Barge Safety & Lasqueti Daughters

[Scooter]

This would be a good opportunity to talk about boating safety on the coast. I've heard that the LD just had problems, but thankfully nobody was hurt.

[Pandion]

Fish habitat now. Glad no one was hurt.

[jdtesluk]

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1503125 ... -daughters


And this from the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e23499103/


Anyone know how or if the workers are being taken care of in terms of insurance for their belongings?

[dreamofcream]

Really sorry to see this. Hopefully it doesn't affect Impact's Spring too much, and the workers get some reimbursement. At least everyone was safe. Was it this barge that had to get rescued a few years ago after getting hung up close to shore on some rocks?

[Scooter]

Yes, the same one. That was in 2012. I worked for them a few weeks later. Here's a video to show it. That's a piece of tree planting history gone:

[Pandion]

I guess they managed to tow her back to Campbell River, but the trucks, and trees are in the chuk. I think some planters where able to get some of their gear back but their electronics were toast. The picture I saw looked pretty hopeless, so I was surprised to hear they were able to salvage it.

[Scooter]

I've seen quite a few photos. Here's just one, showing the salvage operation. Photo credit martinobambinooo on Instagram.

[jdtesluk]

It is time for licensees to start footing the bill for transport and accommodation on all coastal shows, and raising the bar of what is best practices in silviculture. Leaving the lives of workers at the mercy of the lowest bid is just not acceptable. Last thing anyone wants is another Burke Channel incident. This could have been a national level disaster.

To be clear, that is not directed at Impact or any specific employer, but at the entire bidding system that compels contractors to take on these perilous jobs on the slimmest of margins, or see the work taken by someone else. It is aimed also at the licensees that say the bidding market and the regulators will ensure safety. When it comes to transport and access, that is rubbish.

Ultimately, under the current system with the current market conditions, workers are being placed in harm's way. The budget for safely transporting young workers through dangerous coastal waters is part of the same budget that allocates half a penny to a fertilizer tea-bag or an extra nickel for increased fuel prices.

Workers lives should not be bid upon. The system needs to change. If the authorities place sole focus on the employer or the boat service provider, they will be missing the point.

I hope that the folks at Impact are able to recover from this, and I hope the workers are able to recoup a productive season.

[Tnalp]

In what way does a low bid apply to this incident?

[jdtesluk]

Re-read the post. The low bid that won the contract is not the point. The standards across the industry are not good enough for transport and access if we are having incidents like this. Under the current system, contractors are forced to compete against each other, and the safety of the workers is embedded in the bidding system. It becomes very difficult to improve the standard of care in securing access and providing safe transportation while contractors are forced to compete against each other to secure these services on a competitive basis.

A way of addressing this would be for licensees to remove the transportation and access components from high-difficulty contracts (ie Marine access), and only tender bids on the active work part of the job (the planting etc). The cost of getting workers to the job safely should be covered by a guaranteed rate, and the standards to which access and transportation is delivered should be higher.

The workers are at the bottom end of a sector (silviculture) that is at the bottom end of an industry (forestry) in terms of decision-making power. Those at the top have the greatest capacity to affect a change in the standards of practice. In this case, I do not believe that relying on reactive regulators is the best way of preventing another incident (or worse) like this. I suggest that licensees need to recognize the need to protect the well-being of silviculture workers, and change the way in which they tender bids on marine contracts. There should be a guaranteed budget for access and transport that is excluded from the competitive bid process. Again, this is about raising standards, not about throwing a low bid or one contractor under the bus. I want to see things change for the better, because I don't want to see another one of these incidents, or worse.

[Nate]

I agree 100% Jordan. I think, however, this is one of the last places we would see change. It's cheaper to lump bid it and very difficult to make a legal argument that bidding it out as such creates greater worker risk. Licensees might increase standards on paper, but likely to little effect.

This is a problem still even in oil and gas/mining. To save costs some sites have gone back to drilling on a per metre rate as opposed to hourly, which creates the exact same problem. If major Alberta sites can do it, feeling like they're insulated from liability, it's hard to imagine forestry licensees not doing it.

