Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 55
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-23 14:00 [p.7233]
Mr. Speaker, 37 years ago day, Air India Flight 182, operating on the Montreal-London-Delhi-Mumbai route, was blown up mid-air from a bomb planted by Canadian extremists. It killed all 329 passengers and crew members, including 268 Canadian citizens. The bombing of this Air India flight is the largest mass killing in Canadian history. It was the deadliest act of aviation terrorism in the world until 9/11.
Canada is a pluralistic country, and we honour the fallen. In this National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism, my sympathies are with the families of the victims, who still experience pain.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-15 14:02 [p.6721]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and thank several City of Ottawa officials who are not seeking re-election in the coming fall election.
Our mayor, His Worship Jim Watson, with whom I worked on the board of Invest Ottawa, has promoted affordable housing, tourism and the knowledge-based sector in Ottawa. Councillor Jan Harder has contributed tremendously to the development of present-day Barrhaven. Councillor Keith Egli, as the chair of the Ottawa Board of Health, has played a key role during the pandemic. Councillor Scott Moffatt, with his family’s 200-year history in his ward, has always been an influential voice for our rural population.
I want to thank them all for their co-operative relationship with me during the last seven years. On behalf of the residents of Nepean and Ottawa, I wish them all the very best in their future endeavours.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 21:36 [p.6377]
Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the investments mentioned in the budget that we are making in the defence and security of our country.
Before I get into specific issues, I would like to mention two things: first, the importance of defence and security industries from the economic point of view; and, second, how Ottawa, as a city, is very well placed to be the hub of companies involved in the ISR, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, segments of the defence and security industries.
The Canadian defence and security industries are an essential service and a critical sector in Canada’s economy. These companies are highly innovative, export intensive and provide high-wage employment. These companies export 54% of their total sales. These companies provide employment to 64,000 people whose salaries are about 60% above the average Canadian manufacturing salaries.
During the last couple of decades, we have seen most of our manufacturing jobs outsourced to low-cost manufacturing countries across the world, but the jobs and manufacturing facilities of Canadian defence and security industries will never be outsourced. Also, for the U.S. defence purchases, which run into hundreds of billions of dollars every year, Canadian companies are considered to be U.S. domestic companies, offering a huge advantage to the Canadian defence and security industries.
Ottawa, as a hub, can be home to ISR companies, similar to hundreds of small companies around Washington, D.C. and the Annapolis beltway. Also, we are just few hours away from the centre of defence establishment in the U.S. We already have several companies in defence and security industries in Ottawa today. We also have Defence Research and Development Canada. Decision-makers on technology and procurements are also located here. All of these make Ottawa an ideal location for promoting it as the hub for ISR industries.
Canada is geographically well placed, with the powerful and friendly United States as our neighbour, who also is our major economic partner. The physical security threats to the country from outside our borders are minimal, and Canada was never worried much about physically protecting our land.
National defence is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. In addition to protecting Canada from international threats and defending our sovereignty, the Canadian Armed Forces play an important role in making the world a safer place.
Budget 2022 recognized those challenges and proposed new action to respond to them. It invested in Canada’s defence capabilities, and in the alliances that will ensure a strong and coordinated global response to the ongoing challenges that the world faces today. Based on recent events and the changing global environment, the government acknowledged the requirement to reassess Canada’s role, priorities and needs in the face of a changing world.
Budget 2022 announced a defence policy review to allow Canada to update its existing 2017 defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. In my view, merely updating the current policy is not enough. There has been a paradigm shift in the kinds of threats facing our country.
First, we have cybersecurity threats, including those that come from foreign actors, that target Canadians, Canadian businesses and our critical infrastructure. As Canadians grow more dependent on digital systems, the potential consequences of cyber-incidents continue to increase, and Canada needs to be ready.
Second, we have the spread of misinformation and disinformation that is directly challenging the stability of even the most long-standing democracies. Foreign threats to democracy, including state-sponsored disinformation, which is misinformation that is deliberately targeted to deceive people, have continued to grow amidst rising geopolitical tensions, a global pandemic and the rapid evolution of technology.
