adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

When a suspected Chinese spy balloon flew over Canada, why didn’t we shoot it down?

Published

 on

Amid all the suspicion and intrigue that’s been swirling around the Chinese spy balloon are questions related specifically to the time it was flying in Canadian airspace.

The balloon was first sighted Jan. 28 as it flew over Alaska, according to U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, and it flew ovethe Yukon and B.C.’s Interior before returning to American airspace over Montana.

Some Canadians — including opposition party members and CBC readers — have questioned why this country didn’t act sooner, why we didn’t shoot it down ourselves, and whether Canada’s military was even capable of doing so.

Should Canada have acted when it flew into Canadian airspace?

The short answer, according to military experts, is no.

“To say that, oh, Canada should have shot this balloon down on its own — that’s just silly,” said University of Calgary history professor and military historian David Bercuson.

“That just completely ignores the fact that NORAD exists that we’re part of it and have been part of it for almost 80 years now.”

Trails from an aircraft are shown in the sky, along with a white object.
The remnants of the balloon drift above the Atlantic Ocean, just off the coast of South Carolina, with a fighter jet and its contrail seen below it, on Feb. 4. (Submitted by Chad Fish/The Associated Press)

NORAD is the North American Aerospace Defense Command, responsible for aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning.

Retired major general Scott Clancy, who at one point served as deputy commander of the Alaskan NORAD Region, says while each country has sovereignty over its airspaces, “the binational command of NORAD is both Canada and the United States. It’s not one or the other.”

He said any decision to act within Canadian airspace would be the purview of the Canadian government, and the NORAD agreement makes NORAD an executor of that decision making.

So in this case, Clancy says as soon as the balloon was identified over Alaska, Canada would have been informed by the commander of NORAD, who would inform “the hierarchies — political and military — of both governments in the United States and Canada simultaneously.”

And the decision as to how to react, he said, would be a “balance between intelligence and operational security and public safety.”

NORAD commander U.S. Gen. Glen VanHerck said there was some action taken when the balloon was over Canada.

“There was some speculation about a second one,” he told reporters during a briefing Monday. “I launched NORAD fighters, Canadian CF-18s, and we were not able to corroborate any additional balloon.”

Why was the balloon allowed to fly in North American airspace for as long as it did?

Both Clancy, the retired NORAD deputy commander, and Bercuson say that once the balloon was deemed not to pose any tactical threat to people on the ground, it actually offered up an opportunity for Canadians and Americans to gather important information.

“Just having the balloon move across the country was an opportunity to watch it and gather our own intelligence about how it was doing — and what it was doing,” Clancy said.

NORAD commander VanHerck confirmed the move was strategic in the same Monday briefing.

“This gave us the opportunity to assess what they were actually doing, what kind of capabilities existed on the balloon, what kind of transmission capabilities existed,” he said.

VanHerck did not elaborate on what they were able to learn, but Clancy says it could have included insight into their uses of technology.

“It would be very interesting to know the kind of emission devices that were sending information back to China from this balloon,” Clancy said. “I think that’s going to be very indicative of some things.”

And, said Clancy, allowing the balloon to continue to drift helped keep China a bit in the dark.

“In the early days, the predominant factor at play was trying to allow this to play out so that the Chinese did not know whether or not NORAD knew of — NORAD being the United States and Canada — knew of the presence of this balloon in Canadian and U.S. airspace,” he said.

Head shot of man wearing a button down shirt and dark sweater
Retired major general Scott Clancy once served as deputy commander of the Alaskan NORAD Region. He says the decision on whether to shoot down the balloon would have been a ‘balance between intelligence and operational security and public safety.’ (Trevor Godinho)

Bercuson agreed, saying China didn’t just want to make sure the North Americans saw the balloon — it wanted to know how they would react to seeing it.

“They don’t just want to take pictures of missile fields in Montana, for example. They want to know how we’re responding. How good is our technology to respond to the existence of this balloon,” he said.

Bercuson says as it has become clear that this was not the first such balloon China has deployed, the Chinese were likely saying to themselves, “well, that clearly they’re not picking this stuff up, so why not keep doing it until they do?”

A map of North America is shown, charting the balloon's trajectory.
A map shows the trajectory of the balloon over North America. The specific duration it was over Canadian airspace is not yet clear. (The Associated Press)

VanHerck did admit in his comments Monday that this was not the first time this kind of surveillance balloon had flown over North America and that such balloons evaded detection by North America’s aging early warning system in the past because of a “domain awareness gap” that has since been closed.

