"worksafe"

yeah....we should talk about "worksafe"

http://www.m-f-d.org/article/

http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/avht6y1rvh0.php

why would Hahn resign? He

why would Hahn resign? He has years of grazing before retiring rich to his native country. He has no stake here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3BwK51YFgQ

pender paul

"According to a newspaper report just after the sinking... "

I'd be intersted to see that newspaper report. Its not what I heard.

First of all

When did you graduate from Law School?

Second.
This is a criminal charge - it will he heard before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and it may or may not be heard before a jury.

When a decision is rendered the reasons for appeal are very narrow - and the appeal is to the BC Court of Appeals (if leave is granted) where a panel of Appeal Court Justices will determine if there were any errors in law in the decision.

If there weren't, or if leave to appeal is not granted, there will BE NO APPEAL.

This stuff is so basis I'm surprised I even have to repeat it.

On your allegation, that you've read the reports, I obviously can't disprove that statement - I would suggest you didn't understand them very well.

A judicial inquiry, given the proper terms of reference and the ability to compel testimony, could investigate the whole of this matter - including the questionable safety protocols and training levels of the crew - something which has conveniently been forgotten in most commentaries.

As for the expense - piffle! We're paying David Hahn pretty handsomely - over a million beans a year apparently - a few hundred thousand more to actually lift the curtain and expose what's really going on at the 'peoples' ferry corporation doesn't seem like a big investment in the truth to me.

Only the crew is to blame...

[COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

In the naval services, you lose a ship - you get court martialled. No pity for the captain.

The Honourable MLAs Judith Reid & Kevin Falcon did good managing BCFS for abundence and ending the PacifiCatastrophe so Christy Clark would STOP partying like it's 1999, and they have ZERO blame in this.

When did he graduate? Not seeing the sea from the cove.

"When did you graduate from Law School?

Never went to Law School. No need. Did the previous poster graduate from Law School? Does the
previous poster have an LLB?

Second.

"This is a criminal charge - it will he heard before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and it may or may not be heard before a jury."

Correct. A quarter point awarded.

"When a decision is rendered the reasons for appeal are very narrow - and the appeal is to the BC Court of Appeals (if leave is granted) where a panel of Appeal Court Justices will determine if there were any errors in law in the decision. "

Correct. Another quarter point awarded.

"If there weren't, or if leave to appeal is not granted, there will BE NO APPEAL."

Correct.

This stuff is so basis I'm surprised I even have to repeat it.

Is there need? And it is "basic" not "basis".

"On your allegation, that you've read the reports, I obviously can't disprove that statement"

The previous poster did previously.

Exhibit A:

"You clearly don't understand and haven't read the materials"

" - I would suggest you didn't understand them very well."

I would suggest to the previous poster he is wrong.

A judicial inquiry, given the proper terms of reference and the ability to compel testimony, could investigate the whole of this matter - including the questionable safety protocols and training levels of the crew - something which has conveniently been forgotten in most commentaries."

Again, this is what the courts are for. Safety protocols and training are set by BC Ferries, which can be brought forward in the court proceding since BC Ferries is not the accused nor the defendant in the case.

"As for the expense - piffle! We're paying David Hahn pretty handsomely - over a million beans a year apparently"

That's set by the Board of Directors of BC Ferries
Services,not the Province. The Province provides
a subsidy to BC Ferries but that is for deliverance of servies, not specifically whole or
in part to Mr. Hahn's salary.

" - a few hundred thousand more to actually lift the curtain and expose what's really going on at the 'peoples' ferry corporation doesn't seem like a big investment in the truth to me."

The Corporation is semi-private. It's not a Crown Corporation. The only interest the Province has is keeping custody of the majority of voting shares
and to providing an annual subsidy.

The Provincial goverment (other than the Ferries Commission) does not dictate to BC Ferries how to run its operations, and the Legislature has no say as to the renumeration paid to Hahn.

BCBoy

Then you, BCBoy, didn't post this?

Since 'G West' never implied he'd either 'worked' the legal system or graduated from Law school I think it's clear that the poster BCBoy is simply doing what David Beers suggested he was doing some time ago - TROLL BEHAVIOR.

I don't think you understand much at all about anything - which is why 85% of what you post is simple cut and paste from what others - who often do know something - have had to say.

Carry on - I won't encourage your behavior.

socialism for the rich,

socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, the shield of indvidual freedom for the powerful, the burden of indvidual responsibility for the bottom rung.

by the way: who else thinks

by the way: who else thinks Worksafe has become a self-serving parasite afflicting employers and workers both and is long overdue for a complete purge and rebuild?

"I don't know what the truth

"I don't know what the truth is. I don't think you do either; but I sure as hell have a lot of unanswered questions – and those after reading all the public information I've seen on the subject."

Well we may all have unanswered questions. The truth of the matter is, the TSB inquiry may have findings which have been held back because of the
ongoing criminal investigation, which will most likely be brought forward during the progess of the case.

"I do know that there were safety and equipment concerns on board."

That was brought forward during the TSB inquiry,
i.e. the helmsperson not handling the autopilot
equipment correctly, not paying attention to position of the vessel once Sanity Point was on
the port hand, etc. etc.

"There were also staffing questions which have not been explored adequately. If one BC Ferry could get that far off course it’s not inconceivable to me that it could happen again – I travel on those boats and so does my family and loved ones – and I pay dearly every time I roll up to the ticket window."

Well so do I and so do hundreds of people daily. The previous poster is not an exclusive passenger.
BC Ferries makes hundreds of crossings a year many
without major incident.

"I don't care what the union or David Hahn and BC Ferries think - or if they want to sweep this under the carpet or simply hang around filing cross appeals of a Worksafe BC finding...."

