So sorry for you burns lake . It’s very clear who worksafebc works for and who the government serves . It’s not the voters that gave them the operatunity to serve the people of bc . They obviously serve the industries that are not voters . Two dead twenty injured . Must have been the victims fault . Is that the message we are to take from this .

Botched for a reason?

anytime wcb is involved the grunt gets the boot up the tailpipe. its been like this since shortly after cambell and his bullies took power. he completely gutted wcb put the people in power he wanted gave them rules and guidelines to follow and then he gave out big bonuses to keep down the claims. one more reason to get rid of the crooks

She most likely delivered this message to all of us with a smile on her face.

I totally agree with everyone so far.. What purpose does WorkSafe serve??? What is their mandate?? Even here in PG I hear how Worksafe skirts or just passes the buck..

Burns Lake… We are still with you..

The purpose it serves is to prevent employees from suing employers . Same as WBC only worse . They can maime , kill you and leave your family in poverty . With no recourse for votes but people still vote against their own self interest. How people elected these business lackies is beyond belief .

“…but concedes there were major failings on the agency’s part and she’s calling for an immediate action plan to find out what went wrong – and fix it.”

Liberal cuts to WorksafeBC and a complete lack of support from this government is what is wrong!!!

Go look in the mirror and fix yourself, and your government, Christy!

I am torn between a public inquiry versus internal inquiry. The latter should work much more quickly. This situation needs to be corrected in order to NEVER happen again, even if there were another such incident tomorrow.

We must not forget, these were highly visible incidents. Where the system does not work for those, the systems likely does not work for less public incidents.

In my opinion, there should have been:

1. immediate corrective actions in place shortly after the time the Burns Lake incident took place.

2. There were some corrective actions taken, but they were inadequate since a second, very similar incident happened in PG. Whether the cause could have been prevented by improved earlier corrective actions is not publicly known at this time, as far as I can tell.

3. If there could have been better corrective actions in place is, in itself an investigations of some importance because it goes to the quality of service a government organization provides.

So much for the immediate actions for which the time period has now passed.

We then come to the short term actions. From my point of view they should include:

1.A robust and interim system put in place to reassure that WorkPlaceBC works to BEST practices standards to fulfill its mandate. That means identifying the key components of preventive actions as well as investigative actions that WorkSafeBC MUST provide to the companies, workers and the public that it serves.

2.A review of why the system did not do what it needed to do, what was expected of it to do and making commensurate changes intended to prevent future such incidents. The WSBC must also ensure that those individuals and departments who must take the blame, and there is blame to be assigned in such incidents, are dealt with appropriately.

One of the places I would look in the corporation is the legal department. So far all I have seen coming from that department is the development of protective systems for the corporation, with little emphasis on safety with respect to the people it serves.

3.Finally, a long term plan must be put in place which monitors continuing “everyday” failures as well as “fixes” for those failures. The initial action on that element would be to develop a baseline of the current situation in WSBC for ALL incidents and response actions that were taken to correct such failures.

This shakeup of WSBC needs to resonate throughout the organization and cause a much needed improvement in an organization which has not had the scrutiny it should have had a long time ago.

One final word, I will not recognize anyone who tries to politicize this thing. I have dealt with claims departments as well as the prevention departments for some 15 to 20 years. NDP, BCLiberals …. it does not matter who is in charge. WCB/WSBC is an organization that very independent of politics. Political solutions will not work.

One other opinion I wish to share. The regions each have their own safety officers who are not regulated by head office. They make their own independent decisions and thus there are some that are adequate and others that are not adequate.

The BC Building Code inspection system used to operate that way prior to about 1973 or so. Each municipality had their own inspectors and appeals could not be launched to a central agency that was the “keeper of the standard”. Building inspectors are fallible, just as WSBC inspectors are fallible.

Quick, efficient, effective appeal processes must be in place for such immediate cases where the slower the action or inaction, the more injuries, fatalities and loss of infrastructure will occur.

Probably would have been much smarter to have a guy like Len Doust lead the investigation, and in future, contract criminal/civil counsel to head it.

Worksafe BC works for the employers not the employees – ask anyone who has any dealings with this organization.
Christy is a “business” individual supported by businesses. She is all talk and no action and what is Shirley going to do – get her face in a picture looking at the report.

The culpability lays in the following news article statement;

“Prior to the incident, WorkSafeBC did not enforce the combustible dust provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation at the Babine sawmill,” the report said, pointing out the violation order that was issued for excessive levels of airborne dust.