While VanHerck didn’t elaborate on that “gap,” Clancy says it might have been that the radar systems poised to detect threats are set to ignore data that is below a certain airspeed.

“When humans are looking at those screens it is impossible to pick out threats from all the rest of the data without some filters to screen out unwanted contacts,” he clarified in a later email, adding that NORAD may have closed the gap by adding enhanced data processing on top of the existing radar systems in order to pull out the data at these low airspeeds to recognize it as an actual contact.

U.S. President Joe Biden on Saturday said he told the Pentagon on Wednesday to shoot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon as soon as possible. On Saturday, the balloon was downed over the Atlantic Ocean.

Was the plan always to shoot it down over water?

U.S. President Joe Biden said that he gave the order to shoot down the balloon on Feb. 1, and it was eventually shot down off the coast of South Carolina on Feb. 4.

A big part of the decision of where to do it had to do with the sheer size of the balloon.

VanHerck said the balloon was 200 feet tall — or about 60 metres — with a payload he characterized as “a jetliner type of size” weighing “in excess of a couple thousand pounds” or at least 900 kilograms.

The debris field was expected to be about 1,500 metres by 1,500 metres.

But Clancy said, had the balloon posed an imminent threat, assessments about bringing it down sooner over land would have been made.

Would Canada’s fighter jets have had the capability to shoot the balloon down?

The operating altitude of Canada’s CF-18 Hornet fighter jets is 50,000 feet (15,000 metres), while Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said the balloon had been flying at about 60,000 feet (18,000 metres) — potentially out of range for those jets.

Some CBC readers have raised concerns that Canada wouldn’t have been able to take action against it had the balloon been a threat.

Not an issue, according to Bercuson. He says one of the main points of NORAD is that Canadian and U.S. military aircraft need not seek permission every time they need to fly over each other’s territory.

“So once the decision was made that this thing would be shot down,” he said, “if we didn’t have the capability of doing it, the Americans would do it.”

Head shot of a man with glasses
University of Calgary history professor David Bercuson says to suggest Canada should have shot down the balloon itself — or even question whether it could have — ignores Canada’s involvement in NORAD. (Submitted by David Bercuson)

What does this incident say about our overall security?

Opposition parties also wanted to know why Canadians didn’t even find out about the balloon until it had already left Canadian airspace and what’s now being done to prevent and punish Chinese espionage efforts.

“It is high time the government took action to counter Chinese influence and modernize Canada’s defence systems,” Bloc Québécois defence critic Christine Normandin said in a statement in French.

National Defence Department spokesperson Jessica Lamirande said the decision about when to tell Canadians was a joint one.

“While the object was moving, analysis ruled out the possibility the balloon posed an imminent threat and further steps were taken to analyze it in collaboration with the U.S. and NORAD,” she said in an email.

“Through this collaboration, Canada and the U.S. jointly decided to publicize the presence of the balloon at an appropriate time, taking into account operational security.”

Close up shot of a small boat with about 8 people on board, pulling a large white item out of the water.
Sailors assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group 2 recover the balloon Feb. 5 from the waters off South Carolina. (U.S. Fleet Forces/U.S. Navy/Reuters)

As for modernizing NORAD, historian Bercuson couldn’t agree more. “Of course we have to upgrade NORAD,” he said, “we’ve known it for a long time.” But he says governments have been reluctant to do so.

“So now we’re going to have to because we know that the Chinese have been doing this, have clearly gotten away with it,” he said.

“So, okay, do we want them patrolling our skies, taking pictures, listening to our signals or tapping into our conversations? Well, I would think we wouldn’t want them to know that.”

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Indian diplomats ‘clearly on notice’ after high commissioner expulsion: Joly

Published

 on

OTTAWA – Canada isn’t ruling out expelling additional diplomats from India, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly suggested Friday following bombshell allegations that Indian diplomats in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver were involved in state-sponsored violence targeting Canadian citizens.

Canada expelled the Indian high commissioner and five other diplomats on Monday and when asked at a news conference in Montreal Friday if any more expulsions would follow Joly did not say no.

“They’re clearly on notice,” she said.

The minister said that Canada will not tolerate any foreign diplomats that put the lives of Canadians at risk.

A year ago Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada had clear evidence that Indian agents were connected to the murder of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia in June 2023. The allegations suggest India is trying to snuff out a movement to create an independent Sikh state in India known as Khalistan.