The incident of the sinking has nothing directly to
do with David Hahn personally.

"I think the people - you, me and the folks who own BC FERRIES (that is all of us) deserve to have all the details out on the table."

Again, the courts will be doing that.

"This court case against Lilgert isn't going to do that, in my view."

It does come down to the posters "view".

"I think we need an independent judicial inquiry and I wish the minister had the balls to call one. "

Won't happen, as she said so. If it did, it could
not begin until all court activity is settled.

"This is our corporation - it works for us as citizens and the idea that we'd just roll over because some people don't give a shit is a repellant idea to me."

Alot of things is repellent to the previous poster.

Review the findings of the TSB, the BC Ferries reporting and follow the court case. Merge the three togehter and a person will have a good concept of the incident.

"I think you should feel the same way."

What I think isn't of interest to the previous poster.

A skill testing question.

What's an 'inveigation'(sic)?

It's "investigation". LOL

Thank god almighty. He's charged at last!

Of course everyone is innocent until proven guilty EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS -- TYEE EDITOR In the days before the Black Boxes and the automated navigation, the police knew who was responsible for ship safety.

Yes, the captain carries ultimate responsibility, but even a captain is allowed to sleep and lower officers are entitled to eat meals. EDITED The miracle is that the lot of them were not charged with the obstruction of justice for refusing to testify earlier.

As for David Hahn; EDITED To pay $200,000 to the two surviving daughters, when they lost their father EDITED They deserve much more than that. As the CEO of BC Ferries, he makes five times that per year. So he is worth more per year than two dead passengers. That tells us everything we need to know about BC Ferries and David Hahn, doesn't it?

Shame on everyone concerned, including the RCMP. Too bad they were not all on the boat when it went down instead of the two unfortunate passengers. They all belong in Davy Jones' Locker.

P.S. on survivor compensation

Gerald Foisy's daughters got just over one month's worth of David Hahn's wages each in compensation for losing their father. That is the epitome of evil in action. There is a special place in Hell for Hahn. May he find it soon.

Sure

Give me a minute.

greek justice

The Greek cruise ship Sea Diamond hit a rock off Santorini on April 6th 2007, killing two passengers, The Captain and all the officers were charged with negligence on April 7th.

Thank you Mr. Haddaway

There is no need to delay charges when a ship hits a fixed rock, just as there is no need to delay charges when a cop Tasers a guy five times, killing him, or when another cop kills a biker and leaves the scene of the accident.

There are many, many miscarriages of justice in BC. This one one less. The RCMP are totally and utterly incompetent. They are Keystone Cops in red serge; they are a joke.

There is nothing good that can be said about a force that employs Kwesi Millington and Monty Robinson after they have both committed murder.

Madness on the High Seas

It never ceases to amaze me at how long due process takes in this country. Look at how many growop defendants are dismissed because the Crown can't make a case in a reasonable time. Justice and due process is sure and swift in the US. And in the case of the Queen of the North, it has dragged on far too long.

Surely, the union is behaving irresponsibly by protecting employees who fail to testify. Anywhere else and charges of obstruction of justice would be slapped on the union. Plus, where is the sense of moral responsibility from the union and the crew. Two people died on your watch and all they can think about is union solidarity. BC unions only protect union members and their inward, 19th century attitudes are their worst enemy.

The bottom line on a ship is that the captain is ultimately responsible. If the navigation crew isn't qualified then the captain must rectify that or relieve them. It's hard to fault BC Ferries as the bridge was properly equipped with the latest navigation aids.

Don't forget, the ship ran into AN ISLAND, not some rock in the middle of the water. According to reports, the helmsman only knew danger was upon them when she could see trees. That's like someone driving a car through a shopping mall. They not only missed a turn, they missed big time.

That the navigator and helmsman might have been having hard sex on the bridge would be a raucous image and story - at the same hilarity level as other third world country transport accidents if two people weren't dead and this was the Phillippines rather than Canada. But even an intense personal discussion would take up enough time to sail off course- especially if they were failed to hear the navigation warnings. If the two were distracted by a lovers' quarrel then no amount of training could have saved them.

By the way, someone should do a movie on this- the scene where the bridge sees trees and the pucker factor goes ballistic would be hilarious. And sinking a ship because of bridge sex is surely more memorable than faulty welding. Maybe a true Canadian like James Cameron would like to take another run at an ocean disaster. I say let's do it with an all-star Canadian cast: Donald Sutherland as the out of touch Captain; Mike Meyers as the happy go lucky playboy navigator and Trica Helfer (from Battlestar Gallactica) as the sex pot helmsman. Tieing in the sex scene and crashing onto an island is an obvious climax shot.

But seriously, between the pot smoking crew and casual discipline it looks like BC Ferry skippers have to remind themselves that they are fully responsible WHEN AT SEA. No amount of union solidarity can save you out there; when things go badly at sea they become catastrophic really quickly and that's why captains are given (and must sometimes exercise) near draconian powers. Union rules maybe useful on land, in a lumber mill, but not at sea.

Corporate Criminal Liability

Will the Crown also charge the corporate executives responsible for BC Ferries safety conditions? It would be as important as investigating the captain and crew, perhaps more. Corporate liabiity has increased in Canada due to the discovery that merely charging employees doesn't ultimately prevent the problems in questin. In this case, BC Ferries had embarked on a privatization process which has created chaos for the staff and riders.

http://www.heenanblaikie.com/en/media/pdfs/pdf/Corporate_Criminal_Liability_for_Workplace_Safety_a_Step_Closer.pdf;jsessionid=94884D7F485727D18FFBDE0ED30ABFCA

Excellent, excellent coverage. Where was CanWestGlobal on this story???

