The liberals don’t care about a couple of tax payers being killed, they only care about helping the business cover its tracks so nobody is found guilty.

What exactly is the expectation here?

There will be no criminal charges because WCB did a civil investigation, and most of their findings aren’t admissible. The crown has made it very clear they haven’t got any usable evidence.

There won’t be any light shed on how it happened, because we pretty much know what happened.

If it’s to publicly shame the owners and management be assured – every executive and management type is going to refuse to testify and use their protection against self incrimination – so you won’t get anything from them.

These inquiries cost a frickin fortune, money that could be spent on child poverty, healthcare, education etc.

So, before the union pounds it’s chest and demands justice, maybe they could articulate just exactly what justice they hope to see out of this, for what it’s going to cost in money, time and energy, other than the elusive closure everyone talks about, what will be accomplished? I’d sincerely like to know.

ski51, I think that the Union is simply looking for the proper venue in which to show how they completely failed their members. The Union could have withdrew their members from a hazardous situation, but instead the Union sat idly by and allowed their members to be at risk!

Not sure why the Union needs to hold a public enquiry to do that, but if that’s what it feel it needs, then go for it!

Makes no sense to me why anyone would not support a public inquiry, there is nothing legally binding in a coroner’s inquest.

First it stands to reason that Worksafe would not simply just accept the investigation done by Lakeland. I would think that Lakeland’s lawyers advised the owners to conduct their own investigation as there would be a good chance that they would face charges under the WCB act and it would be prudent to do their own fact finding.

If during the course of the investigation if they turned up something that Worksafe had obviously overlooked then bring that up but not the full report. Worksafe would base any charges on what they found in their own investigation and not on a report handed to them by the people they are investigating.

The Lakeland report is better suited for the penalty or appeal phase of the process.

As for the union if it does end up in a public inquiry I hope that they are asked what part they played in protecting workers especially after the Babine blast. They have business agents that serve each mill and a Health and Safety director that is responsible for the well being of all 1-424 workers. What steps,if any, did they take to protect the people in other mills.

The H&S director also holds the union purse….I wonder how long it would take for him to be banging down the door of a mill office if the monthly dues check to the union was late in arriving?

One other important question to ask at a public inquiry is if the local president cut back on his moonlighting duties following the Burns Lake disaster so he could focus all his full and complete attention to ensure something similar did not happen to another mill. Did he inquire about the process of getting a LOA from council duties after the first mill was destroyed? How about after the second one?

A quick google search could find no instance of a dust explosion destroying an entire mill before Babine even though the industry dates back 150 years in the province. Plenty burned to the ground because of fires started in piles of debris and sawdust so that is one focus of WCB inspections. They get a far better result doing what they can to prevent something that has happened before from reoccurring than including everything that could or might happen. That being said hindsight is always 20/20.

What? now the union is doing Worksafes work. They should stick to demanding raises.lol

Furtree – I don’t support the inquiry because usually they hire a retired judge for $1,000.00 a day, and then there’s the entourage, and they run into hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. So, before we spend the money, are we going to get something out of this more than we already know. It seems everyone wants someone to go to jail, but it isn’t happening. Here’s a Canada Supreme Court Ruling on self incrimination. If I read it correctly, if management/ownership is compelled to testify at the inquiry, nothing they say can be used to lay criminal blame anyway.

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects witnesses against self-incrimination. Section 13 of the Charter states: “A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.” The Supreme Court has described this protection as a quid pro quo: a witness is compelled to give evidence, even if that evidence may incriminate him or her, on the condition that the evidence will not be used to establish his or her guilt.”

Ski51, work safe made glaring errors in their investigation which they admitted to, Lakeland had numerous warning of the dangers of sawdust build up which they ignored. Lakeland also had a mild explosion 2 weeks before the deal one which they didn’t even report..

This is not acceptable..

Deal=deadly

Ski50 and Hartguy, well said, only thing I would add, is the cost would exceed a couple million bucks.

Fine P Val – so they have the inquiry – management testifies it was all there fault, they were grossly incompetent, they would fall on swords if they were Japanese – but, they can’t be prosecuted.

WCB confesses they were horribly negligent – really super sorry, we already know that and they’ll never say sorry. And as far as monetary costs go, WCB is already paying for the injured workers and compensating the deceased families – you can’t get anymore money from them.