“As the employer, Babine was ultimately responsible to ensure that its operations complied with occupational health and safety legislation.”

The company should have taken action to control wood dust, it said.

“Such actions might have prevented this incident.”

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/worksafebc-report-says-fatal-mill-explosion-could-have-been-prevented-1.1642746#ixzz2tFYOu7o4

Because of the botched investigation, both the government (WorkSafeBC) and the employer get their free “get out of jail cards”. Everyone walks and the workers and their families are left holding the bag!

This whole situation is simply disgusting, and makes this milk drinking person want to PUKE!!!

Watch this happen with the Lakewood sawmill accident / investigation as well.

Gus, I agree with much of what you say. Failures in the system (whatever that is) must be addressed and corrected. However it does not seem that there will ever be a solution that suits everybody involved in these types of incidents, meets the needs of everybody involved and gives closure to an occurrence to the satisfaction of everybody involved.

Will an internal inquiry bring this to satisfactory conclusion to those involved? Will a public inquiry provide sufficient closure? Who knows?

How do we reach a point where everyone is satisfied and everyone is content to move forward? For those injured and/or for family members left behind by those that perish in incidents like this, that point may never be reached!

So, how do we reach that point and at what point do we say enough, when for some, enough will never be enough!

I wouldn’t even attempt to offer a solution. I am however completely convinced that I will be long since dead and buried before we reach, if ever, closure on tragedies like those represented by the Pickton Inquiry, the Residential School System abuses and more recent tragedies like the Babine and Lakewood explosions!

In regards to WorkSafe BC, as they currently operate. They are accident investigators . They are tasked with finding the cause of the accident.
Which in the case of the Burns Lake mill.
Was an electric motor & dust.
That is why the owner of the mill is suing the motor manufacturer.
The proposed changes to Worksafe BC would have it become more of a industrial civil police force.
Where they will have to read your rights before they speak to you. Which allows
companies and people to lawyer up.
Before speaking them.
It may hinder investigations it may not.

If the problem was with the way they gathered and documented , statements & evidence .
Then maybe they could learn from the MOT aircraft crash investigators.
There work seems to stand up in court.

“Prior to the incident, WorkSafeBC did not enforce the combustible dust provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation at the Babine sawmill,” the report said…”

Does anyone else see the CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST here??? WorkSafeBC was partially to blame for this explosion, and they end up investigating themselves??? WTF???

They could have had criminal charges brought against themselves, so it was a good thing they “botched” the investigation!!!

WOW, if this doesn’t scream for a public inquiry, nothing does!!!

Like I said above “Botched for a reason?”

The fact the the officer issued an order to deal with the dust problem in the mill shows that he was in fact doing his job. An enforcement order is only one of the options available to deal with things found during an inspection. The WCB does have the power to shut an operation down if a hazard is severe enough and with hindsight being 20/20 I’m sure he would have done so. The officer would use his experience and knowledge to assess the situation and decide what level of enforcement is required. On next inspection any previous orders would be the first thing looked at.
Searching the net I could find no instance of any sawmill blowing previous to Babine and was likely why natural gas was the first thought that sprung to everyone’s head.Plenty caught fire and burned but did not explode. IMO there is something in the bk wood that makes it more prone to explosion perhaps the blue stain mold creates finer dust or more of it ?

Ego and territorial seems to have come into play here.

WorksafeBC has just become another bloated arm of the government, full of red tape and middle managers who get paid a lot to do little. I agree with the title of this story, it needs a serious overhaul.

I agree with gus, anyone who tries to politicize the issue hasn’t been around long or has an anti-liberal agenda they are trying to push. This has been a problem for far longer than the liberals have been in power.

JB states; “This has been a problem for far longer than the liberals have been in power.”

You state this opinion as though it were fact, JB. Please provide us with examples of other WCB / WorkSafe investigations that have been bungled, resulting in no charges being laid in worker deaths!

“Was an electric motor & dust.
That is why the owner of the mill is suing the motor manufacturer.”

Good luck with that mill owner! Was the motor installed as per manufactures installation instructions? Was the proper motor installed for those adverse conditions? Was the Canadian Electrical code followed in regards to dusty environments? No, no and no otherwise there wouldn’t have been a boom!

The company failed to protect their workers! The workers failed to protect each other. All in the name of making a profit and keeping ones job!

You’re going to break an ankle jumping to conclusions like that people#1.Already have the owners of both mills tried convicted and sentenced. Crown has said they cannot proceed with charges without the evidence that has been lost. That does not necessarily mean that charges would have been filed if it was admissible or that they would have been found guilty.
If the role of WCB changes from one of accident prevention and investigation to one of prosecution I can see a lot less cooperation from the direct supervisor right up to the owner of a company in the event of a serious incident. The first or second call will be to the company lawyer.

