Canada's High-Tech Frontier: Stealth Drones & Special Forces Redefining Border Security

X Comment on Canada Ranger discussion: https://x.com/HolographyZee/status/1868360598456766610

@SkillsGapTrain @HolographyZee Hi. We are not familiar with Premier Scott Moe proposed Saskatchewan Marshall’s or the suggestion to bring the CBSA into the military.

But it might be the case that our political leaders are not familiar with security systems at professional level either.

So then it’s fair to make a brief comment and see what others can think up as solutions.

‘In response to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal of a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe suggested enhancing Canada’s border security measures.’

This sounds like a proactive position and a great position for Canada to take.

‘He proposed increasing initiatives through the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and even considered integrating the CBSA under a military branch to strengthen security and potentially boost Canada’s defense spending. (CJME)’

‘Premier Moe believes that such measures would address concerns about illegal cross-border activities, such as drug trafficking, and could also contribute to meeting Canada’s defense funding targets. (CKOM)’

However, it sounds like what he is proposing is an accounting trick, such that it avoids actually boosting the overall real physics real world strength of the defense forces size of Canada, simply to make the numbers appear correct to our international obligations such as NATO. This would be against the intention of NATO in actuality, as we believe that when NATO requests 2% defense spending, they don’t actually mean public safety agencies, but they refer to military defense spending level, and not accounting changes, but the real strength level in reality as per hypothetical combat requirements in real world.

Hopefully, these proposals have sparked more serious discussions about the role of the CBSA and the potential implications of placing it under military command.

Our understanding is that currently, the CBSA operates as a law enforcement agency under Public Safety Canada, responsible for border control, immigration enforcement, and customs services. (Wikipedia).

Do we really want Martial Law style policy in Canada?

Do we trust our military leadership team? There have been numerous changes to Canada’s military command structure in recent years, particularly between 2015 and 2024. Given historical patterns of turmoil that seem to be like the years 2002 to 2024, coinciding with shifts in military command during the same or similar time period, it’s understandable that some hold suspicions about putting public safety agencies in the hands of the military.

It’s important to note that any significant restructuring of the CBSA would require careful consideration of legal, operational, and international factors.

As of now, Premier Moe’s suggestion remains a proposal, and no official steps have been taken to implement such changes, so it sounds good that people are collecting information and consulting with each other to figure out the best way forward.

Hopefully, the changes and actions could happen faster and at greater scale, as it looks to us that they aren’t happening fast enough and with sufficient inter provincial unity on this matter of critical nature (Boosting strength is very time consuming and any administrative delay is dangerous to Canada’s well being, economic and physical biological.)

SGT’s Concerns

Our concerns are valid and rooted in an understanding of the importance of maintaining a balance between civilian oversight and military authority.

Here’s a breakdown of why integrating the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) into a military command structure could pose risks and how alternative approaches might better address the issue:

Concerns with Militarizing CBSA

1. Centralized Command Risks:

Reduction in Civilian Oversight: The CBSA currently operates under Public Safety Canada, ensuring civilian control over its actions. Shifting it under a military command risks eroding this civilian accountability.

Dependence on CAF Command Quality Levels/Experience Levels: There is always the risk of the rise of a poor, not competent or malicious commander and/or poor command team in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), and this could misuse or mis-prioritize resources, potentially undermining border security and public trust and public safety and National Security (given that National Security would be further centralized into one area).

2. Public Safety Impact:

Loss of Specialization: CBSA officers are trained in customs enforcement, immigration, and border security. Militarization could dilute these specialized skills by focusing on military-style operations rather than the nuanced tasks required at borders.

3. Potential for Overreach:

Armed forces typically have broader mandates, which could lead to excessive use of force or conflicts with civilian policing standards.

Civil-Military Balance:

Canada has traditionally maintained a clear separation between civilian law enforcement and military operations. Blurring these lines might set a concerning precedent, leading to militarization of other civilian functions.

Alternative Solutions:

Strengthen Border Security Without Militarization of Civilian Forces

1. Expand the Canadian Rangers and/or Upgrade Canadian Rangers to Modernized Special Forces Rangers Level:

The Canadian Rangers are already deployed in remote and hard-to-reach areas. Expanding their mandate to include border security in rural regions could address gaps without affecting CBSA’s civilian structure, but this would require great leaders to negotiate involvement with public.

Hiring more personnel for Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) and/or other special forces unit Joint Task Force 1 (JTF1) (Upgrade Canadian Rangers to Modernized Special Forces Rangers Level:), could enhance national security without disrupting CBSA’s core functions.

2. Increase CBSA Resources:

Hiring more CBSA officers and equipping them with advanced technology (e.g., small drones that can fly 500 km+ and are tiny and based on new engine tech like fuel cell etc/hydrogen etc.. from South Korea, sensors, AI tools) would address border security challenges while keeping the agency civilian-led.

Enhanced inter-agency collaboration between CBSA, the RCMP, and intelligence agencies could strengthen security without requiring military oversight.

3. Decentralized Command Structure:

Ensuring the CBSA operates autonomously under civilian oversight could prevent any one authority, civilian or military, from consolidating too much power.

4. Localized and Community-Based Approaches:

Community-based initiatives involving Indigenous groups and rural communities near borders could provide local intelligence and support for CBSA operations.

Implications of Militarizing CBSA

1. International Relations:

Militarizing border security, the CBSA, might send a message of aggression to neighbouring countries like the U.S., potentially straining bilateral relations. They would not be afraid, but they would make a note of loss of civilian authority and freedom based society principles. (Ex: communism potential ranking might increase).

