Preserving capacity, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Keys to Canadian SAR
Issue link: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/122908
S Security fied. But I know there have been significant steps taken in various parts of the world to create public-private partnerships that 10 or 20 years ago would have been considered inconceivable. Both sectors share a mutual interest: the public sector requires economic achievement in the commercial sector to fund the government purse; the commercial sector requires an environment which is stable to be able to generate profits, or maximise profits. small companies, there needs to be a one-stop shop. If we want to look after the smaller companies, then the concept of OSAC offers the answer, even if it is not on the same scale. For governments like Canada that have a huge dependency on this SME environment, they should be encouraged to invest in creating a central, functional capability that will itself receive this information and massage it in a form that can be released. Q We have seen greater emphasis by government for private Q You noted the lack of maturity within the corporate security sector engagement in emerging markets. Does industry have the necessary intelligence as it relates to security in those markets to be able to do that successfully? function. Is there a natural career path for military and intelligence personnel? You seemed to indicate they might not be the ideal fit. If they are big enough, many companies will often have an internal information acquisition capability of some sort. Or they may purchase that capability from a vendor. If a company can get intelligence from the public sector, which is going to ease its understanding of the risks and allow it to either eliminate or handle those risks better, then clearly the company wants that. Many governments do provide some form of assistance, but there are restrictions and cultures that prevent sharing because of the classified nature of that intelligence. One example of partnership that I think is the model for the world is the Overseas Security Advisory Council in the American State Department. It's been working since 1986 and is governed by a council of public and private sector members. The private sector is encouraged to feed information into this repository and various parts of the American infrastructure push information into the Council, which is staffed by highly qualified civil servants, who then work that information in a manner that can be released. It works superbly. In my view it is a great national investment. Would that other countries would wake up to the value of such investment. Historically, companies have tended to look at certain sources for recruitment – the military, law enforcement and intelligence and security agencies – and those are certainly good potential sources. However, as some companies move toward greater maturity, there is recognition of two things: One, the old approach is too homogeneous. If, for example, the CSO is ex-FBI or other service and most of the key positions in security are from the same background, then the security department is suffering from "clonitis." I am not questioning their particular skill sets but the lack of diversity means that other equally valid yet different skill sets are denied to the company. Second, the CSO and the team have got to interface much more substantially with the rest of the business in a whole range of activities. You need these convergences so that everyone's view and assessment is somehow being tapped to create a greater knowledge, trust and recognition. Q In Canada, the emphasis has been more on assisting small- and medium-sized business into global supply chains. While we have risk assessment centres in various government agencies, that kind of information likely doesn't find its way to those companies. No, because it is not going through a central nerve. With those Continued from page 46 support staff. Of course, the media would be most interested in talking to the few pilots, which again meant that it was fairly easy to manage the messaging. The C-17 mission to Mali has even less media exposure, as the pilots are even fewer, they see even less of the operation, so the message management is complete. Sending a large contingent of soldiers means surrendering control of the messaging. Given the centralization of the communications of this particular government, sending a battlegroup abroad is the last thing it would want to do. This is not just an academic perspective. When I brought up this topic with a senior army officer a little while ago, he motioned like he was in a wheelchair: that the next time the Canadian Forces go into combat in significant size would be when he was a senior citizen. 42 APRIL/MAY 2013 www.vanguardcanada.com Q What is the most misunderstood aspect of corporate security? The most misunderstood aspect from the C-suite perspective is not understanding that a truly business integrated security function can play a much greater role across the whole spectrum of business activity. Too often, security is peripheral. If security is not involved in a new market entry, for example, then who is looking after the security requirements of that project in terms of its intrinsic protection, and who is looking at the due diligence aspect of intelligence, which is separate from financial due diligence, legal due diligence, marketing due diligence. A yawning and costly gap is left. So, what does this imply for near-term planning? Perhaps the CF should be willing to cut the army's troop levels, to focus training on domestic operations and plan for domestic scenarios, and perhaps not to invest in costly equipment in the near-term unless it is necessary for operations in Canada. These are difficult choices, of course, but the budgetary pressures are intense. Better to cut that which will not be utilized. Alas, governments change, politicians forget the lessons of the last conflict or two, and leaders will be asked by allies to help out somewhere. The Prime Minister will probably say yes, and then ask the Chief of Defence Staff to make it happen. While the Chief may grumble, he will ultimately salute. Hopefully, he will not be compelled to do something like what happened in 2005: sending troops but not helicopters to Kandahar. TH