“In 2003, 400 worker safety regulations were eliminated to meet the government’s targets.”

This is completely meaningless without knowing the specifics of which rules were eliminated and how they relate to the mill incidents. Jim Sinclair is just grandstanding for the media once again.

In keeping with what JB wrote:

13 Strange Canadian Laws You Never Knew Existed
http://www.readersdigest.ca/travel/canada/13-strange-canadian-laws-you-never-knew-existed

So, tell us People#1, which laws/regulations were removed in an effort to simplify codification so that more people could understand them?

Maybe there are some like this Canadian law, for instance:

“While it won’t make you a law breaker, according to Canada’s Currency Act of 1985 there are limits to the number of coins you can use in a transaction.

“If it’s nickels, vendors can say no to any purchase over $5, while the loonie limit is $25.”

people#1 said the other day that sawmills were not his area of expertise. With every keystroke it becomes becomes more obvious that the well of ignorance on the subject is bottomless.

Will the reply be:

http://pantsinacan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/hot_air.jpg

again?

The Westray Mine Disaster happened on May 9, 1992, killing all 26 miners working underground at the time.

Bill C-45 is federal legislation that amended the Canadian Criminal Code. Bill C-45 became law on March 31, 2004 and is now the new Section 217.1 in the Criminal Code which reads:

“2.17.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.”

The Bill is also known as the “Westray Bill”.

So, it took 12 years to change a Code or Regulation in that case.

It is too bad that the Globe could not be a bit more cognizant of how slowly government moves in such matters which have to move through the courts and subsequently possibly through government in order to alter regulations and/or codes.

I have not got the faintest clue why there has not been a coroner’s investigation yet, nor a police investigation which would deal with the potential criminal aspect of it. WorkSafeBC deals with regulatory compliance NOT criminal action or inaction.

It is clear to me from 2.17.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada that the action or inaction of Lakeland may be in contravention of 2.17.1. It is up to the police and Crown Council to make that determination, not WorkSafeBC.

Another thought comes to mind. The RCM{P has all these INTEGRATED crime units. Perhaps they should take note of that and start integrating their work in the area of corporate activities.

“”2.17.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.”
——————————————-
Define ‘reasonable’. Let me relate an incident from personal experience.

Two workers were told to build a scaffold along the wall of a planer building before installing some corrugated metal roofing on its roof. The top of the wall of the building on which the roofing was going was only about nine feet off the ground.

Both protested vigorously that a scaffold was not necessary, that they could do the job ‘on the roof’, working along the top plate of the wall and up the roof strapping.

The foreman told them it was far safer to build the scaffold anyways, and that’s what he wanted them to do. He left them expecting his instructions would be carried out.

They weren’t. The workers decided the scaffold wasn’t needed, that it just made extra work for them building it and taking it down again later, and that they could do the job just as well without it. They were going to do things “their way”, despite what they’d been told. They’d save the company some money.

Halfway through the job one of them slipped, and fearful of falling to the ground unconsciously grabbed the edge of the piece of metal roofing they’d just finished nailing down. As he slid the metal’s edge sliced through three tendons on his fingers, he lost his grip, and slid right off the roof.

The fall didn’t hurt him, but he required surgery and extensive rehabilitation to regain the use of his fingers.

Who is at fault? The foreman? He gave instructions with worker safety in mind. They weren’t obeyed. The company? Because the ‘chain of command’ couldn’t manage every minute detail of the works in progress at every moment? In the ‘real world’ could ANYONE? The workers thought they knew better. They found out, at least one of them did, ‘the hard way’, that they didn’t.

As a result, the WCB premium, paid entirely by the employer, tripled for the next three years, and it took several more accident free years before it was rated below the industry norm again.

We all know that I abhor Unions and Union Leaders. Jim Sinclair absolutely opitomizes everything that is bad about the labour movement. What a freaking twit this guy is! Is he even capable of holding a job in the “real” world??

I am sure that absolutely everyone wishes that the Babine Forest Products and the Lakeland Mills explosions and fires had never occurred. To wish otherwise is beyond comprehension.

The finger pointing regarding these tragedies will go on for years. There is no doubt in my mind about this. As I’ve said in the past, whatever actions taken, if any, will understandably never ever satisfy everyone involved, especially the families of those that perished or were injured.

