IMO, the powers that be got their way on having this as an inquest, rather than a public inquiry. A public inquiry would have established blame and fault to those parties who would have been negligent in workplace safety, the results of which could have been the laying of criminal charges.

It seems that if the government and the owner’s negligence contributed to the deaths and injuries of those workers, it would be best to have just an inquest and not a public inquiry… IMO!

No mater what the result we still have the whiners.

SS check the Inquiry Act to see if what you post is true

slinky, perhaps you should inform yourself of the changes this LIB-Con government made to the Public Inquiry Act on 2006. IMO those changes made it easier for this government to control information, hide the truth, and keep secrets.

https: //fipa.bc.ca/bc-bill-a-blatant-move-to-assert-cabinet-control-over-public-inquiries-4/

This is what we have today, an unaccountable government!!!

June 23, 2012 roof collapse at Elliot Lake Mall.

2 people died
Public Inquiry was held and the report by the commissioner commissioner states that the incident was born of “apathy, neglect, indifference through mediocrity and incompetence” of a long series of city and provincial officials whose very job it was to protect the public.
o.canada.com/news/elliot-lake-inquiry-results-due-Wednesday

An engineer was charged with criminal negligence. I have not checked to see whether he was found guilty. I understand it is difficult to get convictions under that section of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Coroner inquests definitely cannot lay blame. Public inquiries can go further but, I believe, generally do not.

Police are the ones who can lay charges in either case. Seems that the Crown, however, is reluctant to do so because of previous investigation irregularities.

In that case there should be a public inquiry into the conduct of WSBS which could result in a charge of criminal negligence. Public inquiries are often held against government agencies such as was the case in Walkerton.

I am not a legal expert. It is merely an opinion based on experience.

BTW, laying charges of criminal negligence is a federal charge, not provincial. The province cannot prevent such a charge from being laid.

“No mater what the result we still have the whiners.”

No matter what the result we still have the apathetic.

Public inquiry Act of BC, each province has its own Act:

Rights of participants

13 (1) A participant may
(a) participate on his or her own behalf, or
(b) be represented by counsel or, with the approval of the commission, by an agent.

(2) A participant
(a) has the same immunities as a witness who appears before the court, and
(b) is considered to have objected to answering any question that may
(i) incriminate the participant in a criminal proceeding, or
(ii) establish the participant’s liability in a civil proceeding.

(3) Any answer provided by a participant before a commission must not be used or admitted in evidence against the participant in any trial or other proceedings, other than a prosecution for perjury in respect of the answer provided.

I see no problem with number 3.

A participant cannot self-incriminate. Called “taking the 5th” in the USA. I would think that a similar clause is in every provincial legislation, including Quebec.

However, it does not prevent anyone from using the answer given in an inquiry by a participant about someone else or an incident.

Thus, if one overheard something and states it, it can be used to put the person on the stand as a witness in a trial against another person – they can recite what they saw, heard, felt, smelled, thought, etc. as long as it is not hearsay.

If the commissioner asks the right questions, he/she can drill right down to extract as much from the person as is reasonable.

MacLeans Feb 3, 2014 Elliot Lake mall collapse

Police, who have charged a former engineer criminally, are still investigating the collapse

In the end, Commissioner Bélanger may reach that exact conclusion when he issues his final report later this year. But in a criminal courtroom, that won’t necessarily exonerate Wood. He is accused of serious crimes—with life-altering repercussions—and he will ultimately be judged on his own behaviour, not anyone else’s.

CBC Oct 15,2014 Elliot Lake mall collapse

Police, who have charged a former engineer criminally, are still investigating the collapse

The final report is not aimed at laying blame. Instead, Belanger’s recommendations aim to prevent similar tragedies

He was charged far in advance of the inquiry and its results. As CBC reports the inquiry “is not aimed to lay blame”
So what is the difference between “inquest” and “inquiry”?

In BC the Attorney General has decided not to pursue criminal charges in this case due to evidence being deemed inadmissible in court. IMO any inquiry or inquest would not change the fact that there were no search warrants or informing people of their Charter Rights during questioning.

July 28m 2014 – Former engineer loses bid to keep parts of Elliot Lake report secret
theglobeandmail.com/news/national/former-engineer-loses-bid-to-keep-parts-of-elliot-lake-report-secret/article19817265

June 24, 2015 – Pre-trial set for engineer charged in Elliot Lake mall collapse
http://www.saultstar.com/2015/06/24/pre-trial-set-for-engineer-charged-in-elliot-lake-mall-collapse

A date was set Wednesday in Superior Court for a judicial pretrial for Robert Wood, the engineer facing criminal charges stemming from the 2012 Algo Centre Mall collapse in Elliot Lake. The Sept. 2 hearing is expected to take half a day.

Wood is the only person facing criminal charges in the disaster, which killedLucie Aylwin, 37, and Doloris Perizzolo, 74. Dozens more were injured.

Ontario Provincial Police laid charges of criminal negligence in January 2014. Wood faces two counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The maximum sentence for criminal negligence causing death is life imprisonment.

In his final report released in October 2014, Elliot Lake Inquiry Commissioner Justice Paul Belanger concluded that the mall collapse was a result of “human failure” to address the severe structural issues with the mall.

“Some of these failings were minor, some were not: they ranged from apathy, neglect, and indifference through mediocrity, ineptitude, and incompetence to outright greed, obfuscation, and duplicity,” Belanger wrote.

Why do the undefined ‘powers that be’ figure into this otherwise intelligent discussion? The ‘powers that be’ are us, duh.
We elect people that we think are capable of speaking for us – that’s the essence of democracy (not that the majority opinion is the correct one, which is the classic tyranny of democracy).
There’s no conspiracy of ‘the powers that be’ – that’s a ridiculous construct of the loopy left to distance themselves from accountability and personal responsibility.
It’s easy to blame ‘the man’ and not offer up any reasonable and practical solutions.
The cult of ‘the man’ is a complete fabrication by the left and needs to be exposed for the lie that it is.
how would you prevent future industrial accidents in a technical environment that’s poorly understood. I’m assuming that you understand what a technical environment is.

“On April 24, 2006, the BC government introduced Bill 23, a revamped Public Inquiry Act, which radically changes the rules for inquiries. Historically, the law required public inquiry reports to be publicly tabled in the Legislative Assembly. Under the new bill, a public inquiry commission will not be able to issue its report to any person other than the minister, and Cabinet will have the power to decide when and if a report from a public inquiry will be released.”

“This act takes both the ‘public’ and the ‘inquiry’ out of public inquiry, said BCCLA president Jason Gratl. “It’s nothing more than a scheme to thwart independent oversight and government accountability.”

Under this Lib-Con government there is less independent oversight and less government accountability. I would go so far as to say we are living in a less democratic province and country because of the governments that are in power.

Sophic – Show us real fact and argument, not cut-and-paste text bites by politically sympathetic opinion puppets.
Writing something down doesn’t make it correct and defensible – cribbing poorly attributed crap from the interwebs is considerably more objectionable.
Stop spending your time searching for and regurgitating the usual loopy left bile from the Tyee, and elsewhere.
Understand the issues, apply critical thought, question the bad stuff and affect political change as necessary.
Or just get out of the way as an obstacle to society moving forward.

Other proposed changes to the BC Public Inquiry Act include:

Bill 23 will exclude the courts from reviewing orders made by commissions in the course of a public inquiry.

Section 5 allows the government to terminate a public inquiry or change its terms of reference at any time before a commission issues its final report.

Bill 23 limits the powers of public inquiries by creating two types of inquiries – “study commissions” and “hearing commissions”. Each commission will have a very limited range of investigative powers.

As we can all see, this Lib-Con government gives itself a lot more power at the expense of an open and accountable government, and independent investigative oversight. The cards have been stacked against the families of the four dead men, and then over 40 blast survivors, there never was a chance justice would be served… IMO

VOR > Sophic is not an objective researcher.

He skips through the internet finding those things which support his political beliefs. Some things he finds happen to be reasonable in my mind, others are totally ludicrous and would never pass any tests of objectivity by peers. Well, maybe his peers but certainly not the average person’s peers.

As a result there are very few people who are not part of the same clique that Sophic that will ever have an “ah ha” moment when he copies someone else’s analysis and synthesis onto the site. I have never seen Sophic be able to actually explain in the thoughts of the writer other than in ad hominem terms.

“Other proposed changes to the BC Public Inquiry Act include”

When are or were these PROPOSED changes? Were they ever done? Why are you not quoting from the current act and stating what is wrong with a particular section?

I think it would also be appropriate to look at the acts of other provinces respecting public inquiry and measure ours against theirs. Whose is more equitable?

That is what a researcher would do.

I am selective on the subjects I research, if the information I search for and share with the folks on here, happens to make the current federal or provincial government look bad… well that’s a bonus I guess.

I don’t know how many people, who read this comments section, knew there was a Bill 23 introduced to the BC legislature on April 24, 2006, and how much it renders the current Public Inquiry Act toothless and ineffective… but now they do.

I am more than happy sharing what I learn with others, I just don’t do it as much, and as frequently, as you do gopg2015. You have your fans and detractors, and I have mine. Can’t wait for the next Friday Free For All, I got something special on the Harper Government I want to share.

I just read the Act for content. There is no SECTION 5. There are parts, divisions and clauses.

The Lieutenant Governor establishes a Commission.

Division 4 – Reporting

Final Report
28 (3) On receiving the report, the Executive Council may direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason for which information could or must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1 [privacy rights, business interests and public interest] of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Go talk to Brian Skakun. He knows all about the FIPP Act.

Sophic, your entire postings on this topic are a bunch of hogwash. Drop your conspiracy theories and learn to read the original documents instead of someone’s musings from almost a decade ago.

But I source reputable sites gopg2015 :-)

The BC Civil Liberties Association seems reputable to me:

https: //bccla.org/news/2006/05/liberal-bill-a-blatant-move-to-assert-control-over-public-inquiries/

The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association seems reputable to me:

https: //fipa.bc.ca/bc-bill-a-blatant-move-to-assert-cabinet-control-over-public-inquiries-4/

gopg2015, if you have any concerns about the content on their sites, perhaps you should send them a stern warning via email, oh… and I am sure you are capable of researching their contact information all by yourself. ;-)

Sophie, you state that you are selective on the subjects that you research and if the information that you search for and share with the folks on here, happens to make the current federal or provincial government look bad… well that’s a bonus I guess.

Sophie, you are aware that we received some good news today regarding the Mount Polley spill! Seems that the water quality is better than expected and so is the health of the fish.

Too bad you don’t feel like researching this information and sharing it with everyone!

It seems like you always want to look for and focus on the negative!

How sad for you!

You must be so much fun at a party! I’m sure that the Mount Polley workforce will appreciate your presence at their upcoming rally! Don’t forget to take Ataloss with you!

Cheers!

Oops, …should read “well that’s a bonus you guess”, not “I guess”!

That article is from 2006.

There is history of public inquiries since then and their outcomes. There is also history of public inquiries before that.

A reasonable researcher would not go on conjecture, but would look at actual cases and see whether the assertions of withholding information other than private information is true since March 29, 2007, and how much and what type of information was withheld prior to that.

I am getting the impression you do not have the faintest clue on how to approach such an objective research project.

People are literally “dying to to make a living” here gopg2015, at least the Steelworker’s Union tried to do something about it… they failed but at least they tried!!!

www. vancouversun.com/business/Steelworkers+union+tests+Westray+over+mine+death/9094514/story.html

Sophic, you do, of course know that FIPP Act restricts private information from becoming public. For instance in my field when I present a proposal in response to an RFP which goes to a public body such a government ministry, a municipal government and so on, that the content of that RFP, other than the scope and quotation are privileged information called instruments of service. If all competitors would see how each one breaks down their charges, work hours, credentials and experience, unique approaches which are in a sense proprietary it would be totally unfair.

At one time this City did exactly that, made the total package available for all to see until a few started to protest even to the extent were several did not submit any proposals.

The Public Inquiries Act is no different, and if people do not understand such simple protection of privacy of information and want everything made public just so that they can snoop, then they are what is called functionally illiterate. They know how to read, but they do not understand what it is they are reading because they do not understand some basic concepts, which may even have been introduced a long time ago by unions.

Why are you throwing this random chit out there….. you do not get it, do you?

I could throw 3 times as much on here as you could, but it would be idiotic.

Good night,

This is about 4 dead men and over 40 blast survivors, as much as you want to make it about something else, this is what is at the heart of this 250 News story gopg2015.

However, it’s a somewhat free country, expound all you want on Request for Proposals.

ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/billc45.html

On October 13, 2006 a train struck a maintenance vehicle, killing one worker and injuring three others. Two employees of Québec-Cartier were charged with criminal negligence causing death and three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The corporation was not charged. On November 29th, 2010 a Quebec Court acquitted both men on all counts, finding that the incident was an error due to a company culture of tolerance of unsafe practices and deficient training rather than a wonton act of criminal negligence.

Read the last three lines and you will get some idea of why Crown Counsel might think that there is no case to be had in the two Sawmill cases.

Everyone is responsible for creating a workplace culture. The test of due diligence is not what are the best practices, but what are standard practices. if everyone condones it, then it become standard practice.

If you can get yourself to think that way and not just go back to an old fashioned pyramidal hierarchy then you are getting to understand why people in flat organizational structures think that way, rightly or wrongly.

okay, that was a quick one, now good night.

I will let you have the last word gopg2015;

“Police are the ones who can lay charges in either case. Seems that the Crown, however, is reluctant to do so because of previous investigation irregularities.”

“In that case there should be a public inquiry into the conduct of WSBS which could result in a charge of criminal negligence. Public inquiries are often held against government agencies such as was the case in Walkerton.”

On and On it goes, everyone knows that Dust can become explosive at the right Conditions, so who was at Charge at this Mills, he is the one who dropped the Ball on Safety. So you do know the Cause ,but you look to drag it out, spend more Money and in the End nothing will change. The Name of the Game is called Production at the lowest Cost. So much Talk and no Action, Governmment at is finest.

A lot has already changed Outwest. Take a tour of the new Lakeland mill when you have time.

No one is arguing that changes have not been made, at issue here is did it have to take the deaths of 4 men and over 40 blast survivors, in two separate explosions, to make those changes?