Unions and Sailors

"Union rules maybe useful on land, in a lumber mill, but not at sea."

Actually, the codified hierarchies, clear chain of command, and expectations for competent leadership that characterize a typical union's expectations for the workplace are attributes that are very well aligned with the required conditions for safety at sea. Given that maritime unions have been around for a long, long time it further suggests the 'system' seems to be working.

The actions of the individuals involved had nothing to do with the union or its rules. And, whatever the machinations on both sides after the fact, they had nothing to do with the cause of the sinking.

My personal opinion is that we can point to the union at BC Ferries and their work to ensure adequate staffing levels and training as a big part of the reason that ship could sink in the middle of the night and only have two people lose their lives. Certainly other ferry sinkings have seen far greater loss of life. One can only wonder if a non-union workforce would have been be smaller and less-well-trained given BC Ferries ongoing search for cost-cutting measures, and would have been less able to get almost everyone off safely.

I think it's a stretch to take the sinking of this ship and connect it to some perceived failure of the part of organized labour. It's also kind of ironic to google the history of maritime unions and find out that the word 'strike' has its origins in a maritime-related work stoppage.

wiki: "The strike tactic has a very long history. Towards the end of the twentieth dynasty, under Pharaoh Ramses III in ancient Egypt in the twelfth century B.C.E., the workers of the royal necropolis organized the first known strike or workers' uprising in history. Much later, in 1768, in support of demonstrations in London, sailors "struck," or removed the top-gallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships."

swift, but not so sure

"Justice and due process is sure and swift in the US."

Of all our institutions, justice is one that shouldn't ever be rushed.

"Since 1973, 124 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death."

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

Executives not named.

"Will the Crown also charge the corporate executives responsible for BC Ferries safety conditions? "

Why would there be a need for that? The Executives
were not blamed in the TSB report.

"It would be as important as investigating the captain and crew, perhaps more. Corporate liabiity has increased in Canada due to the discovery that merely charging employees doesn't ultimately prevent the problems in questin."

BC Ferries is responsible for crew training and management, and setting operational protocols. If
the TSB found these at fault, but not to the degree
that criminal charges are warranted, there's no
need for court action against them. The fault was
with the bridge crew on station in particular those named, not the Executive.

Furhter if called to court, applicable members of the Executive will be able to provide statments.

"In this case, BC Ferries had embarked on a privatization process which has created chaos for the staff and riders"

Not so. This statement is more political than warrants anything of merit that relates specifically to the case.

Chris K

Overall, I'm in agreement that the union itself had nothing to do with the sinking, but here are a couple of other points.

One, the union has no say in staffing levels. They are mandated by Transport Canada based on the passenger capacity of the vessel. be it a unionized company or not.
Secondly, considering that fully half of the 101 souls on board were crew members, either on duty or off, and they still managed to lose two passengers doesn't look so impressive after the fact.
But I wasn't there and its easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Just something to consider.

union or no, if you are on a

union or no, if you are on a ship and the man next you is doing (or not doing) something to sink it, I think peer pressure can be relied upon.

Rather like being a citizen of BC.

@happy

this reprint of a column by Stephen Hume speaks to your comments better than I might.

http://solidaritycaucus.org/?p=50

Not exactly Chris

The Hume article confirms what I said about TC setting the crew requirements. Not the union.
The rest of the article is more towards the compensation of the crew members and their value. I didn't go there, I was merely pointing out the ratio of crew to passengers that night was extremely high.
I think those are fair comments.

"I was merely pointing out

"I was merely pointing out the ratio of crew to passengers that night was extremely high. "

Yes, due to Transport Canada regulations. But, since a google search shows that BC Ferries has registered executives as lobbyists and included Transport Canada as one of the organizations they lobby, is it not likely that issues of crew size and safety can be influenced by input from the company (and/or union)?

happy

I think your comments are fair in the limited context you were addressing. However, Hume's article broadens that context considerably by introducing other important considerations that concern not just staffing levels (warm bodies) but also training AND the perceptions of the public with respect to the value of the 'job' of crewing a passenger vessel in close conditions and bad weather; a job which involves the responsibility for thousands of human lives every day.

While there is no doubt whatsoever that a series of mistakes resulted in the vessel running aground, anyone who has read the TSB report is also forced to recognize that there were a several subsidiary issues which played an important role in the events which transpired subsequent to a vital missed course change. These were not all a result of the actions or inaction of one (or even two) people; alarms were also turned off and radars were not properly utilized; there was a gale blowing, visibility was poor due to a squall and there were 2+ metre seas in the area.

In short, the failure of the 4th officer to make the course change was the proximate cause of the accident - but it was not the only cause. Whether it was negligent in a criminal sense is what the trial (if it ever takes place) will decide. We still have, last time I checked, the presumption of innocence in this land.

Since errors or omissions (and procedures and policies of management) all have a significant role to play in explaining these events you can be sure that a decent lawyer will use the precedents available to make the argument that there is 'reasonable' doubt as to the accused’s guilt relative to the charge of criminal negligence causing death (aka manslaughter by criminal negligence).

There are a series of very precise tests which must be satisfied for either a jury, or a judge alone, to find an accused guilty of this charge.

We'd get far better results in addressing the possible shortcomings in the way our ferries are crewed and run by pushing the government to call a judicial inquiry which may be able to sort out these issues without a concern for assigning blame or victimizing anyone.

