By Angela Stelmakowich

Some things make a big splash. Consider a big fish in a small pond.

But how much of a splash will that same fish make in a "pond" that stretches beyond our immediate view and into the recesses of the bureaucratic realm?

Think about the recent creative sentence approved by a court in the red-hot, envy-inducing economic engine known as "Alberta." Late last year, the owner of a business that reclaims old machinery and vehicles for sale or placement in museums was ordered to pay almost $500,000 — sounding more like plea bargain- and fine-happy Ontario than Alberta — in connection with the death of a 14-year-old worker two years ago. The teen was fatally injured when a truck box he had been sandblasting fell on top of him.

In lieu of actual cash, the owner will hand over prime real estate in Wetaskiwin, Alberta (where the popular car museum is located).

The form of the payment, though unusual, is consistent with the spirit of creative sentencing provisions in a handful of Occupational Health and Safety Acts across the country. When the remedy moves beyond the specific workplace to the community, the benefits of enhanced awareness and changed behaviour can assume a wider reach.

All this is high-minded and good.

There is also the simple matter of practicality. By handing over money or something of value now - rather than prolong the fight and duke it out in court - some immediate good can come of something bad.

This particular oh&s penalty - half of a million dollars - had all the makings of a walleye-worthy splash in the health and safety pond. Sadly, that may not be the case.

It is the final destination of the land, the City of Wetaskiwin, that could serve to dilute the message that occupational health and safety counts. The community, no doubt, was affected by the loss of one of its own and there may be no entity better-equipped to understand how to turn tragedy into knowledge, awareness and healing.

But the possibility exists that any oh&s message will be swallowed whole by municipal financial demands unless the land, or funds from the sale of that land, are designated only for efforts with a direct link to workplace health and safety. Otherwise, the impact of this teen's death runs the risk of becoming so distanced from the workplace that the end result is little more than adding to municipal coffers.

Penalties resulting from on-the-job tragedies should not be used to beef up municipal budgets, to buy helicopters for emergency medical services or to fund general community services. All worthy efforts, but the money should go directly to industry, labour and government bodies that are responsible for providing oh&s services, or be used by the penalized company to provide education and training sessions.

Community involvement is critical. It is through the community that the greatest pressure can be applied, representing the best shot at changing conditions and behaviours that brought about the need for penalties in the first place.

But after that community pressure has been applied, those who seek to improve workplace conditions need the funds to move initiatives forward.

If money and efforts flowing from oh&s prosecutions are diverted away from the workplace, does that not water down the message? Will the potential splash that creative sentencing can deliver be a drench felt by many, or a subtle ripple that most are unlikely to see?

Back