Christine Collins is the president of The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees. She represents safety and security inspectors working at Transport Canada. Collins has criticized the government’s implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS). Collins says SMS can work not at the expense of meaningful oversight and inspection. Collins says she is concerned that Transport Canada is giving up its oversight role and downloading it to private industry.
Here is a transcript of an interview with Christine Collins conducted by the fifth estate
's Hana Gartner:
SELF-REGULATION IS A FACT OF LIFE NOW WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY, CORRECT?
I would not say that. That certainly is the way we’re going, but Transport Canada is still the regulator. So there still is question whether or not that belongs with industry. Yes, they have their safety management systems and within the next year or so I think the rest of the companies that are not currently in one of the phases of a safety management system will be there. Transport Canada must still maintain their role as a regulator.
That’s the message we’re trying to get out, that’s the concern we have that the further we get into safety management system, the further we get into the safety partnership, the further we get down the line where they’re going to have their reports that they’re audited by the inspector at community, the more concerns we have that Transport Canada needs to still take a very close look at how SMS is being implemented.
We’re the only country in the world that has gone this far with what authorities we are giving private industry.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME SPECIFICALLY THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW FAR IN FACT WE HAVE GONE?
We’ve gone with a number of, a number of airlines, a number of companies. We’ve gone to having the companies have their programs and the process is that they have a safety management system program and they have the way they are going to do that, they have their forms that they are going to fill out, and they submit those and our inspector at community reviews and checks of that.
TRANSPORT CANADA INSPECTORS ARE LOOKING AT PAPERWORK, AND NOT AIRPLANES.
That’s right, that’s right. Or they’re auditing the companies plans, they’re not actually auditing the aircraft for example, they’re auditing the plan. The other ---
YOUR PROBLEM WITH THIS IS?
The problem with that is the company is doing the report. I will use the current economic climate we’re in right now. If a company is mandated to have a safety management system and a whole process and procedure in place; there’s dollars attached to that. If we’re facing an economic time and we know certain airlines are facing tough times, all industries face tough times – how much money in resources are they going to put into a strong safety management system. We maintained, yes, they need to have that, absolutely. That is, that is a positive, but Transport Canada needs to keep and maintain sole responsibility for oversight and inspection.
BUT YOU DON’T KNOW IF THAT IS GOING TO BE A FACT DOWN THE ROAD. YOU WERE SAYING THAT CANADA IS TAKING THIS FARTHER THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY?
We’re currently taking it further than any other country in what the Transport is delegating to industry. And one of the changes with the safety management system is the policy to encourage reporting of mistakes with no penalty, and protection. So, there are errors made, so you do report it and you’re protected from fines, from other penalties, but you also have a no-disclosure of information. So there’s certainly, there’s certainly problems with that. It’s taking away the, the teeth of being a regulator. Transport Canada is a regulator. Transport Canada should not be giving away their roles and responsibilities to private industry. And in our opinion that’s exactly what’s happening.
We certainly believe as an additional layer this is really really good. But if try to explain it in just the reality, I mentioned earlier the diminishing number of inspectors. You know within our group if you’ve got over 130 vacant inspector positions and you’ve got this whole new regime, and you’ve got a director general who’s saying well we’re still doing this, we’re just doing it in a different way, we’re still doing oversight and inspection, we’re just doing it in a different way, I’m suggesting very strongly that what they’re doing is they are not doing meaningful oversight and inspection.
In fact I’ve written to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Transport, I’ve written to the Minister of Finance, last Fall I was asking for a moratorium on implementation of safety management systems for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the downturn in the economy and downloading. I asked the Minister of Finance to add more resources, additional resources to the inspectorate community. I asked the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to look at the archaic classification system.
AND WHAT DID THEY SAY?
One of them agreed, I requested a meeting, but not one of them agreed to meet with me. I got very nice thank you letters, thank you letters and then the Minister of Transport did write me back in some detail and said I was meeting with the Deputy Minister and therefore the issues could be discussed. The issue of classification, they very clearly said that it’s one that is a Treasury Board responsibility. And very little in the way, I’ve had no meeting. I responded to the Minister of Transport’s letter and corrected some of the points that he had raised in his response to me.
WHAT MISTAKES HAD HE MADE?
Well he referenced a meeting that had taken place, and in actual fact it hadn’t. I think some of the assumptions he made I certainly saw in a different way.
WHAT IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTION THAT YOU FEEL THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT IS MAKING?
In the way that safety management system is being implemented while still maintaining oversight and inspection, and I say very clearly that if you look at the full picture, the lower number of inspectors, we haven’t increased the number of inspectorate community despite the much higher and busier air traffic.
THIS IS YOUR CONCERN IN SAFETY. HOW, WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY?
