CHAPTER II
SAFETY ISSUES OF CONCERN WHICH AFFECT ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
A. Development of a Culture of Safety
B. Canada’s Changing
Transportation Workforce
C. Alcohol and
Drug Abuse in the Transportation Industry.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Special Senate Committee on Transportation Safety and Security was established by the Senate on June 18, 1998. Its existence stems directly from the comprehensive work done by the Subcommittee of the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communication on Transportation Safety. The Subcommittee was originally agreed to by the Senate on October 2, 1996 and tabled its final report on May 12, 1998. Both the Subcommittee and the Special Committee have similar mandates dealing with the power to hold hearings for the purpose of making recommendations upon the state of safety and security in the transportation industries in Canada. To accomplish this task both committees were to review technical, legal and regulatory structures with a view "to ensuring that transportation safety and security in Canada are of such high quality as to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians in the twenty-first Century".
After extensive hearings throughout Canada, meetings in Washington D.C. with representatives of the transportation industry and government officials, coupled with detailed hearings on all facets of transportation with similar groups in London, England, Brussels and Paris, France as well as attending the Second World Conference on Transportation Safety held at the Technical University in Delft The Netherlands; the Subcommittee issued a report. This report recounted the work of the Subcommittee, reflecting on the enormity of the task it had undertaken. The report concluded with the recommendation that the subcommittee be dissolved and replaced by a Special Senate Committee dedicated to the issue of Transportation Safety and Security. All of the work done by the subcommittee, including all of the evidence it heard was referred to the new Special Committee on Transportation Safety and Security.
It became the task of the new Special Committee to sift through the volumes of materials collected by the Subcommittee and add it to the ongoing work of the Special Committee in order to produce this comprehensive report. This report therefore includes the findings of the Subcommittee and recommendations arising from its work. In addition, this report includes material and references to the ongoing work of the Special Committee.
In September 1998, the Chair of the Special Committee, Senator Michael Forrestall, attended a two-day workshop hosted by the United States National Transportation Safety Board on the subject of that Board’s family and Victim Assistance Program. In October 1998, Senator Forrestall and Deputy Chair Senator Willie Adams travelled to Australia and New Zealand in order to study the measures used in these countries to ensure and promote transportation safety. This report contains the findings of the Chair and Deputy Chair concerning the state of transportation safety in Australia and New Zealand at Appendix II.
The objective of this report is to identify significant safety issues encountered in the work of both the Subcommittee and Special Committee and make recommendations for action. In some cases action is required by government, the transportation industry or both. In other cases recommendations or comments will refer to further investigation required by the Special Committee itself.
We are indeed fortunate in putting this report together to have three Senators who have served on both the Subcommittee and The Special Committee and who provided the "corporate memory" of the work done by the Subcommittee. They are Senator J. Michael Forrestall, Chair, Senator Willie Adams, Deputy Chair, and Senator Fernand Roberge. All Senators on the Special Committee appreciate the work they have done in ensuring continuity between the work of the two committees.
This report is divided into discrete chapters dealing with each mode of transportation studied by the Committees. As well it contains a chapter concerning safety issues which we believe affect all modes of transportation and chapters dealing specifically with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, lighthouses, and concluding chapters on future developments in the areas of transportation safety and security.
SAFETY ISSUES OF CONCERN WHICH AFFECT ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
A. Development of a Culture of Safety
Canada is a vast country with most of its relatively small population concentrated in a few urban areas. The rest of its people are located in small towns, villages and settlements that dot its landscape from sea to sea to sea. The physical condition of geography when combined with the far flung location of population centres accentuate the importance of long distance transport – rail, air, truck and marine. In fact there are many areas in the northern part of Canada that are only accessible by one method of transportation for some months during the year, and indeed only if the weather is favourable.
Specific concerns regarding the safety of particular modes of transport will be set out in later chapters, but one overarching theme has become clear: more people are travelling, more cargo is being shipped now than ever before. This means there are more carriers from all modes of transport in service than ever before. Obviously, there is the a consequent potential for an increase in accident rates in all modes.
We believe that Canadians deserve to travel, and have their goods transported safely and securely. The federal and provincial governments, as well as all facets of the transportation industry and the travelling public must work together to foster a culture of safety. While we believe this is happening, we are nevertheless concerned about the number of serious transportation accidents which occur in this country on almost a weekly basis.