2. Domestic Trust:

Public trust in border services could erode if CBSA is perceived as a militarized force rather than a service-oriented agency.

3. Mission Creep:

Military forces could become overburdened by tasks outside their primary mandate, reducing their effectiveness in defense and international operations. What if the military is very busy? What happens to border security?

4. Recruitment drop for CBSA

Recruitment for CBSA would drop with integration into military due to military obligations that are implied via the concept of serving for a military force, and this is a universal knowledge, whether written or unwritten.

Conclusion

While the idea of integrating CBSA into a military command structure may appear to address resource constraints, and may appear to “increase NATO funding”, it does not in fact increase military spending level for NATO purposes (as CBSA would have fought in a war regardless of whether their command came from), and it introduces risks to public safety, civilian oversight, and the balance of power.

It would be difficult for CBSA to truly defend the public, should the military command structure turn dystopian against the citizens of Canada, if they were tied contractually to the military.

Especially with recent signs of ideological infiltration into Canada’s professional institutions, though at vastly different levels per professional type. Engineers are holding out with incredible force. They seem to be the winners on principle here, versus all professional types, and even Technologists/Applied Science Technologists.

Conversely, expanding the CBSA and the Canadian Rangers to Professional Status (professional officer capability level), possibly establishing a large scale special forces platform like Joint Task Force 1 (JT1), which could be called Canadian Special Forces Rangers, by hiring more special forces personnel, and in addition to this, investing in significantly expanding the CBSA’s resources and capabilities, including perfect scanning systems capability of inter provincial trade (inclusive of port traffic and mail traffic with mail carriers), would be more sustainable and effective ways to address border security concerns.

These solutions preserve civilian control and avoid the pitfalls of over-centralization while maintaining Canada’s democratic traditions.

IT would enhance civilian authority in military doctrine, as Canadian Ranger structure is a volunteer force, and not bound by military contracts of service time, but casual civilian contribution and therefore would be a force that could offset the rise of Collective Sci-Fi Tech Dystopia trends we see in today’s worlds and Great Filter/Omega Point and Singularity Type dystopian trends we see emerge into our reality 2020 to 2050.

‘In times of war, maintaining two separate command structures enhances the network effect of crowd intelligence. This ensures that while the army focuses on defeating the enemy — a higher priority — the responsibility for border security is not neglected.’

Additionally, this is key: People are more likely to be recruited to a Freedom Force, especially one designed for senior operations as an end goal, a democratic force, given today’s dystopian governance and social setup (and not a junior force offer).

Go in all the way, or go home.

Note relating to difficulties leaders have recruiting security occupations in Canada:

Leaders need to move beyond complaining about the lack of recruits or services and understand the reality of planning for the long term.

Recruits cannot be produced overnight; it simply doesn’t work that way AND IT NEVER WILL.

If leaders want skilled security officer recruits, they must establish a 20-year action plan to shape the conditions for success.

They won’t have what they need today. Because they don’t lead, they react to catastrophe. This is “immature destructive leadership”.

This involves trans-formative changes across multiple areas:

1. Education Reform:

Revamp the school and university curricula to prioritize technical skills, applied hands-on learning, combat history, and problem-solving over administrative or non-productive occupations.

2. National Priorities:

Shift focus towards industries and sectors that drive innovation, manufacturing, firearms engineering machinist shops, security, and productivity rather than those rooted in administrative expansion.

3. Media Influence:

Utilize platforms like CBC to promote activities and values that encourage technical skills, sportsmanship, combat sports, combat history, and civic engagement rather than mere consumption or commentary.

4. Community Engagement:

Broaden access to community activities that support technical, recreational, and combat sports — activities that foster resilience, teamwork, and a security-oriented mindset.

5. Cultural Planning:

Adopt a balanced, inclusive approach to cultural development that respects and integrates security-oriented ethos, freedom philosophy, warrior history, such as those prevalent in the United States and Roman Empire back in time or Greece/Spartan mindset back in time, rather than marginalizing or disparaging them. Building a society that values security, discipline, and innovation is essential for long-term growth, competitiveness and public safety.

6. Labour Market Re-balancing:

Realign the economy to encourage and reward technical and applied occupations, especially in security like Mechanical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, etc.. over administrative or non-productive writing-based roles and dance based roles and art based roles.

The issue isn’t a lack of candidates but a lack of long-term strategic planning by leaders of Canada.

A government that commits to these permanent, forward-thinking policy changes will cultivate a pipeline of skilled security individuals, ready to meet future demands.

Details about Rangers that we know:

Title: “Why would honourable Canadian Rangers listen to PM Trudeau? Are there no good commanders in Canada?” https://x.com/SkillsGapTrain/status/1868136212449448002

Title: “Why would you want the Canadian Rangers to fight Russia and China? We have an army to do that and Americans and NATO have an armies to do that as well.”

https://x.com/SkillsGapTrain/status/1868140121075142747

Useful security updates to Canada relating to public safety, national security and borders issues:

Title: “Beyond Skunk Works: Canada’s Modular Military Aerospace Revolution” https://x.com/SkillsGapTrain/status/1867668101413642376

So in conclusion:

Premier Scott Moe will do what needs to be done in the short run to succeed. Success mentality. Common Sense. But the issue can be made worse, if a long term professional plan is not put into place, and it could get a lot worse to rely on emergency solutions for regular operating procedure long term, especially if it means centralizing civilian authority under military command that is untested and potentially unknown from cultural standpoint and/or unreasonable to standard military history doctrine.

Canada’s High-Tech Frontier: Stealth Drones & Special Forces Redefining Border Security