Air Safety Round Table: Phil Benson
Phil Benson, lobbyist for Teamsters Canada – a labour organization with more than 125,000 members. Teamsters Canada represents workers in many sectors, including all areas of transport, air, rail, road, and ports, and also in other sectors, such as retail, motion pictures, breweries, soft drinks, construction, dairy, warehousing.
Remarks
(Video 8:44)
SMS is one of my favourite topics. You’ve both heard me do my spiel in front of the House Committees and every opportunity I can. It’s actually a canard, because any company can bring in a Safety Management System, it’s actually a best practice. When we talk about SMS in the context of the regulatory world, in a sense it really disguises what it really is. It really goes back to the Smart Regulation wave that struck the Western world.
Basically the philosophy of Smart Regulations is; companies are smart and mature and they really do not need government intervention in their business affairs because we all know that companies have the best interest of the consumer and the product markets that they sell because if they didn’t do a good job people wouldn’t buy their products and they’d go out of business. So we get into arguments about prescriptive versus prescribed regulations. Prescriptive is, and this is how it was sold; why do we call it a “black box” in a plane? It could be red, or pink or purple or some other colour. Why would you tell us it has to be red? Why does it have to be this size? It could be smaller or bigger, just as long as it does the same thing. In other words, why do we have wasted regulations costing us money? And, we know what we’re doing.
Bluntly, it was sold to the industrial world as deregulation, because that’s exactly what it is. Instead of the government, or the State, stepping up to the plate and saying, no, well you must have these certain rules, whether it’s hours of service for workers or it’s the type of safety clothing or safety equipment you have to wear, companies – we can trust them.
Well, where has that taken us to? The example I used last time, in front of the Dangerous Goods Act (DGA), Bill C-9, was actually our good friend Mr. Greenspan, a former Chair of the "Fed" [Federal Reserve] in the States, he was talking to the Finance Committee in the States, and he asked, “What happened?” And he was puzzled because, they had Safety Management Systems, and Safety Management Systems are built around robust risk management. And they should have worked, but he just underestimated the greed of bankers. Oops. We’re into a recession. Millions of workers are going to be laid off. Why? Well, basically it’s Smart Regulations with risk management, Safety Management Systems.
That’s where we are.
What’s the problem in Canada? First of all, Transport Canada’s mandate has to be changed. Whether its safety rules, security rules, any kind of rules, there is a balance. On one side you have the safety of workers, the safety of the public, and equally balanced with that is the ability of the company to make a buck. Canadians should be shocked to know that security at airports and safety in fighting terrorism has to be balanced with the company right to make a buck. If it comes to worker safety, well that has to be balanced with the company’s ability to make a buck.
Number one, Transport Canada’s mandate, how it does business, has to change. The security and safety of the public and workers has to be higher than the company’s ability to make a buck. That’s number one.
Number two. Something that we’ve addressed, and we would have to congratulate the Conservatives initially both in Bill C-6 and C-7, is one of the Teamster amendments that we put forward, and that was to restore some accountability to Parliament. Basically, most of these deals are made in the back room and Brother Balnis and I have submitted to Committees, where basically, when a company wants something they can pretty well get it. Air, railroad, it doesn’t really matter, it’s changing. It is changing. Why? Because the company has to make a buck.
The one amendment that we brought on the Dangerous Goods Act, as you know, was to ensure that the House of Commons Committees, the Transportation Committee, on their own account or by complaint of complaint of the stakeholder, can review regulations made under the Act. That was included in Bill C-7 thanks to the Conservatives. Bill C-6 came forward from Mr. Volpe, supported by Mr. Julian and of course Mr. Bevington, and in fact the entire Committee supported it. I was very thrilled to see that.
It is very important that the public, with the Safety Management Systems that are in place, you don’t end up with the companies and the government or the Minister of Transportation doing this (point fingers across and in different directions). One saying I’m following the rules and its okay, the other saying well you followed the rules and its okay but we’re not sure.
Safety Management Systems isn’t just about air. It’s about food, it’s about the environment, it’s about every single piece of legislation passed by this government dealing with Canada’s safety and security in probably the last ten years.
I’d urge that that particular clause gets put into every enabling piece of legislation. It is our policy that we will try our best to get it into every Transport piece of legislation.
One of the most important items, I think, at the end of the day, is for the Parliamentarians to stand up to the plate. There are two here, and I’ll tell you simply why. For a long time, from my perspective, bringing issues to Parliamentarians, their viewpoint has been, in the past, well we passed that legislation, it’s all over there in regulations, we don’t have to worry about it because it’s dealt with. That’s why I do thank you Mr. Bevington, for supporting our particular amendment on the DGA, and previously I think you supported our amendment on Bill C-7. But the bottom line is, this isn’t something that is Transport Canada’s fault, or problem. This isn’t the industry’s problem, in the sense that people want to make a buck. This was Parliamentarians not doing their job. From all parties.
Parliamentarians are willing to pass pieces of legislation and wash their hands of it and move on. Transport Canada is fulfilling its mandate set by Parliament. They’re not doing it in spades. They are fulfilling their mandate on Smart Regs, SMSes, prescribed versus mandated regulations. They are following their mandate. If the change happens - Transport Canada will follow any order it is given by Parliament.
It is up to Parliament to change it.
That was one issue that was discussed on the DGA, which is on security, but it could be on safety. Perhaps that august body, the SCOTIC Committee, one of these days could take the time from their busy schedules to have stakeholders come forward, raise these issues, talk about them and perhaps the Parliamentarians could do what they are supposed to do; look after me, my family, all our families and the travelling public. Blame is not just aimed at one direction, not just one government, not just one party. I will give the Conservatives credit. On the Railway Safety Act, the Committees have been set up. Full union participation is going to move a long way on the railway safety problems. On Bill C-7 and on the Dangerous Goods Act, they were the ones that really paraded the amendment, we worked with them but they put forward the amendments to make sure that the House of Commons would actually be responsible.
I think with your support, and other MP support, we can push that wagon, that agenda forward a little bit more. To both Mr. Julian and Mr. Bevington, I appreciated both of your support, both on the previous and this Bill, in moving some of our agenda forward.
Thank you.