Of course this is all predicated on a legal liability perspective, not a moral liability one, but the moral liability perspective isn't usually what drives decision making at this level of business in any industry, let alone the resource sector.

[jdtesluk]

It becomes very easy to cloud the issue of liability in situations like this, and all so easy to point fingers at the contractor and say, "They knew what they were getting into when they bid, and with proper regulation, the market will dictate a proper price for ensuring standards are met."<<<That is the rhetoric that will be issued forth by those that don't care, or don't want to contribute to change.

My problem with this market logic, is that it leaves workers and their well-being at the very bottom. That is the moral basis upon which forest licensees need to alter their approach. And yes, Nate is right that there are heels digging in on issues of liability. However, we also have to look at both the broader context of change in forestry, and the history of incidents and close calls in silviculture. These histories should compel any reasonable actor to assume that if current circumstances continue, worker deaths may follow.

There are examples from other industries (eg Airlines, as the Boeing fellow explained at the WSCA conference) in which safety is not part of the competitive process when it comes to dollars. We will need significant change, at a cultural level, at an administrative level, and at a managerial level to see the forestry industry make this leap. I believe forestry is different from mining on many levels, and I believe we have already seen a significant cultural change in the way safety is managed throughout the industry; significant change is indeed possible. But Nate is right, the call to moral culpability does not always ring as loud as the call to legal liability. Personally, I think they (licensees) need to be called out on the carpet, and issued a demand to change in order to protect workers. Maybe Jim Sinclair at the BC Fed of Labour should grab the mike - he was a powerful voice during the Khaira case.

I'm crossing my fingers every season, and hoping for no losses. However, if and when we lose another worker in some avoidable fiasco involving marine transport or poor worksite access, I will be one of the people screaming blue bloody murder.

[Nate]

It becomes very easy to cloud the issue of liability in situations like this, and all so easy to point fingers at the contractor and say, "They knew what they were getting into when they bid, and with proper regulation, the market will dictate a proper price for ensuring standards are met."

That's the problem in a nutshell, yep.

Mind you, if the licensees set out good standards and then actually enforce them, the issue also gets resolved. Between the two options, changing the tender process or setting better standards and actually enforcing them, I'm not sure which one is the more practicable.

[Scooter]

Well, we all know how ineffective BCTS is at actually enforcing things like ESB-related standards. They're good at coming into camp and dealing with Camp Standards issues, like saying that a propane tank needs to be tied up. But when it comes to things like ensuring that employees are paid on time, their on-the-block interviews and taking planters' words at face value seem rather weak. Otherwise, I can think of several companies that would have gotten in trouble by now for not paying 100% properly every two weeks (or on a twice-per-month schedule, which is also fine). I'm not even referring to small coastal companies that might be able to fly under-the-radar. I'm talking about large northern Interior companies that still break the rules consistently when it comes to payroll.

[Evergreen]

I'm missing something in this discussion. Impact is one of the best contractors on the coast. They have loads of experience in marine access silviculture contracts. Their boat had all of the certifications required, was inspected and vetted as a safe platform for performing the work. Impact is a leader in the industry in paying fair wages and in looking after the safety of their people. They will be raked over the regulatory coals for this unfortunate incident.

If the licensees were required to figure out how much and how to pay for the access portions of these contracts, it would open the bidding up to contractors who have much less experience and who don't know their way around figuring out the logistics of doing the work. It's a nice idea to suggest licensees should set aside X amount to pay for access, but what scenario do they use? Do they then dictate how exactly and when the work will take place?

The loss of the Lasqueti Daughters leaves a significant hole in the delivery of remote coast silviculture contracts. There are scant vessels available as it is, that are capable of and certified to accommodate planters and brushers on our wind swept and unpredictable coast. I like the idea of having the client pay for whatever scenario the contractor comes up with assuming it complies with all regulations. It would however be very difficult for a licensee or the Ministry to award work where a portion of the costs is unknown. It really ends up as the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that whatever scenario is used, is safe and meets all standards.