Grizzly2 is likely right. A couple of million dollars – how many textbooks would that buy? How many upgraded hip replacements? Seems to me we should think a little about the cost/benefit mix when we start throwing taxpayer dollars around.

Put another way, if Christy Clark dropped two million dollars in your lap, and said you could spend it on an inquiry, or education – which would you choose. Because we don’t have unlimited resources, we can’t always do both.

RIGHT KRUSTY is going to give money towards education and healthcare instead of getting to the truth. SWEEP it under the rug. THINK IM GOING TO PUKE.

Ski51.. I am hoping that an inquiry would cause upgrades for sawmill etc that must be done.. Not useless recommendations.. If there is anymore loss of life from dust issues it would be absolutely criminal.

Thanks PVal. That’s what I was trying to understand. But unfortunately an inquiry can still only make recommendations, though if the evidence it digs up is damning enough, government would be hard pressed to ignore it.

Come on P Val, let’s not forget the Union! You state that

“work safe made glaring errors in their investigation which they admitted to, Lakeland had numerous warning of the dangers of sawdust build up which they ignored. Lakeland also had a mild explosion 2 weeks before the deal one which they didn’t even report..

This is not acceptable..”

Clearly, this is not acceptable! You and I agree on that!

But apparently Lakeland was in the process of, or was investigating dust mitigation/vacuum systems. A bit too late unfortunately, but at least they were moving in the right direction.

P Val, you point fingers at Work Safe and you point fingers at Lakeland. Why are you not also pointing fingers at the Union?

The Union had the power to remove it’s members from an unsafe work environment. The Union did NOTHING!

Why are you ignoring the Union’s responsibility in this mess? After all, there is more than enough blame to go around! Wouldn’t you agree??

Some here are getting an inquest and inquiry confused. A coroners inquest findings are recommendations not necessarily binding but attach no blame. A public Inquiry can legally find fault and or attach blame.

I’m wondering how much longer Canfor/Lakeland will sit back and let the inquiry start to find faults with their Safety and Managment practices before a ” Nuiscence Fee” is introduced to those injured and those with Deaths in the family…Higher Managment will not want to be serving jail time… Just better to pay people off to go away

When will you guy’s ever stop flogging a dead horse???

stop dumping you member $$$$ down the drain..

Can any of you anti- union experts tell me why the WCB was set up in the first place?

Here you go Oldun

http://worksafebc.com/about_us/history/default.asp

I keep waiting for a Union member or supporter to explain to me why the Union is not being held accountable and taken to task for their failure to withdraw their members from these hazardous workplaces.

Seems the Union is willing to collect dues, but not so willing to actually act on behalf of it’s members.

Why the silence on this issue? Come on Union members, what’s up??

Hart Guy how is it that the union could or should be taken to task, when you say the union who explicitly are you referring.
You suggest the union is not so willing to actually act on behalf of it’s members. While this column subject is the union requesting for the Government to allow for a public inquiry into this matter.

furtree, is seems to me that the Union wants to find blame, as long as it’s with the company and/or with Worksafe. Both of these parties do have some culpability in this tragedy.

But the Union almost has culpability! The Union has a responsibility to act in the best interests of it’s members, a responsibility that lies in it’s ability to withdraw it’s members from a workplace that it and it’s members feel is unsafe!

Union members have stated that there were issues in the mills, safety issues with respect to unsafe dust levels. The Union could have and should have removed it’s members from these mills, just as the company and Worksafe should have done everything in their power to ensure a safe worksite.

As I’ve said before, individuals, due to economic necessity, may have made a decision to remain in an unsafe environment. If an unsafe environment existed, in my opinion the Union had a responsibility to act on behalf of it’s members by overriding individual choice and removing the membership from the workplace.

The Union failed to do that. It failed it’s membership! I have yet to see the Union accept any responsibility! Instead, it wants to focus on other parties involved as it deflects attention away from it’s own failings!

The actions of the Union to now call for a public enquiry is pathetic! Where was the Union when it could have and should have acted?

The owner of the business is supposed to make sure the workers have a safe place to work..

No P Val, you’re wrong!

The owner of the business is supposed to make sure that the workers have a safe place to work..

AND…Worksafe is supposed to make sure that the workers have a safe place to work..

AND….Government is supposed to make sure that the workers have a safe place to work..

AND…..the Union is supposed to make sure that the workers have a safe place to work. Why would the Union have the power to remove it’s members from an unsafe worksite if the Union had no responsibility for it’s members safety??