As JohnnyBelt has earlier stated “Jim Sinclair is just grandstanding for the media once again.”

I have only one question for Jim Sinclair. If he cared so much about his union members, why did the union allow it’s workers to continue to work in an unsafe work environment?

I don’t know much about the negotiated contracts governing these sites, but it seems to me that the union has the right to withdraw it’s members from an unsafe work environment. I’m sure that Peeps will let me know if I am wrong!!

If we are going to condemn the Government for a lack of adequate regulations, if we are going to condemn Babine and Lakeland for failing to abide by any existing regulations or for failing to provide a safe workplace, and if we are going to condemn WorkSafer for failing to carry out adequate inspections and enforce regulations, then perhaps we also need to ask the Unions why they didn’t pull their workers from these ticking time bombs?

I can understand the worker’s need and desire to go to work in order to feed and provide for their families. I can understand that on a personal level, this might cause a worker may make a choice that could be seen as not in their best interests. That’s understandable. Making a choice to work when it’s unsafe to work is a decision that they shouldn’t have to bear, considering that they may feel that to do so might put their job in jeapardy.

So, shouldn’t the Union be stepping up for the workers? If nobody else is, including government, mill owners and WorkSafe, then shouldn’t the Union step in to protect their workers by refusing to have it’s members undertake dangerous work and dangerous working conditions?

Or, is the Union only concerned about collected Union Taxes, oops I mean Union Dues?

If Jim Sinclair is going to point fingers, then he needs to explain why the Union didn’t pull it’s members and shut these mills down!

This is called looking at the issue from ALL sides!!

Good post Hart Guy!

Along those lines, Hart Guy, I would like to read the minutes of the safety meetings of both mills to see what they say about the workers’ opinions about work conditions.

Then again, maybe they were as stupid as the guys who refused to build the scaffolding for installing some metal roofing.

IT IS EVERYONE’S BUSINESS TO LOOK OUT FOR SAFETY AND EVERYONE’S RIGHT TO REFUSE SAFE WORK.

Sorry, that should read “to refuse UNSAFE work”.

Enough finger pointing. Without anyone of us knowing the details, that includes the Globe and Mail, finger pointing is the easiest thing in the world, but is totally without merit.

WCB has been vilified for dropping the ball in the Babine investigation. I read that two of the reasons were that they collected evidence without a warrant and did not inform witnesses of their charter rights. If the role of the board changes from one of accident prevention to one of prosecution it is the workers that will lose in the long term.

Does this mean that in order for the results of every site inspection to be admissible that they have to enter the premises with a warrant and inform everyone they talk to during that inspection of their rights. They will not get a lot of cooperation from companies or individuals.

Currently during an inspection an officer can “require persons to attend to answer questions and require questions to be answered on oath or affirmation;” and under the act there are penalties that can be imposed on an individual. If the threat of criminal charges is also hanging over their head I can people refusing to answer because of their charter rights.

I think that will come out of this is that both companies and wcb inspectors will look at “housekeeping” in a different way with more focus above knee level. While unsightly,a pile of sawdust at the outfeed of a machine does not pose an immediate and serious threat. The very thin layer of super fine dust that lands on almost every flat surface, perlins and even the cross braces of exposed trusses can be extremely dangerous under the right conditions. Proper methods of clean up must also be considered as just grabbing an airhose is asking for trouble- talked to a Lakeland employee shortly after the tragedy was told that one of the things being looked at was if a person was blowing down his work area without realizing there was cuttingwelding happening in the vicinity.

lonesome states; “I think that will come out of this is that both companies and wcb inspectors will look at “housekeeping” in a different way.”

Did you just fall off a turnip truck??? Everyone and their dog knows a messy worksite is a “dangerous” worksite. Construction workers know this, every professional trades person know this… and you call it simple “housekeeping”? Wow… just wow…!!!

People#1 wrote: “How about the government arrange for the release of that inadmissable evidence to the public? Of course they wouldn’t, because that evidence would make the government and the sawmill owners look negligent.”

You have shown repeatedly with that statement and others over the last several months that you have absolutely no understanding of the notion of due process.

We are beyond lynch mobs. Vigilante justice is not longer how civilized people conduct themselves, other than those who are ignorant of our social systems.

Give it a break and learn something that will allow you to participate in civilized discussions.

First task is to understand the concept of due process.