A key component in safety management is the requirement to be proactive, to commit the management and staff involved in the industry to identifying potential accidents and incidents before they happen and to take proactive measures to prevent them or minimize their effect. Safety must be promoted as a shared responsibility among everyone involved.
The witnesses who appeared before the Subcommittee demonstrated an overall commitment to safety. The Canadian Automobile Association, the various provincial safety councils, as well as the federal, provincial, and municipal governments have myriad plans and programs designed to promote safety and security in transportation.
Their work combined with the safety consciousness demonstrated by both unions and management in all facets of the transportation industry promote a "culture of safety" among Canadians. This, we believe, is vitally important. All Canadians benefit when all participants in transportation subscribe to a safety culture. The key to defining a safety culture is finding the line between risk management and risk taking and not crossing over it to start assuming risks.
As the Special Committee continues its work, we will explore additional ways by which a "culture of safety" can be promoted throughout all segments of the transportation industry.
B. Canada’s Changing Transportation Workforce
Throughout the hearings of the Subcommittee many references were made to the declining workforce in the transportation industry. The downsizing of the workforce is inexorably linked with the increasing use of high tech computer systems in all facets of the transportation industry.
Transportation Unions raised the issue of reduction in the workforce mainly in the context of fewer workers equating with less emphasis on safety. For example, the issue has been raised in connection with the plans of this Government and its predecessor to destaff a number of light stations on Canada’s West Coast. Also the unions representing railway employees have placed significant emphasis on a downsized workforce demonstrating less concern by management for safety. Other examples were presented by the marine industry and the CAW which represents some airline employees. In relation to truck transport we were told that the dictates of the bottom line have considerably reduced safety concerns, especially among small independent truck lines.
All of these criticisms of a reduced workforce or an overworked and therefore exhausted workforce are related to what has been referred to by the railway unions as renewed emphasis on the profitability of transportation caused by increased and unregulated competition.
We realise that the transportation industry, like most industries at the end of this century has moved into the technological age. Fifty years ago freight trains were equipped with large crews, a caboose, with the engineer accompanied by a fireman whose task was to stoke the boilers of the gigantic steam locomotives. Now trains can be directed by a person standing on the ground operating a remote-control beltback. Rather than large crews continuously checking rails for deficiencies, a highly computerized rail car is utilised, running along the tracks detecting the slightest flaw in the rails.
It is the view of the transportation industry that everything must be done to create a safe environment. High on the list is the extensive use of computer technology to increase safety.
We urge unions and management involved in all aspects of Canada’s transportation industries to work together in the interests of safety. It is completely counterproductive for unions to advocate a return to an era prior to the introduction of computer technology in the transportation industry. However, it would be of equal concern should management introduce employment-saving measures without sufficient testing to ascertain that such methods can be utilized without compromising safety or in some cases improving it.
C. Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the Transportation Industry.
The issue of alcohol and drug abuse in the transportation workplace was raised with virtually every witness who appeared before the Subcommittee. Barbara Butler, a noted expert in the field of drug and alcohol abuse provided particularly helpful evidence on this subject. She referred the Subcommittee to surveys conducted by Transport Canada and by the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. With reference of the Alberta Study she stated:
"In general, the use of alcohol by transportation employees at work is seventy nine per cent compared to eighty per cent in all industries. Thirteen percent, a fairly high number, are moderate to heavy drinkers, but less than one percent classify themselves as extremely heavy drinkers. Street drug use is very high in transportation, and I think that is a concern. Eleven percent report that they have used street drugs in the last year.
To me, the most significant information from this survey is that a quarter of the respondents felt that drug use and alcohol use were extremely or moderately serious problems in their own company. They are reporting that what is happening in their businesses is of concern and is affecting safety."
She graphically described the effects of drugs and alcohol on the operating skill of those involved in the transportation industry. Alcohol has an impact on reaction time, tracking, vision, co-ordination and comprehension. Marijuana affects short-term memory, sense of timing, reaction, co-ordination and reduces concentration. Cocaine creates restlessness, anxiety, and sleeplessness. All of those substances affect transportation safety in a severe negative fashion.
In the United States a mandatory random testing regime has been implemented by statute. It affects rail operations and the motor carrier industries including, as of July 1, 1997, virtually all commercial vehicle operations in the United States. It has also had ramifications for Canada’s trucking companies and Canadian railroads. All of Canada’s cross-border rail and truck transport operators are subject to the United States testing laws.