Having spent, arguably wasted, nearly a billion dollars on largely pointless security for the recent five ring circus I'd be entirely sanguine about expending a little more to actually focus some bright light on the operation of the ferries British Columbians ride to and from their home and work every day of the year. Especially since the current administration appears particularly happy with the way the ultimate shareholders of the corporation are being blocked from knowing anything about the way the current management is running things.

Wouldn't you?

I don't think so Chris

Transport Canada regulations are pretty much set in stone. BCF could lobby for changes but any regulatory change would then be across the board for all shipping.
Thats just my understanding of it.

Mr West

I absolutely agree with you on one point. Yes, a decent defence lawyer will pull out all the stops to redirect the blame from their client.
I have personal experience in that regard having been in a vehicle accident some years ago where the driver of the other car was pronounced 100% at fault by the RCMP at the scene and was ticketed.
So six months later I get a summons in the mail from this guys lawyer who is now suing me with a page and a half list of all the infractions I "may" have been guilty of that led to the accident.
Everything from possibly being impaired by alcohol and/or drugs and/or fatigue.
As well my vehicle "may" have been a rolling wreck with faulty brakes, tires, sterring and on and on.
And I might have been speeding, undue care and attention, failing to keep a proper lookout....you get the picture. Little off topic but this reminds me of the Basi/Virk deal. I see the defence lawyers doing the same thing there. I'd love to see that trial go ahead only to see if my suspicions are somewhat correct.
And if not then punish the guilty parties accordingly.
So back to the QOTN, yes you are right that the lawyer will bring up Management policies and training as possible contributing factors, but I have read the TC report and IMO the issues raised were, as I already stated, of a minor standard. If they weren't BCF would have been fined and they were not.

Fair comment - which is why the criminal issue is largely moot.

Without an open inquiry where everyone is compelled to testify we don't really know - do we? And we do know David Hahn seems more interested in establishing his bona fides with certain members (I’m sure you haven’t forgotten that late night call to Keith Baldrey) of the news media than the public - you know, the guys and gals who pay his exorbitant salary.

And, in the end, how much better will we all feel if Karl Lilgert gets a suspended sentence (which is likely the absolute worst that’s gonna happen) and nothing actually changes? Any more than the BCF completely LAME excuse for not stepping up to the plate instead of hiding behind the sobriquet 'personnel' matters for their dismissal of the captain...(see quote in story above)

We get nowhere when there is a studied lack of openness and accountability - whether we're talking about BC Ferries, The 'sale' of BC Rail or the management of the RCMP.

Open up the windows, let the air in and blow things around.

I know you remember the Gomery Inquiry?

You think Pee Wee would have ever been Prime Minister without it?

Agrees, agreed, agreed West

Yes, I already said bring on an Inquiry. But should not the criminal trial precede it? I believe that is also the postion the NDP is taking now?
This IS a criminal matter now. Two people are dead and if it was due to negligence, be it persoanl or company, this needs to be dealt with first and foremost.
I was only lobbying for an Inquiry last year b/c in the absence of any information forthcoming from the RCMP it appeared that there would not be any charges and the issue was being allowed to die.

set in stone, or evolving?

TSB recommendations in light of the Queen of the North sinking

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandations-recommendations/marine/2008/rec_m0801.asp

Changes to minimum safe manning
http://www.williamsandcompany.ca/documents/minsafemanningrequirement.pdf

of particular note at the end of page 3:

"If the assessment of the minimum safe manning level for a vessel is disagreed with, the Marine Technical Review Board can be asked to review the assessment and render a decision." (The MTRB is internal to Transport Canada)

Chris K

Again, I think this is in line with what I was saying. My point was BCF won't get any regulations (staffing, safety requirements, etc) changed for them ONLY - by lobbying.
I didn't say the regulations can NEVER be changed, they can and do when circumstances dictate. One of the issues raised from the QOTN TSB report was the absence of a passenger manifest in your first link. It wasn't required then but in the light of day after tha accident, it has now, yes, evolved.
I should have been clearer what I was geting at.
Your second link won't open for me but it would appear to be more of the same?

changing the regulations

excerpt from the first link:

"The Board believes that a tailored approach is required, not just for each operator or route but for each individual vessel — one that addresses both the potential risks of a particular voyage and the most appropriate means of addressing them. The Board, therefore, recommended that:

The Department of Transport, in conjunction with the Canadian Ferry Operators Association and the Canadian Coast Guard, develop, through a risk-based approach, a framework that ferry operators can use to develop effective passenger accounting for each vessel and route.

M08-01"

further to the link above

BC Ferries holds seats on the CFOA and will presumably have some input into recommendations for changed regulations.

I don't know why major player in the ferry industry wouldn't or shouldn't influence laws that affect them. That's probably a good thing, provided there's a strong counter-voice (the ferry workers' union) to provide another p.o.v. w/r/t suggested revisions or changes.

Chris K

I see what your getting at and your right. We both are.
This passenger manifest issue is an example. You correctly point out that the Regs are being modified and "one size does not fit all"
I was taking a broader look at the Regs, in this case it would be ALL vessels will require a mainfest, be they individualized or not. Its still a manifest and all ferries will require it.
In hindsight I should not have used the phrase "set in stone" as that implied something else
Do you have a link or list of the stakeholders who sit on the CFOA? That would be interesting to see if there are reps from the labor side.

CFOA link

here is a link to their B of D and executive

http://www.cfoa.ca/directors.html

What do we do with a drunken sailor?

"Tie him to the taff-rail when she's yard-arm under". Keel-hauling worked too.

Four year delays and millions of dollars of investigation and enquiry later. All it really takes is six feet of rope and a good John Ellis knot.

Stakeholders... reps from the labour side... WTF?
Change the regs? I don't think so.

Two people died and a perfectly good boat went to the bottom. four years later the Keystone Cops lay charges. What kind of mental masturbation is this? Justice must be done, and it must be seen to be done. Just once, for crying out loud.

Missing the Obvious

[UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Bobby Peru

That's just plain offensive garbage - it deserves to be deleted and flushed....and I think you know it.

No one here, except you (and you've been doing it at every chance), has suggested such a thing but certainly, unless there is a public inquiry, the rats are going to continue to crawl out from behind the woodwork until such allegations are put to rest once and for all.

As for the firing of the ship's master...

I expect he'll be applying for judicial review - as he well should. In a province where the Premier thinks it's okay to drink and drive and keep his job the fact the Captain of the QOTN was taking his mandated 'rest' period while someone else was in charge on the bridge seems a mighty poor reason for firing.

Interesting level of blindness and hypocrisy though!

There could be more to it West.

Just passing on a rumor here but it makes sense.
This particular captain was known in the fleet for his "laid back" approach to managing the crew.
Such as allowing music to be played on the bridge. Thats not in dispute, they have the radio logs of the accident and loud music can be heard in the background over the voice of the person transmitting.
Also rumors of substance abuse of off duty - but on board - crew members.
I know thats rolling in the muck to spread ugly rumors and I don't normally do that but in this case it seems to fit.
If indeed the captain was lax and turned a blind eye to such unprofessional practices it would be cause to terminate employment.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this - see below

Rumours are just rumours - frequently they're lies and in this case the only way to deal with what is obviously a poisonous situation - is - well you know what I think.

The original decision to fire the master was overturned - that decision has now been reversed and the employee now has the 'right' to apply for judicial review.

A lawyer friend of mine read this story about an hour ago - she didn't look at the comments - and said that the captain would be crazy not to use whatever legal avenues he has on the basis of the information available now – as reflected in this admittedly short and terse article.

Furthermore, she said that, if we're going to take the principle of responsibility to its logical conclusion, there's no reason to stop with the captain.

If he was following established Transport Canada rules and regulations he should be protected and his job should be safe....

Furthermore, if your contention is correct and his unprofessional conduct was as widely known (and ignored) as you've heard it rumoured then my concerns yesterday about the general safety of ALL PASSENGERS and staff on our publicly owned ferries was more than well-founded.

And you know what that takes us back to.

But, at the moment this isn't anything more than a case of hearsay driven victimization of precisely the hateful type of thing illustrated above us here.

Yes its hearsay

No different than you telling me about a certain white haired gentleman who was seen to stumble at a Victoria restaraunt....

But I'm a patient person, lets see how this plays out. Further to that rumormongering that same person who told me that about the captain right after the accident also said, quote: "the only question is how many people will be fired."

But happy, it doesn't deal with the fundamental question

About who has the ultimate responsibility for the safety and management concerns of a public company owned by and operated for the benefit of the people of BRITISH Columbia.

That stumbling white haired 'gentleman' has that responsibility - and he's shirking it - exactly what he's done ever since the first moment he was handed the trusteeship of the peoples' affairs in 2001.

And that ain't hearsay, that's a fact.

You know I can provide a long list of examples - and each one of the things on that list is not hearsay either - in fact most of the citations on that list have been underlined, enforced and ultimately judged by the courts.

If we're talking management - let's not stop with the master of the QOTN.

Let's use Harry Truman's example and take the buck up the line to where it really stops.

You know these days you can’t turn on the TV without some pretty face talking about ‘role models’ – why the hell do we expect our sports ‘heroes’ to be role models when the people we entrust with our lives aren’t up to the leadership mark.

Tiger Woods doesn’t upset me – he’s simply a product of his upbringing and, in the end, he doesn’t make a pennyworth of difference to the real world – let’s start laying the responsibility for what’s wrong in this culture at the feet with the democratically given duty to deal with these things.

Ultimate responsibility

Yes, I know how it works. I live it.
In a private company its the Chairman of the Board. How often do you hear of one of them being charged with criminal negligence?
Thats right.
All one has to do is prove you've done your Due Diligence. The Board sets broad company policy and goals. The executives are charged with carrying those out. Then through the department vice presidents to the directors to the managers to the supervisors to the workforce.
In this case the Board could have a policy as simple as "We will operate in a safe manner"
Then it goes down the chain to be implemeted, in whatever way the companty decides on. With an operation like BCF they would have to have an Operating Manual with all their procedures detailed which is then signed off by Transport Canada. All operating employees must be trained on these procedures which is then also documented
And theres your Due Diligence, its as simple as that. The company will simply produce the documentation to prove that the employee was trained and procedures were violated agisnt company policy. And thats where it will stop.
And no lawyer in the world will be able to make a case against the Chairman - or Hahn - or Gordo unless there is evidence to show that person was aware of the wrongdoing.

Agree with happy.

"About who has the ultimate responsibility for the safety and management concerns of a public company owned by and operated for the benefit of the people of BRITISH Columbia."

The ultimate responsibility for the safety and management concerns ends at Fleet Operations Manager who reports to the CEO or Board of Directors.

That stumbling white haired 'gentleman' has that responsibility - and he's shirking it - exactly what he's done ever since the first moment he was handed the trusteeship of the peoples' affairs in 2001.

Wrong. He does not dictate nor does he make decisions in regards to vessel operations of BC Ferries. Neither did Glen Clark, Harcourt or Dosanjh or Barrett. Bennett (Sr. and Jr.) did build
up BC Ferries, but neither had any say in the day to day operations. That was handled by Fleet Operations.

"And that ain't hearsay, that's a fact."

The fact is wrong.

