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 "improving" the human race through parent selection. As residents of provincial psychiatric institutions, men and women were sterilized without their 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 institutionalized 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 represented 6 percent of Alberta's yearly budget, or $300 from every resident in the province, including children. Critics felt that Alberta panicked. Instead of negotiating with the claimants and quickly settling the claims out of court, on March 10, 1998, the Alberta government introduced Bill 26. The proposed Institutional Confinement and Sexual Sterilization Act would limit compensation to $150 000 per claim and protect the government from legal challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by invoking the notwithstanding clause. According to Premier Ralph Klein, it was not fair that his government should have to pay potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in compensation for abuses committed by previous governments. The announced legislation was met with an overwhelming 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 condemned the tactics of the premier and his justice minister. 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 would be 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 spent 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. PLEASE READ THIS AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:- 1. What legislation did the provincial government propose? Why did it invoke the notwithstanding clause? 2. The issue of involuntary sterilization, especially after World War II, violates many moral and ethical principles. Why do you think sterilizations in Alberta continued until 1972, and why did it take so long for the victims to be compensated? 3. Do you think it is the responsibility of taxpayers in Alberta to compensate victims for abuses committed by previous governments? Wrote answer in full paragraph