Finally, Criminal Charges laid - March 16, 2010
The following are quotes from CBC News:
“A separate investigation by the Transportation Safety Board determined Lilgert and a crew member on the bridge, quartermaster Karen Bricker, were having a conversation and did not make a critical course change just before the ship ran aground”.
“Karl Lilgert, the navigating officer responsible for steering the vessel at the time, was charged on Tuesday morning in B.C. Provincial Court in Vancouver, said a statement issued by the province's Criminal Justice Branch”.
So, after four years a criminal charge is laid against Karl Lilgert, based on information that was available immediately after the sinking of the M/V Queen of the North on March 22, 2006.
I no longer wish to comment on this shameful issue, only to remind Canadians that our Government system is not working to safeguard human life; in this case the RCMP and Transport Canada.
Preface
While the following article was originally written on July 1, 2006 and subsequently revised, my knowledge of the M/V Queen of the North dates back to the mid nineties, when I boarded such ship as a professional Marine Chemist. Boarding the M/V Queen of the North brought back memories of my early days as a seventeen year old professional mariner, onboard similar vessels, serving the coastal waters of Scandinavia.
During several professional visits to the ill fated Queen of the North, indications of crew generated conflict existed, yet I never imagined the end result would sink her. No professional mariner appreciates this type of embarrassment originating from his nation of citizenship. Specifically, when the Canadian Government passes off this crime as an everyday minor offence, followed by the union representing the crew demanding the culprit’s jobs back. What message does the Canadian Government send to the youth of Canada wanting to enter into a maritime career? Unenthusiastically, I say, the answer is already before us.
WELCOME ABOARD (REVISED)
"Welcome aboard", says the captain of an eight thousand ton passenger ferry bound for the beautiful coastal waters of its State-flag (nation); "the crew and I will do our best to listen to your concerns and fears, yet our mandate is to navigate the ship according to a sub-standard set of rules and regulations only available in our modern nation". The captain continues; "The ship is well equipped and in excellent operational condition given its advanced age. While our ship’s crew consists of mainly a male oriented environment, females are encouraged to participate, bringing their natural ability to entice male violence. Regardless of how many times I am told that domestic violence is a serious crime, I will tolerate such onboard my vessel, regardless of the consequences. Further, I have accepted command of this ship knowing full well that the crew and I are not fully familiar with all the navigation instruments onboard, specifically, the steering and electronic charting. We will do our best, or not, to keep you informed of events endangering your stay onboard".
Maintaining an attitude of keeping the passengers well informed, or not, the captain’s welcome speech continues; "the company’s safety officer warned the owner and crew of the consequences emerging from a lack of ship operations knowledge, an acceptable risk supported by our incompetent State-flag officials running our Transportation Ministry".
"You are welcome to complain to our authorities, but let me advise you, it will not do anyone any good, our State-flag officials and our union are mostly worried about their pensions and back stabbing each other to worry about ship safety concerns. Certainly, public ignorance about stability books and unseaworthy vessel conditions, safeguards State-Flag officials from wide spread knowledge of their incompetence. Given decades of practice with full support from corrupt politicians, not to forget our less-than-honourable Prime Minister, our officials are fully versed on the art of ignoring safety concerns. Should an accident happen, as in previous years, our State-flag including our national media, will pull together and cover any details indicating our lack of knowledge. Do not fear, fellow passengers, our coastline does provide natives willing to endanger their lives to save you from harm, depending on our Coast Guard requires several hours wait. Unfortunately, our State-flag does not have enough native people to cover the whole coast line".
"The owner and government officials are proud of this ship, it is in full working order, yet it is structurally forbidden to navigate international waters employed to carry paying passengers. Our sub-standard rules allow such ship to continue navigating our coastal waters, facilitating a low purchase price originally paid to a foreign owner regulated to stop using a sub-standard ship governed by international rules and regulations imposed by a State-flag that cared about Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)".
"Should loss of life occur, we encourage civil lawsuits to resolve the situation, our laws allow for years of litigation with results favouring government institutions and unions. Token settlements are easily expected while criminal activity is forgotten".
"Women under our employment have rights allowing for full equality, women are encouraged to cooperate with man when operating the ship in an unsafe manner. This practice prevents gender discrimination when looking for blame".
The captain ends the welcome aboard speech by saying; "the ship is equipped with life saving equipment easily accessible from your cabins and common areas, yet I caution you, our coast line is made up of mostly hard rock showing no mercy on a ship’s hull directed against it, therefore you are advised to be physically fit with an ability to sprint from your cabin to the life boats within seconds. Further, don’t count on the crew for help; they will experience the same problem. Good luck and enjoy the voyage".
