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 over the 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.”
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.
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 shows the trajectory of the balloon over North America. The specific duration it was over Canadian airspace is not yet clear. (The Associated Press)
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.”
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 airspaceand 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.”
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.”
OTTAWA – Treasury Board President Anita Anand has been sworn in as federal transport minister at a ceremony at Rideau Hall, taking over a portfolio left vacant after Pablo Rodriguez resigned from cabinet and the Liberal caucus on Thursday.
Anand thanked Rodriguez for his contributions to the government and the country, saying she’s grateful for his guidance and friendship.
She sidestepped a question about the message it sends to have him leave the federal Liberal fold.
“That is a decision that he made independently, and I wish him well,” she said.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was not present for the swearing-in ceremony, nor were any other members of the Liberal government.
The shakeup in cabinet comes just days after the Liberals lost a key seat in a Montreal byelection to the Bloc Québécois and amid renewed calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to step down and make way for a new leader.
Anand said she is not actively seeking leadership of the party, saying she is focused on her roles as minister and as MP.
“My view is that we are a team, and we are a team that has to keep delivering for our country,” she said.
The minority Liberal government is in a more challenging position in the House of Commons after the NDP ended a supply-and-confidence deal that provided parliamentary stability for more than two years.
Non-confidence votes are guaranteed to come from the Opposition Conservatives, who are eager to bring the government down.
On Thursday morning, Rodriguez made a symbolic walk over the Alexandra Bridge from Parliament Hill to Gatineau, Que., where he formally announced his plans to run for the Quebec Liberal party leadership.
He said he will now sit as an Independent member of Parliament, which will allow him to focus on his own priorities.
“I was defending the priorities of the government, and I did it in a very loyal way,” he said.
“It’s normal and it’s what I had to do. But now it’s more about my vision, the vision of the team that I’m building.”
Rodriguez said he will stay on as an MP until the Quebec Liberal leadership campaign officially launches in January.
He said that will “avoid a costly byelection a few weeks, or months, before a general election.”
The next federal election must be held by October 2025.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he will try to topple the government sooner than that, beginning with a non-confidence motion that is set to be debated Sept. 24 and voted on Sept. 25.
Poilievre has called on the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to support him, but both Jagmeet Singh and Yves-François Blanchet have said they will not support the Conservatives.
Rodriguez said he doesn’t want a federal election right away and will vote against the non-confidence motion.
As for how he would vote on other matters before the House of Commons, “it would depend on the votes.”
Public Services and Procurement Minister Jean-Yves Duclos will become the government’s new Quebec lieutenant, a non-cabinet role Rodriguez held since 2019.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
— With files from Nojoud Al Mallees and Dylan Robertson
OTTAWA – Several federal political parties are expressing reservations about the prospect of fresh regulations to prevent foreign meddlers from tainting their candidate nomination processes.
Elections Canada has suggested possible changes to safeguard nominations, including barring non-citizens from helping choose candidates, requiring parties to publish contest rules and explicitly outlawing behaviour such as voting more than once.
However, representatives of the Bloc Québécois, Green Party and NDP have told a federal commission of inquiry into foreign interference that such changes may be unwelcome, difficult to implement or counterproductive.
The Canada Elections Act currently provides for limited regulation of federal nomination races and contestants.
For instance, only contestants who accept $1,000 in contributions or incur $1,000 in expenses have to file a financial return. In addition, the act does not include specific obligations concerning candidacy, voting, counting or results reporting other than the identity of the successful nominee.
A report released in June by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians expressed concern about how easily foreign actors can take advantage of loopholes and vulnerabilities to support preferred candidates.
Lucy Watson, national director of the NDP, told the inquiry Thursday she had concerns about the way in which new legislation would interact with the internal decision-making of the party.
“We are very proud of the fact that our members play such a significant role in shaping the internal policies and procedures and infrastructure of the party, and I would not want to see that lost,” she said.
“There are guidelines, there are best practices that we would welcome, but if we were to talk about legal requirements and legislation, that’s something I would have to take away and put further thought into, and have discussions with folks who are integral to the party’s governance.”
In an August interview with the commission of inquiry, Bloc Québécois executive director Mathieu Desquilbet said the party would be opposed to any external body monitoring nomination and leadership contest rules.
A summary tabled Thursday says Desquilbet expressed doubts about the appropriateness of requiring nomination candidates to file a full financial report with Elections Canada, saying the agency’s existing regulatory framework and the Bloc’s internal rules on the matter are sufficient.
Green Party representatives Jon Irwin and Robin Marty told the inquiry in an August interview it would not be realistic for an external body, like Elections Canada, to administer nomination or leadership contests as the resources required would exceed the federal agency’s capacity.