Third is biological threats that know no boundaries. The nature and severity of biological threats has grown in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potentially catastrophic impacts of a deliberate biological event. Concerns are growing that the pandemic's unprecedented scale and reach could inspire terrorists to turn to biological weapons. United Nations Secretary-General Guterres has understood this threat. He warned:
The weaknesses and lack of preparedness exposed by this pandemic provide a window onto how a bioterrorist attack might unfold – and may increase its risks. Non-state groups could gain access to virulent strains that could pose similar devastation to societies around the globe.
The threat due to domestic terrorism is on the rise due to increasing hate and due to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. During the latest occupy movement, the cross-border connections between the extremist groups were alarming. Based on these threats, in my view, merely updating the current policy is not enough. We need a change in our approach to national security. We need a unified approach to defence. We need a unified approach between all government departments to seamlessly share the information for a unified response. We need a unified command to address the modern needs of security.
The existing policy document, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, stated:
This policy is deliberately ambitious and focuses, first and foremost, on the heart of the Canadian Armed Forces – the brave women and men who wear the uniform.
We know how this worked out.
The document was geared more toward the big-ticket items like ships and fighter aircraft, which, while important, do not address the major threat that Canada and Canadians are facing.
In the current policy document, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, which is 113 pages long, the word “misinformation” is mentioned only once. Similarly, the word “disinformation” is also mentioned only once. Also in this policy, the investment in cybersecurity was under “Joint Capabilities”. It was grouped with IT and communications, signal intelligence, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive detection and response capabilities. All of these had just a $4.6-billion investment over 20 years out of about $164 billion in proposed spending.
We should stop saying threats involving guns and bullets or ships and fighter planes from foreigners invading our land and sea are the only responsibility of the Canadian Armed Forces; or that cybersecurity threats are the responsibility of the Communications Security Establishment alone; or that biological threats should be handled by the Public health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces role is limited to providing a few medics; or that threats posed by misinformation and disinformation are the responsibility of maybe Canadian Heritage or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; or that the threat from domestic terrorism is the responsibility of the RCMP, CSIS and local law enforcement agencies.
We should stop compartmentalizing the threats and divide the responsibility. We need to act cohesively.
We need generals who have a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence and other leading technologies. We need generals with a Ph.D. in biology. We need to completely start afresh and come up with a comprehensive strategy and policy. The existing policy document “Strong, Secure, Engaged” focused on a $164-billion investment in procurement of traditional assets and tools, including ships, fighter aircraft, etc.
When we review this policy, it may be a good idea where the new high-technology companies are going. As an example, a Silicon Valley company called Anduril is succeeding commercially in transforming the U.S. and allied military capabilities with advanced technology. It says that the next generation of military technology will depend less on advances in shipbuilding and aircraft design than on advances in software engineering and computing. Unlike traditional defence contractors who focus primarily on hardware, its core system is an autonomous sense-making and command and control platform that serves as the core platform for its suite of capabilities.
Ideas are turned into deployed capabilities in months, not years, saving the government and taxpayers money along the way. The company combines military veterans with engineers who are experts in artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced sensors, secure networking, aerospace, virtual reality technology, aircraft modelling and simulation. We should look at companies like this to see what is happening elsewhere and where the defence systems are going.
I would like to quote extensively from the report, “A National Security Strategy for the 2020s”, prepared by the Task Force on National Security and the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.
It said:
We are living in a time of intense global instability when the security of Canada and other liberal democracies is under growing threat. An increasingly aggressive Russia is only one of a series of threats, both old and new, that endanger national security in Canada. It exemplifies the worrying re-emergence of great-power rivalry. It also interacts with or amplifies other threats, such as the use of new technologies to wage cyber-warfare, an increase in ideological extremism at home and abroad, attacks on democratic institutions, and transnational threats such as climate change and pandemics. We witnessed a different constellation of such threats in the protests that blocked border crossings and disrupted Canada's capital in early 2022. Where once the state was the focus of these threats, individuals and societies have also become targets.
When these and other threats reach the scale and potential to endanger what matters most to us as a country - our people, our democratic values and institutions, our economy, our society and our sovereignty - Canadians expect their government to protect them. Yet Canadians and their governments rarely take national security seriously. Taking shelter under the American umbrella has worked well for us.... We have not experienced a direct violent attack against our citizens in recent memory on the same scale as some of our allies, with the last major one being the Air India attack of 1985. This has made us complacent and paved the way for our neglect of national security....