Unfortunately when aberrations such as the Khaira incident happen, they soon fade in to the past and are largely forgotten. The whole Khaira fiasco ended up as a cover up and sham ombudsman investigation aimed at misdirecting blame away from BCTS and other regulatory bodies. There's no doubt that Khaira did some very bad things, but they were allowed to by BCTS and other agencies. The owners of Khaira were made to take all of the blame, as the politically motivated ombudsman was commissioned to save the government more of a black eye than they had already received. With this sort of political system in place, we stand little chance of counting on regulators to ensure safe passage for silviculture workers.

I've been at enough industry meetings lately where government disregard for leaving safe access to planting sites was obvious. They are motivated purely by reducing costs by deactivating roads and removing docks while the logging contractors are still there so as to do it as cheaply as possible. They are distinctly uncomfortable when confronted and won't directly address the issue as one of cost vs. safety.

The whole decadent system is based on the avoidance of liability and maximization of profits. Safety is a relative term. The powers that be will only afford so much safety. They talk about unsafe being unacceptable but it's really about relative safety. We can only be as safe as the powers are willing to afford. Contractors are certainly a part of it. If there was any real trust and cohesion in the contracting community, contractors could agree to add a 10% safety margin to every bid. That could allow for the provision of PPE to all workers, more 1st aiders paid well, newer trucks and the list goes on. Unfortunately just like planters, there's little cohesion and no real cooperation towards establishing a strong association or in the planter's case a union.

Unfortunately for there to be significant change, significant loss is required. This is evidenced by the creation of the BC Forest Safety Council. When 50 forest workers died in the woods in one year, the government was sufficiently embarrassed so as to set up the Council - at a significant cost to all players. Perhaps it will take a significant loss of life on our coast for there to be any significant change here.

[Scooter]

When 50 forest workers died in the woods in one year, the government was sufficiently embarrassed so as to set up the Council - at a significant cost to all players. Perhaps it will take a significant loss of life on our coast for there to be any significant change here.

Funny, I was thinking this exact same thing an hour ago (both parts of the above excerpt).

Incidentally, the stats which Evergreen refers to can be put into context from the following page, where in 2005 there was a bad year in which there were 34 worker fatalities in harvesting, a big jump compared to prior years.

http://www.bcforestsafe.org/safety_info/statistics.html

[jdtesluk]

Sage words Evergreen. I really hope the conversation does not come across as a slam on Impact. Those of us in the industry indeed know what kind of an operation they run. It certainly would be incorrect to point fingers at either them or the boat until more is known; and even then, we should be mindful of the tendency towards liability scapegoating. It really comes down to the circumstances that contractors are confronted with, and the willingness of those that dictate those conditions to make a change. I share your skepticism to some extent as to how deep of a reservoir of this will may exist. However, I feel it necessary to explore all alternatives, given the potential consequences of failure.

You make an excellent point about opening the door to other contractors by covering the safety portion of the contract. We cannot ignore the business aspects. My post flows primarily from desperately wanting to see positive change before avoidable loss.

Your post raised a critical issue here. The loss of the LD does indeed deprive the coastal operators of an important resource. I have never been a guest on the LD, but have heard varying stories of its state of being and how it was run. None of these matter in the face of the current situation.

However, one may rightly ask what services contractors will now have to turn to, should the LD be permanently out of commission as it looks to be. If the marine transport and accommodation resources are indeed so thin, then we better hope that someone will be looking out for the workers here. Perhaps the real concern is that if this incident happened to a reputable contractor like Impact, using a tried and historically successful service like the LD, then what kind of other systems are being used out there, and what will people turn to in absence of the LD?

You suggest that a significant loss is required to spur reform. I really hope we don't need such a sacrifice. In the meantime, I ask what measures might be explored to try to plug the leaks (no pun intended). Would a more effective enforcement system and a more punitive enforcement regime be the answer? Or would this simply result in over-enforcement of compliant operators, as enforcement capacity focuses on low-hanging fruit?

It is a deeply complicated matter, and there seems to be a lack of clear suggestions for fixing it before we lose another worker.

[theBushman]

There is merit for all parties involved if operating a floating camp were treated the same way heli access is. The expensive, potentially deadly equipment is best left to contracted professionals. If helicopters were available as military surplus the way Hagglunds are, there'd be a lot more helis falling out of the sky.

I see it as no loss to silviculture as a whole if exotic and hard access were contracted to a third party by the licensee.

[Mike]

Super interesting conversation, for sure. I think it would be a massive improvement for the industry if licensees pretended loosely to care about their sub-contracted workers safety and conditions --- dangerous access (road deactivations, dock removals, lengthy barge contracts) and transportation (old vehicles --- hell, there are crummies still on the road for no reason I can discern) isn't the only issue, but it's a big one and the area that is most likely to cost planters lives.

I think that contractors could hypothetically pick up the slack on this issue, but the bidding system always will allow for some company to come in and cut costs by providing the bare minimum --- and we're not even talking about Osprey in this case. We're talking about Impact, known to be top tier. With the sinking of the LD, we're being shown that the best of the best is apparently still on the near edge of disaster.

[Tnalp]

Sounds like Impact is a top notch outfit.
Accident will happen regardless of due diligence and price points.

[Mike]

Don't a bunch of industries have an "Every accident is preventable" philosophy when it comes to accidents? Why not planting?

[jdtesluk]

Sounds like Impact is a top notch outfit.
Accident will happen regardless of due diligence and price points.

Sorry to jump on you here Tnalp, but I totally and completely disagree with you (particularly with the second statement, the first is entirely subjective). I can think of so many accidents that would have been prevented by the exercise of proper due diligence, and the commitment of more resources. In fact, I can find due diligence faults in nearly every fatality that I can recall in this industry. Those are not the only factors, but they are powerful influences.

Many of the arguments/excuses against raising standards are based in complaints about limited resources. Sure, maybe tendonitis is extremely difficult to eradicate completely. However, killing workers on the way to the job, having them seriously injured while using equipment improperly or without proper training, or seeing workers break bones while working in hazardous and steep terrain.....these are ALL types of incidents we continue to see, and they are all preventable.

The question may be WHOSE diligence is in question, and WHO is to provide the resources and HOW we can guarantee that resources are devoted the proper targets. There is no doubt that these issues are close to the core of prevention.

Take a look at the injury rates in forestry (and silviculture). The rates have plummeted over the past decade, and IMHO, I link it directly to a massive increase in the resources devoted to health and safety, and a maturation within the industry in regards to understandings of legal responsibility and regulatory requirements.

To say that accidents will happen regardless of due diligence and resources is both cynical and counter-productive. Moreover, it absolutely flies in the face of the what we have observed over the past decade (or two). Perhaps some people feel the only way to prevent EACH and EVERY accident is through application of due diligence and the devotion of resources at such a level that work will grind to a screeching halt. Yes, that would be one way to eliminating accidents; by eliminating work. However, no policy proposal is ever based on such an extreme application.

We have every responsibility to examine ways of reducing death and injuries to workers. Many of the methods we explore indeed require increased standards of care, and more money. Period. I have no problem with that, and I think logic and evidence clearly indicate these are the central tools through which to protect workers.


...........also, to Mike. Actually, nearly all companies in silviculture include the Health and Safety Accord in their policy statement or endorse it in their program. The Accord clearly states the maxam that all accidents and injuries are preventable. So to answer your query, planting does have that philosophy as in integral part of the policy structure. A planter has not been killed now in several years. However, we have had numerous close calls that call into serious question the commitment of the industry as a whole (including Licensees!!!!!) to achieving this goal.

[Mike]

Ah yes, the health and safety accord. I knew I had hear that line somewhere.

[jdtesluk]

A planter has not been killed now in several years. However, we have had numerous close calls that call into serious question the commitment of the industry as a whole (including Licensees!!!!!) to achieving this goal.

I should qualify my intention here, given that this thread surrounds an incident involving one company. I have no desire to point fingers at individuals here; particularly given that the facts are not entirely known. I am concerned with how the industry as a whole can improve, and how we can prevent any of these close calls that we have seen recently from progressing into a loss of life or another serious injury. I am not calling into question the commitment of the individual company here, as I am not the investigator. However, I am concerned that the forest industry as a whole, and silviculture as a part of it, have not yet made significant enough changes to eliminate these situations.

We have made some progress in some areas, but incidents like this close call with the LD suggest that we are actually only a short distance from disaster at all times. More significant changes may indeed be called for. We will not get these merely by hanging one company out to dry. If indeed there has been a failure in due diligence, appropriate responses are warranted. However, my primary concern is how can we learn from this and do things differently to prevent similar future occurrences.

It is good to know that key people in the industry do not stand idly by in the face of an event like this, and indeed many coastal contractors and personnel with key groups (WSCA, BCFSC....) are paying close attention to this incident.

[Scooter]

For every time there is an incident like the LD, there are probably at least 100 cases where a truck with six workers almost rolled on a logging road and potentially could have injured or killed several people. The LD incident is significant, sure, but there are much bigger problems in the industry.

[jdtesluk]

Fair response. One must consider, however, the ratio of exposure hours to incident. Driving is constantly occuring, boat transport is infrequent. It is not possible to actually calculate the close-call to incident ratio, but there is a difference in scale. Also, one must consider the comparison of potential consequences and the actual history of fatalities. I would note that the number one cause of death among tree planters in BC over the past 20 years is drowning. That of course involves boats, as well as quads, trucks, and workers on foot. So the issue gets muddier. Our last driving fatality (on the job) that I recall was Christine Benoit-Belisle in 2008. That was the same year we lost two workers in Burke Channel. In the past 6 years, I cannot recall a known close call in driving with the same potential for loss as we see here. Different scales of of activity, and different scales of potential loss. Very difficult to compare, and perhaps we should not seek to do so....but....

I think we have made big advances in driving in recent years. Indeed exposure hours remain high, and we face increasing traffic in some areas due to other activities in the woods. However, we have seen changes in training (resource road driving), vehicle engineering improvements, and shifts in attitudes that make rushing to work less of an acceptable practices.

I would argue that we have not made similar advances in ensuring safe access in marine contracts. Yes, we had the Burke Channel incident, and there was some response to that event. However, marine transport to hard access jobs essentially occurs out of sight and out of mind of most of the industry. Is boating to work safer today than it was 10 years ago? That perhaps is for others to answer, but I think it is still an areas of tremendous vulnerability.

Ultimately, we can't base our review of one situation (marine transport) on the seriousness of another (driving). They are both critical, and both require ongoing diligence to reduce risks to workers.

[Scooter]

Good points. Yes, they are both critical. The risk-per-hour assessment certainly adds another valid dimension.

In the past 6 years, I cannot recall a known close call in driving with the same potential for loss as we see here.

Unfortunately, I've heard rumours of close calls (driving near-misses) and complete stupidity at several companies in the past two years. Unfortunately, sometimes, people don't like to talk publicly about these things. Thankfully, the use of seatbelts seems to have improved significantly in the past decade, though people still don't wear belts universally.

[Tnalp]

I made my previous comment with the recent aircraft tragedy in mind. No cynicism just a simple statement. The most regulated and safe industries on the planet will have accidents.

This incident is serving as a catalyst, albeit a minor one, for discussion which I applaud.
It is easy to bring up related issues that allows one to voice their opinions and beliefs; fine as well.

I would however be interested to hear more about the details of the incident itself.
Maybe to soon?

[jdtesluk]

Good comment Tnalp. I hope you can forgive me for shamelessly using your post as a trampoline for a rant.

I think your reference to the airline incident is very interesting, considering we had a Boeing analysis speak at the WSCA conference. It is always important to consider what is in the public mind.

I expect a few more details may filter out, but the real important stuff will come from the Transportation Safety Board. If they follow their standard process, their report should include reference to operator qualifications, crew requirements, vessel details AND modifications, emergency systems, detailed analysis of the factors leading to the incident, and issues related to inspections. The TSB Burke Channel report came out 10 months following the incident. There were no human losses here so the investigation may be quicker.

