Question

law in the extreme
public pressure prevails
between 1928 and 1972, the alberta eugenics board sterilized 2822 wards under the provincial sexual - sterilization act. eugenics is the science of “improv - ing” the human race through parent selection. as resi - dents of provincial psychiatric institutions, men and women were sterilized without consent to prevent the transmission of their disability to the next generation.
following world war ii, the eugenics theory met with disapproval. moreover, medical research did not support the claim that disabilities were inheritable. in spite of these factors, the board continued to order sterilizations.
in 1996, one ward, leilani muir, successfully sued the province. ms. muir has normal intelligence, so not only was she sterilized, but she was also wrongfully in - stitutionalized at red deer’s provincial training school for mental defectives. in acknowledging her claims, an alberta court awarded muir $972 800 in damages and legal expenses.
by 1998, about 700 other victims had filed claims for a variety of damages, including

• wrongful sterilization
• wrongful confinement
• inappropriate medicating
• physical and sexual abuse

their claims totalled $764 million, which repre - sented 6 percent of alberta’s yearly budget, or $300 from every resident in the province, including children.
the announced legislation was met with an over - whelming outburst of protest from the media, civil rights groups, and the general public. within 24 hours, bill 26 was dead. but public debate continued.
editorials and letters to local newspapers con - demned the tactics of the premier and his justice min - ister. discussion in legal circles again focused on the benefits and shortcomings of the notwithstanding clause. lawyers argued that if the government had acted quickly in negotiations, it would have spent less than the ceiling stated in the proposed bill.
for alberta taxpayers, the reality of the situation hit home. now, their tax dollars were used to settle the claims. some albertans questioned their responsibility for an event that occurred before many of them were born. wayne ruston is one taxpayer whose tax dollars will be used satisfying these claims; he is also one of those who were wrongfully confined and sterilized. when asked why the taxpayers of today should pay for the sins of the past, he replied, “i’m sorry about that, but i’m a taxpayer, and i didn’t ask for any of this.”
analysis questions

1. what legislation did the provincial government pro - pose and why did it invoke the notwithstanding clause?
2. do you think taxpayers should have to compensate victims for abuses committed by previous governments? explain your position.

ralph klein and leilani muir
82 unit 2 rights, freedoms, and responsibilities

Explanation:

1. The Alberta government proposed the Institutional Confinement and Sexual Sterilization Act (Bill 26) in 1998 to settle claims out - of - court. It invoked the notwithstanding clause to protect itself from legal challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and limit compensation to $150,000 per claim.
2. Arguments for taxpayers compensating could include the idea of a collective responsibility of the state, and that the government represents all taxpayers. Arguments against could be that current taxpayers had no part in the past wrongs and should not bear the financial burden.

Answer:

1. The Alberta government proposed the Institutional Confinement and Sexual Sterilization Act (Bill 26). It invoked the notwithstanding clause to protect the government from legal challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to limit compensation to $150,000 per claim.
2. This is a matter of opinion. Some may believe taxpayers should compensate as it is a matter of the state's responsibility for past wrongs. Others may think taxpayers should not have to pay as they had no involvement in the past abuses.