The above narration is fictional, easily describing what the captain of the BC Ferries "M/V Queen of the North" should have said to passengers traveling the ill fated voyage that ended on March 22, 2006, sending the ship to the bottom, killing two passengers.
When I first wrote this article, July 1, 2006, the facts were not clear as to the exact series of events that occurred onboard the M/V Queen of the North, prior to the disastrous sinking. Relying on the Canadian and international media to ascertain truth is a pointless endeavour. Therefore in a slow, yet determined effort, I conversed with ex-crew members about the discipline and attitudes governing the crew that contributed to the disastrous sink of the passenger ferry. Four imbeciles rise to the surface; the Captain (name withheld), Karl Lilgert, Kevin Hilton and Karen Bricker. The two bridge officers on duty during the sinking were Karl Lilgert and Kevin Hilton, a female quartermaster Karen Bricker also on duty formed the sole culprits involved on the actual sinking of the passenger ferry. The Captain participated, yet on a secondary stage reflective of moral irresponsibility behaviour conducive with the duties of a ship’s Master.
Because the less-than-honourable Royal Canadian Mounted Police is entrusted to safe guard the safety of the public by investigating criminal activity, it is their duty to perform a detailed investigation aiming for evidence to present in a court of law resulting in a conviction. Therefore, I will limit my findings to hearsay, hinting that it is time the RCMP get off their lazy asses and do something honourable.
Months before the disastrous sinking of the M/V Queen of the North, deck officer Karl Lilgert and quartermaster Karen Bricker were involved in sexual encounters. The sexual nature of these encounters included betraying their regular love partners, in other words, their love making was not worthy of honesty thus producing outburst of violence towards each other, an issue noticed by members of the crew. During these outbursts of violence, several memos initiated by the ship’s chief officer, arrived at the Captain’s desk requesting the separation of the two individuals while on duty, with strong indications that ship’s safety was at risk if this attitude was to continue. To the demise of the ship and two passengers, the Captain ignored such warnings and continued to assign Karl Lilgert and quartermaster Karen Bricker to the same bridge watch.
During the late hours of March 22, 2006, while the ship’s Captain slept, his lack of responsibility allowed the two imbeciles, Karl Lilgert and Karen Bricker, once again, engage in domestic violence, completely distracting themselves from their maritime duties. Criminal negligence is not an act that only lawyers understand; anyone with half a brain understands negligence and the implications with public safety.
Excerpts from the Canada Shipping Act and the Canadian Criminal Code are mentioned below, emphasizing written laws created to prevent sea disasters and punish those that disregard human life by neglecting their duty of care. Criminal negligence occurs and is apparent when a professional mariner describes his job by saying that he or she took command of a ship when not fully familiar with the navigation instruments, specifically, when their statement indicates an inability to disconnect the auto pilot placing the ship on human hands. Fundamentally, a member of a ship’s bridge team dictates an absolute knowledge of manual steering otherwise they have no purpose on the bridge. Failing this fundamental purpose they are committing criminal negligence should an accident occur. Today, the numerous excuses originating from union officials and others protecting these imbeciles, is reflective of a nation governed by public apathy. Personally, I fail to understand how the average Canadian stomachs this type of crime.
Given all the excuses, as above-mentioned, the sole reason for sinking the M/V Queen of the North remains the domestic violence that ensued between Karl Lilgert and Karen Bricker. Thus, morally or criminally constituting criminal negligence.
Excerpt from the Canadian Criminal Code:
Criminal Negligence
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Definition of "duty"
(2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.
Causing Death by Criminal Negligence
220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
Causing Bodily Harm by Criminal Negligence
221. Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Canadian Case Law:
R. v. Canhoto (1999), 29 C.R. (5th) 170, 140 C.C.C. (3rd) 321 (Ont. C.A.) – The fault element for both acts and omissions is the same, measured by a uniform objective standard: does the conduct constitute a marked departure from that expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances?
R. v. Tutton (1989), 69 C.R. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.) — "Wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons" signifies more than gross negligence in the objective sense. Prosecution must establish some degree of awareness or advertence by Defense to the threat to the lives or safety of others, or alternatively, a wilful blindness to the threat that is culpable in light of the gravity of the risk assumed. Malice or intent, in the sense of a mind directed to a purpose, are not elements of the offence. The objective test must be applied in determining criminal negligence since it is Defense’s conduct which must be examined. There is no distinction in principle between acts of commission and omission. The test is reasonableness, and the surrounding circumstances and Defense’s perception of them must be considered to determine whether Defense's conduct was reasonable. The honestly-held belief in circumstances which would support a defense must, to be effective, be reasonably held. In applying the objective lest, generous allowance should be made for factors particular to Defense such as youth, mental development and education.