As lonesome sparrow wrote, WCB has process defined in the WCB Act which governs their operation. There are many people outside the WCB who are given similar rights to enter premises without warrants as long as it can be shown to be reasonable in each case.

Perhaps you should do a bit of research to find out which kind of “peace officers” and others have that right.

Here is a free one to get you started P#1

The authority to enter non residential premises without a warrant under the PCA Act ……

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96372_01#section14

People#1; I asked you this in a previous related article & I’ll ask again. Have you ever spent any time in an industrial setting? Your reply to Lonesome Sparrow truly shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. In industry any form of cleanup is called housekeeping. That is Industry 101, the fact that you did not know this, yet ridiculed someone else for it…Wow, just wow.

If lonesome is right, and they are actually re-examining something as basic as “housekeeping” to prevent accidents, then WorkSafeBC, and everyone involved in work place safety, should be fired!!!

This work place safety rule is so basic, it seems shocking that the agency responsible for enforcing it, and the owners of the sawmills for complying with it, ignored it.

When I say “basic” I mean “basic”!!! The last safety poster is from the 1950’s for “F” sakes!

http://www.cocosafe.com/ccs/detail/page/30

http://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/130622148/retro-vintage-safety-poster-circa-1950s?ref=market

You are looking for an argument that doesn’t exist.

Thank you to all the people who are signing the petition I linked to earlier on in this discussion thread, I count almost 50 have signed it since it was posted here.

Just finished work, thought I’d check out what’s going on here in the circus!

Yep, nothing changed!

Peeps, I keep biting my tongue but every once in a while I just have to say it….get of your freaking high horse, you know it all blowhard!! For crying out loud, get a freaking job! Do you do nothing all day except browse the internet for anything and everything that supports your personal ideology. Man, get a life!!

I can just imagine you at a party! What a barrel of laughs you must be! I’d be willing to bet my hard earned money that after being invited to and attending a party, you never get invited back!! Have you ever wondered why that is?? Would you like me to tell you? Would you??

As you stated “This work place safety rule is so basic, it seems shocking that the agency responsible for enforcing it, and the owners of the sawmills for complying with it, ignored it”

I’ll end my verbal tirade by pointing out that you never commented about my earlier post regarding the Union’s culpability and responsibility in these tragic situations. Does the Union not bear any responsibility for allowing it’s members to work in an unsafe environment? No answer Peeps! Really??

If we are going to point fingers, let’s point them at everyone responsible, for “F” sakes as you so eloquently put it!!

People, you would be shocked & appalled at how something as basic as housekeeping is overlooked, neglected or outright ignored in a lot of industry environments by everyone who has a stake in a safe work place. As with most anything, education & leading by example are the keys, yet a lot of work places just assume that these principles are common nature. Younger workers need to understand the correlation between a clean work place & a safe work place, older workers need to pass this on, management needs to enforce it ( meaningfully) & all parties need to buy into it completely to make it work effectively.

Anything to get out of learning something P#1 …..

I thought you were a pimple faced student. Obviously you are just another old fart at heart who has learned everything they need to know, especially how to turn what could be a reasonable discussion and learning experience for all concerned into ad hominem attacks rooted in outright hatred.

Yes detoe43, but let’s not forget the “production trumps clean-up / safety” mantra for some sawmill owners and managers like BFP. I have heard this personally from some of the “B” shift workers who were working the night their worksite exploded around them.

No doubt, BFP worker testimony was part of the evidence not allowed, because the WorkSafeBC investigators “forgot” to inform these workers of their rights, before they were interviewed.

I would like to hear about a company so obsessed with production volume that worker safety came only as a second thought, in a Independent Public Inquiry! It is there, and we need to hear it, because other worker’s lives are still in danger!

gus refers to my comments as; “ad hominem attacks rooted in outright hatred.”

Hmmm… and here I thought I was pressing for a Independent Public Inquiry in to the BFP and Lakewood explosions. So in your perverted mind, my seeking the facts and truths behind two tragic events, that were not allowed as admissible evidence in court, equates to; “ad hominem attacks rooted in outright hatred.”?

So in your perverted mind, my quoting The Globe and Mail more-or-less describing Shirley Bond and the Liberals as being clueless on this matter, is an “ad hominem attack rooted in outright hatred.”?

Hmmm… and here I though I was just stating the facts and truth on this matter.

