Canada testing drones in the arctic

The Canadian Press is reporting that drones will be tested in the summer of 2012 by Canadian Forces in the Canadian arctic, at Inuvik NWT, and at Churchill Manitoba. Drones have already been tested at Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord, in the High Arctic. This information was given to a Senate committee by Lt.-Gen. Walter Semianiw, head of the army’s domestic command. For an extensive transcript of Semianiw’s conversation in the Senate, go here.

The Scaneagle, a small tactical drone, appears to have been used in the arctic in 2011 during annual exercises (Nanook). Note, I have not seen the Scaneagle drones referred to by name by Canadian government sources. It isn’t completely clear what drones are undergoing ongoing testing in the arctic.

A proposal by Northrup Grumman to provide Canada with Global Hawk drones was made public last week. The competition to provide Canada with drones is heating up, as Project JUSTAS proceeds to a conclusion. Project JUSTAS is the initiative to assess Canada’s need for drones, and to presumably recommend a drone acquisition programme.

Northrup Grumman is likely facing an uphill battle. The current Canadian government has favoured Israeli drone manufacturers in the past and heavily supports the supremicist regime. MacDonald Dettwiler, the agent for IAI which manufactures the Israeli Heron drone, already has experience providing satellite surveillance of the Arctic to the Canadian government. Although Macdonald Dettwiler’s relationship with the government may be strained at present, as the government has waffled on full funding of arctic satellite surveillance. This report, by Kole Kilbrada, documents some of the lobbying efforts of Israeli aerospace companies with respect to providing drones to the Canadian military.

Semianiw did not provide information relating to the drone testing facility in Suffield Alberta. It is unclear whether military drone testing is continuing there, although a recent tender for trailers to move several ‘helicopter’ drones gives an indication about what might be happening. Suffield has conditions in winter that might mimic Canadian arctic conditions.



  1. #1 by Rwolf on June 9, 2012 - 18:16

    Next: Police Drones—Recording Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?

    Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.

    It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow—the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities) and Elements that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe (might) relate to a cyber threat or crime (circumventing the Fourth Amendment) with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. CISPA does not clearly define what is an Element; or Self-protected Cyber Entity—that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website, an online service.

    Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset Forfeiture Sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses) expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to initiate arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate a home/business and other assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to a Federal Government Agency that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: