but are allowed for owner-occupied homes as well as residential treatment centres such as Calgary's Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre.
"Why aren't they considered a threat for home-owning family members or for the vulnerable youth prisoners of forced AARC confinement?" he said in question period.
AARC is only accredited as a "day" program. When the youth prisoners are shuttled between AARC and the "recovery homes" via the "volunteer" parents this isn't considered "residential" because in this case it's not beneficial to AARC to be "residential".
If AARC and the government admitted what is obvious to anyone, that AARC IS a secure residential program, then AARC would need the proper licensing and accreditation etc. This however would open a whole new can of worms and the barred windows would THEN be breaching the fire code by-laws enforceable by the Calgary Fire Department.
The Fire Department may have their own criteria to only apply this by-law to licensed group homes, BUT the Public Health Department is another story, they are the one's who fine when these homes aren't entirely "owner occupied". These homes are ALSO serving the purpose of 3rd party shelter (kinda like a renter) for the unfortunate AARC prisoners.
Fortunately for AARC, it's not AARC that's liable (they're only DAY treatment, remember). It's the homeowner aka "volunteer recovery home" OR if the parent is renting, their unsuspecting landlord, who is ultimately liable.
If the recovery home parent in treatment at AARC is renting (like anyone from out of town), a fire breaks out and people die because they can't escape, who is going to be charged?
The property owner, not AARC!