I said it before nothing would come of these two explosions and nothing will as long as liberal govt. is in place of enforcement and control of worksafe bc and wcb it is a crock of .hit. it is a matter of enforcing rules and regs that are in place and don’t keep bending rules to favour companies that are blantantly disregarding safety issues in industry. once again thankyou Christy for giving it to the boys up the tailpipe again.

ice, Peeps won’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it of you…..

If the government is abdicating it’s responsibility and the greedy company is doing the same, and if WorkSafe is not enforcing or is unable to enforce the rules, then why on earth is the Union not pulling the plug on it’s workforce? Unsafe work? Pull the worker’s! Unsafe facilities? Pull the workers! Safety violations? Pull the workforce!!!

Thank you Christy for giving it to the boys up the tailpipe again??? Really?? How about “Thanks Jim Sinclair, for collecting Union Dues and for allowing unionized workers to work in unsafe workplaces!”

As I said earlier, if we are going to point fingers and we are going to lay blame, then let’s look at this from all sides!!

Perverted synonyms

unnatural, deviant, warped, corrupt, twisted, abnormal, unhealthy, depraved, perverse, aberrant, immoral, debauched, debased, degenerate, evil, wicked, vile, amoral

P#1

Learn the common meaning of words.

I insist that you cease and desist from using that kind of word for ANYONE on here, including myself and provide me with an apology!!!.

Wow, 6,496 petition supporters, just 4 more petition signers to make it 6,500 supporters for an Independent Public Inquiry into the sawmill explosion.

http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-honourable-christy-clark-call-for-an-independent-inquiry-into-fatal-babine-forest-products-sawmill-explosion

Thanks for your support everyone, we need the facts and the truth to come out!

For anyone interested to know what the restrictions and authority WSBC officer work under when it comes to inspections and investigations, read Division 11

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/–%20W%20–/Workers%20Compensation%20Act%20RSBC%201996%20c.%20492/00_Act/96492_03.xml#part3_division11

The WCB Act is just one Act of Parliament which provides legislated authority to enter premises (other than residences) to officers of the organization without warrant as well as identify conditions when warrants are required.

What we are missing in all this at this time seems to be a report from Crown Council which indicates why the evidence from WCB is unacceptable and why they cannot independently gather evidence in a police led investigation.

One Saturday morning I was reading the Friday Free For All and it seems that people#1’s ideal way to spend a Friday night is sit in front of a computer with a bottle and write snarky comments. Could be that the bottle has found it’s way onto the desk on many other days.
Might explain why the tone his comments decline in direct proportion with the level of the bottle.

Hart Guy- There is also a certain member of city council that should focus on his day job as I think both mills are in the local that he leads

gus

This is the article where I read that the evidence was inadmissible due to lack of search warrants and failure to inform of charter rights- two things not necessarily required to impose penalties described in the wcb act but charges under the CCofC is a different kettle of fish.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/WorkSafeBC+report+says+fatal+mill+explosion+could+have+been/9396876/story.html

gus: “I insist that you cease and desist from using that kind of word for ANYONE on here, including myself and provide me with an apology!!!”

I wouldn’t hold my breath, gus. Name calling is the only tool in Peep’s toolbox and he uses it frequently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg

Which one is JB?

Thanks for that lonesome sparrow.

If you have not read the report by the deputy premier on the Babine case, and you have the time to do so, you may find it interesting. It shows the difference of opinion between the WCB legal department and the Criminal Justice Branch of the government.

In my view not all cases are the same. It states as much in the report. The CJB is prejudging the case, which is normal for lawyers to do when they advise a client the probability of success. In this case, the penalty under the Criminal Code for a successful prosecution may not warrant the effort.

Personally I think they are giving up too early.

Interestingly we have seen recently on here where the SCC has reversed previous decisions. As I often say, it takes an excellent lawyer to present an excellent case which will convince the SCC.

The key is in the ability to get it right where the initial investigation for cause ends and the investigation for charges begins.

I can see where the opinion of WSBC could be different from that of the CJB.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.labour.gov.bc.ca%2Fwab%2Fpdf%2FBabine_report_Web_140211.pdf&ei=KHAMU6DVIZTsoATW54CAAg&usg=AFQjCNG1XtxaNkUdypYXozEXxksZabgY8w&bvm=bv.61725948,d.cGU