My concerns with security as we, I think one of the big, one of the big differences with security is they’re at the very preliminary stages. We’ve learned a lot from the way that they’ve implemented SMS within civilian aviation and I believe one of the significant differences that discussions will take place at a much earlier, a much earlier stage before decisions have already been made. The employers already told us they’re in the preliminary stages –
IS THERE A DIFFERENT PERCEPTION YOU HAVE SEEN BETWEEN THE SECURITY THAT CATSA’S DOING AND TRANSPORT CANADA?
Well CATSA’s doing their responsibilities as given to them. And I think the clear example is I think one time Transport Canada was doing the training of the screeners etc. Now CATSA is doing that role. Are they doing some of their own testing of their own, I guess they would be contract employees—to ensure? They have a role and responsibility there as well. So does Transport. Transport Canada has not stopped doing their responsibilities.
BUT WHAT YOU’RE DESCRIBING SOUNDS LIKE A MULTI-LAYERED, CONFLICTING BUREAUCRACY. CATSA DOES SOME SECURITY, TRANSPORT CANADA DOES. I THOUGHT IT WAS TRANSPORT CANADA IN THE END THAT WOULD BE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY WHEN IT CAME TO SECURITY.
Absolutely. Transport Canada has responsibility for security. CATSA on the other hand has the responsibility for the screeners, which is in a sense the last line. Does CATSA work with Transport? I mean yeah, both Transport Canada’s the Minister of Transport. CATSA reports to the Minister of Transport. The duties of CATSA’s is pretty well defined. The duties of the security inspectors are much broader and much broader, probably the best way of saying it.
So there are some functions specific, that are very specific and I use the training because it’s the clearest.
ON THE AVIATION SIDE INSPECTORS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SIGN CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS WITH THE COMPANY. HOW DO YOU ENSURE SECURITY?
Well that happened a number of months ago and that issue has been resolved. I think there was conflicting information coming out from Transport Canada on that issue as well. We came out immediately as soon as we became aware our members were being asked, and we advised them not to sign them.
So it was a very short period of time. I am unaware of any one of our inspectors who actually signed one of these agreements. Transport Canada did not give a lot of details as to even which carrier or which company was making these requests. But it shows you again the shift wherein an airline company can actually think a Transport Canada inspector is an employee to sign basically again we’re talking about a gag order, an inspection, an oversight that they could think that they could actually do that.
And it also speaks to not having... protection. Would they have even thought of asking that had our, had federal government because it goes way beyond us, federal government employees have some kind of whistle-blowing protection? I think not. The issue was resolved rather quickly. The question was out there for about a week. Transport Canada came back with very clear direction. I think it took them about a week, but new direction to their employees, the inspectors, that they are not to sign on any such agreement.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE FACT ALSO THAT THERE ARE NOT FINES BEING LEVIED, THAT PENALTIES ARE NOT BEING BROUGHT DOWN?
What I would say is there are very clear procedures in place. There’s different steps, it depends on the infraction. It depends on what the incident is. I am unaware that there has been any reduction in um, uh making the assessment in either penalties or fines within the security, within the security realm.
As far as I’m aware, there has always been different processes, and sometimes one process is appropriate and sometimes another one. If you see something that is wrong, that can be corrected, the inspector tends to work with whoever’s made the error or the mistake and get it fixed as the first priority. Doesn’t necessary end up with a punitive penalty, but if there’s a serious infraction then there’s a whole process. We have a group that actually do enforcement and there’s a whole process and uh, to the best of my knowledge it continues to be part of the process. Cases go forward. Companies, individuals are charged. The process fines have been levied, and I have not heard anything that changes, that changes that, I haven’t seen any directive policy nor has anyone ever ever advised us that indeed there’s another process.
Will it change for security in the future? Well, if they follow the aviation model, where you report your mistakes and there’s no penalty, then there’s a possibility that we will see that in the future and I’m unaware of that currently.
AND –
And no one has brought it to our attention. We have a, we have a working group, so we do have someone from this group, on our working group ---
AND IN THE CIVIL AVIATION SIDE IN SAFETY, TO WHAT DEGREE DO YOU HEAR FROM YOUR MEMBERSHIP THAT THERE IS REAL CONCERN THAT SAFETY IS BEING COMPROMISED AS A RESULT?
We hear it everyday. Our members are not only very concerned about safety being compromised; we believe we’re now getting to the point with safety management systems as we’re seeing it within civil aviation that we will start being able to see something tangible I believe, because it’s fairly new, there’s different phases before companies get to the phase 4 where they’re pretty much running their safety management system program. So I think we’ll see something. But also, I think there’s a lot of confusion among our inspectorate as to what their role is.