A summary of the interview says Irwin and Marty “also did not believe that rules violations could effectively be investigated by an external body like the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.”
“The types of complaints that get raised during nomination contests can be highly personal, politically driven, and could overwhelm an external body.”
Marty, national campaign director for the party, told the inquiry Thursday that more reporting requirements would also place an administrative burden on volunteers and riding workers.
In addition, he said that disclosing the vote tally of a nomination contest could actually help foreign meddlers by flagging the precise number of ballots needed for a candidate to be chosen.
Irwin, interim executive director of the Greens, said the ideal tactic for a foreign country would be working to get someone in a “position of power” within a Canadian political party.
He said “the bad guys are always a step ahead” when it comes to meddling in the Canadian political process.
In May, David Vigneault, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at the time, said it was very clear from the design of popular social media app TikTok that data gleaned from its users is available to the Chinese government.
A December 2022 CSIS memo tabled at the inquiry Thursday said TikTok “has the potential to be exploited” by Beijing to “bolster its influence and power overseas, including in Canada.”
Asked about the app, Marty told the inquiry the Greens would benefit from more “direction and guidance,” given the party’s lack of resources to address such things.
Representatives of the Liberal and Conservative parties are slated to appear at the inquiry Friday, while chief electoral officer Stéphane Perrault is to testify at a later date.
After her party representatives appeared Thursday, Green Leader Elizabeth May told reporters it was important for all party leaders to work together to come up with acceptable rules.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
OTTAWA – The Métis Nation of Saskatchewan has pulled out of a national body representing Métis, citing problems with an Ontario group and throwing the future of the Métis National Council into question.
In a resolution passed Thursday morning, the Saskatchewan group says the Métis Nation of Ontario, which is a member of the national body, accepts and continues to represent people who are not Métis.
“The Métis National Council has increasingly been used for advocacy purposes that are inconsistent with its original mandate and vision, diverting from the foundational role of representing Métis rights and self-determination,” the resolution says.
It also says the Métis National Council has failed to ensure the integrity of the Ontario group’s citizenship registry and has not rectified problems, despite constant calls to do so.
The resolution says its continued association with the Métis Nation of Ontario “no longer benefits the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan or the Métis Nation as a whole.”
The Métis Nation of Ontario did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but has previously defended its citizenship registry as being legitimate.
The departure of the Saskatchewan group comes years after the Manitoba Métis Federation withdrew from the council, citing similar concerns about the Métis Nation of Ontario.
“This was not a decision our government made lightly but one we felt necessary. Our (Métis Nation of Saskatchewan) government and our Métis communities need to have control over our identity and culture while making decisions that align with the values of our Saskatchewan Métis Nation,” said president Glen McCallum in a statement on Thursday.
The Métis National Council was, until Thursday, comprised of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, the Métis Nation of Alberta, the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Métis Nation of British Columbia.
The Saskatchewan group was a founding member of the national body, along with the Alberta group and the Manitoba Métis Federation.
According to the national council’s bylaws, quorum for its board of governors meetings must include two of the founding members. As of now only one remains, bringing into question the future of the organization, which often works with the federal government and advocates internationally for Métis.
Will Goodon, who serves as the Manitoba Métis Federation’s housing minister, said the national body is “dead today.”
“A meeting cannot be held. And they cannot change the bylaws without having a board of governors meeting,” he wrote on X.
Métis National Council president Cassidy Caron announced earlier this year she would not be seeking re-election, leaving an open contest for someone to fill her post.
The board voted to postpone and reschedule a September vote and general assembly to November. Caron said in a newsletter that her term will end on Sept. 30 either way.
The Saskatchewan group had already pulled support for federal legislation that would enshrine its self-government over concerns about the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Métis Nation of Alberta, which were also included.
McCallum said in April the legislation was holding the group back, and that they needed to put the needs of Métis in Saskatchewan first.
First Nations chiefs in Ontario and the Manitoba Métis Federation consistently raised concerns about the Ontario group as the legislation was being studied by a House of Commons committee, with Métis Nation of Ontario president Margaret Froh billing the self-government process as the longest in Canadian history.
First Nations chiefs in Ontario have accused the federal government of overstepping its jurisdiction and alleged the legislation infringes on their rights.
The Assembly of First Nations, which represents some 630 chiefs across Canada, passed a resolution calling for the federal government to kill the legislation altogether. The AFN’s concerns are mainly focused on six new communities the Métis Nation of Ontario and the province recognized in 2017, which it says have no historical basis to exist.
The Manitoba Métis Federation has also opposed the extension of self-government to the Métis Nation of Ontario, saying the Ontario group’s membership is not on par with its definition of Métis.
The Métis Nation of Ontario has disputed that, pushing back against the idea Métis only exist around the Red River in Manitoba.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