Our peers, including our partners in the Five Eyes partnership (Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are reacting to this rapidly changing situation by revamping policies, identifying new tools and authorities, reforming institutions, devoting new resources to security and seeking new partnerships. They possess not only a deeper appreciation of the threats facing the West but also a more sophisticated national security culture writ large.
The report makes the case that Canada is not ready to face this new world. As a country, it says we urgently need to rethink national security.
The best part of the report is that the core recommendations do not require massive amounts of new spending, but, rather, focus on making better use of the tools we already have and improving co-operation among key partners.
The report makes recommendations in four broad categories.
Number one is to develop new strategies. Canada needs a national security strategy that reflects today’s realities. We can no longer count on some of the traditional pillars that have guaranteed our security and prosperity for decades. The essential first step is to hold a public review of national security. A thorough and transparent review would help inform the public, highlight priorities, identify the policies and tools required to address them, and point to the required changes to governance. In reviewing its national security strategy, the government should also take a hard look at whether its foreign, defence and development policies are adequate. This does not mean an isolated update in each case, but a holistic approach that examines all our national security assets in a coordinated fashion.
Number two is to strengthen existing tools and create new ones. Canada must build new tools and make better use of existing ones to deal with this diversifying and intensifying range of threats. More specifically, Canada should invest more in the following areas: sharing information within government, sharing information with other levels of government, reviewing outdated legislation, enhancing the use of open-source intelligence, strengthening cybersecurity, protecting economic security, guarding against foreign interference, and deterring organized crime and money laundering.
Number three is to enhance governance. Canada needs to rethink its national security governance framework: how decisions are made, policies developed and information shared.
Number four is to increase transparency and engagement. Many Canadians today mistrust government. This has major implications for national security. This erosion of trust opens space for misinformation and disinformation to spread, which weakens democratic institutions and contributes to a vacuum that hostile actors do not hesitate to fill. In this context, the national security community’s tradition of secrecy is outdated and counterproductive. As such, the report strongly recommends that the national security community’s recent engagement efforts be significantly ramped up, both with the public, including civil society, the private sector, the media and academia, and with Parliament. The community, moreover, must continue and intensify its efforts to increase diversity within its ranks.
It has been over 15 years since we produced a national security or foreign policy statement. We have not seriously reviewed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act since CSIS was established in 1984. We need to have an integrated approach involving the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Public Health Agency of Canada and other agencies dealing with defence and security.
I will conclude with a quote from Alex Deep. In his article “Hybrid War: Old Concept, New Techniques”, in the Small Wars Journal, he mentions that we need “an adaptable and versatile military” to overcome the complex threats posed by the modern hybrid war, which combines all the conventional and irregular components.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 21:58 [p.6380]
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, in 2017 we had a policy document, but things have changed tremendously in the last five years. Misinformation and disinformation, while not a major factor five or six years back, have now become a major factor. We did not have the pandemic then, but now this pandemic has shown that a man-made virus could create havoc throughout the entire world. These are the reasons why the government has said, rightly so, that we are going to review the policy and update the existing policy document.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 22:00 [p.6380]
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had read the budget, he would know that there is an entire chapter on this. Not only has $8 billion been invested on the basis of the policy that was published in 2017, but I can go on to read what the government has announced in investments.
The government has provided $875 million to address the cyber-threat landscape, based on Canada's first comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. On misinformation and disinformation, the government has provided $13.4 million for the G7 rapid response mechanism. The government has provided $10 million for the Privy Council Office to coordinate, develop, and implement government-wide measures designed to combat disinformation and protect our democracy. The government has also provided $385 million for IRCC and CSIS, plus the—
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 22:02 [p.6381]
Madam Speaker, in fact, that is the entire big mistake, what the member is doing. It is not the responsibility of one minister; it is a whole-of-government approach. If he had listened to what I was saying, he would know I said that we need a coordinated, comprehensive policy to tackle the new threats Canada is facing, which were not there five or 10 years back.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 22:02 [p.6381]
Madam Speaker, absolutely, if the member had taken some time to read the budget, there is a whole chapter on this. As I mentioned, there are many investments on many different levels that deal with the defence of our country and the security aspects of our country. Every single one of these things has been derived from the budget.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 22:04 [p.6381]
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague, and everything I talked about is part of Bill C-19.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 22:05 [p.6381]
Madam Speaker, I take offence at the remark asking whether I wrote the speech. In fact, I spent quite a number of hours today preparing for the speech and have read so many documents, including the recent document on national security that was published by the University of Ottawa and the major leading experts on security and defence of our country. I completely take offence at these comments.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-08 22:06 [p.6381]
Madam Speaker, that is a very important question.