Lastly, the workers are supposed to make sure that they have a safe place to work, but as I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions, workers may make a bad decision to remain in an unsafe work environment due to economic necessity. That’s where their Union should be taking charge of the situation by removing the workers.

The Union knew that workers had safety concerns. The Union did nothing!

P Val, why are you so unwilling to accept this fact and yet so willing to support the Union? You wouldn’t be a shop steward or the head of a Union by chance??

Come on P Val, stop being a Union puppet, think for yourself for a change!!

I work at a non Union place hart guy..lol. But you just keep hating unions all you want ;). I am sure you are enjoying the benifits of what unions have done for the workers.

The best post trying to make management the good guy..
thanks for the laugh hart guy

“But apparently Lakeland was in the process of, or was investigating dust mitigation/vacuum systems. A bit too late unfortunately, but at least they were moving in the right direction. ”

Just like saying to a parent… I am really sorry I ran over your child.. yes it was winter and I had summer tires on…but I did get a quote on winter tires..so all is okay…..

P Val, have you not noticed that I have consistently said that all parties had a part to play in this, Owners, management, Worksafe, the Government, the Union and even the workers, although as I have stated over and over again, the worker’s decisions may be excused partly due to their own economic necessity!

Takes a while for things to get through your thick skull, eh P Val!!

But you keep defending the Union!

I love unions, that why I will have a awesome retirement package, and I make well over 6 figures with sweet benifits .. Thank you unions for my life style..it rocks..

I am sure you don’t have benifits, or have any reason to appreciate what unions have done to make your work safer, realistic working hours, vacation etc.. I am sure you love working 20 hrs a day, no holidays etc.. Because you hate unions so much you would never want to benifit from them ;). Or are you a hypocrite ?

Hart Guy, not knowing if you have had any experience with unions. Many present unions do have the clout that you perceive them to have, those days are gone, thanks to rat unions and diluting of the labour laws by the BC government, even though, unions still do weld some influence in the work place, keep in mind it’s the members who must report infractions to their safety committee and unions. It’s a well known fact which bears repeating that a “union is only as strong as it’s weakest link” It’s been my experience union business on the job is ususaly delegated to the same few people , most members sit back and say nothing.

Hart Guy.. Guess your silence speaks volumes.. hypocrite it is 8)

Sorry P Val, it’s been a very busy morning! Some of us do have to work, even if only once in a while!

I’m so glad to hear that you have been able to secure a job with a good salary! I’m not sure what benifits are, but I’m glad that you have sweet ones! Perhaps you meant “benefits”? Obviously, you weren’t hired for your literacy skills, but I’m sure that you have other skill sets!

As for your comment “hypocrite it is”, I find your comment to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”! I find it hypocritical that you are more than willing to point fingers at all parties involved in this tragedy, all parties that is except for the Union!

Please give us your expert opinion as to why the Union is exempt from any responsibility! They were aware of safety concerns. They could have taken steps to remove their members from this hazardous workplace and yet, they did nothing!

I lay blame with all parties involved in this tragedy. You wish to ignore the Union’s responsibility to it’s members. Are you not at all concerned that a Union failed to take action on behalf of it’s members?

Why can’t you answer that one question? Are you scared to speak out in fear of reprisal from your Union? It’s a simple question! Your failure to answer it makes you out to be an even bigger hypocrite that what you suggest I am!

Your silence is deafening, but I’ll keep listening for your answer!

Benifits! Seriously??

furtree, I worked in a unionized work environment many, many years ago! It was not a pleasant experience. I worked with a group of people that were more than willing to go to great lengths to appear to be busy, all the while doing as little as possible! This left others such as myself to pick up the slack for those unwilling to carry their fair share of the workload!

Suffice it to say that I didn’t fit in with the prevailing work ethic and I took the first opportunity to move on to situations where drive, initiative and hard work were recognized AND rewarded!

With regards to your comments about the clout that present day unions have or do not have, it is my understanding that the union in place at Lakeland does in fact have the ability to withdraw it’s members from a hazardous workplace and individual members do have the right to refuse unsafe work.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

P Val, I’d like to apologize for my comment regarding your literacy skills. It was uncalled for! We all have our own skill sets and that’s part of what makes the world go around!

I would still like you to explain why you think the Union should get a pass on their failure to protect their members. I’m not picking sides, I blame ALL parties involved! You seem to think that the Union should not be held accountable and that puzzles me!