People: “Please provide us with examples of other WCB / WorkSafe investigations that have been bungled, resulting in no charges being laid in worker deaths!”

If I worked there, I likely could provide you with many examples. You are once again politicizing an issue where it doesn’t make sense. All we need now is your rhetoric on child poverty and this thread will be complete.

The WCB was a good idea when started, but like most government organizations, it gets filled with bureaucracy which makes it hard to do anything meaningful, then people are just employed to push paper around. The impending changes will be welcome.

How is calling for a public inquiry into the deaths of two sawmill workers, and the injury over 20 others, “politicizing” the issue JB?

WorkSafeBC was partially responsible for this “preventable” accident, investigating itself is clearly a conflict of interest!

Here is the Authority to conduct inspections provided in the WCB act showing selected sections. Anyone who wants to read all of the part that deals with investigative powers is welcome to seek out the act and read the missing parts to make sure I covered the important ones and culled the unimportant parts. If anyone sees the need to get a warrant to do any of the described activities, you need your eyes checked. 

179
(1) An officer of the Board may enter a place, including a vehicle, vessel or mobile equipment, and conduct an inspection for the purpose of ……

(b) ascertaining the cause and particulars of a work related accident, injury or illness or of an incident that had the potential to cause a work related accident, injury or illness,

(2) An inspection may be conducted

(a) at a reasonable hour of the day or night, or

(b) at any other time if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a situation exists that is or may be hazardous to workers.

(f) inspect records that may be relevant and, on giving a receipt for a record, temporarily remove the record to make copies or extracts;

(g) require a person to produce within a reasonable time records in the person’s possession or control that may be relevant;
(h) question persons with respect to matters that may be relevant, require persons to attend to answer questions and require questions to be answered on oath or affirmation;

(k) exercise other powers that may be necessary or incidental to the carrying out of the officer’s functions and duties under this Part or the regulations.

(4) The authority to conduct an inspection under this Division is not limited by any other provision of this Part or the regulations giving specific authority in relation to the inspection.

(5) If an officer of the Board requests this, a peace officer may assist the officer in carrying out his or her functions

The reason given by Crown that they do not want to pursue this case as quoted in the Vancouver Sun by our intrepid Gordon Hoekstra is: “some of the evidence collected by the province’s chief workplace safety regulator would likely be found inadmissible, therefore making any regulatory charges unlikely to succeed in court. The B.C. Criminal Justice Branch cited a lack of search warrants and noted a company official had not been instructed of the right to remain silent when questioned.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/WorkSafeBC+review+investigation+process/9384397/story.html#ixzz2tHPRBnkB

The article goes on with: “It’s not clear why search warrants and notifying those WorkSafeBC interviewed of their rights – both Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues – were only now being raised by Crown.

In 31 cases between 1996 and 2010 where Crown counsel approved charges (24 of which received convictions), the issues were not raised. That included the successful prosecution two years ago of the 2008 Langley mushroom farm incident that killed three workers and left two men with irreparable brain damage.

“The case law the Crown referenced (in its rejection) is at least 10 years old, but it’s never been raised as something that has been required of an occupational health and safety investigation,” WorkSafeBC director of investigation Jeff Dolan said Monday.”

It seems to me that Crown Counsel is the one who has some explaining to do, not WSBC.

Gordon H must be having lots of fun with this one. He digs deep when he investigates and will take on those who create spins like the Crown Counsel.

I am not a fan of the WSBC, but on the face of it, perhaps Crown Counsel’s offices need to be put on the hot seat as well.

It is obvious that WSBC and CC have two different interpretations of the Acts and regulations.

“WorkSafeBC was partially responsible for this “preventable” accident, investigating itself is clearly a conflict of interest!”

I am not sure whether WSBC is investigating itself. They are investigating the cause of the incident and whether the company had any responsibility under the Act and Regs which they did not comply with.

We have to remember that the plant owners are operating the mill not WSBC.

Admonishing WSBC does nothing for the families of the Burns Lake victims. Since the investigation was botched a public inquiry is in order. If yo agree please sign the petition started by one of the bereaved from Burns Lake.
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/christy-clark-worksafe-bc-that-premier-christy-clark-call-for-an-independent-review-of-the-worksafe-bc-investigation-into-the-tragic-explosion-on-january-20-2012-at-babine-forest-products-burns-lake-bc