More than one year has passed, since the sinking of the BC Ferries, Queen of the North. While I perceive a failure of great proportions, the Canadian system entrusted to protect the safety of the public, maintains an attitude aloft of reality.

The below-mentioned article which I wrote on July 1, 2006, reflects the tip of  decades long, Canadian iceberg, representative of a marine industry governed by an incompetent Transport Canada and RCMP, augmented by a sea of less-than-honorable marine professionals. Surely, bringing forth the question; how do honorable Canadian marine professionals stomach embarrassments of this magnitude?   

The BC Ferries, Queen of the North disaster of 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 honor and integrity are non-existent. Alone, one can do little to correct this incompetent monster presently controlling the Canadian industry. Yet, seeking honorable 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 CBC website and search their archives using the following keywords; BC Ferries, Queen of the North. A variety of detailed information is available, including BC Ferries report, TSB report, names of the criminal negligent crew, etc…

Sincerely,

Capt. E. G. da Costa Duarte

"Welcome aboard", says the captain of an eight thousand ton ferry ship 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. I have accepted command of this ship knowing fully 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 to keep you informed of events endangering your stay onboard".

Maintaining an attitude of keeping the passengers well informed, 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 are mostly worried about their pensions and back stabbing each other to worry about ship safety concerns. Given decades of practice with full supports from corrupt politicians, our officials are fully versed on the art of ignoring safety concerns. Should an accident happen, as in previous years, our State-flag 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 safe 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 in favor of 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.

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.

Excerpt from the Canadian Criminal Code:

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.

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.

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.

R. v. Canhoto (1999), 29 C.R. (5^th) 170, 140 C.C.C. (3^rd) 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:

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.

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,

118. No person shall take any action that might jeopardize the safety of a vessel or of persons on board.

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 behavior 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 neighbor 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 behavior. Personally, I do not 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. Thirty six 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 favor 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

Sincerely,

Capt. E. G. da Costa Duarte