R. v. Waite (1989), 69 C.R. (3d) 323, 48 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) — Criminal negligence requires both the conduct addressed by the objective test and a subjective mental element which is the minimal intent of awareness of the prohibited risk or wilful blindness to the risk. Criminal negligence is shown where Prosecution proves conduct on Defense's part which shows a marked and substantial departure from the standard of behavior expected of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. The objective test is to be applied whether the acts are ones of commission or omission. The offence does not involve a subjective element.
R. v. Gingrich (1991), 6 C.R. (4th) 197, 65 C.C.C. (3d) 188 (Ont. C.A.) — The mens rea for criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle (also applies to the operation of ship) involves an objective assessment of Defense's conduct. The crime of criminal negligence is negligence, the tort of civil negligence. It is elevated to a crime by the magnitude of Defense's omissions or commissions, which show a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.
R. v. Nelson (1990), 75 C.R. (3d) 70, 54 C.C.C. (3d) 285 (Ont. C.A.) — See also: R. v. Cabral (1990), 54 C.C.C. (3d) 317 (Ont. C.A.) — Absent further clarification by the Supreme Court of Canada, the mental element required to establish criminal negligence involves an objective standard. In practical terms, in most cases that involves the operation of a motor vehicle (also applies to the operation of ship) little difference exists between the objective and subjective standard.
R. v. Sharp (1984), 39 C.R. 367, 12 C.C.C. (3d) 428 (Ont. C.A.) — To prove criminal negligence, Prosecution is not required to prove intention or deliberation. Indifference, in the sense of a negative state of mind, will suffice. Where driving (operating a ship) is involved, it must be a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver (captain or mate). The driver (captain or mate) must have either run an obvious and serious risk to the lives and safety of others, or have given no thought to that risk
Excerpts from the Canada Shipping Act:
Canada Shipping Act
Objectives of Act
5. The objectives of this Act are to
(a) protect the health and well-being of individuals, including the crews of ships, who participate in marine transportation and commerce;
(b) promote safety in the marine transportation system;
(c) protect the marine environment from damage due to navigation and shipping activities;
(d) develop a regulatory scheme that encourages viable, effective and economical marine transportation and commerce;
(e) promote an efficient marine transportation system;
(f) ensure that Canada can meet its international obligations under bilateral and multilateral agreements with respect to navigation and shipping
(g) encourage the harmonization of marine practices;
(h) provide an appropriate liability and compensation regime in relation to incidents involving ships; and
(i) establish an effective inspection and enforcement program.
Provisions as to Discipline
Misconduct endangering life or ship
241. A master, seaman or apprentice belonging to a Canadian ship who, by wilful breach of duty, by neglect of duty or by reason of drunkenness
(a) does any act tending to the immediate loss, destruction or serious damage of the ship, or tending immediately to endanger the life or limb of a person belonging to or on board the ship, or
(b) refuses or omits to do any lawful act proper and requisite to be done by him for preserving the ship from immediate loss, destruction or serious damage or for preserving any person belonging to or on board the ship from immediate danger to life or limb,
is guilty of an indictable offence.
Jeopardizing Safety
118. No person shall take any action that might jeopardize the safety of a vessel or of persons on board.
Crew Carrying Out Duties and Reporting
113. Every crew member on board a vessel shall
(a) carry out their duties and functions in a manner that does not jeopardize the safety of the vessel or of any person on board;
(b) report to the master any safety hazards of which they become aware;
(c) report to the master any change in their circumstances that could affect their ability to carry out their duties and functions safely; and
(d) comply with lawful directions given by the master.
Criticism of written Canadian laws is dismissed, the behaviour of government officials, namely RCMP and Transport Canada, remains in question as to the lack of enforcement against those in command of the BC Ferries M/V Queen of the North. This is an international embarrassment where similar activity within the waters of our neighbour State-flag, the United States of America would entail an immediate trip to jail, awaiting trial. Not long ago the captain of a Celebrity Cruises Liner spent a few days in a US jail after the United States Coast Guard detected alcohol on his breath. Witnessing past episodes involving Transport Canada, Ship Safety Branch officials, dealing with alcoholic ship’s crew, they did not hesitate action, they joined them.
A point to ponder relates to Canadian written laws, an analytical review indicates a high degree of intelligence involved on its creation giving rise to the question, why entrust stupid and incompetent officials to enforce Canadian laws. Honest, perhaps caring Canadians, wishing to disregard incompetence within Transport Canada and the RCMP are asking for a nation that ignores its own law for the preservation of a government that ultimately promotes criminal behaviour. Personally, I do believe that our current Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper ignores these maritime issues, perhaps he lacks expert support to resolve and clean up Transport Canada and the RCMP. This fact is supported by decades witnessing Canadian maritime professionals talk about the bullshit that goes on yet failing to contribute anything positive to the marine industry, thus its continue deterioration.
