SSI > COMITIÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LA SÉCURITÉ INDUSTRIELLE DU GOUVERNEMENT  : RÉUNIONS DE CCSIG > COMPTE RENDU DES DÉCISIONS - 2 février 2006 > EXPOSÉ : POINTS DU VUE DES ASSOCIATIONS DE L'INDUSTRIE

COMITIÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LA SÉCURITÉ INDUSTRIELLE

Exposé : points du vue des associations de l’industrie

** CETTE EXPOSÉ EST SEULEMENT DISPONIBLE EN ANGLAIS **

by:
Michael Atkinson
President, Canadian Construction Association (CCA)
Secretary, Facilities Operations & Maintenance Association of Canada (FOMAC)
Member, Industrial Security Advisory Board (ISAB)

Thank you.

As mentioned, I am with the Canadian Construction Association (CCA). CCA represents some 20,000 firms across Canada active in the non-residential construction industry. I am also here today representing a brand new Association known as the Facilities Operations & Maintenance Association of Canada (FOMAC), which brings together firms that specialize in the provision of full site and support services to facilities operated by the Canadian Armed Forces and other government and similar private agencies.

I am also here representing the newly-formed Industrial Security Advisory Board (ISAB), which is comprised primarily of associations representing the private sector supplier community. Both CCA and FOMAC are represented on that Board.

Given the brief time I have today to talk with you, I fear that my comments may sound overly critical and negative. In fact, there is a lot that is good about Canada’s current industrial security strategy. Perhaps instead what I have to say can be taken as where we in the private sector would like to see this process evolve with your assistance. You obviously share the need for change given your presence here today.

I think it is fair to see that the comments and concerns I will recount are generally shared by the various associations represented on the ISAB. I am also quite sure that many, if not all, of the points I will raise you have heard before.

Concerns:

• Timeliness of security clearances. Often there is insufficient time to obtain clearances, particularly relative to international contracts. Procurement and project schedules often do not take security clearance matters into consideration. This may be due in part to the “silo” mentality that appears to have developed as between procurement officials, projects managers and security officers within the same department or agency. They sometimes appear to the outsider to exist in parallel never connecting or communicating!
  
  

• Clarity of project security requirements. Sometimes project security requirements are unclear or ambiguous as to security requirements. Sometimes they appear to change during the course of the project contributing to ambiguity and confusion. More up front, pre-procurement emphasis is required to make sure the appropriate level of security has been selected and that project staff are aware of what it is and why.

Reccommendations:

Some recommended actions in this regard might be as follows:

Concerns:

• Lack of uniformity/duplication. Each government agency/client has their own process/budget to screen personnel. Lack of portability of security clearances. In addition, corporate clearances vs. personnel clearances often involve same process/duplication.

Recommendations:

Contractors/suppliers have no problem submitting security clearance information and understand the need for these requirements. They simply desire, as I am sure you all do, a Canadian security clearance system that is well-understood, timely, efficient, and uniform.

We in the private sector applaud the establishment of this new Government Industrial Security Advisory Board (GISAB) and in particular, your mandate and objective “to avoid duplication, to streamline and to simplify”.

Thank you for listening.