On Oct. 14, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme rocked the diplomatic relationship further, saying the national police force had launched a special investigative unit last February to investigate multiple cases of extortion, coercion and violence, including murder, linked to agents of the Indian government.

In more than a dozen cases, Canadian citizens were warned about threats to their personal safety and Duheme said the national police force was speaking out to try and disrupt what it deemed a serious threat to public safety.

The six diplomats expelled are persons of interest in the cases, with allegations that diplomats used their position to collect information on Canadians in the pro-Khalistan movement and then pass that on to criminal gangs who targeted the individuals directly.

India has denied the allegations and expelled six Canadian diplomats from New Delhi in return.

Joly said Friday the allegations were extraordinary in Canada.

“That level of transnational repression cannot happen on Canadian soil,” she said. “We’ve seen it elsewhere in Europe, Russia has done that in Germany and the U.K., but we needed to stand firm on this issue.”

The allegations will be studied in more detail by the House of Commons national security committee following a vote by the committee Friday. Joly and Duheme will both be asked to appear, as will Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc

NDP MP Alistair MacGregor, who put forward the motion to launch the study, said the fact the RCMP came out with such “explosive revelations” underscores how serious the situation is.

“The RCMP made a point that they were doing this because some individuals in Canada had their lives directly in danger and the threat reached such a level they felt compelled to ignore the traditional way of going through the judicial process and make these accusations public,” he said.

Canada’s allegations were followed Thursday by charges announced by the U.S. Justice Department against an Indian government employee who is accused in an alleged foiled plot to kill a Sikh separatist leader living in New York City.

U.S. authorities say Vikash Yadav directed the New York plot from India. He faces murder-for-hire charges in a planned killing that prosecutors have previously said was meant to precede a string of other politically motivated murders in the United States and Canada.

The Indian government didn’t immediately provide comment on the U.S. charge.

American-Canadian lawyer Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a lawyer and dual Canadian and U.S. citizen, said in a statement that he was the target of the alleged murder plot in New York. He said he was targeted because he is a lawyer for Sikhs for Justice and was helping to organize votes in a non-binding referendum on the creation of an independent Sikh state.

Nijjar helped organize a similar referendum in B.C. prior to his death.

The House committee Friday also voted to call Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown to testify, as well as other candidates from the 2022 Conservative leadership contest. A report released in June by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) contains a redacted paragraph that details alleged Indian interference in a Conservative leadership contest. A specific year is not mentioned.

The Conservatives have said they have been given no information about any such interference.

The committee is also now considering a second NDP motion calling for all party leaders to apply for a top-secret security clearance within 30 days, along with a Conservative amendment to demand Prime Minister Justin Trudeau release the names of parliamentarians listed in top-secret documents as being engaged in or at-risk of foreign interference.

At the foreign interference inquiry this week Trudeau said Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre refused to get the clearance that would allow him to access the names of Conservatives from those documents, while Poilievre accused Trudeau of lying and demanded he make all the names public.

Trudeau acknowledged the documents include the names of members of other parties, including the Liberals, but said if Poilievre doesn’t get the clearance that is needed to know who is at risk he can’t take any steps to prevent or limit the impact.

Manitoba Conservative MP Raquel Dancho told the committee that Poilievre getting a briefing would be a “gag order” against criticizing the government on foreign interference.

“We can put this to bed, it’s rapidly devolving into some McCarthy witch-hunt as a result of the prime minister’s actions and we can clear this up today by releasing the names,” Dancho said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

B.C. faces a rain-soaked election day after a campaign drenched in negativity

Published

 on

VANCOUVER – British Columbians go to the polls on Saturday after a too-close-to-call campaign that saw David Eby’s New Democrats and John Rustad’s B.C. Conservatives tangle over housing, health care and the overdose crisis — as well as plastic straws and a billionaire’s billboards.

Forecasters say election day will be soaked in several parts of the province by heavy rain from an atmospheric river system.

But the campaign has already been drenched in negativity, with Eby and Rustad each devoted to telling British Columbians why they shouldn’t vote for the other.

The NDP’s election platform mentions Rustad more than 50 times, compared to only 29 times for Eby, while the B.C. Conservative platform names Eby 50 times, and Rustad only 11 times.

“I hope we never see another election like this,” Eby said this week in Nanaimo, describing the tone of the campaign where he felt compelled to tell voters about controversial public statements made by Rustad and some of his candidates.

“We don’t call people who are gay ‘groomers,'” he said. “We don’t tell Indigenous people that what they experienced in residential schools wasn’t real. We don’t propose that health-care professionals be put in front of an international tribunal similar to the trial of the Nazis called Nuremberg 2.0.”