It should be noted that Transport Canada was in the process of developing regulations dealing with this matter in the early 1990s. However, in December 1994, the Minister of Transport announced to the industry that these regulations would not be implemented.
Ms. Butler explained to the Subcommittee that the implementation of mandatory testing is controversial as employees are concerned about privacy and about the accuracy of the testing process. They are also concerned about the possibility that other medical conditions may be tested and the confidentiality of test results.
Employers, on the other hand, are concerned about ensuring employees are fit for duty, meeting their safety and liability standards and are sufficiently deterred from engaging in substance abuse.
Ms. Butler made it clear that testing should be only one component of a company’s drug and alcohol abuse prevention strategy.
Testing is but one component of investigative tools. Awareness and education, access to employee assistance, and are needed. There is also a need for proper training for supervisors related to their job and performance management, and for tools to identify someone in violation of the policy. All of these factors work together. They are not alternatives to testing, but they can be part of a complete workplace program. (2:20)
Another witness, Maurice Engels, the former Chair of the Railway Safety Act Review Committee, lent his support to the view that alcohol and substance abuse in the transportation industry should be fought as vigorously as possible. One of the recommendations of that Committee was the implementation of a testing program for rail employees who operate in safety-sensitive positions.
His argument in favour of this position was compelling in its logic:
"Automobile drivers in practically every province of this country are now being tested on a random basis. If, indeed, it is considered to be of concern that one of these drivers should be on the road, how can we say that a locomotive engineer should not be subject to such testing, when you consider the responsibilities that person would have?" (2:30)
With this testimony as background, members of the Subcommittee carried out extensive questioning of virtually every government, industry, and union witness, with varying degrees of success, on the subject of the prevention or detection of alcohol and substance abuse.
It should be noted positively that Canadian National Railway has recently introduced a comprehensive alcohol and substance abuse program. This program, designed through the co-operation of unions and management, features both mandatory testing in certain circumstances and assistance programs.
In Washington, representatives of Amtrak – the National Railroad Passenger Corporation told the Subcommittee of the success they have had with their drug-testing plan called "Operation Redbook". It allows an employee to notify Amtrak at the last minute that she or he will not be able to come to work because of impairment. This has built a measure of trust between railroad management and labour and provides a solid basis for safety.
Evidence given at the World Conference on Transportation Safety at the University of Delft in The Netherlands demonstrated that twenty percent of deaths on European highways are caused by drunk drivers. The blood-alcohol level in Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece and Portugal is 0.5g and in Sweden it is 0.2g. There, 0.8g is considered high because of its effect on reaction time.
The rail regulations in the United Kingdom allow for random mandatory drug and alcohol testing. Drivers who fail the test are subject to immediate dismissal. The rail unions have been quite supportive of this initiative.
We note that in Nova Scotia, a Private Members Bill has been introduced increasing the penalties for those who are caught driving while impaired. Licenses could be suspended indefinitely for repeat offenders and vehicles may be impounded if the driver is driving with a license that has been suspended.
The Subcommittee also heard from the Irving Transportation group. This group has implemented a drug and alcohol program and has completely updated their Employee Assistance Program. They told us that their emphasis was on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. While we commend them for their approach to this problem, we are concerned about a matter they raised with us. This was a contention that the random mandatory testing used by United States authorities on Canadian truck and locomotive drivers could be challenged in Canadian courts and found to be illegal. This they argued would mean the Canadian trucking companies could no longer do business in the United States and would result in a significant loss of business for the Canadian trucking and railway industry. It was their advice that Canada should immediately implement drug testing laws similar to those in the United States.
While we are comforted by the actions of some companies and the co-operation shown by their employees in relation to drug and substance abuse, the Subcommittee was puzzled by the attitude shown by other witnesses. Witnesses such as the British Columbia Aviation Council and the United Auto Workers either refused to admit drug or alcohol abuse was a problem or claimed that random mandatory testing was overly intrusive.
We are mindful in making this recommendation that any system of testing that is introduced must be monitored carefully so that samples are well marked and the testing carried out is of the highest quality.
In our future hearings we will be exploring with our witnesses methods that have been found to be effective elsewhere in dealing with drug and alcohol abuse and the transportation industry.
We believe that the transportation industry in Canada should have zero tolerance towards drug and alcohol on the job in safety sensitive positions. The safety of those in the industry and those who use it depends on operators who are alert and whose response time to emergency situations is not dulled by any substance.