The company has undoubtedly taken a critical hit on this, and we should be considerate of people's livelihoods. However, facts are facts, and I think planters and workers should absolutely pay attention to this event, and seek to expand their awareness of issues like this. That being said, I expect Impact's employees may be reluctant to talk about the event and may in fact have been instructed not to do so until the investigation of the event is complete. Perhaps best to stay that course until more is known.

[jdtesluk]

Some updated info and pics here from TSB. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inves ... 5p0035.asp

Full report likely still a month or so away.

[retrovertigo]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e28503120/

TSB releases report on Lasqueti Daughters vessel, calls for Transport Canada intervention
The Transportation Safety Board says a boat that took on water along the B.C. coast last year had not been inspected – and it says Transport Canada needs to intervene when operators don’t have a proper safety management plan.

The board released its report Monday into an incident involving the vessel Lasqueti Daughters. The report said the self-propelled barge left Campbell River last March and was to house workers at a silviculture operation.

But the vessel quickly ran into rough winds and waves. The report said the main deck had recently been replaced, but it was not watertight and the barge began to flood. Pumping efforts were unsuccessful and all 17 people on board the vessel – two crew members, along with 15 silviculture workers – abandoned it in smaller boats. None was injured.

The board said its investigation determined there was a lack of safety oversight. It said the vessel did not hold the required Transport Canada inspection certificate and had not been inspected.

“As this occurrence demonstrates, some marine operators are not effectively managing their safety risks,” the report read. “The solution will require all operators in the marine industry to have formal safety management processes with oversight by [Transport Canada]. When companies are unable to effectively manage safety, TC must not only intervene, but do so in a manner that succeeds in changing unsafe operating practices.”

The report said the Lasqueti Daughters was a homemade vessel, constructed on Lasqueti Island in 2001. It said the vessel primarily served as a live-aboard camp for silviculture workers, and the owner purchased it in 2010. The vessel did manage to stay afloat once it was abandoned, but had to be towed to shore and is no longer in use.

The report said if a silviculture operation in B.C. has a marine component, specifically the transportation of workers by boat, safety oversight is the responsibility not only of Transport Canada but also of WorkSafeBC. It said the BC Forest Safety Council is also tasked with providing support.

The board found the groups could collaborate more effectively. For instance, it said sharing information about vessels involved in silviculture operations would allow for better oversight.

“If organizations with overlapping areas of responsibility do not share information and collaborate effectively among themselves as well as with vessel owners and masters, then there is a risk that gaps in safety oversight will occur,” the report said.

A Transport Canada spokesperson said it is taking the board's report very seriously and will review the findings to determine where safety enhancements can be made.

"Safety is a shared responsibility," the spokesperson wrote in a statement. "Transport Canada oversees a comprehensive legislative and regulatory system that works to keep the marine transportation safe and efficient, and protects our environment. It is the responsibility of vessel owners to comply with the applicable safety measures at all times."

Scott McCloy, a WorkSafeBC spokesman, said his organization is reviewing the board’s report to identify next steps.

“While information sharing between regulatory bodies is a worthy objective, it is important to ensure the information being shared results in a stronger regulatory system and enhances workplace safety,” Mr. McCloy wrote in a statement. “It is also important to bear in mind that primary responsibility for regulatory compliance and safety rests with the workplace parties, particularly with employers.”

Reynold Hert, chief executive officer of the BC Forest Safety Council, said it’s planning to put out a resource guide “that says when you are engaged in marine applications, here are all the things that you need to consider.”

The report identified the owner of the vessel as Impact Reforestation Ltd. The company did not return a message seeking comment.

[jdtesluk]

I'm really happy that this is not a Coroner's Inquest.

It took an awfully long time for this report to be completed. It will be very very interesting to find out what happens next.

[Mike]

The board said its investigation determined there was a lack of safety oversight. It said the vessel did not hold the required Transport Canada inspection certificate and had not been inspected.