Rustad, who campaigned in Nanaimo on the same day Eby visited the Vancouver Island city, said the NDP leader has consistently attempted to shift focus away from what he says are the real issues facing the province — mismanagement of the economy, the crumbling health-care system and the ongoing drug overdose crisis that has resulted in more than 15,000 deaths since 2016.

“I don’t know why, I guess as premier he thinks it’s OK to be lying to the people of B.C.,” said Rustad. “The premier of a province like B.C. should be able to be out, being straight up with people and telling them the truth as opposed to lies.”

Regardless of the outcome, the election will go down as a sea change for B.C. politics, with the Conservatives poised to either form government or become the official opposition, after the implosion of the BC United party under Kevin Falcon, who halted his party’s campaign to support Rustad and avoid centre-right vote splitting.

Polls have put the NDP and the B.C. Conservatives locked in a close battle. It’s a remarkable turnaround for the Conservatives, who won less than two per cent of the vote in the last provincial election.

Eby and Rustad spent Friday making last-ditch pitches for support in vote-rich Metro Vancouver.

Eby started in Coquitlam, while B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad was scheduled to be in North Vancouver.

“We have left nothing on the table,” said Eby, adding every vote will count Saturday. “I have really no regrets about the campaign.”

On Friday, the Conservatives said that if elected they would launch “a full public inquiry” into the use of taxpayer money to buy drugs on the dark web.

That is a reference to a so-called “compassion club” that was operated by the Vancouver-based Drug User Liberation Front to buy drugs including methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin, test it for safety and then sell it to its members.

The club was ultimately shut down and the group’s founders arrested and charged with trafficking.

“This inquiry will seek to uncover who knew what, when they knew it, and what actions were or weren’t taken by the New Democrats, including Premier David Eby,” the party said in a statement.

Rustad was not available to reporters on Friday, but he was holding photo opportunities in Metro Vancouver.

Green Leader Sonia Furstenau was in Victoria, where she is looking to capture a seat in the NDP stronghold of Victoria-Beacon Hill. She has acknowledged the Greens won’t win the overall election, but is hoping to retain a presence in the legislature where the party currently has two members.

The campaign’s only televised debate saw Furstenau tell voters that Eby and Rustad were more closely aligned than people may believe on issues including support for the fossil fuel industry and placing people with mental health and addiction issues into involuntary care.

The month-long campaign has featured regular controversies for the Conservatives surrounding past comments by Rustad and his candidates.

Rustad dropped several potential candidates before the start of the official campaigning period over extreme views posted on social media.

But during the campaign he continued to support Surrey-South candidate Brent Chapman, who called Palestinian children “inbred” and “time bombs” in a 2015 Facebook post.

Eby mentioned Chapman during visits to two mosques in Surrey.

“John Rustad and the B.C. Conservatives are standing with that candidate,” he said at the Guilford Islamic Centre. “They should have got rid of him.”

Eby said the NDP are running two Muslim candidates in the election, including candidate Haroon Ghaffar in Surrey-South against Chapman.

“It’s important to have diverse candidates in the legislature,” said Eby, adding B.C. has yet to elect a Muslim.

Eby faced tough questions from people at the mosque about teaching sex education at schools and the rise of Islamophobia.

Rustad also stood by North Coast-Haida Gwaii candidate Chris Sankey, who suggested vaccines caused AIDS by posting about “Vaccine Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then there was Vancouver billionaire Chip Wilson, co-founder of the Lululemon athletic clothing line.

Wilson injected himself into the campaign with a series of anti-NDP billboards outside his waterfront Vancouver home, located in Eby’s Vancouver-Point Grey riding.

Eby and the NDP embraced the moment, saying Eby was on the side of ordinary people in B.C. struggling to make ends meet and not the owner of a home assessed at more than $81 million.

Rustad said he supported entrepreneurs like Wilson, but they couldn’t expect a break on their property taxes.

Rustad’s campaign promise to reverse a ban on plastic straws prompted Eby to begrudgingly agree that “paper straws suck,” but he suggested the B.C. Conservative leader was trying to stir up controversy by diverting attention from major issues facing the province.

Election day coincides with an atmospheric river system that is dumping heavy rain across much of the province.

Furstenau used the weather event to highlight her party’s climate promises, saying the Greens are the only party that offers a serious response to the climate crisis.