The child care policy across Canada is very important because it equalizes everybody from coast to coast to coast. We have signed agreements with every single political party, from the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario to the Liberals in Atlantic Canada to the Conservative government in the west to the NDP government in B.C. Every provincial government has joined. That will give much-needed support to middle-class families who are burdened with the very high cost of child care. Child care at $10 a day is a boon to most middle-class families.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-06-06 14:01 [p.6129]
Madam Speaker, many Canadians are working in support of the human rights of the Palestinian people and for the peaceful resolution of the issues.
I would like to recognize and thank Burhan Shahrouri, Jamal Hamed, Dr. Habib Khoury and Rula Sharida of Association of Palestinian Arab Canadians; Thomas Woodley of CJPME; Councillor Yousef Barakat of Canada Arab Forum of British Columbia; Rashad Saleh and Nabil Nassar of Arab Palestine Association of Ontario; Corey Balsam of the Independent Jewish Voices Canada; Dr. Mohamad Abu Awad and Dr. Tarek Khalefih of Canadian Palestinian Professional Foundation; and Mousa Zaidan of the Coalition of Canadian Palestinian Organizations.
I once again call for Canada to recognize the sovereign state of Palestine.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-05-30 14:09
Mr. Speaker, this Canadian Jewish Heritage Month I would like to recognize and celebrate Jewish culture, heritage and history in Canada. Jewish Canadians have made and continue to make important contributions to the socio-economic development of Canada. I would like to recognize and thank Rabbi Mendel Blum of Ottawa Torah Centre and the leadership team at Congregation Beit Tikvah of Ottawa for their services to the Jewish community and beyond in Ottawa.
I would like to recognize and thank Andrea Freedman of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa for her services to the Jewish Canadian community. I also would like to recognize and thank Corey Balsam for his hard work representing Independent Jewish Voices Canada.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-05-19 14:06
[Member spoke in Kannada and provided the following translation:]
Mr. Speaker, I feel happy for the opportunity to speak in my mother tongue, Kannada, in Canada’s Parliament. For a person from Dwaralu village in Sira taluk in the Tumkur district of Karnataka state, India, getting elected as a member of Parliament in Canada and speaking in Kannada is a proud moment for about 50 million Kannadigas.
In 2018, Canadian Kannadigas celebrated Kannada Rajyostava, or state day, in Canada’s Parliament.
I close my statement with a few words of emotion poetry written by national poet Kuvempu and sung by the emperor of actors, Dr. Rajkumar: “Wherever you are, whatever you are, be a Kannadiga.”
[English]
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2022-05-12 12:28
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.
The Conservative opposition day motion we are debating today has two points I agree with, while I completely disagree with the objective of the motion to appoint a special committee to examine and review all aspects of the Canada-China relationship.
While it is good to have opportunities to review Canada’s relationships with any country so that we can find ways to improve or further strengthen our relationships in a positive way, the objective of this motion is to establish a platform that provides for further degrading Canada’s relationship with China. This motion is designed to provide a stage for harsh and one-sided critics of China. There are things about China that we can and should criticize. I do not foresee any positive outcomes from this proposed committee.
Before I talk about the negative implications of having this committee, let me mention the points I agree with. First, the motion states that Canadians of Chinese descent have made immeasurable contributions to Canada. Absolutely, yes. Our wonderful country, Canada, is an ongoing success story of a nation with extraordinary cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity.
I would like to recognize and appreciate the important contributions that Chinese Canadians have made and continue to make to Canada’s socio-economic, political and cultural heritage. The history of Chinese Canadians goes back as far as the 1700s, but the big movement started in the late 19th century. The road has not always been smooth. Chinese Canadians faced and continue to face discrimination.
If this motion passes and the committee is established, I foresee increased negative perception about Chinese Canadians in our country. In spite of the historical discrimination they have faced, Chinese Canadians, with hard work and determination, have built on the opportunities our wonderful country offers and have been successful in every aspect of society, in the arts, sciences, sports, business and government. To put it simply, Chinese Canadians have made big contributions in building a dynamic and prosperous Canada.