How long was it running without inspection, and who's job was it to get it inspected?

[Cyper]

This review seems pretty bland and toothless. I guess there will be some recommendations coming along soon...
It's the owners responsibility to comply with all regulations including getting the vessel inspected. It's the responsibility of the contractor who's using it or any vessel to ensure it's properly inspected and licensed. In this case the planting contractor owned the boat. I'd be surprised if he gets off this one unscathed. I see that Impact won the BCTS Sunshine Coast spring contract. I'm guessing they won't be using the Lasqueti Daughters to do any of that work.

[Mike]

I am more curious about, who is the government agency that is supposed to be checking on and enforcing these things? Or are all the boats out there just assumed to be following the rules with no enforcement?

[Scooter]

I’ve worked for Impact in the past (on the Lasqueti Daughters), and it was a good experience. I asked Greg (the owner) if he would be willing to allow me to post any comments from him, in light of the fact that the TSB Report has now been issued. He gave me the following statement, with the knowledge that I would be sharing this information publicly here on Replant:

During the registration process of the LD, I was told by the registrar that the LD was a barge and therefore did not require an inspection. TC did indeed register it without an inspection. What she told me was incorrect, however I believed what I was told to be true, so the boat was never inspected by the coast guard, only marine surveyors for insurance purposes. Unfortunately her information was verbal, and not written. The TSB investigators would not put this in the report, as they could not substantiate this claim, as that registrar has since retired and could not be contacted.

We were constantly upgrading the barge safety wise, including annual life raft inspection and certification, engine room fire suppression system, kitchen upgrades, water purification systems and more. The boat was indeed rotting in places, and we had a rotten portion of the deck replaced the previous winter, as the old deck had several holes. The entire boat was never water tight, as most wood boats are not, but the bilges always kept up.

At no time was anyone in danger, other than possibly myself and the skipper, although I did not feel that way at the time. The crew was moved onto the crew boat long before there were any real problems, leaving only the skipper and I aboard. Anyone who was aboard that day could substantiate this.

Every planter was reimbursed in full for any possessions lost or ruined, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, none of which was covered by our insurance. In some cases planters may have come out ahead, with all new planting gear, laptops etc, although they were all very reasonable with their claims to us. We have pretty much the entire crew back this spring, which I believe is a testament to how they were treated.

Everyone looks for someone to point the finger at when stuff like this happens, and it is squarely pointed at me. I accept that, however I would never knowingly put an employee in harms’ way. My own son was to be working with us aboard the barge last summer. You will not see many if any public comments about this matter from me [aside from this post], as we would just like to put this behind us and move on. I was inundated with calls from reporters after it happened, and again with the release of the report It was a devastating incident for us both emotionally and financially. I believe we have always run a very safe operation at Impact. I was personally affected by the many tragic motor vehicle deaths of planters up north in the mid to late 80s when I was just starting as a planter. I have always insisted on new safe vehicles to get our people to and from work, as I believe that is the number one hazard in our industry.

We have received a great deal of support through this, from employees, clients and competitors, for which I am sincerely grateful

FYI the barge was not insured for enough to repair it, and was subsequently scrapped and destroyed in the lower mainland. It was a great boat to work from and I’m sure many planters have fond memories of working on it over the years.

[jdtesluk]

Brave of Greg to speak up like that. A lot of contractors would likely prefer to avoid any comment at all. This says a lot.

[Mike]

Great statement, and totally fair. I'm glad that he treated the planters well.

[Scooter]

Here's the FSC's safety reminder of the month, came out via email today:

Marine Transportation Safety

On March 14, 2015, the self-propelled barge Lasqueti Daughters, carrying 17 people, took on water during rough weather to the point that the crew and passengers abandoned the vessel. The vessel was in the process of sinking when towed to shore. Fortunately there was a crew boat being towed and a skiff on board that accommodated those getting off the Lasquiti Daughters.