"You know I can provide a long list of examples - and each one of the things on that list is not hearsay either - in fact most of the citations on that list have been underlined, enforced and ultimately judged by the courts."

No need. Such a list would be biased and based on
politics.

"If we're talking management - let's not stop with the master of the QOTN."

That is where it ended.

Let's use Harry Truman's example and take the buck up the line to where it really stops.

"You know these days you can’t turn on the TV without some pretty face talking about ‘role models’ – why the hell do we expect our sports ‘heroes’ to be role models when the people we entrust with our lives aren’t up to the leadership mark."

Many are, even Brad the Bus Driver on the Douglas
Street route, Arnie the airplane pilot and Fred the Ferry captain.

Tiger Woods doesn’t upset me – he’s simply a product of his upbringing and, in the end, he doesn’t make a pennyworth of difference to the real world – let’s start laying the responsibility for what’s wrong in this culture at the feet with the democratically given duty to deal with these things.

Tiger Woods is not related to the QoTN incident.

Re-read happy's post above. His is 100% correct.

I know that happy - it's not a legal responsibility

It's a moral and ethical one - and it's one you can't shirk when you're an elected representative - unless you happen to be Gordon Campbell.

I might remind you that Harcourt and Clark resigned - they had, whatever else you might say about them - some character. Campbell and his gang of thieves have none - how many of them have a cloud over their record?

Remind me.

And that line about due dilligence doesn't cut it any longer - not since the financial meltdown in the US peeled back the lies and tricks that corporate management thought were just business as usual.

Furthermore, only through a judicial inquiry will we know whether due diligence WAS performed.

That's the whole point - no matter how you want to slice it.

Let me give you a little sample of what I'm saying happy:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/lehmans-demise-dissected/?hp

Maybe David Hahn and Gordon Campbell and John Les and Gary Farrell Collins and their friends would think twice before they sold off and frittered away and ignored contracts and agreements if they could find themselves to a slightly 'higher' standard than the one they do now?

You think?

I think that time has come....

I am surprised my last post has not been edited out.

Accusing the RCMP of wrongdoing used to be unthinkable. Apparently, a lot of people agree that our once-revered police force has major "issues".

We deserve to see justice done and I hope the case will not be dismissed on the grounds that charges were not laid in a reasonable time. It needs to go to trial with no plea bargains.

We need the RCMP negotiating to give Mr Lilgert $100.000 to show them where the bodies are, as they did with Clifford Olsen. That was the first in a series of unbelievable and totally unacceptable events, some of which are still unfolding.

Until Kwesi Millington and Monty Robinson are charged with murder, I will adhere to the old song that says, "I'll sing you a song it won't take long, all coppers are bastards" until proven otherwise.

I pray that they don't stop me to talk about seat belt safety this summer. I am not sure what my reaction would be right now but it wouldn't be pleasant. I have nothing good to say to anyone in an RCMP uniform right now. Benefit of the doubt, I think not!

You exasperate me West

You keep rearranging the deck chairs on me. So which is it, moral, ethical or legal? You can forget moral or ethical when it comes to politicians, they don't know the meanings of the terms.
The only avenue if you want heads to roll is legal which is what I thought we were talking about so I poited out why thats a lost cause.
And thats complete apples and oranges to try to tie Corporate due diligence with Financial.
Not the same context AT ALL.
(sorry to shout, its been a long day and thats my last thought)

Cheers

Rearranging chairs.

"It's a moral and ethical one - and it's one you can't shirk when you're an elected representative -unless you happen to be Gordon Campbell."

Wrong. Campbell had nothing to do with the QoTN incident.

"I might remind you that Harcourt and Clark resigned - they had, whatever else you might say about them - some character."

Harcourt resigned because the Commonwealth Holding
Society was directly connected with the NDP Party,
as that was proven in the court case against David Stupich (funds from CHS found their way
into the party's fundraising system.

Clark resigned because he was the focus of an investigation regarding casino licensing.

" Campbell and his gang of thieves have none - how many of them have a cloud over their record?"

A few, but none involve BC Ferries operations and none involve events surrounding the sinking of the QoTN.

Remind me.

"And that line about due dilligence doesn't cut it any longer - not since the financial meltdown in the US peeled back the lies and tricks that corporate management thought were just business as usual."

The events in the United States are not related to the QoTN sinking or actions of the bridge crew.

Furthermore, only through a judicial inquiry will we know whether due diligence WAS performed.

Not nessarily. The courts are the avenue for the
examination as to cause. The aspects of following of set protocol and operational procedure will
be provided in court.

Moral, ethical AND legal happy

There are several precedents for a corporation and/or its officers being held responsible for criminal liability - in fact, your analogy about deck chairs is prescient since several of the important cases Do involve ships.

Corporate liability for manslaughter was found to be a valid charge in a case brought against P&O in 1991 when the judge in that instance ruled that such a charge was recognized in law. It's a case called, ironically, for our purposes, the Herald of Free Enterprise.

And, forgive me if I mention that it was actually moi who pointed out the weakness of the 'legal' case against the 4th officer.

BCBoy, I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide you with an education. If you can't understand what the reference to Gordon Campbell and 'shirked responsibility' means then I can't help you. You appear to be incapable of understanding clear grammatical English.

No need for education on the subject.

"Corporate liability for manslaughter was found to be a valid charge in a case brought against P&O in 1991 when the judge in that instance ruled that such a charge was recognized in law. It's a case called, ironically, for our purposes, the Herald of Free Enterprise."

Correct, but P & O is a private company, not a Crown Corporation. It was a valid charge against the company as a whole, not directly personally directed to the CEO of the company.

"And, forgive me if I mention that it was actually moi who pointed out the weakness of the 'legal' case against the 4th officer. "

A third of a point awarded.

"BCBoy, I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide you with an education."

On the subject of maritime transportation I do not
need education from GW.

"If you can't understand what the reference to Gordon Campbell and 'shirked responsibility' means then I can't help you."

Look in the mirror. Gordon Campbell did not personally shirk responsibility as BC Ferries is operated independently from the decsion makers of
provincial government.

"You appear to be incapable of understanding clear grammatical English."

You need a basic review of how BC Ferries operations works. None of their operational procedures, and protocols is decided upon by the Executive Council of the B.C. Government. End of story.

Can you not read?

I never said he did.

The man is a drunk driver; he got behind the wheel of a vehicle when he was inebriated to something more than twice the legal allowable level and he drove on a public highway - he is guilty of what would be a criminal offence in this jurisdiction and he endangered the lives of innocent men, women and children. He did not have the character or courage to face his situation and resign, he lacked the understanding of what constitutes real leadership in a democracy and he has lost the authority necessary to govern in anything but a technical fashion.

He is beyond the pale as a moral agent - GET THE POINT?.. That’s why I mentioned him.

Now, I'm going to say this as politely as I can - I don't care what you think of me or my views and I don't care how you spend your time, but do me a small favour - just don't bother reading any of my comments and making any more bathetic cut and paste pastiches out of them.

Again. no need for education

"The man is a drunk driver; he got behind the wheel of a vehicle when he was inebriated to something more than twice the legal allowable level and he drove on a public highway - he is guilty of what would be a criminal offence in this jurisdiction and he endangered the lives of innocent men, women and children. "

He was not under the influence nor was he charged
in the Province of British Columbia, but rather the State of hawaii. That was in 2003. He had court
time, and the people decided on him in 2005, and again in 2009.

"He did not have the character or courage to face his situation and resign, he lacked the understanding of what constitutes real leadership in a democracy and he has lost the authority necessary to govern in anything but a technical fashion."

The people had the choice to dump him in 2005, and
again in 2009, but they did not. By his party winning clear majorities in each election he did
in fact regain the governance of B.C.

He is beyond the pale as a moral agent - GET THE POINT?.. That’s why I mentioned him."

He is not revalent to the QoTN incident. He was not
directly involved in the chain of events leading to the sinking, nor did he play a primary role in the management of operations of B.C. Ferries.

"Now, I'm going to say this as politely as I can - I don't care what you think of me or my views and I don't care how you spend your time, but do me a small favour - just don't bother reading any of my comments and making any more bathetic cut and paste pastiches out of them."

I'll decide what I read and when I read them, thank you. If there is debate warranted, that will take place. It's not for the previous poster to decide what parts are debatable and which are not.

Again, re-read happy's most recent post.

happy and I happen to know each other

I respect his opinions and the way he expresses them - which doesn't mean I always agree with him.

It takes two people to have a debate - I will debate with happy - I refuse to do the same with a TROLL.
G/bye!

popular vote tells the tale better than leg seats.

"The people had the choice to dump him in 2005, and
again in 2009, but they did not. By his party winning clear majorities in each election he did
in fact regain the governance of B.C."

I wouldn't characterize a 3.5 % difference in the popular vote as much of a mandate.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/bcvotes2009/story/2009/05/12/bc-election-results-main-story.html

"B.C. Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell has won an historic third straight term as the province's premier. Preliminary results in Tuesday's B.C. election show Campbell's Liberals leading with 45.7 per cent of the popular vote, ahead of Carole James's NDP at 42.2 per cent."

I certainly would be hard-pressed to characterize the government's performance to date as a validation of the whopping pay raises they handed themselves as proof that they were attracting the 'best of breed' when it comes to leadership and governance.

A majority is a mandate

"I wouldn't characterize a 3.5 % difference in the popular vote as much of a mandate."

Considering that the NDP received less than the BC Liberals in terms of the popular vote in 1996, the
premise and goal is to win a majority of the seats.

"I certainly would be hard-pressed to characterize the government's performance to date as a validation of the whopping pay raises they handed themselves as proof that they were attracting the 'best of breed' when it comes to leadership and governance."

Complain to the NDP. They too accepted the terms of that whopping pay raise, and they too were attracting "best of breed" in terms of attracting candidates who accept the basic concepts of NDP governance.

Like the Nuremberg Trials, right?

Gwest and those of you calling for some massive Warren Commission style investigation are only doing so because you have a personal hate on for Hahn, Campbell. Any chance you get, no matter how miniscule and irrelevant, you'll try link them to it without any logic.

It's this simple- Campbell and Hahn can't be put on the stand because they weren't involved in the accident. Regardless of their pay raise and policies, the officers on the bridge are responsible for the ship.

Sure, Gwest, you hate my posts, but I think I provide valid, countervailing viewpoints to Tyee. Sure, the editors probably don't like them either; Tyee should really eliminate the tabs "Best/All" comments. It smacks of arbitrary censorship by the editors purely based on whim.

The officers on the bridge didn't need Campbell's or Hahn's help to drive a boat into and island. And they didn't need to ask for their permission to turn port or starboard. They had enough training to figure that out. It's a case of open and shut incompetence. I know it's hard for you (but easy for me) to visualize the helmsman bent over the navigation table and the navigating officer with his pants down while the trees on the island are getting closer and closer. But that could have very well happened and its enough shame for both the union and BCF. A few more classes in navigation wouldn't have made a difference for those two lovers when they only wanted to get their freak on. Indeed, both the union and BCF do not want the exact details to emerge- it's too stupid and embarassing. Anyways, it's easy to infer from the wording in the report what probably happened.