The second point the motion makes that I agree with is that the people of China are part of an ancient civilization that has contributed much to humanity. Again, yes, absolutely. China is a country with a 5,000-year-old civilization. Chinese people have contributed greatly to many fields during their long recorded history. Some of the greatest inventions that have been momentous contributions of the Chinese people to world civilization include papermaking, printing, gunpowder and the compass.
Other than these two points, everything else in this motion aims to design a platform for degrading Canada-China relations, and negatively contributes to Canada’s interests.
If this committee is established, I expect, first, an increased negative perception about Chinese Canadians in our country. We have seen anti-Asian racism on the increase in recent times. The kind of rhetoric I have heard before, and which I am sure will be repeated again in the committee, would lead only to increased negative perceptions of about 1.8 million Canadians who form over 5% of the population.
The second negative effect, if this committee is formed, is further deterioration of our relationship with one of our major trading partners, thus affecting our businesses. China is one of our major trading partners. Canadian exports to China in 2021 were worth about $29 billion. Canadian imports from China were worth about $86 billion.
In addition to low-tech, mundane products, China is also a major technology and high-end products supplier to the world, from telecom equipment to batteries for electric vehicles. China is also a manufacturing base for many products our industries need.
The proponents of this motion appear to be in a make-believe world with no China. Make no mistake, China is and will continue to be a major economy in the world. Canadian businesses need a smooth trading relationship with China, but the end results of this motion, if successful, will achieve anything but that.
The third outcome, if this committee is formed, is the negative impact on the flow of Canada’s most valuable and precious resource requirement, which is immigrants with knowledge, expertise and skills. China, for a long time, has been an important source of our skilled immigrants.
Highly trained Chinese immigrants have become a significant part of our growing knowledge-based economy. While I do not expect a dramatic slowdown in new Canadians from China, the harsh rhetoric will certainly act as a dampener in our efforts to recruit the best and brightest brains as immigrants to Canada.
The fourth negative issue, if this motion is successful, is a further fall in new technology-trained international students from China and a further decline in the numbers of these highly skilled students who become permanent residents and later citizens.
In the growing knowledge-based economy, it is not natural resources that give us prosperity or a competitive edge. It is the knowledge, expertise and skills of the younger generation that can continue to keep us prosperous. In the digital economy, it is the bright, young graduates of today who give us the competitive edge.
China has been a major source of international students, and while China remains the second-largest source for international students to Canada, the trend is declining. It was about 10% less in 2021. The decline began in 2019 and increased due to the pandemic. The anti-China bullhorn diplomacy will only add to the current problem.
Is China perfect? No. China ignores the desire of the people of Taiwan, who have established themselves as an economically successful entity with a vibrant democracy. China has erased the culture and heritage of minorities in its land and the distinctive identities of Tibetans and Uighurs, and we have legitimate concerns for the people in Hong Kong.
As one expert put it, China is neither as benevolent as it claims nor as malicious as it is criticized for being. Let me mention what Jeremy Paltiel, a China expert at Carleton University, said in an article on Global News on May 8, 2021. He said that to see China in the context of “friend or foe” is an overly simplistic approach. “I think that’s a false dichotomy,” he said. “China can be both different and not an enemy.” This nuanced understanding helps countries like Canada that are grappling with thorny issues, including human rights.
The key to a successful Canada-China relationship is to be mindful of the differences without necessarily agreeing with or accepting them. Understanding is not the same thing as pardoning. “We have to be able to find a way of talking across difference without defining 'difference' as being 'enemy',” Paltiel says. “And if we can’t do that, we can’t live in a diverse world.”
To conclude, this motion is not in the interest of Canada and Canadians. Testifying before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations in the previous parliament, the former Canadian foreign affairs minister and the member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount mentioned a four Cs approach of Canada to its relationship with China: compete, co-operate, challenge and coexist.
He stated, “China is rapidly becoming a global influence with which all countries must learn to coexist. That means that we must recognize situations in which it is necessary to cooperate with China.” He continued, “[I]t also means that we are competing with China when it comes to trade and to promoting our values. It also implies challenging China when human rights are violated or Canadian citizens and interests are jeopardized.”
However, the objective of the proponents of this motion is not to add value or have a meaningful discussion, but to degrade the relationship between Canada and China—
Results: 1 - 15 of 55 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data