“It’s very interesting the timing of an atmospheric river arriving right on the moment of this election campaign, an election campaign where we have one party led by a climate denier and another party led by a climate delayer,” she said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

AFN votes on way forward after $47.8 billion child welfare reform deal is defeated

Published

 on

OTTAWA – The executive team from the Assembly of First Nations will meet in the coming days to discuss how to proceed with new negotiations for a child welfare reform deal after chiefs voted against the government’s proposed $47.8 billion agreement at a meeting in Calgary Thursday.

AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who had helped negotiate the deal and pushed for it to be approved, was blunt in her assessment of the outcome in her closing remarks to the special chiefs assembly Friday.

“We also recognize the success of the campaign that defeated this resolution. You spoke with passion, and you convinced the majority to vote against this $47.8-billion national agreement,” she said.

“There is no getting around the fact that this agreement was too much of a threat to the status quo, to the industry that has been built on taking First Nations children from their families.”

Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society which helped launch a discrimination case against Canada that led to the deal, said “that’s an unfortunate characterization of the chiefs taking a look at the agreement with their own experts and own legal staff and making an informed decision that’s best for them.”

“I respect the National Chief, and I look forward to kind of working with her and everyone to make sure that we get this across the finish line,” Blackstock said.

The defeated deal was struck between Canada, the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the Assembly of First Nations in July after a nearly two-decades-long legal fight over the federal government’s underfunding of on-reserve child welfare services.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said that was discriminatory because it meant kids living on reserve were given fewer services than those living off reserve.

The tribunal tasked Canada with reaching an agreement with First Nations to reform the system, and also with compensating children who were torn from their families and put in foster care.

The $47.8 billion agreement was to cover 10 years of funding for First Nations to take control over their own child welfare services from the federal government, create a body to deal with complaints and set aside money for prevention, among others.

Before the deal was announced in July, three members of the AFN’s executive team wrote letters to the national chief saying they feared the deal was being negotiated in secret, and asked for a change in course. They also said the AFN was attempting to sideline the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society from negotiations.

Those concerns largely remained when the deal was announced in a closed-door meeting at the AFN’s last gathering, with chiefs questioning how the reforms will work on the ground, and service providers saying their funding levels will be significantly cut which would impact their ability to do their work effectively.

Blackstock found support from 267 out of 414 chiefs who voted against a resolution calling for the deal to be approved.

Squamish Nation chairperson Khelsilem introduced a resolution Friday calling for a new negotiation mandate from chiefs.

“This is a lesson for the Assembly of First Nations, for the staff and legal, for the advisers, for the portfolio holder who has worked on this deal,” he said.

“The way we got here was not the way we should have done this. There’s a better way forward.”

His resolution, and another one from child welfare advocate and proxy chief for Skawahlook First Nation, Judy Wilson, called for the creation of a children’s chiefs’ commission comprised of leadership from all regions in the country to negotiate a new deal and provide oversight, along with a new legal team.

It also calls for chiefs to be given at least 90 days to review an agreement before voting on it, with the document to be made available in both official languages.

Khelsilem said the new negotiation mandate was developed with about 50 leaders from across the country, and hopes it will set a positive path forward in the best interest of kids in care after a fairly testy special chiefs assembly. He also said the new mandate will address “flaws” highlighted by chiefs across the country, and will ensure there is more transparency.

“We didn’t have to be in a situation where we had to vote down a flawed agreement and then create a direction to be able to get this back on track,” he said to chiefs.

“We didn’t have to be here if the process that was used to create the (final settlement agreement) was a meaningful process that meaningfully respected and consulted First Nations, that allowed for meaningful dialogue to improve that agreement.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the minister of Indigenous Services said Canada worked closely with First Nations on this deal, and as it was being amended.

“The agreement that chiefs in assembly rejected yesterday is the final product of those close negotiations,” Jennifer Kozelj said.

“Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to reform the First Nations child and family services program so that children grow up knowing who they are and where they belong.”

Blackstock said that Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ought to have been at the gathering in Calgary if they stood by the agreement.

In a statement Friday, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador said they’re grateful for the work that has been done to date, but that chiefs need to work together to amend the deal so it respects diversity of communities and eliminates systemic discrimination.

“As chiefs, we have a sacred responsibility to protect our children and families for the next seven generations,” said interim regional chief Lance Haymond.

Blackstock says that even though the deal was defeated, it doesn’t mean they’re starting from the bottom.

“We have so much to build on, including the draft final settlement agreement,” she said. “This is a reset to ensure that First Nations kids all succeed.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending