A Transport Canada inspector demystifies issues and updates us
Members who are newer to UCTE may not have heard about Safety Management Systems (SMS), and those who are more familiar may not have heard anything about it for a while. Wondering whether it’s all resolved? Spoiler alert: Concerns that UCTE raised early on about SMS and compliance remain valid and unaddressed.
Inspectors at Transport Canada – particularly in air and rail – know the nuts and bolts of SMS, and how it affects compliance work. Karen Houlahan is an airworthiness inspector who saw the advent of SMS, and how it affects our inspectors’ ability to keep people safe.
Safety Management System – What is it?
In the 2000s, the Safety Management System (SMS) oversight regime — that covers aviation, rail, marine, and transportation of dangerous goods — started to pervade transportation industries. Transport Canada brought in regulatory changes to accommodate the new model, and it changes the nature of our members’ work – that is, where it is implemented, which is not uniform.
According to Houlahan, the way it was adopted was “extremely short-sighted.”
UCTE and our members raised concerns that SMS erodes our ability to protect the public. A 2020 report commissioned by UCTE explains our concern that it has led to a form of self-regulation, or more accurately, regulatory capture by private industry.
Houlahan: “It is still an issue, and UCTE’s concern is that it is almost, but not quite, self-regulation. SMS is a good concept, but it should not replace a compliance surveillance program.”
In the best case, she says SMS should lead to operators embracing a safety culture. For example, union activists may be familiar with the culture of safety that surrounds Health and Safety issues in the workplace. Of course, in the private sector, the temptation for an operator is to use the SMS to find opportunities to save money instead. “Mandating it to an industry that already has compliance issues, and then trying to force them to develop this culture, is extremely difficult,” Houlahan continues.
“It’s supposed to save money in the long run. Ideally, SMS should help operators identify ways to mitigate exposure to risk. That is, if something happens, is there a potential for it to happen again, and if there is then what do you do about it?”
So, the ideal version of SMS has not materialized, and our inspectors are concerned that it can become a system where operators submit SMS reports to Transport Canada, and inspectors then have to decide whether to challenge the report or do anything with it. That is a lot different from the surveillance system previously in place. Auditing the process itself is not happening as much as originally envisioned. Houlahan’s main issue is that it has resulted in a very hands-off way of enforcing compliance.
The Situation Today
Industry uptake has been slow. SMS is not mandated for all modes, and the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) has noted that it’s only required for about 10% of commercial air operators, and less than 1% of domestic commercial marine vessels. Safety Management Systems have been implemented in Canadian rail for more than 20 years, and TSB reports it is not evident that they have reduced risk. It remains on the TSB watchlist of key issues.
SMS is not exactly transforming the industry, and it is not exactly a success, nor a failure. We still have to count on direct surveillance by inspectors to ensure compliance – it is no place for shortcuts! Overall, UCTE’s concerns were well-founded, and management would do well to listen to the workers in the future.