Many forestry operations are accessed by boat and it is important to consider what procedures, equipment and qualified staff needs to be in place to safely transport workers.
Planning and Procedures:

Boats used commercially to transport passengers are required to be registered with Transport Canada as well as inspected annually. It is up to the authorized representative of the company owning the vessel to contact Transport Canada to set up these inspections. The inspections involve the structural, firefighting, lifesaving, navigation, and communication components and procedures on the vessel. Crew qualifications are verified at the time of inspection and emergency drills are conducted.
Research the type of crew that is required for your type of vessel. How many crew members do you need and what level of certification and training is required? The master of the vessel will need the highest level of certification but a trained crew may also be needed.
If a vessel is being newly constructed or undergoes modifications, have a professional inspect and certify that the boat will be stable and operate as intended.
Check the weather forecast and postpone the trip if conditions are unsafe. However, don’t rely completely on weather forecasts; bring equipment and clothing for all conditions.
Have a check in system in place. Prepare your contact person with the appropriate phone lists and procedures so they know exactly what to do if you miss your check in time.
A supervisor hiring a contractor that requires a boat for water access should get documentation from the contractor that vessels being used have their certifications in place and the crew is current in their qualifications, and are prepared to handle emergencies.

Preparing for Emergencies:

Realistic emergency drills help everyone understand their roles during an emergency. Practice responding incidents of all types including fires, mechanical failures, and crew that have fallen overboard.
Test out the equipment that would be used in an emergency. Practice with the emergency pumps, communications systems and life vests as part of the drill.
Train the crew on distress calling procedures, including the appropriate radio channel to use and the type of information (vessel name, position and help required) to provide. During an emergency, don’t delay contacting the Coast Guard. They can always stand down if the emergency situation is fixed.
Inspect your boat to make sure the appropriate emergency equipment is present and in good working order. Life jackets, first aid kits, fire extinguishers, distress flares and bilge pumps (or bailers for smaller vessels) are all required equipment.

Stability:

Think about the design and construction of the vessel. Is it being used for its intended purpose? If not, will this cause a problem with stability?
Factors like load, weight distribution, weather and water conditions, and potential mechanical failures or damage to the vessel can all combine to create instability. Be prepared to delay your trip until these factors can be controlled.

Navigation and Communications Equipment:

Know which route you are going to take and have a primary and back-up navigation device. For example, you may rely on a GPS unit but make sure you have a back-up compass and charts/maps.
It is essential to have a means to communicate with other boats in the area. An approved radio communication system is the best option but other sound signaling devices like an air horn may be more appropriate for small boats.

Take another look at your safety program. Does it manage all aspects of your operations, including marine transportation? Consider the parts of your business that might only be done on an intermittent basis and consider if you have adequately assessed the risk related to those operations?
Resources:

Transportation Safety Board’s Investigation of Sinking of Lasqueti Daughters
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5P0035.asp
Transport Canada Vessel Registration Office
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oe ... nu-728.htm
More Information on Training and Certification
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/ptec-menu.htm
BC Forest Safety Council’s Marine Safety Page
http://www.bcforestsafe.org/marine_safety
Transport Canada’s Safety Videos
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/dv ... -4417.html
Cold Water Survival Information
http://www.coldwaterbootcamp.com/pages/home.html
Print version of this alert
http://www.bcforestsafe.org/files/AOM_February_2016.pdf

[Scooter]

Here are some notes that I just found on a scrap of paper from the WFCA conference. Jordan might be able to comment further:

- Next year, there will be changes in certification for water vessels.
- Operators will need a certificate of competency (a 32 hour course).
- Also need MED A3 or non-pleasure domestic vessel basic safety, OFA, medical certificate.
- Camp barges fall under the full requirements of the Canada Shipping Act (2001).

I'm not sure if I have all of those entirely correct, but I believe that Timo from Brinkman was involved in the process of improving future water safety for industry.

[jdtesluk]

I'd defer to Timo Scheiber on that. I need to review my own notes on these matters.
I do think it's strong leadership when a company steps forward to help drive improvement in an area where they have suffered critical losses.
Many others may just seek to avoid the topic altogether, but Timo has put a LOT of personal and company time into this.