldn't be the same as Jaden is now.” At 13 years old, as a sister, she said that.

When I am talking to students and am talking about this in front of 500 introduction to psychology students, or whatever the case is, I will point out that in Jenae's case, she did not have a choice. She was born into the family and Jaden was already there, so her normal was kind of set out for her. However, the school they went to from K to 12 had a choice, and it chose to include Jaden in the classroom.

At the time, we thought that was better for Jaden, but every single kid he graduated with, every single kid who was in that school with him, would say their life was immeasurably better because Jaden was included in their class. They learned so much. When they move forward in their lives, the diversity of knowledge they have is so different.

I often like to think of my life and my normal and how we define it. It is almost like, and bear with me here, a video game character. Think of a video game character and imagine a circle as long as we can see, and that is our video game character, and we walk around and experience things in that bubble. Sometimes that is what our life is like. I am 53 years old. My life is like 53 years of walking around in that bubble. Sometimes a TV screen or a computer monitor comes into that world and shows me something from the outside, but that is my normal.

If that circle only included people just like me, first of all, my weaknesses would be the same as other people's weaknesses, so nobody would be there to compensate. Also, my strengths would not be strengths because everybody would have the same strengths. Our world, our normal, is better when we are surrounded by people who come from different backgrounds and who have different experiences. To the extent that we grasp that and include all Canadians in our experiences, our workplaces, housing, education systems and in everything else, we are all going to be better off for it.

I look forward to hopefully passing this bill and creating this better world for all Canadians.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I extend sincere congratulations to my colleague. This has been an issue the two of us, and others, have talked about so many, many times. It gives me great pleasure to stand here and congratulate you and ask you about timelines, because I do believe our government is quite supportive. Could you elaborate a bit on your expectations on the timelines you are looking for to move forward with this framework?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address the question through the Speaker. She might want to use the word “him” as opposed to “you”.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill lays out a time frame of 18 months for a report. Hopefully, we are going to move this bill forward faster than would normally be scheduled. I am hoping debate will collapse tonight and we will be able to save some time to get it to committee and then move forward even faster.

As for a timeline, my hope, and she can probably play a role in this as a member of the Liberal caucus, is to encourage the government to move forward with a national strategy, which I know is being worked on right now, as quickly as we can, so we can put all of this energy to work with this collaborative vibe we have going on in the House right now to benefit these folks who really, really can use the help.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very moving speech.

In my personal experience, I had the good fortune of being involved with a magnificent youth hostel, and the people who helped us during the day were people on the autism spectrum. What a fantastic experience it was. It opened my eyes to the need to include them.

My question is the following. In Quebec, we have so many good initiatives. Is my colleague open to referring the bill to committee to benefit from all the good things happening for people with autism in Quebec's health and social services system?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I totally understand the jurisdictional issues that sometimes the members of the Bloc have to grapple with, but I have had great conversations with colleagues from my hon. friend's party. We look forward to getting it to committee and hearing from experts from across the country.

The whole point of a national strategy is that we benefit from the very best evidence, from the very best experiences that folks are having not only across the country, but around the world. In a sense, we inhale that information and use it to our benefit. Then, as we gather that information, we can almost exhale it to the community for its benefit. It is almost like breathing. We constantly, with every breath, get stronger and better. That is what we want to do, and getting it to committee is a huge part of that process.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his ongoing advocacy for autistic Canadians. I really appreciated his comments.

I was hoping he could expand on two points that he touched on briefly. One is how we ensure this piece of legislation adheres to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. The second is the need for tangible investments to improve the services and supports for autistic Canadians, families, service providers and caregivers.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am loving these questions from all sides. They are hitting the nail on the head. They indicate there is a real understanding of what needs to happen.

The “nothing about us without us” conversation is something that I think we continue to get better at, but we have a long way to go. It is a challenge. There is a segment of the autistic population that is able to clearly communicate what it is like to have autism. There are other people on the autism spectrum in Canada for whom it is a bit more difficult to communicate, but I think that we are all learning that we have a long way to go to include those voices.

I have one more quick comment on that. What is very important is that we make sure we are including indigenous Canadians with autism in that conversation as well, because I think they have been under-represented in many of the conversations over time.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member has been very active on this file for a long time domestically and internationally, what advice can he give from seeing what is happening in other parts of the world to make this bill better and stronger?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will say this. As I have travelled the world and talked to people, we are doing better in Canada and North America than in many parts of the world. We have a lot to offer in terms of knowledge and we have a lot to learn in terms of knowledge, but if we get this right, we can export the knowledge that we have to other parts of the world, sharing and having conversations about how we make life better for everyone. I think this is a real opportunity for us to take a leadership role at a global level on inclusion.