Not so long ago, before we fell in love with our technology and our belief we could make the world in our own image, we were much better at accepting when bad things happened.
We would try and figure out why it happened, in hopes of preventing it in the future, but there was much less emphasis on finding a scapegoat.
Sadly, that isn't the case today. These days, someone must be blamed or "held accountable." It is someone's fault, either through intent or incompetence, for everything from poor customer service and icy roads to avalanches and earthquakes.
Making one person responsible for one big, bad problem unfairly simplifies complex situations. Take, for example, the deadly destruction of the Babine Forest Products mill in Burns Lake and the Lakeland Mills facility here in Prince George during 2012. Maybe the only real result of the two-year investigation into the cause of the Babine disaster is that it's difficult, if not impossible, to quantify where an accident ends and human error starts.
The Criminal Justice Branch and WorksafeBC had harsh words for each other last week after provincial Crown counsel announced it would not be laying charges in connection to the tragedy in Burns Lake. Crown said WorkSafeBC did such a sloppy investigation that much of the evidence it collected wouldn't stand up in court. Furthermore, the employer had records showing efforts to combat workplace dust safety, making it impossible to show negligence contributed to the explosion and fire.
This isn't our first rodeo, WorksafeBC countered. The provincial workplace safety regulator said Crown had approved charges in 31 previous cases, 24 of those which resulted in convictions, based on evidence submitted to Crown by WorksafeBC investigators.
In other words, both sides seem to be blaming each other for the fact that a two-year investigation could not find someone to blame legally for what happened that horrible January night in Burns Lake. Although WorksafeBC did recommend charges for failing to prevent hazardous accumulation of material, failing to safely remove combustible dust, failing to ensure the health and safety of workers and failing to remedy hazardous workplace conditions, Crown felt it wasn't given the evidence to meet the standard needed to press charges.
The underlying problem, for both the Babine and Lakeland Mills investigations, is that WorksafeBC was in a potential conflict of interest. How can the regulator be in a position of recommending charges when negligence by its own inspectors could be a factor? And if improper or incomplete inspections were uncovered as part of the investigation, could WorksafeBC be trusted to recommend criminal charges against itself and its own employees? Or was WorksafeBC only interested in finding out if the mill owners and operators were at fault, without considering the possibility their own inspectors made mistakes that inadvertently contributed to the cause of the explosions?
Speaking of cause, that little tidbit was lost in all of the hubbub and fingerpointing. The investigation could not determine the precise cause of the Babine blast. Instead, the word "seems" was used, as in it seems the ignition point was on the ground floor of the mill and it seems wood dust contributed to the severity of the explosion.
Unless something changes, there will be no one person to blame for Babine but all is not lost. Reducing the number of ignition sources on the mill floor and the amount of wood dust in the facility will likely help avoid similar accidents in the future, even if we don't know exactly how much either factor contributed to what happened at Babine and Lakeland.
What should also be addressed, however, is the scope of WorksafeBC investigations, particularly in serious cases involving loss of life. Police in B.C. no longer investigate themselves in situations like this, so maybe Worksafe B.C. should be put under the same limitations.