That Gwest feels we must re-enact the Nuremberg Trials or Al Pacino's scene in "Justice for All" ("The whole system's out of order!) is pure politics and self-indulgence. And don't forget, two people died because of the officers' negligence. If there's any consolation, the officers' lives and careers are ruined. How can they even interview for a maritime related job with such a shameful incident on their record?

Bobby - my remarks stand - I don't hate you or your posts

Hate is an emotion I try not to indulge it - it clouds the mind and blurs the vision. As for self-indulgence, I don't think so - it's not me accusing people of having hard sex (whatever that is) on the chart table. Furthermore, it leads one into situations where you say, or write, things one will likely regret.

Why not just read what I wrote - I expect more from our politicians, our business leaders and - when they become the government - I'll expect better from the NDP too...There was (and I suspect still is) something very wrong with the management team and the management style at BC Ferries. It is, in essence, a public transportation service with NO COMPETITION and the public has a right to know that safety has not been put in a back seat to profitability. Hanging a couple of employees doesn’t address those concerns even it makes YOU happy and I don’t think any BC citizen should be satisfied with what they ‘know’ about the real situation on the QOTN that night and in the months leading up to it.

I don't believe you provided anything but irresponsible beer parlour bullshit hearsay and the suggestion that there is any similarity between a formal judicial inquiry into the operations of BC Ferries under the ' Le nouveau régime ' and Nuremburg is bizarre.

There are legal precedents where the courts have deemed that a charge of negligent homicide can be brought against a corporation, its officers or its directors. If the situation on the QOTN was – as has been suggested – a situation which management knowingly ignored then there may be a prima facie case to charge those individuals criminally as well.

Why anyone would be happy with a vital public service where problems which may have contributed to the death of two passengers and the loss of a vessel are ignored or swept behind a Potemkin wall of corporate secrecy is a mystery.

Not a single thing in this case has yet been proved - I know you'd be happy to convict these 'officers' without giving them the protection the law and our system of justice affords.

You’ve been very clear about that.

I think it says quite a lot about you.

The opposition is part of the gov't

"Complain to the NDP. They too accepted the terms of that whopping pay raise, and they too were attracting "best of breed" in terms of attracting candidates who accept the basic concepts of NDP governance."

I consider both sides of the leg to be a part of the gov't. They (the NDP) could up their game too, and the public would be well-served by it. Regardless, the motion could not have passed without the Liberals and they took on the task of justifying it with the rationale I mentioned, which is, so far, suspect.

The more important point being refuted is the assertion that the past election represented a clear majority and tacit approval of the current gov't.

Both sides are part of gov't but one only sets direction

"I consider both sides of the leg to be a part of the gov't. They (the NDP) could up their game too, and the public would be well-served by it. "

That's their major problem. They haven't. The motion in regards to the pay raises was passed by
both the NDP and the Liberals, it was not specifically a Liberal initiative, but was done through a committee and both sides equally approved
it. There was no contrary votes from either party
on the pay raise issue.

The more important point being refuted is the assertion that the past election represented a clear majority and tacit approval of the current gov't."

That has been the outcome for previous elections.

A clear majority in the first past our post system is a simply majority of seats, not the popular vote.

It is time to retake control of BC Ferries too

Among other problems with the ferry service, David Hahn's salary is two or three times more than it should be. I am sick of his stone-faced responses to simple questions. It is no substitute for actual business acumen. If I want to see a stone wall, I will build one. A Canadian should be doing his job and he should do something else - without taking a golden parachute.

The new ferries are too big. They can only be run at a profit if they are actually full. They are another bad business decision gone sour. Hahn is no whiz-kid and BC Ferries is still short on appropriately-sized vessels.

BC Ferries needs improvements

"Among other problems with the ferry service, David Hahn's salary is two or three times more than it should be."

Agree there, but that decision is made by the Board of Directors, not the Ministry of Transportation. I'd would have liked to have seen
someone who actually knows the Coast and/or the dyanamics of maritime transportation, but Hahn is what the Board wanted. He is up for renewal at some point in time like any other CEO.

"I am sick of his stone-faced responses to simple questions. It is no substitute for actual business acumen."

It can get irritating I would agree. I've met many in business like that and others who simply are in it for themselves as a personal self-promotion project, and others who really care about their company.

"If I want to see a stone wall, I will build one. A Canadian should be doing his job and he should do something else - without taking a golden parachute."

Yes and No. There's no prerequisite or requirement for the CEO of BC Ferries to be Canadian.

"The new ferries are too big. They can only be run at a profit if they are actually full."

Profitability is based on going beyond a volume that recovers the cost of the sailing, which doesn't nessesarily mean 100% capacity. It's also
dependent on crew, since there has to be x number of crew for y number of passengers.

"They are another bad business decision gone sour. Hahn is no whiz-kid and BC Ferries is still short on appropriately-sized vessels."

What would be considered appropiate size? The C. Ferries are just a bit larger in terms of capacity than the Jumbo Ferries (Cowichan, Coquitlam, Surrey and Oak Bay).

The C. Ferries were brought in to deal with large volumes during the summer, and to replace older
vessels which are at the end of their service life
having being 45 years old on average.

BC Ferries does need improvements and enhancements, but I wouldn't get back to the old
ways of the government getting too political with the ferries. The Board is not politcially appointed although there was one or two members that can be traced back to politics.

Competition? There isn't the volume to have two ferry companies live on routes to and from The Island. There's been recent passenger services, but they have never lasted longer than 5 years.

BC Ferries is currently in competition with Seaspan for trailer transportion to and from The Island. It remains to be seen if BC Ferries' trailer service will live long against the more established Seaspan service.