Canada’s Conservative Party-led government seems to be probing the public interest in joining a U.S. antimissile initiative, the Globe and Mail reports.
Conservative-controlled panels in the Canadian Senate and House of Commons are interviewing experts about the costs and benefits of collaborating with the United States on a missile defense framework to protect North America, according to the Tuesday article. In 2005, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin of the Liberal Party opted to turn down a U.S. request to participate in regional missile defense.
A change in political leadership as well as perceptions of a growing threat posed by North Korea’s long-range missile development have prompted Ottawa to reassess its stance on the issue, according to Colin Robertson, vice-president of the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute.
“I think the government is testing the waters to see whether the conditions are right,” said Robertson, who favors joining the U.S. missile shield.
Philip Coyle, a onetime head of the Pentagon’s weapons testing and evaluation office, in Monday testimony to the Senate criticized U.S. missile defense efforts as ineffective. “The hardware being deployed in Alaska and California has no demonstrated capability to defend the United States, let alone Canada, against enemy missile attack under realistic operational conditions,” Coyle said.
He was referring to the 30 interceptors currently fielded on the West Coast as part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system — the country’s principal defense against a limited strategic ballistic missile strike.
Conference of Defense Associations Institute analyst David Perry said he believes the Canadian government is “floating a trial balloon” with the parliament hearings.
Defense Minister Rob Nicholson’s office would not answer a question on whether the government is considering changing its mind about missile defense cooperation with Washington.
“No decision has been made to change this policy,” said his spokeswoman, Johanna Quinney. “We will continue to monitor international developments.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."