Canada's national symbol remains the beaver, described by June Callwood in Portrait of Canada as a "slow witted, toothy rodent, known to bite off its own testicles, or to...stand under its own falling trees". After spending one year living aboard my sailboat with a toothy beaver swimming around my boat by day and thumping his tail at night depriving me of sleep, I respect their natural habits and learned to live with his mannerisms. Symbolic, Canadians are standing under the tree and biting their own balls when they allow incompetent civil servants to govern our marine industry. Perhaps better said, I will present the following quote:
“There is no doubt that marine safety is dysfunctional right now for sure basically what you got is a whole bunch of regional directors that don’t take any direction from Ottawa plus you don’t have any body in Ottawa that is giving any direction.
They are having their problems in marine safety they have problems with enforcement they have problems with standards and they have problems with personnel.
I don’t think it is as simple as one person being incompetent it’s a problem with the whole organization and I will be very honest after one trip to the heart institute in the back of an ambulance, five years in marine safety was enough for me. I had a heart attack in February 2002, and I took an opportunity that was presented in May of 2002.
And I am not surprised there has been a number of things particular in the west coast that have not made a lot of sense, the analogy that I heard used was the inmates are in charge of the asylum out there”.
Mr. Bud Streeter, Director General, Marine Safety
Mr. Bud Streeter merits my praise for saying the obvious. Further, Mr. Streeter is known for being the only Transport Canada official that worked towards correcting and updating Transport Canada, Ship Safety Branch. His failure indicates a lack of interest from politicians, civil servants, judicial system and Canadian public to prevent LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA, an issue dating back several decades reflected by the high number of ship related casualties within Canadian waters flying the Canadian flag. Canadians show a considerable amount of distaste for unsafe practices when other nations exhibit decay of their enforcement for marine rules and regulations, this is a deplorable attitude showing gross hypocrisy. Specifically, when comparing a nation (Canada) of thirty one million people to nations that have nearly that amount of people in one city.
Canadians portray themselves to be a highly educated people when facts do not support such. Forty years ago I boarded several ships docked on European ports looking for a job, quickly told to leave when my country of origin became known. It did not take long to discover that Canada was not in favour with deep sea captains wanting crew, an attitude that remains today. Fortunately, Portugal, my country of birth, demands a high degree of respect from the seafaring world, opening the door to a great career. Today, respect for Canada emerges from observing a nation with great potential not from witnessing Transport Canada, the RCMP and factions of the Canadian Judicial System decaying. The following quote reflects numerous conversations with members of the West Coast Marine Industry, the name is withheld because the content of the quote is often heard:
"Everything with Transport Canada......The bullshit that goes on for generations and generations and nothing ever gets solved.......
Name withheld
Conclusion
Several years passed, since the sinking of the M/V Queen of the North. While I perceive a failure of great dimensions, the Canadian system entrusted to protect the safety of the public, maintains an attitude aloft of reality with a continuation of criminal events that fail reasoning. The Less-than-Honourable RCMP remains forefront in the media with a slew of irresponsible acts, reaching criminal activity, an aspect they are mandated to prevent, not contribute.
This article, initially written on July 1, 2006, reflects the tip of several decades’ long, Canadian iceberg, representative of a marine industry governed by an incompetent Transport Canada and RCMP, augmented by a sea of less-than-honourable marine professionals. Surely, bringing forth the question; how do honourable Canadian marine professionals stomach embarrassments of this magnitude?
The M/V Queen of the North disaster, March 22, 2006, is representative of a series of failures, too numerous to detail in a summarized version, of a marine industry begging for help, involving all segments; government, unions, schooling, criminal enforcement and Judiciary, indicating that aspects of honour and integrity are non-existent. Alone, one can do little to correct this incompetent monster presently controlling the Canadian industry. Yet, seeking honourable Canadian mariners with an interest to reverse this trend is an exercise in futility.
Anyone interested in further information about this maritime tragedy, can logon to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and search their archives using the following keywords; BC Ferries, Queen of the North. A variety of detailed information is available, including BC Ferries reports, TSB reports, names of the criminal negligent crew, etc… While perusing this national website (CBC), why not take a bit more time to search for articles involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). I am sure the killing of an innocent Polish immigrant will amuse the degenerate mind, better yet, the execution of the defenceless Ian Bush.
Canada alike many Western nations involve many honourable people, yet I believe that the majority of good Canadians are sleeping and in need of awakening.
Sincerely,
Capt. E. G. da Costa Duarte