Are they becoming box checkers, or do they still have the responsible role and the responsibility for inspections? And I think what the message we’re getting from our members is that there’s a lot less focus on the inspections and there’s a lot more focus on the audit of the safety management system programs that are currently in place or in the final stages of being in place. So the whole focus has shifted. That is a real concern.
AND HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CANARIES IN THE TUNNEL? HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO POINT TO EXAMPLES THAT WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE CAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN?
Well I think the Auditor General’s report puts some questions and some caution. I expect that we will see the a new report from the Auditor General within the next year or so. But her report from a couple of years ago certainly stated concerns about the implementation of SMS.
SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT?
I think the bottom line is twofold: money, yes, and privatization. I mean it’s, and of course where Canada is going way beyond what I see in the (unclear) safety management system that they recommend to international. So they’re recommending it to all the countries, certainly further than the United States or Great Britain or any other major country --
SO YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT GIVING –
In giving responsibility to the private industry.
AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY YOUR WORRY IS WHAT, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR?
It goes beyond you get what you pay for. It goes beyond Transport Canada as the regulator must have as their top priority the safety and security of the traveling public. That is the overall mandate. And you know they’ve entered into a new thing called safety partnerships. They’re allowing –
SOUNDS GOOD.
It sounds good on paper, but really it’s safety partnerships, it’s giving delegation to certain authorities to private industry as a partner, right, to allow them to take on a lot of the roles and responsibilities that Transport Canada in my opinion must and should maintain for responsibility for the safety and security of the traveling public.
DID WE BELIEVE THAT PRIVATE INDUSTRY ISN’T ANY MORE CONSCIENTIOUS AND CARING ABOUT SAFETY AS A NATIONAL REGULATOR WOULD BE?
I think the difference is that the role of Transport Canada as mandated by legislation is one thing. The role of individual private companies who are for-profit is something totally different. You’ve got your good times, you’ve got your financial fair times, you’ve got your down times. Each company is responsible for implementing their own safety management system, how well is it going to be done? The regulator is going to be dependent on their reports. I mean, I don’t know if I have to go any further. The report is only as good as it’s written. And if that’s what’s being audited, at the expense of actually physically going and looking and seeing what’s done, I mean ---
MAKES YOU NERVOUS.
New director general for civil aviation, Martin Neely when he said at that conference we’re still doing oversight and inspection, we’re just doing it in a different way, causes a great deal of, causes a great deal of concern. It really suggests that the meaningful oversight and inspection is questionable at best.
YOU KNOW MORE THAN ONE PERSON HAS SAID THE ONLY THING THAT WE’RE MISSING IS BODIES, A CRASH.
And I’m not sure that’s totally true. There have been a few bodies. Certainly there’s been a couple of crashes. For companies that are under estimate. I know that in theory as far as Transport Canada is concerned there’s less accidents or it’s safer with SMS I don’t, and that may be a true statement if SMS was an additional layer. The way it’s going down the road I would probably have concerns down the road.
...POSSIBLY MAKE THE FLYING PUBLIC NERVOUS, IF YOU CAN’T BELIEVE TRANSPORT CANADA WHO CAN YOU BELIEVE YOU KNOW.
Exactly. Yes. Yes, and and you know when we raise the issues with the employer, because I will say that we continually meet and discuss the issue of safety management systems not only within civil aviation, but it’s going in rail, it’s going on elsewhere. We’re specifically concerned with civil aviation and the method that they’re using to implement SMS. So it’s not that we’re not raising our concerns, but it’s very easy for the employer to turn around and say we’re the non-supporters. I heard it said it’s time to stop talking, and I just have fully move forward, fully.
Uh I say take the time to talk to ensure that we’re doing it right, to ensure that it is the additional layer that it was intended. I believe it was intended with the bill, I believe if you read... documents it was intended as an additional layer –
BUT TRANSPORT CANADA IS SAYING IT IS AN ADDITIONAL LAYER. YOU’RE NOT BUYING THIS.
I’m not buying, I don’t buy that for one moment. The facts speak for themselves. The fact that there’s 130 vacancies in the inspector community and the focus is on the SMS and the audit of the SMS, if you’ve got the 130 vacancies and you’re short already, the Deputy Minister has said there’s problems with recruitment because of the salary range. You’ve got Merlin Proust who’s the former director, I mean these two people are gone now, the former Director General who raises the concern with the vacancies – how can you have both systems in place at the same time? Something has to give.
If the focus is on the right hand where you’re doing, going to be auditing the company’s safety management systems, where’s the rest of the people with the 130 plus vacancies to do the day-to-day oversight and I say meaning, I always use the word meaningful oversight because there’s such a thing as having an oversight that isn’t meaningful, and meaningful inspections.
