EDITORIAL — The search for accountability

In the wake of every tragedy comes the inquiry into what went wrong, why things went wrong and who, if anyone, might be responsible. In the case of the Westray disaster in Plymouth, N.S., where, on May 9, 1992, twenty-six miners lost their lives, the quest for answers has been muddied by political and legal manoeuvring. At times, the inquiry has seemed concerned more with finding scapegoats than with uncovering the truth.

So far, we have had miners pointing fingers at their managers, inspectors blaming the miners for not being more vocal about safety concerns, and various politicians and mining executives scrambling for cover. It even has been suggested that the industry as a whole should bear some responsibility for what happened at Westray, on the grounds that certain executives at Curragh (the mine’s owner) were, at the time, “leading lights” in the mining sector.

In our view, attempts to assign blame are premature, as the cause or causes of the tragedy have not yet been determined. At this point, the focus of the inquiry ought to be a dispassionate, disciplined examination of events leading up to, and including, that fateful day in May 1992.

The object of the exercise is to gather all the facts in order to establish a true account of events related to the explosion that ripped apart the coal mine. Only when the facts are no longer in doubt can the process begin to determine accountability. In other words, the truth should be allowed the opportunity to speak for itself.

Granted, the process has been made more difficult by the unwillingness of Curragh’s top executives to step forward and assist in the investigation.

That they have not offered to co-operate does not reflect well on them, nor on Curragh as a corporate entity, no matter what legal advice might underpin their decision.

As the inquiry continues, we expect to have more answers to what went wrong at Westray. In the meantime, there are lessons to be learned from the tragedy.

One is that the door should be closed to companies going hat-in-hand to government for funds to develop marginal mines under the guise of job creation in areas of high unemployment. And, for their part, governments should learn that whenever they are asked to “participate” in a resource venture, it is usually because the project is not attractive enough to be financed fully by the private sector. That does not mean government should not play a role in certain aspects of resource development, such as providing infrastructure to remote areas for the benefit of regional development.

In fairness to the mining industry, the Coal Association of Canada is on record as having opposed any public assistance to Curragh’s Westray project, long before the tragedy. And Curragh, while not exactly a rogue company outside of the mainstream, was nonetheless something of an anomaly in the mining industry. On the one hand, industry executives would marvel at its ability to “get things done” and extract government funds for its various mineral projects, including Westray. On the other, it was widely criticized for such practices, albeit mostly at private, rather than public, forums.

The Westray tragedy also represents the end of an era where old-style business and political interests, for reasons of self-interest, could bring to life a project that otherwise would not have got off the ground — at least not in the real world.